The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.
One may argue that due to the development of new/digital media, the audience have become more powerful rather than institutions, in terms of both consumption and production. Throughout this essay, I will demonstrate if the statement of audiences having more power is true or not.
Due to the development of new/digital media, audiences now have the privilege of accessing many more platforms on the internet. They are able to share and post things more freely, as well as commenting and debating on certain topics. New and digital media has brought audiences many more positive/efficient outcomes, however there also many negative factors that come with the development of new and digital media. One main downfall is audiences becoming reliant on accessing news through the newspaper platform, audiences now have the option of getting information and news through the web, whether it be on their computers or phones.
A pluralist's view would strongly argue that without an audience, institutions would not be able to have a successful organisation and believe that audiences are the key reason as to why we have good media. Not only this, but audiences have more power in determining what news gets published and have more of say in what news and media they want to view. They now have the opportunity to now; ‘conform, accommodate, challenge or reject’. This can also be backed by Rupert Murdoch, who stated; "The internet has given readers much more power, the world is changing and newspapers have to adapt." This therefore, conveys that the audience do indeed have more power than they once did before.
Additionally, audiences also have the power to certain things trending to allow people to become globally aware, for example, the 'Black Lives Matter' campaign became globally aware, due to audiences having the power to get it trending on different social platforms, which therefore benefited not only the audiences in getting the campaign trending/aware, but also helped the institutions becoming successful.
Moreover, due to news and information mainly being put onto the web, audiences now challenge the hypodermic needle theory, and challenge some of the stuff they read on the web.
In contrast, a Marxist would completely disagree with the view and opinions of a Pluralist. They believe that the 'Information Revolution' in fact has not benefited the audience at all. A Marxist's view on society is that there is a social divide, whereas a Pluralist believes we live in a classless society. Furthermore, a Marxist believe that the media are the ones with the elite power and who have the power in order to preserve the hegemonic control over masses (Gramsci). Additionally, a Marxist would argue that audiences aren't the ones with the power but are the ones who rely on institutions for news and information. They also don't believe that audiences even question the news they read, as Lin & Websterclaim state; "57% of 9 - 19 year olds never question the accuracy of online information." Moreover, a Marxist would argue that the media have 'dumbed down' the information they publish in order to generate mass audiences. Therefore, Marxists believe that if audiences have information and news to read, they won't question any of it, let alone challenge it. So, Marxists believe institutions can carry on posting information and have the power to control what audiences read and consume, without being questioned.
Furthermore, the decline of the newspaper industry has become a serious matter in the media industry. Audiences are no longer going to newspapers to get their newspapers, but they're using platforms on the web. A pluralist would argue that new/digital media has allowed audiences to view their opinions more freely now, whether it be commenting on posts or creating blogs to express their views, audiences now have more opportunities to present their ideas and challenge what institutions publish. In addition, due to the decline of newspapers, journalists jobs have been effected, not only due to the decline, but due to 'citizen journalism'. Audiences now have the opportunity in recording/capturing footage that may be important in the news industry. Therefore, 'citizen journalism' has given audiences the power in publishing what they want. Not only does this benefit audiences, but by audiences capturing certain images or footage, in fact also benefits institutions as they have the content to publish on their own sites.
To conclude, I believe that both a Marxist and Pluralist view is correct to some extent. I believe that institutions do still maintain some sort of control and power, as they do have the last say in what gets published or not. However, audiences have come a long way and do have some sort of say in what they want published and what news they want to read. Additionally, they have more power in expressing and sharing their views.
Therefore, I do agree with the statement of audiences being more powerful in terms of media consumption and production.
A pluralist's view would strongly argue that without an audience, institutions would not be able to have a successful organisation and believe that audiences are the key reason as to why we have good media. Not only this, but audiences have more power in determining what news gets published and have more of say in what news and media they want to view. They now have the opportunity to now; ‘conform, accommodate, challenge or reject’. This can also be backed by Rupert Murdoch, who stated; "The internet has given readers much more power, the world is changing and newspapers have to adapt." This therefore, conveys that the audience do indeed have more power than they once did before.
Additionally, audiences also have the power to certain things trending to allow people to become globally aware, for example, the 'Black Lives Matter' campaign became globally aware, due to audiences having the power to get it trending on different social platforms, which therefore benefited not only the audiences in getting the campaign trending/aware, but also helped the institutions becoming successful.
Moreover, due to news and information mainly being put onto the web, audiences now challenge the hypodermic needle theory, and challenge some of the stuff they read on the web.
In contrast, a Marxist would completely disagree with the view and opinions of a Pluralist. They believe that the 'Information Revolution' in fact has not benefited the audience at all. A Marxist's view on society is that there is a social divide, whereas a Pluralist believes we live in a classless society. Furthermore, a Marxist believe that the media are the ones with the elite power and who have the power in order to preserve the hegemonic control over masses (Gramsci). Additionally, a Marxist would argue that audiences aren't the ones with the power but are the ones who rely on institutions for news and information. They also don't believe that audiences even question the news they read, as Lin & Websterclaim state; "57% of 9 - 19 year olds never question the accuracy of online information." Moreover, a Marxist would argue that the media have 'dumbed down' the information they publish in order to generate mass audiences. Therefore, Marxists believe that if audiences have information and news to read, they won't question any of it, let alone challenge it. So, Marxists believe institutions can carry on posting information and have the power to control what audiences read and consume, without being questioned.
Furthermore, the decline of the newspaper industry has become a serious matter in the media industry. Audiences are no longer going to newspapers to get their newspapers, but they're using platforms on the web. A pluralist would argue that new/digital media has allowed audiences to view their opinions more freely now, whether it be commenting on posts or creating blogs to express their views, audiences now have more opportunities to present their ideas and challenge what institutions publish. In addition, due to the decline of newspapers, journalists jobs have been effected, not only due to the decline, but due to 'citizen journalism'. Audiences now have the opportunity in recording/capturing footage that may be important in the news industry. Therefore, 'citizen journalism' has given audiences the power in publishing what they want. Not only does this benefit audiences, but by audiences capturing certain images or footage, in fact also benefits institutions as they have the content to publish on their own sites.
To conclude, I believe that both a Marxist and Pluralist view is correct to some extent. I believe that institutions do still maintain some sort of control and power, as they do have the last say in what gets published or not. However, audiences have come a long way and do have some sort of say in what they want published and what news they want to read. Additionally, they have more power in expressing and sharing their views.
Therefore, I do agree with the statement of audiences being more powerful in terms of media consumption and production.
No comments:
Post a Comment