Does your case study suggest that new and digital media have had a positive impact by offering audiences a more diverse range of values and ideologies?
The case studies that have been investigated is how new and digital media have impacted the news and gaming industry. This had had a positive impact with newspapers now being more available to the audience. However, it has had a negative impact on the gaming industry due to how it isn't as diverse with the western perspective always being presented in many story modes in games.
Citizen journalism has been both positive and a negative impact on a diverse array of values and ideologies. It has had a positive impact because of how it now present real footage and presents the perspective of an audience member on the scene so it doesn't really require many journalists to be on scene reporting the story as there would be recorded evidence of what has happened. Examples would be events such as Eric Garner's case as he was put in a choke-hold that didn't allow him to breathe which had further presented the controversy of black people getting killed by the police which had started off the Black Lives Matter campaign to go against the police brutality that has been demonstrated. There has also been recorded footage of the Ferguson riots which had presented the damage that the rioters have caused which have further lead to more conflicts between the police and the Black Lives Matter group. In addition to this, there would also be the influence it has on the news agenda as this would present the truth of wrongdoing as how the footage could shape how the news broadcast team would report on the story and what perspective they would take. This would be present with the Death of Gadafi which had recorded all the carnage that the rioters have caused his death which would presenter the rioters as freedom fighters which would go onto orientalism with Said as to how the west would speak for the east in a way that western broadcasters represent what is happening.
Distribution and consumption of the news have had a positive impact on values and ideologies. For distribution, it has offered audiences a wide array of methods for the news as it can be accessed online or broadcasted to an audience with 24-hour news channels dedicated to covering news as it is reported to live. In addition to this, there would also be the benefit of having the news be made readily available on a global scale. Thus can offer a wide range of values and beliefs for an audience to choose from since it will present a variety of opinion on political debates due to how many sources are there for the audience to choose from. Thus would add with the free and instant access to news which has made accessing a wide array of opinions easier. However, it has made journalism go downhill due to the freedom that the audiences have. This would be because of how being a journalist isn't as rewarding as it used to be. This would be because of how Clay Shirky has also said that "its a wonderful time to be a corrupt politician" due to the downgrade in quality journalism.
The volume of news has also increased over time due to the easy access of the new and digital media and so Alain de Botton's comments about a huge volume of news are so great that audiences can't distinguish what is real. This would really disadvantage the audience as this would be because of how there isn't any research done prior. Especially in this age where fake news has become a political threat, this idea of a hyper-reality refers back to Bauldriad's idea of an audience not being able to see what is real. This would be because of the wide range of opinions that are present online and the race to try and make the opposing political party look bad with algorithms being messed with for the audience which can allow the trending page of any social media platform such as YouTube to highlight fake news which would be believed to be real. This would be due to the clickbait that many news stories use to try and make a user click on the site. This is a cheap way to tease the audience by making an obnoxious title that goes against the beliefs of the user so that they can click on it.
A Marxist perspective of this would be that the elites still control the audiences due to how clickbait is used to manipulate an audience which leads to the hypodermic needle model which presents the audience as passive. This would be because of how a diverse range of views and values is an illusion. This would be because of how there is censorship. In the past, before the LGBT community was accepted into society, their views were silenced due to their controversy and so this has once again repeated recently when there aren't any LGBT community videos showing up on YouTube's restricted mode suggesting that there is hegemony in what is considered acceptable and common sense. Especially how YouTube has been demonetising YouTubers due to how it isn't advertiser-friendly which presents how the elites still have control and so the status quo hasn't been challenged.
Globalisation has been a benefit to a diverse range of opinions because this means that news from around the world can be accessed instantly. This would be very beneficial as this means that people can voice their opinions about worldwide topics which mean that audiences are offered opinions as well as sharing them. This would then support McLuhan's "global village" as this presents the news as being shared globally for an audience to present their views. This has however made some disadvantages as local news has either died or has declined in quality. An example of this would be the Newcastle local paper and how it had reported on seagulls. This has, therefore, had a lack of lack local oversight which might lead to the increase in the potential political corruption.
In conclusion, I think that there is a positive impact for an audience due to the diverse range of opinions and ideologies. This would then lead to audiences being exposed to a wide range of opinions which benefits the pluralist's view. However, it has come at a great cost of quality in terms of journalism which would mean that values and beliefs of the audience are being manipulated. But for the most part, there is a wide range of sources which can give the audience the equipment to double check the story to see if it is true or not.
Distribution and consumption of the news have had a positive impact on values and ideologies. For distribution, it has offered audiences a wide array of methods for the news as it can be accessed online or broadcasted to an audience with 24-hour news channels dedicated to covering news as it is reported to live. In addition to this, there would also be the benefit of having the news be made readily available on a global scale. Thus can offer a wide range of values and beliefs for an audience to choose from since it will present a variety of opinion on political debates due to how many sources are there for the audience to choose from. Thus would add with the free and instant access to news which has made accessing a wide array of opinions easier. However, it has made journalism go downhill due to the freedom that the audiences have. This would be because of how being a journalist isn't as rewarding as it used to be. This would be because of how Clay Shirky has also said that "its a wonderful time to be a corrupt politician" due to the downgrade in quality journalism.
The volume of news has also increased over time due to the easy access of the new and digital media and so Alain de Botton's comments about a huge volume of news are so great that audiences can't distinguish what is real. This would really disadvantage the audience as this would be because of how there isn't any research done prior. Especially in this age where fake news has become a political threat, this idea of a hyper-reality refers back to Bauldriad's idea of an audience not being able to see what is real. This would be because of the wide range of opinions that are present online and the race to try and make the opposing political party look bad with algorithms being messed with for the audience which can allow the trending page of any social media platform such as YouTube to highlight fake news which would be believed to be real. This would be due to the clickbait that many news stories use to try and make a user click on the site. This is a cheap way to tease the audience by making an obnoxious title that goes against the beliefs of the user so that they can click on it.
A Marxist perspective of this would be that the elites still control the audiences due to how clickbait is used to manipulate an audience which leads to the hypodermic needle model which presents the audience as passive. This would be because of how a diverse range of views and values is an illusion. This would be because of how there is censorship. In the past, before the LGBT community was accepted into society, their views were silenced due to their controversy and so this has once again repeated recently when there aren't any LGBT community videos showing up on YouTube's restricted mode suggesting that there is hegemony in what is considered acceptable and common sense. Especially how YouTube has been demonetising YouTubers due to how it isn't advertiser-friendly which presents how the elites still have control and so the status quo hasn't been challenged.
Globalisation has been a benefit to a diverse range of opinions because this means that news from around the world can be accessed instantly. This would be very beneficial as this means that people can voice their opinions about worldwide topics which mean that audiences are offered opinions as well as sharing them. This would then support McLuhan's "global village" as this presents the news as being shared globally for an audience to present their views. This has however made some disadvantages as local news has either died or has declined in quality. An example of this would be the Newcastle local paper and how it had reported on seagulls. This has, therefore, had a lack of lack local oversight which might lead to the increase in the potential political corruption.
In conclusion, I think that there is a positive impact for an audience due to the diverse range of opinions and ideologies. This would then lead to audiences being exposed to a wide range of opinions which benefits the pluralist's view. However, it has come at a great cost of quality in terms of journalism which would mean that values and beliefs of the audience are being manipulated. But for the most part, there is a wide range of sources which can give the audience the equipment to double check the story to see if it is true or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment