I thought this week's lecture surfaced some very interesting and relevant topics. When looking at the various forms of media, we can differentiate the 'old' from the 'new'. For instance, Old Media consists of newspapers and magazines (print), and radio and television. Basically, it includes all platforms of media excluding the web. We then have New Media, as aforementioned, the information web. When looking at the various web platforms, we have the Information Web (Web 1.0), the Social Web (Web 2.0), Prod-Users (Web 2.0), and the Semantic Web (Web 3.0). Initially, the Information Web was all we had. It was a great opportunity for companies to advertise, market and make themselves and their products/services known to the world-wide audience. It was structured in a way where there would be a provider of information and an audience to receive it. We were then introduced to the world of social networking, whereby web users and the web (in general) were given an entirely new purpose. People started to use Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Skype, MSN, Youtube, Wikipedia, Instagram, etc, with the hope that a small number of the 2, 267, 233, 742 beings with access to the internet would be the slightest bit interested in their own lives (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). Basically it narrowed the focus of the web to social groups. We then move from the Social Web to Prod-Users, whereby the distinction between the user and the viewer, viewer and the participant becomes hard to distinguish (http://www.freshandnew.org/2006/04/more-on-the-prod-user/). Lastly we have Web 3.0, a web specifically focused on the individual. From here we break off into two main points; Hyperlocalisation - being able to narrow news intake to categories (entertainment, sport) and receive news specific to one's location, and Specific Content Delivery - being able to limit the news a person sees in relation to their preferences. However, the disadvantages to Special Content Delivery are that advertising companies can advertise products more susceptible to the interests and preferences of the user.
What I found more interesting however, was the talk of online newspapers introducing a paywall for news. As I looked around the lecture theatre, I was able to see the disgust on people's faces as they were told that online news - so accessible and convenient - in some cases comes at a price. What I find quite hard to understand is that a) people have bought newspapers, magazines, newspaper subscriptions and magazine subscriptions, etc, as long as they have been existent. And b) the news that we are getting online, is the same as what we see in the newspapers, thus it should be expected that we should be charged for it. Why shouldn't we? Just because it is instantly accessible, doesn't mean it shouldn't come at a cost. Bruce Redman brought up an interesting analogy. What happened to newspapers making money? E-bay killed the classifieds. The exact same circumstance applies here. Free online access to the news is killing newspapers. My greatest concern however, is that if online newspapers start introducing a paywall, will people become immune to what is happening in the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment