A Fragmented and Transforming Digital Media Landscape (Christina Croll)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

            The Wikipedia entry for Facebook describes the Internet site as a social networking website where users can communicate and network with other members via messages and wall posts, and where they can also update pictures, and information on their individualized profile page. Wikipedia’s article for Facebook is divided into a number of sections including, history, financials, website details, politics, reception and controversy. As Facebook was launched on February 4^th, 2004, the Wikipedia entries for this article also date back to 2004, with countless contributors since then.

            I chose Facebook as the Wikipedia entry I wanted to observe for this week’s blog post because I am particularly interested in the overall concept and activity of social networking and its role in new media. When I think of the major social networking sites, I think of MySpace, Twitter, and most frequently Facebook since it is the only one of the three mentioned that I actually am a user of. Though some of the information appears to be outdated—the introduction suugests that users join networks organized by workplace, school or college, which has expanded over the years—the references mentioned at the conclusion of the article appear to be, for the most part, legit. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and creator of Facebook, is one such reference and contributor, along with other reputable sources such as CNN. There are, however, a number of less-impressive or un-specific references and contributors such as “How can I add more than 60 photos to an album” and “Photos”, but these may be legitimate questions users had formed over the years which were then answered by more knowledgeable people on the Wikipedia page.

            Though I think that overall, the Wikipedia article provides a vast amount of detailed, yet understable (without a degree in technology, etc.) information on Facebook, there are a few sections of the article that I believe are limited and need expansion to be fully informative. For example, the section entitled “effect of politics”, only mentions the ‘Saint Anselm College presidential debates’. Obviously there is much more to be said about Facebook and its role in global politics today—we have frequently discussed in class today the effect of new media in politics. The ‘controversy’ and ‘criticism’ sections also leave much to be explored and explained.

            I don’t believe that the article is notably biased in anyway since the topic, Facebook, doesn’t suggest a need for controversy as a product, but might as a concept. This is where my particular thoughts on Wikipedia come in. As an easily accessible source to quickly get a brief  amount of information on a topic, I think that Wikipedia is fantastic. When searching for a definition of a product, or scientific term, etc., Wikipedia is a great way to get detailed, yet broad information on the topic. Although there is often a mass of writing about any given topic, there is also often bullet points, and a side bar which provides the sections of the article, and a brief overview of the article’s most important points. I think the validity and usefulness of Wikipedia as an informational source is greatly compromised by conceptual articles or articles that discuss a topic on which there may be no direct definition and only opinion. A fine line is drawn here, I realize, because almost every story has two sides–for example, the topic ‘cloning’ may appear as though it would be straight forward, but if a person is adamantly against cloning, there may be information in the Wikipedia article that isn’t just defining what cloning is, but illuminates why it might be a negative thing for their own personal reasons. In such a case, the information Wikipedia provides is compromised.

But overall, Wikipedia provides a way in which users can avoid having to sift through a plethora of information on the web, and see the ‘bulletpoints’ that have been contributed overtime. The ability that any user has to upload their own input, though risky in some cases (I’ll get to that), provides a number of opinions and decreases the likelihood that the information is biased or false. Would I use Wikipedia as a legitimate source in a research paper? Absolutely not—and not just because we’re not allowed to. Since there is an ability for anyone to contribute information, there is a risk that some of it is biased or false. As a result, I wouldn’t depend upon the website, but rather think that it is an excellent way to first introduce myself to a topic, or find an answer to a random question I might spontaneously have.

            The ability for the public to be contributors to Wikipedia raises the question of monitoring, similar to our discussion last week on what should and should not be allowed or appropriate to upload onto the web as public information, but in a much different way. Although users should be aware of the reliability and risk of false or slighted information that they may be reading when they use Wikipedia, it still remains a useful and highly informative website.

Rated: from 0 votes

• Leave a comment... (3)

There is no doubt that journalism has, and will continue to go through, a huge transformation as a result of the effect new technologies have on the practice and access of journalism. Fenton explains that the Internet is creating the most impact due to speed and space, multiplicity and polycentrality, and interaction and participation. The interactive and participatory characteristics of the Web for news content makes the news more “audience-centered” which changes the nature of news. So are these changes that are taking place within journalism as a result of its penetration to the online world a good or a bad thing? Does it change how well-informed audiences are today as a result?

After reading Fenton’s article, I summarized the pros and cons that I found most significant or interesting in terms of the ways in which the Internet is transforming journalism and it’s informative-ability as follows:

CONS: 1.  ”Intensification of pressure in the newsroom is claimed to have lead to fewer journalists gathering information outside of the newsroom”–thus decreasing some of the validity and accountability of the news provided, causing us to question whether or not journalists are cutting corners to provide us with the news, and as a result questioning if we are actually better-informed or not. 2. “The idea that personalization will increase in an age of social networking is argued to have a negative impact on the process of rational democratic thought process”. 3. The over abundance of information, similarly to the ability users now have to contribute their own (and unprofessional) opinions, increases the amount of invalid and misrepresented news.

Overall, there are three major concerns that Fenton says the Internet has brought to journalism and the news: lack of accountability, verification and accuracy. I agree with this idea. As with the omnipresent and high speed nature of the internet, the pressures and expectations of news-delivery and journalism has increased immensely, so thus there is an increased negative effect that news isn’t as significant or valid as it once was because there is a higher demand for more and constant updating of content. Despite these concerns and the cons Fenton explains in his article, I believe that the overall pros outweigh the cons in terms of how informed we are as Internet users in regard to world news.

PROS: 1. The Internet provides vast amounts of information that is more easily accessible to all users. 2. The Internet offers a way for users to check the validity of statements made by comparing what they read or hear across multiple news outlets. 3. The Internet provides audience members with open communication channels to express and discuss their own views with other audience members. 4. The mass amount of information and new outlets (as explained in 1 and 2), causes users to become more critical and open-minded to form their own opinions based on the multiple viewpoints they are likely to come across while accessing news information on the web.

So what do these pros and cons say about how well-informed we are as a result of the melding of journalism and the Internet? On one hand, the Internet provides the ability to bypass the news intermediaries that were once unavoidable in the past in order to get information. On the other hand, the Internet is empowering and facilitates conversation through civic networks and access to information on social and political issues. Though quantity doesn’t equal quality, the mass amounts of news information that is provided through the Internet forces users to sift through the ‘mush’ of invalid information and various opinions on a single subject matter, to form their own overall opinion, thus creating a way for users to become more involved and powerful as audience members than they have been in the past. In other words, as Fenton so eloquently put it, “online journalism offers audiences a view of the world that is more contextualized, textured and multi dimensional than traditional news media”. For these positive abilities that the Internet provides to journalism, I believe that we are, in fact, more well-informed than those people in our position ten years ago. As the saying goes, “with great power comes great responsibility”–Aside from the greater exposure people have to news through the Internet today, though it is easier then it was in the past to access news information, there is more responsibility for users to inform themselves by sifting through online content to find valid information that is presented with journalistic integrity, and in doing so, they also become more informed.

Rated: from 4 votes

• Leave a comment... (0)

Although, as explained in Balkin’s article, The Future of Free Expression in the Digital Age, the focus of the decisions and regulations as outlined by the First Amendment will shift from occurring within constitutional law to “technological design, legislative and administrative regulations, the formation of new business models, and the collective activities of end-users”. Though this shift is likely to occur, the core values of the First Amendment in regard to the idea of freedom of speech will remain the same–the importance of the protection of individual freedom to express ideas and opinions will remain. But how do we know when the line is being crossed–yes it is your right to be able to share pornographic images, but at what cost? Shouldn’t there be rules against what people can view those images? Although Twitter says that they do not allow nude pictures, I still have easily come across a picture of a girl’s naked back side as she requests to friend me. Thus, with new technologies, the issue is no longer the ‘rules’ in regard to freedom of speech, but rather the regulations that are implemented in those media platforms that distribute user-created content such as Facebook and Twitter. With such massive amounts of user generated content, it has become nearly impossible to monitor absolutely everything that is uploaded onto the web, and it is within this impossibility that the greatest issues, in my opinion, arise.

