When proposing my own definition of media, I started by making a list of all devices and objects that I assume to be mediums. This list included televisions, cell phones, magazines, and computers, among others. Aside from being told by society for years that these items constituted media, I deliberated over the shared qualities of these products that give them the ability to be defined as a medium. Upon doing so, I realized that media goes far beyond sight and sound, and into the communicative ability of an object. Every item on my list that I believed to be a medium had the ability, in one way or another, to communicate with the user through the use of technology. Cell phones relay conversations, televisions and magazines transmit entertainment and advertisement, and computers allow for numerous methods of communication. Just as Dr. David Croteau and Williams Hoynes proposed in Media Society, I initially believed media to be “the different technological processes that facilitate between (and are in the ‘middle’ of) the sender of a message and the receiver of that message” (6-7). Scanning through my list, I realized that every object I believed to be a medium either used power or was prepared by a computer before being printed. For reasons I will address, my initial shared belief with Croteau and Hoynes that media are “technological processes” no longer made sense to me.
By defining a medium as a technological process, one is also proposing the notion that mediums did not exist before electricity and the printing press. This misconception is common, as even I initially believed technology was essential to the definition of a medium. However, when we think about other forms of communication, such as cave drawings and hand gestures, communication through non-technological mediums is blatantly possible. Media has advanced exponentially in the past few decades and is now more prevalent than ever before. Having been raised in a society where technological media is relied upon for all forms of communication and entertainment, it is easy to forget that mediums do exist that are void of technology. As Croteau and Hoynes write, “our everyday lives are saturated by radio, television, newspapers, books, the Internet, movies, recorded music, magazines…” (3). While these mediums certainly surround us today, none are more frequent and widespread than ordinary conversation. Any form of communication, from speech to written, can be deemed a medium as it allows for messages to be transferred between two or more parties. This definition may appear to be obvious enough; however, the recent rise in popularity of “social media” has given many a blurred definition of media. The addition of the word “social” before media leads many to believe that media itself does not already include a social aspect. This could not be any further from the truth, as media consists of all activities that can be classified as social.
Popular forms of media, such as Facebook and Twitter, have given users the ability to easily interact with friends, family and colleagues. On Facebook, if one is a friend of another member they are allowed to view their status updates and uploaded pictures. This allows for an extremely convenient medium which provides users with instant gratification, as opposed to having to wait for a reply from a letter you sent in the mail. Facebook, and similar mediums, are revolutionizing the way we look at media and interact with one another. While previous generations are more likely to interact through a non-technological medium such as conversation, the current generation, who has been raised on technologically advanced mediums like Facebook, is far more likely to use technology-infused mediums. Media are numerous and vast, and everyone will have a different medium preference. The methods of doing so may change, but all mediums serve the same purpose to allow for communication between multiple users.
No comments:
Post a Comment