How the Internet is Changing Todays Audience - Essay Example

How the Internet is Changing Today’s Audience With the advent of the internet and massive computing systems that are increasingly smaller in physical scale, the world is becoming an ever-shrinking globe. National boundaries are becoming blurred as people in India begin working for companies in the United States and cultural groups are beginning to lose their sense of uniqueness as the world’s civilizations become more and more Westernized with the onset of full-scale capitalism. Computers are becoming smaller, more readily available and more affordable for those in even small, out of the way places. Technologies are emerging that place computers in the hands of children who don’t even have access to electricity, providing instead a hand crank to provide the necessary power to run basic programs. This begins to illustrate the importance the internet is taking on in the new interconnected high technology world as it redefines the spaces in which we live and the means by which we interact with the world around us. Moving into the twentieth century, the emergence of communications technology has redefined subjectivity in the modern world. Considering a philosophical viewpoint on the questions inherent in technology, Francis Bacon considered science and technology as a means to understand and master nature by identifying key innovations that changed the abilities of his culture to navigate the globe and produce mass communication. Rene Descartes held a mechanistic worldview in which people should be controlled by mathematical principles. Through the use of the computer and the internet as well as the factory before them, humans have indeed overcome a great deal of dependence upon nature for daily operations and have transcended traditional methods of communication with the light-speed abilities of the internet. “The colonization of space (through agriculture, mining, architecture, civil engineering, etc.) and of time (through systems of communication, from language to telegraph), in its perfected form, would constitute a ‘universal telegraphics’ linking world languages, semiotics, and inventions into a global transfiguration of the earth and a truly human habitat (Mitcham, 1994, p. 23). New technologies are capable of changing the fabric of society within a few decades as the space we live in shifts from one of physical geographical location to one that comprises a hybrid of virtual and physical space while the messages we hear are increasingly understood to contain varying elements of subjectivity and limitation. The worldwide establishment of the internet throughout most cultures and countries has revolutionized the way people live their lives on many fronts. With the introduction of the internet and communications occurring literally at the speed of light, new practices in modern living are evolving, such as e-commerce, e-trade and e-finance, creating a much more interconnected world even as we remain physically quite far apart. People are finding it possible to do everything they need to do from their own desktop, including receiving the news, interacting with others, working, shopping, banking, trading and any number of other activities. In addition, the internet’s content is relatively free of restriction which allows for the concept of free speech to be fully exercised and put to the test. To understand how the world is changing under the new influence of the internet, it is necessary to look at how it has changed the media industry. The ability of people to connect with each other across long distances at practically the speed of light via the web has changed not only the way people communicate, but also the expectations they have for the retrieval of information. Email is free and instantaneous causing its use by businesses and individuals to grow at a phenomenal rate over the past decade. Few people write letters or read the newspapers anymore as these are seemingly archaic methods of communication and have the added disadvantage of costing money, regardless of how little this sum might actually be. “Nowadays, we think nothing of emailing our aunts in Germany and getting an answer back within minutes, or seeing the latest streaming video full of up to the minute news” (Boswell, 2006). Neither letter-writing nor newspaper delivery can provide the instant information that is today essential for businesses in the modern world to compete effectively and simply a fact of life that is taken for granted for most in the developed world. People are now turning to alternative forms of receiving information, such as blogs, video blogs, webcasts, chatrooms and listservs. However, this introduces new challenges in determining just how to determine credible sources from noncredible and just how far the internet should be allowed to go in terms of free speech and expression. One of the controversial aspects of the internet and instant posting is that the internet provides a means of gathering news that has not necessarily been filtered through the many regulations and restrictions imposed by national or state boundaries. The internet itself is not regulated. As efficient and enormously informative as the web is, its content is not overseen as are other communications mediums such as television and radio. It is a groundbreaking new technology that has amalgamated societies of the world. With its inception, it has introduced the concept of truly free expression and the perception that nothing is taboo. Everything is exposed and available at everyone’s literal finger-tip. The Internet has no physical, ethical or moral boundaries. Federal, state and local laws limit access to materials such as pornography but anyone, young or old can access this or anything else on the internet. A teenager cannot walk into a video store and rent an adult movie but can log on and quickly find many thousands of adult movies that can be viewed, downloaded and stored or even sold to other