New Media

New media and society

As a member of an increasingly globalised, technologically advanced world, you probably use new media every day to stay in touch with your loved ones, discover and engage in your interests, and keep up with the news. You may use it to study for school, and you might work remotely once you graduate.

Whether it's our educations, careers, hobbies, or personal lives; life in contemporary society is almost invariably shaped by media, particularly new media.

Let's take a look at what we mean by new media and how it came about.

The definition of new media

Let's now look at both of these aspects of new media and how they emerged in detail.

The emergence of new media

Two key processes have created what we know as "new" media.

The evolution of existing media delivery systems

The past 30 or so years have seen dramatic changes in the way media content is delivered. As recently as the 2000s, when traditional media was the norm, most people received television visuals through aerials, and there were only around five terrestrial television channels available.

Now, high-definition, flat-screen digital televisions and access to hundreds of digital satellite and cable TV channels are common.

The development of new communication technologies

Novel forms of technology have enabled different types of communication to come into daily use. Affordable personal computers and mobile phones are relatively new technologies that have facilitated new types of communication, particularly text messaging.

The most innovative technology that has appeared in the last 20 years is undoubtedly the internet.

Examples of new media in sociology

• Websites

• Social media networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and TikTok

• Email

• Blogs

• Music, film and television streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+

• Virtual and augmented reality games

Who uses new media?

The advent of digital media has not affected everyone equally. Some sociologists suggest that there is a digital divide - unequal access to digital technology based on factors such as age, class and gender.

Age and the digital divide

According to Ofcom, the 16–24-year-old age group uses new media more than the 25+ age group, and older adults use it the least.

New media is used for contact, work, gaming and shopping, but different age groups use it for different things. Most younger people now use it for gaming, and young adults are more varied in their social media use and likely to have profiles on most sites or apps. Older social media users heavily favour Facebook.

Social class and the digital divide

The middle and upper classes are more likely to use digital media technologies as they can afford them. The poor are excluded because they generally lack the material resources to partake in this 'new media revolution,' i.e. according to some sociologists, they are a digital underclass that cannot keep up with the middle-class technological elite.

Gender and the digital divide

Nai Li and Gill Kirkup (2007) found that men are more likely to use e-mail or chat rooms than women. Men also play more computer games than women and are more reportedly confident about their IT skills. Conversely, women spend more time on the phone and send more text messages than men.

Difference between new and traditional media in sociology

Six major characteristics of new media separate it from so-called "old", or traditional media. These are:

1. Digital/convergent

2. Interactive

3. Hypertextual

4. Globally networked

5. Virtual

6. Simulated

We'll explore each of these below.

It is digital

The growth of computerised technology in the 1990s led to what is known as digitalisation - the vast majority of information is now converted, stored and transmitted as binary code (a series of 1s and 0s).

Sociologists such as Raymond Boyle (2005) observed that digitalisation has also resulted in technological convergence, i.e. merging different forms of information (text, audio and visual) into one single but entirely new converged system.

Fig. 1 - Digitalisation means that almost all information is now stored in binary code

It is interactive

'Old media' was usually a very much one-way affair, with professionally produced content being broadcasted to audiences who, for the most part, could do little else other than passively consume it.

New media, however, is a much more interactive form of communication in comparison. People can engage and interact with the media as active audiences, customise it, and produce their own content (Jenkins, 2008). Many websites now rely almost entirely on user-generated content, e.g. YouTube.

It is hypertextual

Hypertext, otherwise known as ‘links’, is a common feature of the internet that allows users more ease and freedom over how they browse different sources of information. This contrasts with old media, which is much more inflexible.

It is globally networked

New media has led to cultural globalisation – we can now interact with others globally and form connections virtually rather than locally. These wider networks enable ‘collective intelligence’ in that they allow people to share and combine resources, data, skills and information for any given purpose.

It is virtual

New media presents a very different reality than our everyday, face-to-face reality - a virtual environment constructed with computer graphics and digital video. Users have control over their experience in this world but are also subject to many different types of information, opinions, interactions and products that they would not come across in real life.

