Producer Content Contribution to a More Democratic Media Culture - Essay Example

Produser Content Paper Name Student’s Name: Date: Introduction 3 Produser content contribution to a more democratic media culture 4 Conditions that the production of collaborative, produser content is exploitative 6 Produser media a threat or complementary to mainstream media outlets 8 Threats 8 Complementary 9 How has the produser media been integrated in the mainstream media? 10 Conclusion 12 References 14 Introduction Produser is the term used to refer to the people who engage in the activities of produsage. In this case produsage refers to the creation of user led content in various types of online environments (Trappel, 2008). This means that the producers of the content are also the consumers of the same content. There is minimum distinction between the producers and the consumers of the same content (Shirky, 2008). The main characteristic of produsers is that the people involved, collaborate to produce the content rather than working as individuals (Priya, 2009). All the produsers are involved in evaluating the produced content so as to ensure that it meets the required standards. This involves open discussions about the material using the preconfigured tools (Atton, 2004). User generated content is one of the fastest growing online market scenarios because companies has initiated social media programs which allows them to have dialogue with their customers (Scott, 2005). This helps in developing a good relationship between the company and its customers. This calls for brand participation on social networks where the content users share the information (Atton & Hamilton, 2008). User generated content is associated with leaving reviews, ratings, forums, media sharing and creating social profiles (Priya, 2009). This is through creation of a niche community that offers opportunities to consumers to publish and share their thoughts and experiences about a given company and its products (Priya, 2009). Crowdsourcing is different from user generated content because it involves presenting a problem to the community so as to help in finding a solution to the problem (Atton & Hamilton, 2008). Crowdsourcing helps a brand in creating new meaningful content. It is different from user generated content because the participants are recognised in the brand’s social community (Mosco, 2009). Produser content contribution to a more democratic media culture Produser content refers to any type of content such as discussions posts, videos, audio files, blogs, digital images, as well as any other kind of mass media that was generated by the end users of an online service and which is widely accessible by the other end users and the consumers (Welzel & Ingelhart, 2005).The media greatly affect our understanding as well as our consciousness of the world and also the societies where we live something that had a great impact on the way we perceive the democracy (Trappel, 2008). This is mainly because the democracy has become a great a manifestation that is produced by the political parties as well as the interest groups and it has been moderated and disseminated by the journalists as well as the pundits (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub & Limongi, 2000). The prodused media greatly allows the end users to share the information on the internet about the way they are governed by their government as well as educating each other on what to expect from their governments. This way they are able to educate as well as enlighten each other on various ways and things that are of common interest to them (Rawnsley, 2005). The produsers are able to group as well as align themselves with the people who have the same interests so that they can be able to share the information that they feel that will be of help to them as well as their course (Atton, 2004). The produser media allows the people or the end users to be able to share various informations as well as the items such as pictures, videos, audio files as well as the written documents which interest them over the internet without any hindrance (Rawnsley, 2005). The produsers media also gives a room for the internet users to be able to share ideas as well as opinions about certain things of interests to them from different parts of the world (Mosco, 2009). The end users are also able to design the informations on the internet to suit their wellbeing or rather to be in line with what they want (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub & Limongi, 2000). The produser media allows the consumers or the internet users to be able to share their cultures from different parts of the world over the internet without any hindrance from any authority or government (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub & Limongi, 2000). For instance, the users from Africa can be able to share about their cultural beliefs as well as their traditions with people from Asia. They are also able to ask question about each other’s cultures and traditions without any of them visiting the respective continents (Rawnsley, 2005). The end users or the consumers are also able to share the informations and ideas concerning the media that is shared over the internet (Atton & Hamilton, 2008). For instance, they are able to modify the contents that appear on the internet so that they can suit their interests as well as their ever changing demands by making the produsers to be able to develop their end products such as the images, videos, audio files as well as the written contents (Welzel & Ingelhart, 2005).The produser media also creates a room for the people to be able to air their views and grievances about something or an issue that either not allowed to be discussed about due to taboos in the society or due to regulations that have been laid down by the government(Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub & Limongi, 2000). For instance, it allows the internet users to be able to discuss issues