Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Is it really the death of Closed Media?

As we strive towards the new, newer and newest media, what is happening to the media that drove the foundations of media for so long? Are we seeing the death of our traditional closed media? ‘The handwriting is on the wall: whether you like it or not, traditional closed media is screwed unless and until they learn how to function in a computer network-centric environment’ (Musings, 2007, 3). It has been said again and again, closed media is losing the business battle. ‘…declining readership, access to content and illegal, but free, downloads are driving the knife into the heart of traditional media. It will be a slow death, but a death none the less’ (Sinclair 2008, 2).

As sad as it may be, there is a large combination of forces ‘including remarkable innovations in technology, surging consumer demand, industry consolidation and policy mistakes’ that are adding to this decline (Karr 2008, 3). But that just the beginning, open media in the most literal sense means, ‘anybody with a computer and a modem can be a journalist’ (Katz 2000, 10). ‘On the Internet, there is no workable definition of what a journalist is. That's a good thing. Anybody who sees him- or herself as a journalist becomes one, which is the way it ought to be and, in fact, used to be. Journalism was never meant to be an exclusive elite, and the Net has re-democratized it. Online journalism may be adolescent and chaotic, but it is freer, more diverse and participatory than its offline predecessors’ (Katz 2000, 7).

So what happens now, if traditional closed media tries to break into the open media domain, is it still considered traditional media? Closed media has been defined as ‘anything online or on paper or on cable or on the airwaves -- try to set agendas rather than permit agendas to be set by others… not trusting their consumers to really participate, they aren't willing to share the power; instead they project a formal, rigid image, preoccupied with increasingly irrelevant formats’ (Katz 2000, 12). If a newspaper goes online allowing people to view for free, at their discretion the same information paid for in a physical copy, is it still closed media?

You may say yes, in which case closed media lives on, you may say no and claim again that closed media is dying. But let me ask you a question? Can you truly abandon Closed Media? After all how do you turn your back on a printed word fixed to a page? Even if you stop buying the paper, you can’t remove the word. In an open media environment, where the words are as susceptible to change as women’s fashion, is it really traditional media that we should be worried about. ‘Print encouraged the ‘private ownership of words’, the resentment of plagiarism developed as a result’ (Pearson 2008, 1). But at least closed media warrants protection; online opinions don’t hang around long enough to come under threat of copyright or plagiarism.

‘In contrast with print, open media is, most importantly, never final — the reverse chronology of blogs, posts and content creates an implicit open-ended form’ (Pearson 2008, 2). Even once an opinion has been added to a page, ‘frequent use and ‘updates’ continually add new information, never leaving the same words behind’ (Pearson 2008, 1). The beauty of collaborative user-led content production.

The end of another debate, a new peice of content for over information overload. Personally i don't think we could ever lose closed media, because i will never curl up in bed with a cup of coffee and a good computer screen. But who knows... times change.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21

No comments: