Digital Media - Readings

Digital Media By mws The digital media include both the old media delivered digitally and new media created specifically for use online or in the digital format. Digital simply means that the media are created in or transformed into computer-readable form. Information is presented as a series of 0s and 1s. Digital media is largely replacing analog media. Analog is a term that derives from audio recording in which the modulation of the sound carrier wave is analogous to the fluctuations of the sound itself. Analog signals actually resemble reality directly in some way. Networks are essential to the digital media. These networks connect computers or media devices to each other so they can communicate. This particularly refers to the network of the Internet, the World Wide Web. Various concepts underlie digital media. Digital media are typically multi-media. Digital technology makes it easy to combine a variety of media types into one package. This is not new, e.g., putting photos with text or combining moving pictures and sound. But with digital technology there are more opportunities to do so. Video can sit side-by-side with text. Audio can play while one reads the lyrics of a song, reads information about the artist, or watches a concert. You cannot retrieve lyrics directly from analog radio or watch a video clip in a print newspaper. Digital media are typically automated. Computers make many time-consuming and complex tasks easier. You do not have to go through the process of looking through numerous books and articles to find information on a topic; search engines will do the work for you. Through automation content can efficiently be made personalized or localized. You specify what kind of news or information you want according to a number of factors (geography, topic, etc.) and the computer selects relevant content, automatically doing the work for you. But actually choosing the media you want to see, learn, or read can narrow the scope of the news or entertainment one encounters. This includes lessening the content that one previously may have unintentionally encountered through chance or accident. If people just focus narrowly on what they already know and like, audiences could be fragmented into small groups of like-minded individuals who do not interact with other groups or society as a whole. People could choose to receive only the news and information that reinforces their beliefs and values. And these people might not be patient enough to follow someone’s long, complex account or story if it is not directly relevant to their lives. This fragmentation has already occurred in analog media (with the viewer receiving just a handful of broadcast television channels a generation ago to the hundreds available through cable or satellite today), but the digital media are accelerating the trend. Even search results are personalized. Two people who search for information on some issue might get significantly different results based on their past Internet experience. Both Yahoo News and Google News make adjustments to their home pages for each individual visitor. But what of the importance of discussing social and political issues of common public interest with those who have other views in democratic society? This could be lost. Democracy depends on a citizen’s ability to engage with multiple viewpoints. If the Internet offers citizens only information that reflects their established point of view, such engagement is seriously limited. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, once commented that “a squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” If relevance based on your own narrow interests determines what you see online, the Internet may deliver you stories related to your dying squirrel. And that may be a great business strategy, but it leads you to focus on your front yard rather than issues such as revolution, genocide, or the suffering of your fellow human beings. Automation can be great, but there are potential costs. Digital media are typically ethereal. This means that digital information has an immaterial quality; it exists, in a sense, without a physical presence. It is made up of representations of 0s and 1s. You do not have to checkout a physical copy of a book (or any other medium). Information does not have to be stored in actual physical books that deteriorate. Accordingly, you can download a perfect copy of a book to your computer, and endless copies can be made and easily distributed. Digital media content is typically available all the time and can be accessed on demand. This started in television with VCRs. In the traditional world, news, entertainment and information were delivered/published/ broadcast on a schedule determined and publicized by the publisher or broadcaster. Now with TiVo, YouTube, podcasts, and Hulu you can often watch or listen to whatever you want, whenever you want. Contemporary audiences are often unwilling to wait for content, e.g., the evening news or the next day’s paper, especially when it’s related to some developments in a breaking story. Audiences can get their information and entertainment on demand from thousands of sources around the world. They may seek out the most recent information from blogs, instant messaging, or other informal channels. This is directly related to the fact that how and when content is distributed is changing. Rather than the traditional channels (newspapers at the news stand or on your doorstep, film reels shipped to your local theater), the Internet, satellites, and other digital technology are used for delivery. This increasingly makes content available 24 hours a day, with news organizations updating the news continuously to a worldwide audience. The production process and cycle are being transformed for movies, television shows and news, books, magazines, newspapers, and virtually all other media. Movies are shot using digital cameras and edited on a