concerning sex, racism as well as tribalism openly without being victimized or intimidated by anyone or without being bound and controlled by the taboos that are set the society (Shirky, 2008). The prodused media users are able to interact as well as share the content online that are sometimes considered quite sensitive to be discussed openly. For instance, the end users are able to discuss as well as share ideas about the mode of governance in a certain country and suggests ways of improving the mode of governance as well as sharing the ways of solving or tackling the problem at hand (Priya, 2009). The prodused media gives the end users or the consumers a platform for show casing their innovation as well as their capabilities in different ways or various sectors such as the writing skills, acting, dancing, singing, drawing as well other individual skills and knowledge which they all possess (Rawnsley, 2005). Conditions that the production of collaborative, produser content is exploitative The produser content collaborative production is exploitative due to the fact that the end users are able to share their ideas about something or about a certain issues without getting anything in return for that (Scott, 2005). In the main traditional media production the people or the contributors of informations, contents or ideas about a certain issues or a given topic they are given something in return for their contribution which in most cases is usually in monetary form (Priya, 2009). The contributors usually contributes by either sharing ideas, pictures, videos, audio files, as well as written documents to the these traditional media and they get some returns for that (Trappel, 2008). But in the produser media the contributors who share their ideas, videos, audio files, photos as well as the written documents do not get anything in return despite their great contribution (Priya, 2009). In some cases the end users or the consumer sometimes receive some payment for their work but this is usually not done directly and if it is done directly to the end user who contributes to the contents it is usually peanuts (Bruns & Jacobs, 2006). This in other words is a very small amount of money compared to what the consumer or the individual would have earned in case they contributed to the traditional media. Therefore, this makes the collaborative production an exploitative endeavour (Atton, 2004). The produser content is also exploitative in such a way that the consumers or the end users gets to contribute to this media as well as share their ideas about some great issues and at the end they do not get the credit that they deserve and instead it goes to another person (Shirky, 2008). For instance, when the end users contributes to the online discussion about something or about a certain issues their information is incorporated to the mainstream or the traditional media and the work is considered as well as appreciated as the work of the traditional media and not the work of the work of the produser content contributors or the end users (Priya, 2009). In cases where the work is appreciated as the work of the produsers the contributors that is the end users are in most cases ignored and recognized for their contribution but the owner of the website or the platform where the sharing of the ideas or the discussion was taking place is not recognized (Mosco, 2009). For instance, when people post their items online about certain issues such education, politics, health, sports, science, law, philosophy, psychology, geology to mention but a few (Atton & Hamilton, 2008). They do not recognized for their great work that they have undertaken but rather the recognition goes directly to the search engines that the user uses to acquire the information as opposed to the writer and the researcher of the information (Priya, 2009). This therefore, creates room for the exploitation of the collaborative production of the contents (Keen, 2007). There is also exploitation on the privacy of various individuals during the production of the produser media content. Whereby the end user or the consumer gets the information about a certain individual or groups of individuals in the form of a picture, video, audio files, as well as the written documents and get to share this information with other people over the internet who they have similar interests without the consent of the person or the group of the individuals involved (Mosco, 2009). For instance, people tends to share photos, audio files as well as videos about certain individuals who might or who may be of interest to the public such as the celebrities without their consent something which in most cases tarnish their names and images. This gets to be an exploitative means of the individuals’ privacy mainly because their information is exposed to the world without their consent which in most cases tends to bring shame and disgrace to the people involved (Shirky, 2008). The produser content collaborative production is exploitative in such a way that the information that is shared by the consumers (Deuze, 2009). The end users of the internet gets to be shared over the internet for free or some cases in return of some very small returns as compared to the traditional media production where by the information that has been produced gets to paid for and cannot be available to anyone for free or for a small amount of money (Mosco, 2009). Anyone or in other words those individuals who are willing or who wants the information must pay the required amount of money before they access it (Atton & Hamilton, 2008). This kind of sharing of the information over the internet to be available for free to everyone all over the world becomes exploitative mainly because the people who does this, does it so as to be able to gain from such kind of activities while the main contributors of the information merely gets anything in returns or gets very small token for their great contribution to the production of the produser contents (Deuze, 