A Non-Conclusion

My conclusion is that there is no conclusion (ha! how pretentious is that for an answer). Seriously, I can't agree or disagree with McLuhan completely and I still can't difinitivly define any of the many outlets that we have examined this semester either. The Internet is so undefinable and yet new media analysts devote so much time to doing just that. Being a part of a generation raised in the tempo of new media, it was really healthy for me to slow down and examine the medium that has determined a lot for me already. But I am not sure what it really changes, knowing all that I know now about the nature of Wikipedia and Google. Do I have any more choice in whether or not I participate? Probably not. If truth and education are suppose to liberate my mind and being in more ways than one, then I must say I feel a little more entrapped.

The Medium is the Message

Let's talk about this video as the medium.

McLuhan, chapter 25

McLuhan:

"The electric gives powerful voices to the weak and suffering, and sweeps aside the bureacratic specialism and job descriptions of the mind tied to a manual of instructions. The "human interest" dimension is simply that of immediacy of participation in the experience of others that occurs with instant information" (254).

It is as if McLuhan is talking about how the Internet has transformed the media rather than the telegraph. New Media by nature is about human interests. It is about the reaction rather than the action itself. McLuhan talks about the immediacy of the telegraph and it was perceived by literary sophisticates as distasteful. It reminded me a lot of Murdoch's attitude toward aggregators. It is the attitude of those who feel left behind by a medium they don't understand and would rather not try to understand. The difference between the effect of the Internet and the telegraph, I think, is that the telegraph was a compressional force. It forced different mediums to come together (i.e. The Associated Press example). The Internet, I think, is expansional. It forces companies like Google to expand beyond its original intention, beyond its original specialization. And the nature of the Internet itself (inter connecting networks world-wide) makes it the perfect medium for organizations to stretch beyond itself and link multiple outlets together, which creates sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc and aggregators like CT Report. That, of course, explains a lot about how my generation prefers to communicate. We constantly want to be connected, yet have no idea how to do it with our senses alone.

Aggregators Are Just Not That Good

I thought a lot about news aggregators when we were discussing possible models for the CT Mirror. It strikes me as odd that so many people use sites like Digg and Memeorandum in the first place. Honestly, Digg is just like the news version of Twitter, pushing only the most popular stories to the forefront and neglecting, consequently, anything more contextually relevant. Memeorandum does a great job of grabbing everything but a crappy job of sorting it based on relevancy or some kind of quality analysis. I still use nytimes.com and Cnn.com. Arguably one might say that I am limiting myself and not getting the whole picture of the news that is out there but whose to say that the Huffington Post is either. As for Mr. Dankosky question: No I wont pay for any of it. I wont pay for the Nytimes or the Huffington Post. There are just to many sources of news out there and none of them are so outstanding and exclusive to warrant me buying a real subscription.

Aggregators are great for traditional newspapers, expanding their readership and becoming their "free paper boys." But as a consumer, personally I would rather go straight to the source. On most days, I am not interested in being linked to the New York Post or the Courant. As for the argument by Murdoch that they don't invest in journalism, I think is just annoying. Don't get mad at The Huffington for doing your dirty work or for saving you money. Aggregating is not the same as plagiarism and while I think they certainly have a role to play, I hope that this is not the future of media. There is already enough of a top-down model to journalism. Aggregators just become another filter that consumers have to get through. Some find it convenient. I just think it's superfluous.

WNPR was talking about new stories as intellectual property. I fear this idea. On the one hand, we all need and want quality journalism, good reporting and well-written stories. But for the most part, the news itself is the gold. Just tell me what happened and dont claim it as some kind of entitlement because you discovered it first. It belongs to the public. Yes, a journalist should be given credit but I have a problem with Murdoch's attitude. He doesnt own the actual news part of a story.