computer. Reporters working for television, radio, or newspapers often capture their raw material with digital devices and then edit the stories digitally. Even authors of books typically write on a computer, with words remaining in digital form throughout the entire production process. The availability of digital information and entertainment is directly related to the fact that connections with various types of content are easier to make. Hyperlinks on the Internet are clickable pointers to other online content. Before or while watching a video online, one can click on an ad and then even purchase the product online. On the Internet one can easily move/navigate from site to site, content to content. Digital media are pervasive. With global satellite communication you can communicate from anywhere, including Mt. Everest. The digital media are available 24/7 and virtually everywhere. Digital media are portable and easy to install in many places. With portable devices and flat screen technology we can take media with us and access it in places previously thought impractical, e.g., on the bus or on a beach. You can find video display in elevators and at checkout counters. You can watch a sitcom on your cell phone while waiting for your doctor’s appointment. Digital media are fluid; they are malleable and changeable. A book can become a fluid and changeable document. There have long been older and newer editions of books, but now with online discussion forums, the content of a book can potentially be a product of an ongoing interaction between and among authors and readers. The same holds for magazines and newspapers. Mash-ups of existing media are another example of this digital malleability. Any popular media item can be transformed very quickly into innumerable user-generated mash-ups, many done solely for the fun of it. Online discussions and mash-ups both show the importance of audience participation for influencing media content. Digital media are typically interactive and feature active audiences. There is an interaction between or among parties with an ongoing give-and-take. There is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous exchange. Dialogue affects the nature and type of content or feedback received, and content changes as dialogue continues. This interaction also typically gives audience members some measure of control over what media content is seen and in what order. People can become more critical consumers of the mass media (at least visibly so), raising questions on the quality of the news, information, and entertainment they receive. They can speak directly to traditional producers in a public way, maybe seeing that others feel as they do (e.g., that an ad was offensive or story was inaccurate). The audience can also encourage journalistic accountability as it talks back and interacts with content producers. Mistakes can be publicly countered in the discussion section of a story, and then subsequently corrected in a revised version. This could help slow or reverse the recent decline in credibility of U.S. news organizations. Digital media give people ready tools to produce media if they wish to do so, and far more cheaply and easily than with analog media. They provide the ability to widely distribute usergenerated content, giving people power in relationship to traditional media producers. With increased opportunity for consumers of digital media to produce content and control what is consumed, the balance of power is shifting away from traditional media organizations. Active audiences are also more likely to organize themselves and work together on common problems than are isolated individuals or anonymous faces in the crowd who have few choices in determining what media they get. Collaboration is an important possibility on the digital media. People can work together for the common good. Others can easily be invited to have access to a project, and then work collaboratively to improve it. The digital media provide ways to organize for political or social movements. Sometimes online collaboration is supplemented by or leads to offline meeting and work. The digital media have important implications for trust, transparency, and reputation. The public is coming to expect a certain amount of transparency in their communication with each other and with leading organizations. There is concern over matters like blog fiction, i.e., web logs that are not what they appear or purport to be. Online there are a growing number of reputation systems, ranging from the rankings on Amazon or eBay to “Karum points” on Slashdot (a popular news and discussion website), telling you whom you can trust. But companies or businesses can also fall prey to disinformation campaigns and vendettas. People can go online and bash a restaurant or attack a company with which they have a beef or ideological disagreement. Because of this many businesses actively monitor online discussions about themselves. They know that online conversations can help build or destroy their reputation. At the heart of reputation and transparency is the idea of building relationships based on trust and respect. Digital media are also changing our conception of privacy. In this realm there is a lot of confusion over what is acceptable or even legal. A person writing a blog may consider it somewhat like a private journal or something only intended for a small group of friends or like-minded folks. They may resent it if content is subsequently held against them, for example, at a job interview. Much personal information has long been public, like property deeds or arrests by police. This has been cumbersome to retrieve, but now it can easily be found online. Being left alone has become increasingly difficult if you go online. You can turn off your cell phone, but you can still get unwanted messages when others see you online. As your moves and transactions online are tracked, others can learn a great deal about