Over at Journalism 2.0, Mark Briggs poses a question that has been bugging me for weeks – what do we call this new form of journalism and media?
As Mark points out:
The news industry calls it “new media” or “interactive media,” but that’s just differentiating it from legacy forms of publishing. Pretty much everything online is “interactive” and it’s not really “new” anymore.
Much as I don’t like the term, “new media”, it is a shorthand way to refer to a whole raft of trends, from online journalism to participatory media.
It is a bit like trying to define news – every journalist knows what you mean by it, but often struggles to come up with a good definition.
I teach a journalism course in a new first-year undergraduate concentration at the University of British Columbia called New Media and Society.
But my fellow instructors in English and Sociology who also teach in this stream have been debating is whether we should even use the term “new media”.
In class, I tell the students it’s a generic term for digital communication made possible through the use of computer technology, which is almost so general to be meaningless.
The word “new” is also a loaded term, as it has connotations of social progress through technology.
The problem with new media is that it a generational definition. New media is “new” to my generation and beyond. The Internet didn’t exist when I went to university 20 years ago. We barely had computers.
But to the 18-year-olds in my class, new media is not new. To them, it is just media.
The term “new media” reflects the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. To the immigrants, this is a new land, full of strange and confusing wonders.
To the natives, it is simply the world they know.
Perhaps when the newsrooms are full of digital natives, we will no longer need to use the term “new media”.
Filed under: Web 2.0, internet, journalism, new media , digital natives, education
Recent Comments