I remember hearing about a scandal at a local boarding school when I was in highschool about a group of girls that photographed themselves making out while drinking alcohol (underage of course). I remember hearing about how they had been suspended from school as a result. Remembering this, I went to the all-mighty google to try and find some more information on the issue. Instead I came across an article from New York Magazine entitled, Testing Horace Mann. After reading the article, I found myself thinking about some important issues relevant to free speech online.  Although there were a number of issues mentioned in the article about various things that were posted to Facebook that were considered innapropriate by the faculty, one stood out to me in particular. A girl who video taped herself masturbating and simulating certain actions with a Swiffer mop to arouse her boyfriend, which she had emailed to her boyfriend. As you may have guessed, the boy forwarded the video to his friends, and within a number of days it was uploaded to YouTube. The girl didn’t get in trouble because technically she wasn’t breaking any school rules, but if she had been, would it have been fair for her to be suspended like the aforementioned girls were even though those actions that were recorded occured off of school property and at another time?

With freedom of speech online, privacy becomes a hugely relevant issue. Just because someone posts or shares something with one person online, does it mean that it is then public information? One of the most repeated questions I came across that was raised in the article was “Is a Facebook page private?”. One teacher who was quoted within the article had what I thought to be a great answer to this: “Nothing online is private, not even if you are only sharing it with your best friend. Don’t post anything online that you wouldn’t want posted on a bulletin board in your school’s hallway”. I think that this is a great way of looking at the privacy and freedom of speech battle–sure, you could technically post inappropriate images online, but do you really think that everyone wants to see those images? Probably not, which means that you probably shouldn’t be posting them in the first place.

Another thought-with such impressive technologies such as Photoshop, the distortion and misrepresentation of images has become all-too-easy. I mention this because I believe that within the online world, and the current freedom of speech debate that surrounds it, the difference between images and words is extremely important. Many studies have shown the intense power that images have over human development and mentalities. It would definitely do more harm for an eight year old to see images of oral sex then to read the definition of those actions. Therefore, the regulation and rules that surround the freedom one has to post a picture or video versus written words is important to the future of free speech online. How we distinguish these differences, and regulate content in regard to these differences will surely be an obstacle in the future of the free speech debate.

Rated: from 1 votes

• Leave a comment... (13)

The following excerpt exemplifies my discussion of the Internet in relation to the public sphere:

“The social constructs and political discourse that takes place online as a result of the increased communication and information sharing capabilities the Internet provides, are likely to transcend into the public space of the offline world. Although in this way, some would argue that the Internet holds the potential to revitalize the public sphere, certain models of new online media technologies could also hinder that potential. Based on Papacharissi and other scholars’ analyses of the public sphere in relation to the Internet, and with particular emphasis on the major online media platform YouTube, one can see how although the Internet may contextualize and facilitate a public space, it does not inevitably prescribe the public sphere.

Papacharissi makes a strong argument that online media technologies can be responsible for influencing a new type of public space, but her conclusion—similar to those of many other scholars—that the space doesn’t necessarily transcend into a public sphere is supported by the effect online technologies have on public discourse, civic engagement, and the fragmentation of online and public spaces. Online media models such as YouTube definitely maintain the ability to shape the public discourse and agenda of users, but these particular entities do not necessarily facilitate the public sphere. Instead, they tend to challenge the existence of an effective public sphere.”

Rated: from 1 votes

• Leave a comment... (0)

Though the “Declaration of Principles Building the Information Society” document outlines a number of aspirations, there are a few in particular that are more essential then others in order to accomplish a global information society, such as the desire to construct an inclusive and development-oriented Information society. Within this society, I believe that it is particularly important that all peoples can access and utilize information via ICTs. As you continue to read and see my discussion of the main obstacles I feel prevent the achievement of a global information society, it becomes clearer what areas of the document I believe are most important to its ability to achieve success. Under developed countries and developing countries—or the poorer and rural parts of the world—are central to those obstacles I discuss, and therefore the aspirations to integrate ICTs to those places is of the most importance to ensuring equality in the global information society. With ICTs those countries will have better opportunity for education, disaster prevention, health care, and economic stability.

Section A, number 8 says, ”We recognize that education, knowledge, information and communication are at the core of human progress, endeavor and well-being. Further, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have an immense impact on virtually all aspects of our lives. The rapid progress of these technologies opens completely new opportunities to attain higher levels of development. The capacity of these technologies to reduce many traditional obstacles, especially those of time and distance, for the first time in history makes it possible to use the potential of these technologies for the benefit of millions of people in all corners of the world.”