teenagers (Emmans, 2000). Although there are plenty of laws in many developed countries that govern children’s access to pornography, these laws are unenforceable and thus meaningless with the advent of the internet. More than just the problem of pornography, it has become increasingly difficult for children as well as adults to distinguish between those media sources that can be considered reliable and those that are created by uninformed amateurs. This becomes even more complicated when informed posters are working to blow the whistle on well-established, sometimes even reputable organizations that have adopted unethical practices. An example of this can be seen in the reports of Paul Kenyon (2000) regarding the working conditions for many factory workers in Cambodia. While the information is presented globally on the web, it is in the form of a text document, which lacks the colors and formal organization of the respectable news station from which it was generated, the BBC. Although he is blowing the whistle on unethical practices being conducted by the multinational powerhouse Nike, catching them in the act so to speak with hidden cameras and confidential interviews with factory workers, would this report be seen as credible by the browsing public? And how would this report stand out against the many uninformed posts that have been made against this company from individuals who simply assume they know the truth, but have no proof of such? These are important considerations as it is how individuals filter through these various news and information sources that determine the way they view the world around them. The commonly used term ‘mass media’ encompasses numerous institutions and individuals that differ in method and purpose. In general usage, the term has been considered to define groups who make up the communications profession in both the entertainment and news industries. “Mass media refers to those media that are designed to be consumed by large audiences through the agencies of technology” (Boles, 2003). This concept is brought into even greater focus in the definition provided by Brendan Richards (2000) in which he states mass media refers to “Specialist institutions such as books, magazines, adverts, newspapers, radio, television, cinema, videos which occupy a central and pivotal role in our lives.” It is significant that the earlier definition, that provided by Richards, focuses upon traditional print and film media while the later definition provided by Boles focuses upon the importance of the blanket term technology. The specific role of the media in society is often debated but what is not argued is that access to information is essential to the health of a liberal democratic society. Newspapers, radio, television and the internet allow citizens the opportunity to make informed choices and serves as part of the checks and balances of a society, a ‘fourth branch of government.’ Mass media is necessary as its existence ensures that those elected to public office are held accountable. For example, the Internet has revolutionized Canadian journalism and has already changed public discourse in that country. “Over the next 10 years, as a new political generation comes on-line, the Internet will probably surpass television as the main mode of communication. And with the Internet will provide an even greater ability for the public to talk back” (Ansolabehere, 2000). Reporters already have consummate access to government documents and databases, public and private libraries, and archives of newspapers and other publications through the power of the Internet. An effective media outlet must have editorial independence and serve a diversity of public interests uncontrolled by government or ideological influence. An adversarial relationship sometimes exists between mass media and the government regarding the public’s right to know balanced against matters of national security (Center for Democracy and Governance, 1999). Elected officials many times forget that the same democratic mechanism that allowed their rise to power is designed to monitor their progress. The media also serves to entertain and the line drawn between news reporters’ efforts to amuse and sources of entertainment attempting to inform is crossed continuously. Media acts as the link between people’s personal lives to events outside what they encounter in their everyday routine. Because of this connection, it serves as an important vehicle in the understanding of how society functions and strengthens the public’s involvement in those decisions that affect their standard of living. The media reflects and reports and, as some speculate, shapes collective societal thought, thus an understanding of these venues of information is vital to the understanding of our civilization itself. At the same time that mass media is shaping societal thought, the ability of the Internet to allow average users to post their own views and comments has the effect of shaping mass media. As Paul Ford (2001) puts it regarding the advent of the internet into the general world, “it felt like we were being listened to, taken seriously, and understood. We had a voice, we lonesome dorks evangelizing the Internet to our peers and betters, trying to explain how gopher, FTP, and the nascent WWW was a radical reinvention of all knowledge.” The addition of the internet has ushered in an age of highly technologically produced mass communication and has made it possible for us to gain access to far more information than ever before in the history of mankind. The powerful influence and far-reaching access of mass media and its evolving effects on society is a subject of vital debate as the level of freedom the media experience dictates the level of freedom of the country. Information is crucial to a complex and advanced civilization. Societies feed on an ever-increasing amount of facts to maintain and increase the standard of living. Determining which sites are informative and which