Sign in or 
Share this
The Future of News Media
How an All-Access Digital World Might Eradicate the Importance of News Media
Delaney Parrish
The future of news media distribution circa the year 2033 will depend entirely on the manner in which we access the media. If in 25 years there exists a digital grid, by which we can plug into the Internet from anywhere and at any time (or if we stay consistently plugged in), then it is safe to assume that print journalism will become almost entirely obsolete. Television news and newspaper news, as we understand them today, will be morphed into one, and though actual text might exist, it is more likely that a consumer will be given a choice to either read, view, or listen to an audio recording of a particular news story.
The quality of the news we are able access will depend largely on how its creation is funded. Should basic access to the digital grid be universally free-of-charge, then there might exist an equivalent of the local evening news, which is provided as a public service to citizens. However, if consumers are required to pay additionally to access certain portions of the Internet via the digital grid, then we have to wonder if they will choose to access the news at all. News, therefore, in order to win consumers, will become an exaggerated version of the “infotainment” we know today as cable news shows. For example, today a basic cable package by default includes not only MSNBC and Fox News, but also the Disney Channel, movie channels, and ESPN. A person who only cares about sports is, therefore, forced to come across a news story about the War in Iraq, whether or not they choose to change the channel. However, in the same way consumers who used to be forced to come across stories in a newspaper are now able to filter those stories via online newspapers, consumers of Internet via a digital grid might be able to filter the news entirely. If consumers pay for access to the grid in sections, they might choose to purchase the “sports” section, but not the “news” section. It would be interesting to see how such access to news might alter current class divides in political literacy. Perhaps those of a lower class, who don’t have the money to purchase the news portions of the Internet, will spend their time with the public access news, therefore remaining more informed, and most assuredly more fairly informed (e.g- today’s PBS). Those with money might spend their time on other portions, watching movies and accessing more entertaining venues.
However, all of this assumes that the digital grid and its access will be entirely user-friendly. I believe this is the case because I believe that technology is only able to influence society on mass levels once it is accessible on mass levels. For example—the personal computer. Personal computers as large mainframes owned only by major companies or institutions did not affect the daily social interactions of the general public. It was only once they were made both more usable by and affordable to the everyday person (including the technologically disabled), that the personal computer truly began to alter the way we interact (including the way we distribute the news).
I also believe it likely that a digital grid will provide free or relatively inexpensive channels by which individuals can broadcast their own “news shows,” should they choose. A massive rise in these shows might inundate a consumer of the news with too much access, therefore deterring them entirely. If the news becomes entertainment, in order to draw in consumers, then it is likely that major respectable venues of news distribution, like today’s CNN or The New York Times, might disappear entirely. Rather the news could become like an US weekly at the checkout counter at the grocery store—funny to skim while you’re waiting around for something, but nothing you would pay for or acknowledge as respectable or worthwhile.
All of this, of course, would undermine the events of the world, in particular politics and overall global issues. Should this happen, and should the average citizen become largely un-invested in the decisions of policymakers and lawmakers, then nations might eventually be organized in ways other than through literal geographical borders. Though I do not believe this to be a likely occurrence in the next 25 years, I do believe that it could be eventually plausible. If the trend towards mass globalization continues to proliferate, it might become impractical to establish nations according to borders, whose people might no longer have as many commonalities or similar interests. Rather, societies and nations might be divided based on economic needs. This would be entirely possible in an all-digital world where a person’s digital identity can, in fact, be two places at once. Locality might cease to matter (or at least to carry as much influence). Eventually, humans could decide that reconciliation amongst diverging groups within a nation need not even take place—not if a new nation could be created that might be more economically viable and overall enjoyable.
I would like to explore the role that seemingly innate human qualities might take in preventing this imagined future. Might our patriotism, our feeling of responsibility towards fellow citizen’s, and our belief in common goods be only products of the current society we live in? Though these ideas are often explored as natural tendencies of human beings, as representative of those qualities that separate us from other, lesser animals, is it possible that these ideas might be entirely eradicated as technology forces us to acknowledge ourselves as more “digital” than “actual?” If we spend our lives plugged into a digital world, will we forget the “real” world that we live in as it is today? Will we come to see those ideals as ideals of a former race of human beings? Though these questions are startling, I do not believe them entirely ludicrous in nature.