Within the information age, the ability to communicate and share information is essential to one’s progress and position within society, so the ability to obtain that information is vital. As the document refers to Information and Communication devices it says, “these technologies can be a powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all.” Though I agree that ICTs do have the ability to reduce many of the obstacles that those in the under developed or developing world may face, I think that these technologies also have the ability to create new obstacles. As ICTs rapidly advance in capabilities and intelligence, so too do the abilities that we are able to have as a result. So as the developed world is more able to acquire these devices, in addition to a higher likelihood that they also have greater media literacy on how to use them, the divide between the ‘haves’ of these technologies and the ‘have nots’, such as those in the under developed world, becomes larger and larger, decreasing the likelihood that a single simple solution is plausible. Though the document recognizes the issues this divide can potentially create, I still think that it remains a huge obstacle that must be addressed in order for the aspirations of this document to be reached.

Based upon this overall obstacle, I think there are two specific obstacles to achieving the global information society that this document aims towards: infrastructure and media literacy. Without proper infrastructure and implementation of the services that this technology requires in order to function, the devices used to obtain a role within this global information society become useless. Underdeveloped and developing countries have to ensure that they have the appropriate infrastructure–broadband and cellular tower services–in order for ICTs to function properly and efficiently. A farmer in rural Africa trying to communicate with his distributor has no use of a cellphone if he can’t get service until he travels a number of miles to enter a service area. Similarly, even if all peoples of the world had access to ICTs, it doesn’t ensure that equal opportunity will occur because there will be many people who still don’t understand how to use the technology–particularly those in poorer places who are newer to modern technology. In order for a global information society to be achieved, where there is equality among all members in terms of the technological and information sharing abilities they have, all members must have, or be trained to have, media literacy.

Rated: from 2 votes

• Leave a comment... (1)

Advertising has become personal. Through behavioral targeting platforms and other technologies which profiles users, for example based on the online activity, has enabled advertisers to determine more accurately who their audience is, and how and what products those users should be exposed to through based on their expressed interests and information. Advertisers ability to know that I am a female between the ages of 20-30 through their collection of the personal information I have provided in my Facebook account, for example, suggests that they are better of showing me an advertisement for Dove Body Wash then for Viagra. I am a registered Tivo user, but I also have a Blackberry? Great, let’s start sending advertisements out to my mobile phone so I am more likely to be exposed to them then I would be watching television.

The increased ability to track, aggregate and profile consumer behavior to better direct advertisements to consumers is most certainly a result of advancements made in technology. The ability to track and profile specific Internet users, for example, would not be possible without the technology of a platform that enables these capabilities. In his article, Audience Construction and Culture Production: Marketing Surveillance in the Digital Age, Turow makes a number of strong arguments for how this shift in advertising and direct marketing comes not only from technological advancements, but also from the advertising industry’s construction of the consumer.

Many scholars, as well as my peers, make strong arguments for the belief that a result of the increased ability to personalize advertisements has placed majority power in the hands of the consumer. Though I agree that we have more power then ever before as consumers in relation to the advertising industry, I argue that advertisers also have gained a substantial amount of power due to the fact that within the advertising world, according to Turow, power is gained through the accumulation of resources. As a result of the increased ability to more accurately track, aggregate and profile consumers, advertisers have more resources, and therefore increased leverage over consumers.

On a side note, though more power has been placed in the hands of consumers, many complain that as users, we’ve exchanged our privacy for that power. As those technological platforms which gather and interpret consumer information and behavioral data are profiling us in ways which would normally cause concern for us to discover that strangers could possibly know that much about us, a privacy debate has surfaced in the world of advertising. Is it unethical for advertisers to obtain information about us, or is it their right if we are actively providing that information when we browse and utilize Web Sites such as Amazon and Facebook which require a substantive amount of personal information from it’s users? From a different point of view, Turow attempts to show another side of the privacy debate by explaining the media organizations and agencies’ presentation of their activities not as an infringement of privacy, but rather a “two-way customer relationship”.  And so the privacy debate goes on…

Returning more specifically to Turow’s argument for the changing ‘idea’ of the consumer…One such argument is Turow’s exploration of the advertising industry’s focus on not specific individuals who share their ads, but rather “the ways that the people who create those materials think of those people”. This implies that the advertising industry is changing towards more personalized advertising as a result of marketers own ideas of how consumers should be profiled. Thus, Turow makes a strong argument that it is advertisers who are responsible for the increase, and this is important because it is essential to understanding why particular advertisements are directed towards specific consumers, as well as how cultural constructs of consumers can be made. As Turow explains, clearly the change in the relationship between consumers and advertisers/media has directly effected the definitions of, and therefore production of, the messages directed to those audiences.

Turow offers a number of ways in which the increased personalization of advertisements towards consumers can be attributed to something other then advancements made in technology. In doing so, he enables us to see how much advertising has penetrated society and is responsible for our heavily consumer-oriented culture. The points of view he specifically expresses are important to understanding the advertising industry and its effect and interaction with society in a non-technological way, but it is important to understand, Turow’s argument for how the advertising industry is responsible for increased personalization, in addition to technology.

Advertisers attention towards the behaviors and details of consumers, in congruence with technology, contribute to the increased personalization in advertising today.  Turow has definitely made a valid point in highlighting the advertising industry’s construction of the consumer, but in a fragmented digital media world where consumers have the ability to fast forward and ignore advertisements, technology that can better ensure that consumers are exposed to advertisements is critical to the advertising industry’s survival. The shift from general advertising—otherwise known as ‘above the line’—where traditional media such as TV and radio were used to produce artistically creative advertisements, towards direct marketing—‘below the line’—a more analytic and scientific approach where actions are encouraged such as links to click, products to buy, etc., has enabled the advertising industry to flourish. The ability to track, measure, and interpret the response rates to advertisements is essential. Direct marketing, largely due to the technology that was created in congruence with this form of advertising, enables just that—measurable marketing. So, one can see in direct marketing how the ability for increased personalization is possible and most successful for advertising agencies as a result of both technology and marketers ability to construct the identities and culture of consumers.

Rated: from 1 votes

• Leave a comment... (0)

Twitter: information and social networking; global connection; keeping us ‘in the know’; individualized but on a mass scale. 143!

Rated: from 0 votes

• Leave a comment... (0)

Your mom just twittered-she says she still needs help setting up her Facebook account.

As technologies that enhance communication and social networking are currently at the tip of the digital media world, a mass amount of websites which offer those abilities are striving to become the ‘next big thing’. To be a hit, however, these sites don’t just rely on the communication abilities these technologies offer, but also on the amount of people who participate in them. Thus, despite the mass amount of websites out there which offer communication technologies, a select few-and arguably two-still dominate the scene: Facebook and Twitter. As many scholars have placed us in what they call the ‘information and social networking age’, websites such as Facebook and Google are massively popular as they attune specifically to providing sources of either social networking or immediate information gathering. Twitter, however, is arguably revolutionary in that it has combined both those interests of social networking and information gathering as it provides not so much a social network technology, but rather an information network technology. Cuing users with the question “what’s happening?”, Twitter provides a unique way for users to share their thoughts or information in a very immediate and concise way. Unlike texting, Twitter allows the sharing of information on a larger, but still very direct scale. So, whether you are a user or are adamantly opposed to it, you have to admit that as far as communication technologies go, Twitter has gotten it right.

True, a lot of what transpires on Twitter and via users’ ‘tweets’ is what our class has come to refer to as ‘mush’. When looking at today’s popular topics on Twitter’s homepage, I can’t help but force myself to refrain from being sick when seeing Justin Bieber’s name on the list, but the links for ‘Lent’, ‘Tiger Woods’ and ‘Shuan White’ implies that Twitter is presenting it’s users with relevant and up-to-date information (Its lent right now friends), no matter how uninteresting some of that information might be to us individually. The link ‘USA’ was the only semi-political link I could find when I looked at today’s hot topics, which arguably may suggest in-and-of-itself the type of information Twitter prioritizes. When I followed this link, I discovered a conversation about the US Men’s Hockey team rather than any type of political discourse, which only heightened my speculation in regard to the value of Twitter’s tweets.

Pear Analytics, a market research firm, analyzed the content of 2,000 tweets and found that the pointless ‘mush’ tweets comprised about 40% of the tweets whereas news from mainstream media sources produced only 3.6% of the 2,000 tweets. This depressing realization–much like the fact that more people voted for the next American Idol then in presidential elections–is more of a reflection of our society then on Twitter, so it would be unfair to blame Twitter for its emphasis on the more socially relevant information it provides and highlights.

So yes, a lot of the information and tweets that are transmitted through Twitter are irrelevant to most of us or pointless, but one of the most important factors which contributes to Twitter’s success is the ability this communication technology offers to individual users to choose who they want to follow or allow to see their tweets. In this way, Twitter has created a unique and individualized service for users. More significant tweets exist, but it is up to the user to find them. Twitter, for example, is a great way to follow businesses or favorite sports teams without having to search through a mass of information online…

Enter the 140 character tweet limit…Users can only type up to 140 characters per tweet. Although this limit might appear constraining, I view it as a way to decrease the chances of producing as much mush, and a way for users to get the most important and concise information possible across. If you’re looking for the score of the Yankees game and don’t want to hear anything else-BAM there it is, tweeted right to the palm of your hand no matter where you are. Want to hear the latest update on that company you’re interviewing with next week, without having to sift through the search returns on Google? BAM-Twitter’s got you covered. And as for the information that might otherwise come across as unimportant-such as President Obama or Kim Kardashian tweeting what they had for breakfast, well, its just another way that some people may like to feel connected to one another within the world (plus, its up to you whether you care what breakfast el presidente had and if you follow those tweets or not).

Twitter can also be used for good—a friend of mine who worked in a large office noticed that much of the food provided at lunch time went unused. At the advent of Twitter he discovered that he could use the communication technology to send out mass messages to the people in his building in regard to the left over food. Long story short, he created a system which enabled those people in his office to gather and save the left over food and have it sent over to a homeless shelter. Also think about how often you are stuck in traffic or don’t know that a massive snow storm is heading your way (hello Ithaca!), how nice would it be to get updates on those details when necessary?

Lastly, what makes Twitter such a successful communication technology is the mass amount of users it has accumulated. More users equal more connections to be made, and the greater likelihood therefore that someone you want to hear about is going to be available through this technology. It seems as though everyone and their mothers are currently on Twitter. In fact, I’ve been against it for so long because I didn’t think it had enough value to be worth an addiction to yet another media technology, but after writing this post-Twitter just got another user.

Rated: from 6 votes

• Leave a comment... (0)

After reading Burn’s theory of Produsage and his argument that participants in the online world and user-generated content are no longer passive consumers, but rather active users, I began thinking about the responsibility and higher expectations this places on users—particularly if they want to stand out in the crowded world of the Internet. As I read Fake and Lanier’s opinions of user generated content in regard to ‘participatory media’ and ‘digital collectivism’, I found myself flip-flopping between supporting and disagreeing with every-other argument each author made. In moving back and forth between my various positive and negative reactions to each author, and applying them to my initial thoughts on Burn’s theories, I had a thought—user generated content provokes creativity from users of the online world. A rather simplistic thought? Yes. So let me explain…

Fake makes a rather good point in her article on “Participatory Media” when she explains her idea of small contributory systems with evidence of how although items may appear “insignificant when isolated”, they become “meaningful in the aggregate”. The collection of multiple people’s thoughts and creative knowledge in the online world has the ability to create points of interest and amount to new ideas that might otherwise be left un-explored. In contrast, Lanier argues that the immense amount of content available and continuously added to the Web (Fake’s ‘contributory systems’), makes it easy for much of the content to get lost in what he refers to as ‘world wide mush’. Although I agree that one can suffer from information overload when surfing the Web, I disagree with Lanier’s theory that in order to foster creativity, you have to implement boundaries. Though much of the content generated by users can be easily lost in the black-hole-like world of the Internet, there are still specific blogs, websites, companies, etc., that stand out among the shuffle. I think this is one way of knowing how to separate the men from the boys—In order to stand out in the online world, users who supply content are required to be uber creative and thoughtful about their methods and presentation of information.

So, although it can be argued that user-generated content has the tendency to ‘water down’ the internet, it also presents users with a challenge that is likely to result in some new and exciting ways. Think of the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest and how it can be applied to the online world of user-generated content: survival of the most creative and innovative.

On a different note, this makes me think of another effect that user generated content has on society which I thought I would briefly mention. The overload of information and content on the online world not only demands innovation from the creator of that content, but also requires users and audiences of that content to have media literacy. The immense amount of user content that is generated on the web requires an ability to sift through that content in order to find what sources provide the best and most accurate information, or the most relevant information to that particular user’s interests.

Rated: from 2 votes

• Leave a comment... (6)