merely fictional can have a significant impact upon the way in which an individual views the world. Realizing this, many are seeking reliable methods of discerning between ‘good’ information and that which is not based on truth, which does not always mean the simple searching for large, brand-name media outlets. Information has always been and is increasingly becoming a commodity that the public are willing to pay increasing amounts for. As society experiences ever increasing amounts of leisure time, it depends on mass media to provide much of its information and entertainment. Through such user-directed content as blogs, webcasts and listservs, the common man is now, for perhaps the first time in history, able to have some form of interaction with the major news mediums of the world. Noah Shachtman (2002) points out how it was internet bloggers that created such a stir regarding Trent Lott’s racist comments that brought the politician’s past to the attention of major news organizations who would, in all likelihood, have ignored them otherwise. “They kept focusing on Lott’s hateful past – until the national press corps finally had to take notice. … Lott’s bile is one of several issues that this burgeoning community helped push on to the national agenda” (Shachtman, 2002). The term ‘blog’ is actually techno-geek shorthand for ‘web logging’, and, as such, has a well-earned reputation for being merely an online diary for a variety of people. However, as has been noted by Shachtman and others, blogs have been taking on new meanings in recent years as internet use and knowledge grows among the general public. “Blogs can be used to make political statements, promote products, provide research information and give tutorials” (Ng, 2007). As such, blogs can be found written by politicians, musicians, novelists, sports figures, newscasters and other notable figures as attempts to not only share their opinions, but to promote their own personal agendas separate from the restrictive and uncontrolled traditional venues of newspaper and television. As might be imagined, video blogs add the elements of sound and video to the presentation, providing these users with the added credibility of a news-type presentation. “The potential for everyone to self-publish has the ability to revolutionize the world by sharing video across cultures and countries” (Clint Sharp cited in Dean, 2005). By turning to video, vloggers are able to bring multiple subjects to the screen rather than being concerned about the filters of mass media publishers. Other methods of internet communication have opened up the concept of communication as well. Through listservs, internet users have been able to post their questions to the world even from its earliest days. This process is almost like standing atop a mountain and shouting a question out to the great beyond. The only difference is, with listservs, users can expect to receive an answer if they’ve selected an appropriate forum. Their question remains online for as long as the server cares to host it, allowing users from all places and multiple times to respond while providing ample room for further discussion. Chatrooms build on this concept by adding instant responses to this text-based mode of communication. As users type in their thoughts, other users can immediately respond, having ‘virtual conversations’ in real time. Organized in community groups of shared interests, chatrooms have enabled internet users to share information on a wide scale without dependence upon more traditional methods of news media and without the wait typically associated with previous community-specific publications such as magazines and newspapers (Pack, 2003). There remain several inherent risks with this method of communication however, the most pressing being that of internet predators seeking younger internet users for harmful purposes (Sullivan, 2006). This is only possible because of the close relationships that can form with frequent conversation and sharing of interests. Combining the self-expression attributes of the blogs with the interactive aspects of listservs and chatrooms and placing it all in streaming media, webcasts allow any average internet user to become their own interactive news program discussing whichever topics they choose and allowing other internet users to call or write in their responses and questions. Many large and small businesses have already discovered the advantages of webcasting as an alternative means of conducting business rather than flying various constituents in from around the country or the world. “Online meetings are interactive and collaborative. They’re in real time so there’s two-way communication via instant messaging or other software between a participant and the conference leader or across the team or group, depending on how you customize the meeting. You can instantly share content and visuals, watch and listen to presentations or ask questions and make comments – often simultaneously” (Krotz, 2007). In the business setting, webcasts have been used to train employees, distribute new product information and provide customers with live help or education among other things. However, they have often been used for other applications as well. Distance learning and even traditional learning scenarios have employed the use of webcasts with an eye toward future technology integration in and out of the classroom, politicians have used them to help launch campaigns or to advocate party affiliations and other organizations have used them as effective press conferences or to inform research markets and analysts. As with the other communication technologies, webcasts have enabled the average individual regardless of their home country, business, vocation or interest to work around the national media chains and present their views in their own way, introducing a great deal more information into the general community than has been available previously. The effects of the internet are being felt in many ways, not just in the greater freedom of speech being experienced or the topics being addressed, but also in the competition for readership/viewership between the internet and more traditional media outlets. According to the 2006 Office of Communications report, people in the UK are generally turning away from television, radio and newspapers in favor of the more recent, more relevant, more accessible services available on the internet. “Television is of declining interest to many 16-24 year olds; on average they watch television for one hour less per day than the average television viewer” (Ofcom, 2006). More than simply turning to the internet for downloads and information, the report found that as many as 70 percent of this age group had actively contributed to some form of internet communication, in the form of chatting, blogs or other types of message boards. “The sector is being transformed by greater competition, falling prices and the erosion of traditional revenues and audiences. A new generation of consumers is emerging for whom online is the lead medium and convergence is instinctive” (Ed Richards, Ofcom Chief Operating Officer, cited in Ofcom, 2006). According to a study conducted by CBC News, these results are being repeated in Canada as well. The average Canadian watches 14.3 hours of television per week while surfing the web for 12.7 hours and spends 11 hours listening to the radio. However, these numbers are different for adolescents, who reportedly allocate 14.7 hours per week to internet use in addition to 12 hours each in front of the television and radio while spending only 2.5 hours per week reading the newspaper (“Young Canadians”, 2005). Canadians have mixed views regarding the influence of the media on the country and its ability to solve problems, yet indicated they turned to the internet for the flexibility of the medium to address concerns closer to their own interests. “The poll indicated that Canadians turned to the internet for specific or ‘niche-like’ news – such as health or travel information – but still relied mostly on television for general news” (“Young Canadians”, 2005). These Canadian trends are echoed in the United States in many segments of the population. In one study involving older Americans, it was reported that at least 36 percent of Americans aged 55 and older are spending less time reading magazines, 44 percent are spending less time reading newspapers or listening to the radio and 43 percent are spending less time watching TV (“Older Adults”, 2006). Instead of spending time in these more traditional news gathering activities, these individuals report they have found the use of the internet to be more focused, more recent and information is easier to find. In addition, several Americans indicate they have a higher tendency to believe the information they receive over the internet faster than the information they get through other, more established forms of media. Only 31 percent of Americans report that they believe the news media is a positive force in their lives. “In fact, nearly six in 10 Americans believe the news media actually get in the way of solving problems” (CMRC, 2003). To complete an understanding of the vast changes that took place on the internet, it is important to understand the vast shake-up that took place in the 1990s when all the dot coms went out of business and a new technology began to emerge. This shift in direction is commonly referred to as Web 2.0. “The concept of ‘Web 2.0’ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having ‘crashed’, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What’s more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common” (O’Reilly, 2005). While there aren’t many clearly defined boundaries between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, an understanding of the different applications of each is helpful to understand how this change was essential in bringing about the further changes necessary for today’s internet environment. In illustrating the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, Tim O’Reilly points to two specific case studies – Netscape which dominated Web 1.0 and Google which has dominated Web 2.0. These case studies indicate the differences between the software based approach of the older web as compared to the service based systems of today. At the same time, he illustrates how these differences decided success or failure depending upon the level of involvement with the consumer each adopted and the ability to reach out to these consumers with something of value to them. As the internet began gaining in popularity throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, the focus remained primarily fixed upon the computer age traditions of vender as determinant of what consumers could have and consumers as merely participants in the programs they opted to purchase. “Netscape framed the ‘web as platform’ in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products” (O’Reilly, 2005). By controlling the software necessary to view all other web content, the Netscape browser would be able to continue selling update packages in much the same way that Microsoft continues to sell Windows updates. Through this process, they would have control over what applications could be used on websites as well as generate revenues from the sale of licensing to various providers who would have little choice but to purchase Netscape servers as a means of delivering the content consumers desired. However, control over the internet was already out of the hands of something as small as Netscape, even at its largest distribution, primarily because it ignored the smaller servers, websites and applications that were growing up around it, such as Google. “Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service” (O’Reilly, 2005). Rather than trying to capitalize on licensing or software updates, Google simply updated old software seamlessly as a matter of course, providing