In our evolving media society there has been a marked shift in the primary medium in which journalism is consumed. Specifically, this came in the transition from the printed form of news to online sources. For many this signals the end of an era and shakes the very ground which the discipline stands on, however I believe this viewpoint to be relatively melodramatic.
If one were to believe this last statement then they also would have to agree that it marks an entirely new and strangely exciting era, with free press prevailing for the masses. Anyone with Internet access can gain the very same information that their counterparts have purchased at the newsstands. For one to spend their money on something that they could have easily accessed for free online is laughable, however we cannot forget also that those with internet access consist of certain niche of individuals, although not necessarily the smallest demographic by any means.
Those people that do not have access are therefore excluded from this “free” exchange of information. Also, the Internet is not necessarily the purest form in which to present any type of mass media because, inevitably, the message that is presented becomes skewed by the advertising supporting its production. Without commercial support online news sources would not exist. Several instances, in attempting to access an online news sources website, I have been assaulted by numerous advertisements. Most often these will take up nearly the entirety of the computer screen and for some odd reason will be exceedingly difficult to close out. I am sure for some individuals, this type of blatant commercialism may draw them in and even take over the initial interest to view the news situations. It just makes me sick.
In your post you claim that "Those people that do not have access are therefore excluded from this 'free' exchange of information". While I do agree that not everybody has as easy access to the internet as many of us, internet access is still pretty widely available. Almost anybody with a membership to a public library has access to the internet, and membership is usually free. This eliminates some of the convenient advantages of digitally-accessed news, but in my opinion still does not make it significantly less convenient than accessing printed news. Public libraries are not far from the average citizens home, though many vary in quality. Also, according to recent Nielsen NetRatings, almost 75% of Americans had access to the internet IN 2004. Granted, I don't have more recent statistics, but this is almost a 10% increase over 2003, which saw 66% of Americans having internet access. Considering this trend, it's doubtful that any but the most incapable of Americans have internet access.
ReplyDeleteIn your post you also state "the Internet is not necessarily the purest form in which to present any type of mass media because, inevitably, the message that is presented becomes skewed by the advertising supporting its production". However, I find fault with this statement, as it seems to address a concern of media that isn't necessarily isolated to internet media. All of the news stories we ingest in this day and age are the product of a greater commercial, if not political, agenda. Fox News, for example, is drawing harsh criticism for its overtly politically conservative agenda, which some may view as a smear campaign against President Obama. Is the Fox network's message any more skewed by its advertisements than by its ownership? My opinion... DOUBTFUL.
Rather, the internet allows for user created and enforced content. However, this has its advantages and disadvantages. The message a blogger might post may not be controlled by a media outlet, but as a result it may not be as extensively fact-checked as an official report, though the Daily Show has proven on numerous occasions that these stories are usually just recycled bits of previously reported parts of the same story.
I may have gone off on a bit of a tangent there, but my point remains. The blatant commercialism that makes you "sick" is prevalent in all forms of journalism. Advertisements take up significant portions of pages of printed media stories as well as that of digital media stories. It's one of the "evil" but necessary mechanisms that allows journalism (and free content in general) to thrive. So while advertising may be inconvenient, I hardly consider it a specific problem in the argument of printed vs. digital media.