It is simulated

Simulations surpass the virtual nature of new media and create an immersive, artificial life. This is most obvious in computer games, which provide opportunities for users to experience a 'virtual life' that is simulated through digital technology.

The advantages and disadvantages of new media

According to James Curran and Jean Seaton (2003), two perspectives dominate the debate about the new media in Britain: the neophiliac perspective and the cultural pessimist perspective. They each have opposing views on new media and its advantages and disadvantages.

Let's cover both of these in turn.

The neophiliac/cultural optimist perspective on new media

Neophiliacs or cultural optimists argue that new media is advantageous to society for several reasons. These include:

Access to information

The internet makes it very simple and easy to access a wide range of information on practically every topic, from everyday issues to academic research. People can find information online regardless of their location and often for free, meaning new media is a very valuable resource.

New networks and connections

The global internet makes it easier for individuals to make connections that wouldn’t be possible at the local level or through traditional (old) media. Social media also make it easier than ever for people to stay in contact with their loved ones anywhere in the world, not just through messaging but by video calling, playing games together, etc.

Increased consumer choice

People now have hundreds of different media outlets and delivery systems to pick from, catering to every need and taste. It has been argued that competition between media institutions results in better quality media output.

The e-commerce revolution

Much of retail business is now conducted on the internet, and online shopping is increasingly popular. Most major companies now have their own websites, and the internet gives small businesses a platform to operate on that they might not otherwise have.

The revitalising of democracy

The internet can be a source of political education and information. This can encourage citizens to play an active role in democratic societies and can make politicians more accountable to the public.

Some media sociologists suggest that the internet can revive democracy by giving a voice to everyone and by enabling like-minded people to join together and potentially enact social change.

Fig. 2 - Neophiliacs believe the internet can contribute to a healthy democracy by providing political information

The cultural pessimist perspective on new media

Followers of this perspective believe that the revolution in new media technologies has been exaggerated by neophiliacs. There are a number of strands to the cultural pessimist argument.

'Newness' and interactivity

James Cornford and Kevin Robins (1999) argue that new media are not actually that new, and that media today has both old and new elements.

Cornford and Robins further propose that the interactive aspect of digital media is not particularly new, since people have written to newspapers and called radio and TV stations for many years.

What is primarily new about new media is its speed – information, news and entertainment can be accessed in real-time.

The dominance of corporations and the elite

Cultural pessimists criticise the idea that new media increases participation in democracy and cultural life, particularly among ordinary people. They contend that the internet is actually dominated by a small number of powerful media companies, meaning that it is controlled by the elite and powerful.

According to Curran (2002), the majority of the 31 most popular news and entertainment websites are associated with the largest media corporations.

Kevin Hill and John Hughes (1998) also challenge the idea that the web is more likely to display alternative/minority political content - the majority of political views expressed on the American internet were mainstream.

Commercialisation and surveillance

The commercialisation of the internet has caused considerable privacy concerns. Many companies that sell products and services on the internet now also sell their customers' data by engaging in consumer surveillance.

The declining quality of media

Another cultural pessimist argument is that the increased variety of media delivery systems, particularly digital television, has led to a decline in the standards of media produced.

David Harvey suggests that while digital TV has drastically increased the number of channels, it has also led to a dumbing down of popular culture. The hundreds of channels are filled with generic, cheaply produced material, including repeats and reality TV, which constitutes a candy-floss culture devoid of creativity or uniqueness.

According to Andrew Keen (2007), the democratised nature of the internet can harm the quality of media content. For instance, Wikipedia, a public-produced website, can sometimes be filled with poorly written, uninformed, or false information.

The lack of regulation

Some sociologists believe that new media, particularly the internet, should be regulated by the state. Since all views, opinions and content can be freely expressed and accessed on the internet, measures should be taken to combat potentially harmful content e.g. homophobic, racist and terrorism-inciting comments and websites.

.