you, your interests, and your personal habits, not all of which you may want them to know. Audiences are not anonymous anymore as people can be tracked through user names or IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Mass communication organizations can keep detailed and automatically updated records on their audiences by tracking with cookies. Within a web site, cookies allow for recognition of a previous user to offer him/her personalized content, but they also can tell somebody or some organization your online and related offline behavior, preferences, and habits. Digital media are space-saving. The space required to store the content of digital media is very small compared to analog media. The number of books that can be stored on a computer the size of a small suitcase would fill a town library if they were in typical physical form. Of course digital media can be converted to the larger physical form of the printed book, DVD, CD, etc. This reduced size also means that distribution costs are greatly reduced. There is no need for trucks, trains, or planes to move products from manufacturing or printing plants to warehouses, and then to retail stores. There is no need to send back unsold copies. Digital networks also permit compression of data, which enables a mass communicator to send more information in the same amount of space on a network. With this compression digital communication networks have not only shrunk space, they have also sped up time. Prior to the telegraph long distance communication could travel no faster than the fastest means of transportation (horse, ships, trains), with some exceptions (carrier pigeons, smoke signals). The slow pace of long distance communication meant it was almost impossible for governments such as that of the British Empire to efficiently control far-flung colonies. A message from India would take several weeks to reach England, and in the meantime the situation may have changed drastically, making the response largely irrelevant. But with the telegraph it took only a matter of hours for that message to reach England. Digital media have taken this time and space compression to a whole new level. Consider the cell-phone. Though hundreds or thousands of miles away, your parents are still able to be present instantaneously through a simple call or text message. With time-space compression digital communication has essentially reduced distances between people because of nearly instantaneous communication. This time-space compression has global implications. Content is fluid, dynamic, and rapidly transmitted throughout the globe in an online environment. The Internet enables audiences around the world to participate in a global dialogue about events and issues, and can bring individuals throughout the world in direct contact with each other, even though they are separated by thousands of miles and political and cultural boundaries. So with the digital media, we do have the foundation for a more connected and engaged global public. Ultimately whether this will lead to rational discussion or cultural shock and confusion is to be seen. We should also note that as information moves around the globe it can increasingly be subject to rules, regulations, and restrictions that foreign governments place on the Internet. Libel and obscenity laws differ widely among countries, raising the question of whose version(s) should be used when an article that is published on the Internet libels someone according to some place’s laws and not other’s. Digital media is cheap. Media content can travel at the speed of light over hair-thick wires at very little expense. After paying any costs associated with accessing the Internet, the creation of copies of digital content is largely free. An infinite number of perfect copies is possible, which, again, is a threat to established business models. The new information environment is threatening the power of the old producers and gatekeepers. Digital media is often cheap because some content producers or providers are not being paid. A key legal issue with digital technology is compensation for work done by writers, artists, musicians, and media organizations themselves. Media organizations have tried to change laws to favor non-digital systems and prevent copying or passing on of content to protect their financial interests. In part, this threat to established business models can be traced to a main force underlying the digital media, i.e., the culture of the open-source movement according to which people work for other than monetary reward. This began with the open-source or free-software movement in which programmers created software whose source code could be improved by anyone. There was a strong spirit of keeping information freely available to anyone and letting everyone share the benefits. This notion moved from software applications (for word processing, for the office, etc.) to the realms of entertainment, journalism, public relations, advertising, and any kind of knowledge or content production. Within this culture audience members are not simply consumers, but also take an active role in producing content or information. The old model was one of producers (media industries) and consumers (the audience). But now people have much more power to choose, create, and talk back (and talk to each other). Consumption still predominates, but not as it used to. The computer networks of digital communication are quite flexible. If one route in a network is unavailable, the network can automatically and efficiently reassemble the message through a different route. Compare this to when a telegraph wire was cut a century and a half ago; when the wire was severed, communication stopped. Flexible computer networks also allow for cheap downstream and upstream communication (source to receiver and receive to source), as opposed to communication that is just one-way and expensive. Digital distribution can occur virtually instantaneously. A click of a mouse can send copies to hundreds of thousands of people at the speed of light (although network congestion can slow the speed down). But this speed and convenience can be problematic. Once a piece of digital content is available on the Internet, there is currently essentially no way to completely control it. On a whim, you post a picture of yourself, drunk and partially nude, on your Facebook page. The next morning you realize that you made a mistake, so you go and take the picture down. But a friend has already seen it, downloaded it, and sent it as an attachment to 20 friends. One friend then posts it on drunkensluts.com and your boss happens to see it there, etc. Go back to those 20 friends. Say half of them are intrigued enough by this photo to send it to another 20 people, and half of those people do the same. Within three generations after the original sender, the photo could be seen by over 2,200 people. Add one more generation of senders and the number jumps to 20,000. All of this, of course, is at no cost. And if it was put on the photo sharing site drunkensluts.com., hundreds of thousands of people could see it, depending on the popularity of the site. This example also illustrates how distribution is no longer dependent on a central location sending out content to a passive audience. Distribution has become decentralized. Rather than central servers containing media content that the public accesses, or rather than these alone, audience members can now store media content on their own computers and make it available to others on the Internet. Centralized distribution points are greatly supplemented, if in some cases not virtually replaced by, many localized distribution points. This is the basis for peer-topeer (P2P) applications. This decentralization means a loss of distribution control for media companies since they have no power to dictate what individuals distribute. One result is loss of revenue as copies are made and shared among millions of Internet users without paying anyone. This is what has happened in the music industry. Each person who uses file-sharing applications becomes a potential distributor of content. This is so by merely having files others want to download; no one has to send anything. One benefit of this system is that with widely distributed content it is far less likely, should a central company server go down, that the content becomes lost or unavailable. In a P2P system as long as someone with that content is online, it can be downloaded. One of the popular file-sharing services using P2P was Napster in 1999 (although Usenetnewsgroup for sharing files preceded it). Napster let Internet users easily share MP3 files (the compression format for digital music). Napster did not follow a true P2P model. It used central servers to store information detailing what music files were available on what users’ computers. Napster users searched the Napster database, saw the music they wished to download, and then connected directly with other users to download the songs they desired. Napster facilitated searches and was not involved in actually transferring files between users. Napster was shut down on grounds of facilitating massive privacy/copyright violations (it was later reborn as a pay service). File sharing services (which of course can handle much more than just music) that do not rely on centralized servers/systems/protocols, e.g., BitTorrent and Gnutella, are much harder to bring to court. (Gnutella works much like natural communication. You can compare a file request made over the G network to someone arriving at a crowded party and asking where the sushi is. The request goes from one person to another through the crowd until it reaches people with sushi, and they say “It’s here.” The news is passed back to the person wanting sushi, and he/she goes through the crowd and gets it. So queries typically ripple through the network.) A P2P network is one in which all computers on the network are considered equal and can send and receive information equally well. It is the basis of file-sharing services. On the network, there exists an interconnected group of computers, all essentially equal in their ability to send, store, and receive information. It is a network of peers. Its architecture is decentralized and nonhierarchical. On the other hand, much of the Internet is based on a client/server model. Audience members access a growing portion of content produced by media organizations via web servers. This network model relies on a centralized computer or server that stores content that the clients or audience accesses. It is a hierarchical model whereby most computers users do not contribute content, they simply receive it. Centralized storage locations make information easy to find (always at the same address on the Internet, a URL). But the single server can easily become overloaded if many clients request content at the same time. The single location also makes it vulnerable to attack or destruction. If the server or servers with the hard drives containing the information are destroyed, the information is lost, unless back-up copies were made and stored elsewhere. Below on the left is a model of the peer-to-peer model , with data stored on each client computer. Below on the right is a simple illustration of the client server model, with the main server computer where the data is stored at the top, and the client computers underneath. There are many combinations of the client/server and P2P models. As mentioned previously, the original Napster was one such combination. People shared data with each other, but information was also stored on a central server, telling which files were available for downloading and from whom. Some digital communication occurs wirelessly. Wireless networks operate much like radio or television signals, but use a different part of the EM spectrum to send and receive data. Some wireless