New Media Technologies and the Digital Divide - Essay Example

New Media Introduction New media technology, as described in Tony Feldman’s (1997) Introduction to Digital Media, makes information increasingly easy to be manipulated to an unparalleled degree, allows information to be shared and exchanged at the same time by a vast number of users, compresses a large amount of information into a very small concrete space, and simply requires a computer to process different types of information (as cited in Gane & Beer, 2008, pp. 7-8). In short, it makes vast volumes of information of any kind be accessible in the simplest form and the most convenient way anytime and anywhere. Its examples are the Internet, websites, DVDs, CD-ROMs, vide-games, and computer multimedia. These new media technologies have not only become a necessary part of our daily lives but also have dramatically changed our way of living, affecting almost all aspects of our lives in various ways. New Media Technologies and the Digital Divide: A Critique As new media technologies have become increasingly the ordinary way by which we transact our daily businesses, its positive impact cannot be denied. In the first place, if the new media has not been beneficial to the lives of individuals and the society as a whole, it would have not been widely used and would have not become as pervasive as it is today. However, against its beneficial effects is its negative impact of what many critics termed as the digital divide, which various definitions (OECD, 2001; Boyd, 2002; Wolff & MacKinnon, 2002; Hilbert, 2011) can be summarized as the disproportionate distribution of new media technologies in terms of access, capability, and usage. Just like the undeniable beneficial impacts of new media technologies, so is the digital divide as statistics show. According to the Digital Divide Network (2002), more or less 429 million online users worldwide actually correspond to only 6% of the entire world population. The small proportion of online users is true even in highly developed countries (Sweden at 61% and Spain at 20%), meaning there exists a digital divide even in highly industrialized countries. But this becomes far greater when access and usage are compared between the “have” and the “have not” countries – the International Labor Organization (2001) reports that industrialized countries account for 90% of online users worldwide, with the United States and Canada leading both at 57%. On the contrary, the combined online users of Africa and the Middle East account for only 1% of global online users (as cited in Boyd, 2002, p. 113) The emergence of the digital divide, as can be gleaned from various literature, is attributable to various factors such as attitude that is likewise differentiated demographically (Donat, Brandtweiner, & Kerschbaum, 2009), affordable access to new media technology infrastructures, lack of skill, low level of education, language barrier, irrelevant content of the ICT to community needs (Nair, Han, Lee, Goon, & Muda, 2010), digital illiteracy (Migliorino, 2011), and the state of political and civil liberties (Campbell, 2001). But the Economist (2005) correctly argues that the digital divide is not simply a matter of disparities in access to telecommunications and infrastructures; rather, it is more a manifestation of a greater divide between people and nations of the world that has been haunting societies for millenniums – the divides of income, literacy and development (Martin, 2006, p. 34), which is better illustrated on the socio-economic effect of new media technologies on society. The Socio-economic Effect of New Media Technologies to Society As the new media technology has increasingly become the major tool in obtaining and disseminating information, it has effectively and profoundly transformed the old socio-economic base of society into a knowledge-based society, thus the transformation of industrial society into information society where access to information and knowledge has become vital to social development. Major international organizations, known to monitor economic and human development, specifically the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program (1998), commended the role ICT has played in making the flow of knowledge acquisition, absorption, and distribution smooth and speedy to both foster economic growth and help promote sustainable human development. In a more comprehensive description the International Telecommunications Union (2005) states that the digital revolution has basically altered people’s way of living – how they think, behave, communicate, interact, work, and earn a living; it has constructed new ways as to how knowledge is created, how people are educated, and how information is accessed, disseminated, and used; it has reformed the way by which the economy and business are practiced and managed, the society is governed, and political engagement is conducted – in fact, the Internet has become the new platform of political discourse (Turner-Lee, 2010); it has made the smooth and prompt delivery of healthcare and humanitarian aid possible; it has created a new vision as to how the environment should be protected; and it has even created new opportunities and a more convenient mode of entertainment and leisure (as cited in Martin, 2006). Given this enormous and profound socio-economic effect of new media technology on society, it is not, therefore, unsurprising to know that inaccessibility to it, for whatever reason it might be, would mean exclusion from development and improvement it fostered – thus the furtherance of divides within and between societies – economic, social, educational and other divides. The Consequences of New Media Technologies in the Global Economy As the new media technology transforms societies profoundly, so does the global economy. It has changed the foundation of the global socio-economic landscape. No longer are traditional factors of production (land, labor and capital) the defining economic advantage of competing economies worldwide; rather, it has made the creation of socio-economic wealth greatly reliant on the adoption, integration and diffusion of information communication technologies. For instance, smaller economies such as Finland, Ireland and Singapore have successfully achieved their socio-economic development by transforming their economies into