2009). Produser media a threat or complementary to mainstream media outlets Threats The produser media is a threat to the mainstream media outlets mainly due to the fact they provide another avenue for the users to obtain information. The produser media allows the users or the consumers to be able to obtain the information at all the times as opposed to the traditional or the mainstream media outlets which do not allow the end users or the consumers this privilege (Deuze, 2009). Therefore, users will tend to shift to the produser media due to this advantage. It also allows the end users to be able to group themselves or in other words they create room for the consumers to be able to align themselves with the people who have the same interests (Scott, 2005). This allows them to share ideas and information which interest them without having to ignore or deal with information which does not interest them (Deuze, 2009). As opposed to the mainstream media whereby the information that is given or contained in these mainstream media does not take into account the interest of specific group of peoples and does not allow or create room for the group with similar interest to be able to interact. It allow the users be able to show case their innovativeness as well as their capabilities when they share the ideas and information through the photos, videos, audio files as well as the written documents. This way the users are able to able to improve their innovativeness as well as their capabilities in their work (Deuze, 2009). Complementary On the other hand the produser media is a complementary to the mainstream media outlets mainly because; the produser media comes in and fill in the gap that has been left behind by the mainstream media outlets (Deuze, 2009). The produser media usually contain additional information that is not contained or is not included in the mainstream media outlets due to their limited capacity nature which can be obtained by the users at any given time. For instance in case the consumers or the end users of the information may supplement what they have acquired from the mainstream media outlets with information from the produser media thereby complementing the mainstream media outlets (Anheier & Isar, 2008). The produser media usually contains various or rather it carries extra information that cannot be contained in the mainstream media outlets (Klein, 2007). That is the produser media allows the mainstream media to be able to give the information to the users that cannot be given in the mainstream media (Anheier & Isar, 2008). For instance, the produser media allows the mainstream media to be able to show case the additional information that it could not incorporate in its content such as the photos, videos, audio files as well as the written documents. This therefore shows that the produser media allows complements the mainstream media outlets in allowing it to give the extra information (Scott, 2005). The produser media complements the mainstream media outlets by enabling the mainstream media outlets to be able to interact with its consumers or the end users of its products and services in the social media platforms (Anheier & Isar, 2008). When the mainstream media interacts with its consumers it is able to know what the consumers what, what kind of information they want as well as other things that they would like to have them incorporated. Also by interacting with the consumers they are able to share information and ideas that would have been hard for the mainstream media to acquire on its own (Anheier & Isar, 2008). The produser media complements the mainstream media outlets whereby it enables the mainstream media to be able to embrace the latest technology and be able to expand the area or the base of the consumers who are consuming their services as well as the products through the internet (Gimmler, 2001). This way they are able to reach to more people than they were reaching and interacting with without the produser media outlets (Anheier & Isar, 2008). How has the produser media been integrated in the mainstream media? Produser media has been embraced in the mainstream media because they are being used as complementary to each other. Many main stream media are taking produser media as part of passing and gathering information from their fans and customers. The produser media such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are not replacing the mainstream media but they are changing the way news are produced, distributed and consumed (Deuze, 2009). This can be seen where user generated photos and video at times lead television bulletins and sometimes find their way into front pages of newspapers (Gimmler, 2001). This shows how journalism has been shaped so as to integrate the produser media to be part of the mainstream media. Many journalists are increasingly involving their audiences in the ways they use to research about the news and stories they give (Trappel, 2008). The produser media has changed the nature of the breaking news where the mainstream media is abandoning its attempts to be the first to break the news (Klein, 2007). The mainstream is instead working to verify the breaking news and ensuring that it is accurate. In the past few years there has been an explosion in the participation in the produser media (Anheier & Isar, 2008). This has been driven by user friendly connectivity, internet tools and better new mobile devices. This has made social networking and user generated content to become a mainstream activities, this has been accounted by over 20% of the time taken by people in the internet and involving over 50% of the internet users. This has made journalists to begin embracing social media tools such as Blogs, Twitter and Facebook depending on their terms (Jenkins, 2006). The journalists use the same values and the new tools as mainstream organisations are embracing the culture of using websites while at the same time considering their organisations norms. Even if people are highly using the produser media they still relying on mainstream news organisations so as to seek confirmation and to differentiate from fact and fiction about the news they have learnt from the produser media (Scott, 2005). Mainstream media organisations have started setting resources aside so as to set up produser media that will act as complement to the mainstream media (Shirky, 2008). They are highly investing in most trafficked areas of websites as well as involving the third party users in conversations so as to get first-hand information from the users. Mainstream guidelines are being rewritten so as to include produser media in the guidelines (Anheier & Isar, 2008). Organisations are appointing and employing social media editors and twitter correspondents. Many organisations are introducing training and awareness programmes about the utilisation of produser media. Many mainstream media organisation involve their audiences through the social media so as to ensure that they contribute to what they would like to see in the news and when to see it (Moe, 2008). This means that the media organisations research and verify the stories that are of interest to their audience (Anheier & Isar, 2008). This means that the produser media has become part and parcel of the mainstream media. Many mainstream media organisation are involving them in the social media such as Facebook where they have fan pages and in this way they are able to communicate with their audience (Habermas, 2006). They also have YouTube where their audience get to upload videos once they get it. This has been used in many occasions such as the violence that erupted in Iran after the presidential elections (Anheier & Isar, 2008). The mainstream media was prohibited from reporting the violence in the streets. This made the journalist to use their phones to record videos which they sent to their media organisations in their countries (Moe, 2008). Therefore, the mainstream media organisations are taking produser media as a good source of information (Deuze, 2009). The challenge with this is that some information may not be verified when it is reported on the produser media. Therefore, it is important for mainstream media to verify the information from the produser media as it continues to integrate it (Moe, 2008). Conclusion In conclusion, produser media and user generated content has highly gained popularity in the recent past as many people are finding them a fast and a cheap way of accessing news as they happen. People have also used produser media as a way of discussing the issues that are happening in their areas (Deuze, 2009). Produser content has been in the forefront in producing democracy because it has allowed been to air their views about the news they receive. They get to share videos and photos in the social media and even engage into discussions with other people who use the social media. This has highly helped people to educate each other on the issues that are of common interest. Produser content is sometimes seen to be exploitative in a way because the people who actively produce the news do not get anything in return and yet the people who put the same news in the mainstream media are well paid. The returns of the produser content are near to zero because they are not predetermined (Deuze, 2009). Produser content is both a threat and a compliment to the mainstream media. It is a compliment in that it breaches the gap that is left by the mainstream media. This allows a lot of people to be able to access the news that are provided in the mainstream media. It is a threat in that it allows people to have free access to information and yet this is not the case with the mainstream media (Gimmler, 2001). The mainstream media organisations have put guidelines in place to ensure that produser media is well integrated so as to act as a compliment and allow good coverage of news (Trappel, 2008). References Anheier, H. & Isar. R., 2008, The Cultural Economy. The Cultures and Globalization Series 2. Los Angeles: Sage. Atton, C., 2004, An Alternative Internet. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Atton, C. & Hamilton, J., 2008, Alternative Journalism. London: Sage. Bruns, A, & Jacobs, J., 2006, Uses of Blogs. New York: Peter Lang. Deuze, M., 2009, The people formerly known as the employers. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism 10(3), 315-318. Gimmler, A., 2001, Deliberative Democracy, the Public Sphere and the Internet. Philosophy and Social Criticism 27(4), 21-39. Habermas, J., 2006, Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16(4), 411-426. Jenkins, H., 2006, Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide. New York: NYU Press. Keen, A., 2007, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture. New York: Doubleday. Klein, N., 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan. Moe, H., 2008, Dissemination and Dialogue in the Public Sphere: A case for public Service media online. Media, Culture and Society 30(3), 319-336. Mosco, V., 2009, The Future of Journalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism10 (3), 347-349. Priya, S., 2009, Citizen Journalism: A Social Revolution. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. & Limongi, F., 2000, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawnsley, G., 2005, Political Communication and Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Scott, B., 2005, A Contemporary History of Digital Journalism. Television and New Media 6(1), 89-126. Shirky, C., 2008, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Allen Lane. Tiffen, R., 2009, Australian Journalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism10(3), 384-386. Trappel, J., 2008, Online Media Within the Public Service Realm? Reasons to Include Online into the Public Service Mission. Convergence: International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14(3), 313-322. Welzel, C. & Ingelhart, R., 2005, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More