networks have extremely short ranges, only several feet, allowing mobile devices to communicate with each other (e.g., Bluetooth technology involves wireless connection between a headset and laptop). The most familiar wireless network is that for mobile-phones, which allows for voice and data transmission and Internet connection. One main benefit of wireless is that it allows for access from virtually any location. It is good for emergency services and geographic-specific information (checking-out information on the store or business that you are standing in front of). It also provides an easy way to contact many people at once. On the other hand, one of the chief drawbacks is the poor level of security. Wireless messages are relatively easy to eavesdrop/hack into. Also, often the quality of the communication on wireless is wanting. The sound quality of cell phone conversations is often inferior to those using land lines. It is important to emphasize the fact that the many-to-many distribution model made possible by the Internet completely sidesteps traditional distribution networks that favor established media companies. Now any content creator can reach millions worldwide by simply putting content on the Internet. And there are no unit production costs associated with making more copies of media content. Members of the public who download media content from the web are creating a new copy, and, if they belong to a P2P network, then this copy is available to others on the network. The Internet allows people to completely bypass established media outlets and communicate directly through a host of means. Of course, established media and their distribution networks have a major presence online, where they often continue to play the important role of quality-control gatekeeper, filtering out substandard content. Media content will probably exist in some kind of multiple-distribution system in which “mainstream” content is available through traditional distribution outlets and also available in downloadable or on-demand formats from the Internet. Independent content creators outside the mainstream media will probably largely rely on the Internet for distribution, including the use of viral marketing, i.e., “word-of-mouth” spreading of news and information online through discussion groups, chats rooms, e-mail, blogs, etc. Some of these independents will no doubt get offers from mainstream media, thus having both types of distribution available. It is also important to emphasize the issues of interactivity and active users. In the past, audience members were largely passive recipients of news and entertainment from the media. Media content was sent by a publisher or broadcaster, and you watched, read, or listened to what was sent, or not. Now audience members can not only choose type of content and the media source it comes from, but also often how to experience that content. They can watch a full interview after they have see a clip on a news show, or get and read the transcript of that interview after they have seen it. They can magnify an image to get a better look, or click and see background or geographical information on someone from a story they have just read. Then they can write a comment on a feedback section of a webpage. Before, there was interactivity in the media (e.g., letters to the editor, Nielson ratings influencing content on television), but now there is much more, and it is much faster and more spontaneous. This back and forth flow changes the nature of the ongoing communication. The flow of what you see, hear, and read is different. And your actions can quickly influence the content you are engaging. For example, your comment leads to a change in what is presented on a website as the creator edits her original words, or posts more of the same type of story. This back and for can encourage users to learn and explore more. They can also engage with others who are engaging the same content through discussion forums, online chat, or e-mail. Digital distribution has gone from a unidirectional model in the analog world where large media companies sent out messages to a mass and largely silent audience, to one in which all of us can distribute content as widely as an established media company, without spending money on advertising or marketing. The continuing battles of the recording industry over file-sharing are often framed in terms of copyright infringement, but this is an issue primarily brought about because of changes in distribution. The public is acting no differently than it did in the past. In the 1970s many made cassette tape recordings of friends’ album collections. The difference is just the ease, opportunity, and related volume because of the Internet. A. J. Liebling once said that the freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one. Now with the Internet, we all in a sense own a printing press as we can distribute words, audio, and video to everyone else with an Internet connection. Most people are satisfied consuming media and not creating anything. Even with Twitter 90% of the content is created by 10% of the users. But even if only a small percentage of people online create and share content, there will still be a significantly larger pool of media content than existed in the traditional media world. But this is also not without its costs. There will be far more amateurish and poor quality content that is generated by the masses. There are also a host of other problematic issues, e.g., intellectual property matters and people expecting free content at the expense of those who want and think they deserve compensation. All of this digital technology is exemplified in what has come to be called the social media. These, in comparison with the traditional media, illustrate how we have gone from the broadcast of one-to-many to a dialogue of many-to-many. There have long been letters to the editor, fan clubs, and the like. But with these and similar