knowledge- and innovation-based since the ‘90s. Even the scarcity in human and financial capital is addressed differently through global outsourcing and fund access from the global financial market, thus cleverly de-empowering labor unions (Nair et al., 2010). Put simply, the new media has globalized the world, transcending space and time, blurring territorial boundaries, race and even culture, thus making the world as one. For example, news worldwide can be accessed or posted by anyone, anywhere and anytime via the Internet. Also, through new media technology multi-national corporations can monitor, coordinate, and operate their various companies located worldwide anywhere and anytime simultaneously. Furthermore, possession of information and knowledge has become the defining advantage of competing companies worldwide. Here lies the reason why in this much lauded benefits of new media technology, the “have not” become poorer and the “have” become richer, because as Campbell (2001) rightly noted, “the core knowledge permitting technological advance is in the hands – or rather the heads – of major private enterprises” (p. 124), which main concern is to gain more profit. The Role of the Internet in Social Alienation It would be hard to think that the Internet causes social isolation because, as discussed earlier, it defies boundaries, allowing various social networking among various peoples of the world regardless of race and creed. However, it should be remembered that access and optimization of the Internet use require the financial, technical, linguistic and social capacity and ability to do so. Thus, not having these requirements may lead to social isolation. An example of this is Miglioriono’s (2011) finding in his study of the Cald communities in Australia – the low level of digital literacy in Cald communities alienate them from resourcing and representing themselves, thus increasing their barriers for development and resultantly aggravating their social exclusion. As he rightly said, key to equitable access and use of social services and programs vital to socio-economic development is communication. Thus, inability to access and use the Internet would cause social alienation. The Importance of Understanding the Influence of New Media Technologies The importance of understanding the influence of new media technologies lies not only in the opportunity to optimize its use but also, more importantly, in knowing both its beneficial effect – it can unite, and its adverse effect – it can divide (Miglioriono, 2011). As the OECD (2002) rightly argues, since the development of new media technologies has been increasingly perceived crucial to socio-economic development, knowledge of governments as to the nature and extent of the digital divide and on ways of closing the gap has never been more important. Conclusion: The Narrowing of Digital Divides in the Next 25 Years Given its negative implication on global socio-economic development, narrowing the digital divide has become a major concern of various international entities. Though access and use of new media technologies may be narrowed down by putting in place their necessary infrastructures and mechanisms, and achieving digital literacy worldwide in the next 25 years, much larger barriers such as technology transfer as technological information and expertise are basically controlled by big private companies, and financial capability, which is a big problem by all countries worldwide, may hamper these efforts. Perhaps, digital divide may be narrowed down within developed countries but not so much among poor countries. As various literatures pointed out, digital divide is actually two edged: it essentially rests on and promotes economic divide. References Boyd, E. C. (2002). Introduction to the special series on the digital divide. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 5 (3), 113-114. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol5/v5n3p113-114.pdf. Campbell, D. (2001). Can the digital divide be contained? International Labour Review, 140 (20), 119-141. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/revue/download/pdf/campbell.pdf. Corrocher, N., & Ordanini, A. (2002). Measuring the digital divide: A framework for the analysis of cross-country differences. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 9-19. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan007361.pdf. Donat, E., Brandtweiner, R., & Kerschbaum, J. (2009). Attitudes and the digital divide: Attitude measurement as instrument to predict Internet usage. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12 (Annual), 37-56. Retrieved from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol12/ISJv12p037-056Donat229.pdf. Gane, N., & Beer, D. (2008). New media. New York: Berg. Hilbert, M. (2011). The end justifies the definition: The manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy, 35 (8), 715-736. Retrieved from http://www.martinhilbert.net/ManifoldDigitalDivide_Hilbert_AAM.pdf. Martin, B. (2006). The information society and the digital divide: Some north-south comparisons. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1 (4), 30-41. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1057940451/the-information-society-and-the-digital-divide-some. Migliorino, P. (2011). Digital technologies can unite but also divide: Cald Communities in the digital age. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 24 (3), 107+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-267708722/digital-technologies-can-unite-but-also-divide-cald. Nair, M., Han, G., Lee, H., Goon, P., & Muda, R. (2010). Determinants of the digital divide in rural communities of a developing country: The case of Malaysia. Development and Society, 39 (1), 139+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-2079506071/determinants-of-the-digital-divide-in-rural-communities. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). Understanding the digital divide. France: OECD Publications. Turner-Lee, N. (2010). The challenge of increasing civic engagement in the digital age. Federal Communications Law Journal, 63 (1), 19+. Retrieved from http://www.twcresearchprogram.com/pdf/TWC_Policy_Turner-Lee.pdf. Wolff, L., & MacKinnon, S. (2002). What is the digital divide? TechKnowLogia, July-September, 7-9. Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/57449/digitaldivide.pdf, Read More