Delaney Parrish
The future of news media distribution circa the year 2033 will depend entirely on the manner in which we access the media. If in 25 years there exists a digital grid, by which we can plug into the Internet from anywhere and at any time (or if we stay consistently plugged in), then it is safe to assume that print journalism will become almost entirely obsolete. Television news and newspaper news, as we understand them today, will be morphed into one, and though actual text might exist, it is more likely that a consumer will be given a choice to either read, view, or listen to an audio recording of a particular news story.
The quality of the news we are able access will depend largely on how its creation is funded. Should basic access to the digital grid be universally free-of-charge, then there might exist an equivalent of the local evening news, which is provided as a public service to citizens. However, if consumers are required to pay additionally to access certain portions of the Internet via the digital grid, then we have to wonder if they will choose to access the news at all. News, therefore, in order to win consumers, will become an exaggerated version of the “infotainment” we know today as cable news shows. For example, today a basic cable package by default includes not only MSNBC and Fox News, but also the Disney Channel, movie channels, and ESPN. A person who only cares about sports is, therefore, forced to come across a news story about the War in Iraq, whether or not they choose to change the channel. However, in the same way consumers who used to be forced to come across stories in a newspaper are now able to filter those stories via online newspapers, consumers of Internet via a digital grid might be able to filter the news entirely. If consumers pay for access to the grid in sections, they might choose to purchase the “sports” section, but not the “news” section. It would be interesting to see how such access to news might alter current class divides in political literacy. Perhaps those of a lower class, who don’t have the money to purchase the news portions of the Internet, will spend their time with the public access news, therefore remaining more informed, and most assuredly more fairly informed (e.g- today’s PBS). Those with money might spend their time on other portions, watching movies and accessing more entertaining venues.
However, all of this assumes that the digital grid and its access will be entirely user-friendly. I believe this is the case because I believe that technology is only able to influence society on mass levels once it is accessible on mass levels. For example—the personal computer. Personal computers as large mainframes owned only by major companies or institutions did not affect the daily social interactions of the general public. It was only once they were made both more usable by and affordable to the everyday person (including the technologically disabled), that the personal computer truly began to alter the way we interact (including the way we distribute the news).
I also believe it likely that a digital grid will provide free or relatively inexpensive channels by which individuals can broadcast their own “news shows,” should they choose. A massive rise in these shows might inundate a consumer of the news with too much access, therefore deterring them entirely. If the news becomes entertainment, in order to draw in consumers, then it is likely that major respectable venues of news distribution, like today’s CNN or The New York Times, might disappear entirely. Rather the news could become like an US weekly at the checkout counter at the grocery store—funny to skim while you’re waiting around for something, but nothing you would pay for or acknowledge as respectable or worthwhile.
All of this, of course, would undermine the events of the world, in particular politics and overall global issues. Should this happen, and should the average citizen become largely un-invested in the decisions of policymakers and lawmakers, then nations might eventually be organized in ways other than through literal geographical borders. Though I do not believe this to be a likely occurrence in the next 25 years, I do believe that it could be eventually plausible. If the trend towards mass globalization continues to proliferate, it might become impractical to establish nations according to borders, whose people might no longer have as many commonalities or similar interests. Rather, societies and nations might be divided based on economic needs. This would be entirely possible in an all-digital world where a person’s digital identity can, in fact, be two places at once. Locality might cease to matter (or at least to carry as much influence). Eventually, humans could decide that reconciliation amongst diverging groups within a nation need not even take place—not if a new nation could be created that might be more economically viable and overall enjoyable.
I would like to explore the role that seemingly innate human qualities might take in preventing this imagined future. Might our patriotism, our feeling of responsibility towards fellow citizen’s, and our belief in common goods be only products of the current society we live in? Though these ideas are often explored as natural tendencies of human beings, as representative of those qualities that separate us from other, lesser animals, is it possible that these ideas might be entirely eradicated as technology forces us to acknowledge ourselves as more “digital” than “actual?” If we spend our lives plugged into a digital world, will we forget the “real” world that we live in as it is today? Will we come to see those ideals as ideals of a former race of human beings? Though these questions are startling, I do not believe them entirely ludicrous in nature.
|
jhcollier3 |
Latest page update: made by jhcollier3
, Nov 24 2008, 12:17 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by jhcollier3
2 words added 4 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