modes of communication, the flow decidedly favored the traditional broadcaster or media producer who sent messages to many people simultaneously. These audience members had quite limited means to share their thoughts with the broadcaster/producer or each other. In 1970s, if one wanted to share her thoughts about a television show, she could talk to friends or family or discuss it at the office the next day. If she was upset at something, she could write a letter to the network or one complaining to the FCC, with no guarantee that she would hear from either. She could write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, with a limited chance of getting it published, and even if it was it would only reach the limited audience that read letters in the newspaper. She could buy an ad in the newspaper, which would be expensive or might be rejected. Or she could create a flyer and make photocopies of it, which she could hand out or mail to people, which would be both expensive and time-consuming. If she was persistent or flamboyant enough, or if she got others to join her cause and perhaps hold a demonstration, the crusade might be picked up as a news story by a local newspaper or television station. Today, she could go to the discussion board area of the show’s website, or other related discussion sites. She could reach many people very quickly, and possibly come to find that others shared her opinion. Or she could make a video, raising issues, and upload it to YouTube, where thousands or more could see it in a short time and generate more discussion in the comments section. If it received enough attention, some mainstream media organization might report on it. But for the most part, traditional mass media organizations (except for the original source material) are not involved. Yet many more members of the public may be affected in a short period of time by this online communication. This latter, more modern digital example follows a “publish, then filter” model, versus the older “filter, then publish” model of the traditional media. With the traditional model, from a vast universe of possible information specialists or professionals (editors, music producers, etc.) select which information will be used as content. They act as gatekeepers, controlling the flow of information made available to the public by their decisions (with the given limitations of the medium, such as those of time or space). The material (e.g., stories in the newspaper or music of a band on an album) is distributed to the public, which is unaware of all the possible information it could have received. But with the publish, then filter model now in operation in the social media of the Internet the public can connect directly with the vast universe of information out there in cyberspace, much of it made available by non-profit organizations or just average Internet users like you and me. People can find what is relevant through a variety of social networks, ratings systems, online discussions, etc. Much of what they encounter may not be relevant, and much of it will be of inferior quality. They will have to wade through it and filter it for themselves. Again, another big difference is cost. Most people cannot afford to start a newspaper or radio or television station. But with digital media the costs for creating and widely disseminating information have been greatly reduced. Traditional media certainly are still important. They provide much of the source material that the public then discusses. They are still important in setting the agenda and still have much larger audiences on average than the majority of social media sites, even though their audiences are fragmenting. With traditional media some reading was done aloud before groups. Families gathered around and listened to the radio in the 1930s and 40s. People danced in groups to recorded music. People gathered in movie theaters and watched films as part of a collective experience. Family and friends gathered to watch television shows and talk about what they had seen afterwards. Water-cooler shows created discussion in work places the day after viewing. But now much more of this group activity is mediated, and it occurs through the digital media. Let us briefly outline the different types of social media. E-mail is mostly used as interpersonal communication, but messages can be sent to multiple people. And spam messages can be sent to thousands or even millions. Discussion boards involve posting on threads. These are forums for discussion. They are asynchronous in nature, not requiring users to be online at the same time. These involve active participants, as well as lurkers who do not post, instead just reading or viewing. (Note that synchronous media requires an audience to be assembled simultaneously with the broadcast, transmission, or event. Asynchronous media such as newspapers or magazines, on the other hand, do not require the audience to assemble at a given time. Audio and video recording devices let people time shift and record a performance or broadcast so that it can be watched/listened to anytime, turning synchronous media into asynchronous media.) Chat rooms are virtual dwellings within which a community of users talks with each other through text messages in real time (synchronous). These are usually divided by topic a (e.g., a ball game, a television show, a pop star, sex). Instant messaging involves online, real-time conversation between two or just a few people (also using text messages, but here with fewer people, and more in personal communication than chat). Texting, using a cell phone or computer key pad to send messages read live or saved for later, was also originally only meant for person–to-person communication. But now this can be used by businesses, organizations, government, schools, etc. to send mass messages. There are an increasing number of functions for texting, such as voting on American Idol and other reality shows.