users with continuous use without making a fuss about the cost or the platform. A big part of the reason for this difference is that Google was focused on the mining of information, rather than the packaging of software. It was interested in providing those aspects of the web that consumers were seeking, namely, the websites that contained the information they wanted. At heart, Google is a database management tool that enables the web to work the way it does, seamlessly insinuating itself between the information and the user so as to facilitate more effective communication. “Google’s service is not a server – thought it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers – nor a browser – though it is experienced by the user within the browser. … Much like a phone call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her online experience” (O’Reilly, 2005). By reaching out to all corners of the web, not trying to hold the information but just trying to provide avenues by which to reach it, Google managed to hold on to its market niche and evolve the internet from one based on corporate expectations to one based upon consumer self-service and inclusion. This tendency of Google to focus upon the importance of the end user to the overall function and design of their service is a key feature of the Web 2.0. In keeping with the analogy of the web, as more and more users create links (or strands) to new content, new hubs are formed of high traffic areas, leading to even more connections. While these links are searchable without the functionality of sites like Google, the concept of PageRank, a device by which results of keyword searches are returned based upon the algorithmic functions performed on this link structure, has significantly changed the way in which people find the information they seek. In this case, the link structure of individual users is itself the means by which the service determines which web sites are most likely to meet the needs of the searcher, delivering the results in a ranked list of highest degree of probability to least. This user participation in the creation of the success of the company has been used not just by Google, but several of the other more successful internet-based companies as well. As can be seen, the internet is continually evolving, adapting itself to meet new challenges and new needs, addressing the needs of consumers and businesses while working to maintain a sense of confidence, stability, security and simplicity. The cutting edge technology of today will eventually go the way of vacuum tubes in televisions. “The existing Internet is built on technology meant for a different age. Just as circuit switches are remnants of the past generation of communication, so will routers be remnants of a past internet” (Dzubeck, 2000). Developing countries, specifically those that don’t enjoy freedom of speech rights, will create their own internets which will likely interconnect with other networks, such as the current interest in a spider web type relationship, selectively blocking off entire segments to its population while enabling access to others. The ethical and moral issues surrounding the use of the internet are in their infancy as are its communications capabilities. Finally, communities of all types are finding the available ‘space’ in which they can operate more in keeping with their own individual tastes, values and beliefs with others from around the world even when these are vastly different from the values, tastes and beliefs of their immediate physical neighbors. Works Cited Ansolabehere, Stephen. “The Role of the Media.” International Information Programs. Illinois State University, 2000. Boles, Derek. “Language of Media Literacy: A Glossary of Terms.” Center for Media Literacy. Canada, 2003. August 23, 2008 Boswell, Wendy. “How the World Wide Web has Changed Society.” About the Internet. (2006). August 23, 2008 Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC). “Report Card on Canadian News Media.” (2003). Center for Democracy and Governance. “The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach.” Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research. Washington D.C.: US Agency for International Development, (June 1999). Dean, Katie. “Blogging + Video = Vlogging.” Wired News. (July 13, 2005). August 23, 2008 Dzubeck, Frank. “The Internet is Dead: Long Live the Internet.” Network World Inc. June 12, 2000. Emmans, Cindy. “Colloquium: Internet Ethics.” Technos Quarterly. Vol. 9, N. 1, (Spring, 2000). Ford, Paul. “Internet Culture Review.” Software Stories. FTrain, (February 27, 2001). August 23, 2008 Kenyon, Paul. “GAP / Nike – No Sweat?” Panorama. BBC. (October 15, 2000). August 23, 2008 Krotz, Joanna. “How to host a successful B2B Webcast.” Small Business Center. Microsoft Office. (2007). August 23, 2008 Mitcham, Carl. Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, 1994. Ng, Deborah. “What are Blogs?” WiseGeek. Conjecture Corporation, (2007). August 23, 2008 < http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-blogs.htm> Office of Communications (Ofcom). “Ofcom Communications Market Report Reveals New Industry Trends and Changes in Consumer Behaviour.” News Release Archive. Office of Communications, (August 10, 2006). August 23, 2008 “Older Adults Using Internet More, Traditional Media Less.” VOX. (January 3, 2006). O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0?” O’Reilly. (September 30, 2005). August 23, 2008 Pack, Thomas. “Creating Community.” Information Technology. All Technology, 2003. August 23, 2008 Richards, Matthew. “Online Shopping.” The Financial Times. (December 8, 2006). Shachtman, Noah. “Blogs Make the Headlines.” Wired News. (December 23, 2002). August 23, 2008 Sullivan, Mike. “How to Protect Your Kids Online.” The Dangers of Chat and Instant Messaging. Security Software Systems, 2006. August 23, 2008 “Young Canadians Spend More Time on the Internet Than TV: Study.” CBC News. (August 15, 2005). Read More