Lüders article of course focused on a dying subject - how to define a mass medium. For me it is quite ungrateful to define anything these days. As persons own multiple-Me's, so appears to be happen to the fields which are built by persons.
Media as the message from the society of course is the first one to fall under these sorts of effects. As Lüders stated, that one should not think of Internet as a media but rather as a technology, I have to agree with such a notion.
The variety of products, or media forms (by Lüders) is so vast in the Internet, that defining Internet to be a form of media is problematic or impossible.
What I didn't agree with is that Lüders sort of wished or proposed, that mass media - its definition - should be revalued under new, now-existing circumstances. I think mass media is simply dying. As the humanity is becoming more effective by delivering its messages, mass media is simply not "efficient" enough to compete with the possibilities that personal media (rather "asymmetrical media") has to offer. Therefore in the case of mass media nothing should be revalued. It was at is was - just like front-wars existed in the past, nobody in the modern warfare thinks of using such tactics. While the example could be odd, the point I'm trying to emphasise is that mass media as a term should not be revalued, but rather put to history where it belongs.
Sure we have examples of the "ancient" mass media, but how long will these examples last? BMW already has started developing car-radios that are Internet-based, based on so called podcast-principle. As Lüders pointed out, television channels themselves no implement strategies and content, that have strict personal media similarities. The list is forever growing and puts more value on the fact that mass media as a term and idea, is extinct.
Source
Lüders, M. (2008). Concpeptualising personal media. New Media and Society, 10(5), 683-702.
No comments:
Post a Comment