A Study of Emerging News Media and Corresponding Cultural Implications

by Delaney Parrish

Ethnography Abstract:

This ethnography examines how the Internet has transformed the way Americans access the daily news. It acknowledges physical newspapers as the primary method of news distribution prior to the rise of the Internet, and discusses the cultural implications of a decline in their circulation. As the subject-matter of this ethnography is large in scope, my conclusions are reached largely through an investigation of both classic media theory and contemporary research on Internet news media, rather than through personal interviews, which would represent too small a constituency to be of any great value to my argument.

It has been 45 years since Marshall McLuhan first disclosed his groundbreaking theories of media communications in his theoretical manual Understanding Media, and yet his essential claim that “the medium is the message” remains as true today as it was in 1964. There is no doubt that media technologies have evolved and transformed the way we, as human beings, both interact with and reflect on our cultural surroundings. In fact, it is the rapid production of new media forms that have called for and inspired the creation of Media Studies programs (including Mass Communications programs and other such academic fields) in universities worldwide over the preceding decades. However, what remains equally significant is the realization that media not only influences culture, but that culture itself can influence the way we use medias to communicate with one another. In this way, our culture is intrinsically tied to the way we communicate. Without the media as we know it, we would not retain our current cultural identity. Of course, conflict arises when we acknowledge that America is, both in nostalgic tradition and documented reality, a nation of many cultures. Therefore, conflict in media technologies, in attitudes concerning both their use and the responses to their effects, will also be heterogeneous in nature. The rise of the Internet has highlighted this point as much, if not more, than any other emerging technology.

The Internet has transformed almost every aspect of our daily lives; it has changed the way we plan meetings, talk to our parents, attempt to influence policy, set up dates, shop, gossip, and participate in politics. If McLuhan were to be alive today, the Internet would, most definitely, be an additional chapter in a revised version of Understanding Media. This paper will address the Internet as emerging news media, evaluating the ways in which Internet news media not only influences American culture, but also the ways in which American culture influences our use of the Internet. Therefore, this paper will attempt to convey my concluding belief that in order to manage the overwhelming effects of emerging news media, such as online newspapers, we must not only invest in the study of these new medias, but also in a study of those people who influence their use. I do not wish to spend a considerable amount of time discussing or validating the general claim that many Americans are now accustomed to massive online access of the news, as I believe this is an assumption that has been largely proved. Rather, this paper will first acknowledge the similarities and differences between print newspapers and online newspapers, and then discuss the implications of a decline in the circulation of physical newspapers, and the effects of consequential new news outlet forms made possible by the Internet.

To many, the traditional newspaper remains an item of nostalgia; a representation of previous days when newsmen were respected, when citizens took interest in the daily on-goings of the world around them. To these theorists, new media forms have de-valued classic reporting, which is seen to possess greater value or worth than current media trends of news reporting. However, if we ever can ever understand the true intention of news reporting, we might begin to understand this sentimental theory of newspaper past as a mere scapegoat for greater supposed cultural losses. McLuhan writes:

Superficially, this may seem cynical, especially to those who imagine that the content of a medium is a matter of policy and personal preference, and for whom all corporate media, not only radio and the press but ordinary popular speech as well, are debased forms of human expression and experience. Here I must repeat that the newspaper, from its beginnings, has tended, not to the book form, but to the mosaic of participational form. With the speed-up of printing and news- gathering, this mosaic form has become a dominant aspect of human association;for the mosaic form means, not a detached “point of view,” but participation in process. For that reason, the press is inseparable from the democratic process, but quite expendable from a literary or book point of view. (McLuhan 210)

McLuhan acknowledges that the newspaper, contrary to contemporary nostalgic recollection, is, in its most basest element a reflection of the individuals who compile it. It is a representation of those who participate in it—including all who create it and also all who read it. It is both writer-geared and reader-geared, and it could never be entirely unbiased in nature, which is a state more likely achieved, according to some, through works of “literary or book point of view.”

If we accept McLuhan’s assertion as a valid one, than we might believe that newspapers posted to a website will be no different than their physical counterparts. However, what we must acknowledge is that though an online newspaper might, in a sense, be produced in a similar manner as an online newspapers, its distribution, and the way its readers access its pages, is entirely different. Again, we must acknowledge that the media not only influences culture, but that culture influences the media. Online newspapers not only reflect ideals of American culture, but are also transformed by cultural ideals that dictate the way we access the news. This idea is addressed to a great extent in Cass R. Sunstein’s Republic.com 2.0, through his discussion of the Internet’s enabling of “filtering,” which Sunstein equates, in part, to an American cultural ideal of consumer sovereignty. Sunstein writes: "If we believe in consumer sovereignty, and if we celebrate the power to filter, we are likely to think that freedom consists in the satisfaction of private preferences—in an absence of restriction on individual choices." (Sunstein 45) The danger of this, of course, comes in an individual’s choice to pursue only those news stories he or she considers relevant to their life, and only from a point of you that he or she already agrees with. This is a point largely emphasized in Sunstein’s book. If we restrict our own access to a variety of viewpoints, we restrict our ability to grow as intellectual individuals, and we restrict the cognitive abilities so central to our identities; we relinquish that which makes us human to begin with.

Therefore, we might ask—why we would ever do this? Why would we encourage a media that might so blatantly dis-encourages true democratic forum—an ideal so valued in American culture. I believe that Dick Morris answers this question, though unknowingly, in his 1999 book on predictions of new media impacts on American politics. Morris, despite his perhaps questionable authority on the overall issue of media studies of this sort, conducts a quantitative analysis of website “hits,” through which we might discover some useful theory. Morris uses this information to qualify a website’s ability to gain readership and, consequently, positively influence citizen involvement in the democratic process. In his book, Dick Morris gauges a news-site’s financial viability by the following equation: Visitors • Visits • Impressions per Visit = Total Impressions. According to Morris, those websites with the most Total Impressions can sell the most advertisements, and are, therefore, the most financially viable. While the assertion that more website “hits” can be equated to a greater involvement in the democratic process is an unfounded assumption at best, we can extrapolate a certain truth from Morris’s assertion that hits=attraction from advertisers=financial viability=a website’s ability to influence in general. Therefore, we can conclude that emerging news media, such as online newspapers, once again, not only influence American culture, but are also influenced by American cultural ideas, which in this particular circumstance can be understood as a belief in and trust of capitalism and those business models geared solely towards profit—a belief that profit equates to overall business success.

In acknowledging that emerging news media are not only impacting American culture, but also being propelled by said culture, we can acknowledge that a management of such culture impacts might only be achieved by strict scrutiny of the cultural practices we participate in every day. By examining what we value as Americans, despite our diversities, and the negative and positive impact of these values, we can attempt to manage the onslaught of seemingly undecipherable amounts of new media. Perhaps, in any event, things are not as grave as they seem. McLuhan writes:"It is quite predictable, then, that any new means of moving information will alter any power structure whatever. So long as the new means is everywhere available at the same time, there is a possibility that the structure may be changed without breakdown." (McLuhan 91)

Perhaps then the Internet will eventually bring more good than harm. Perhaps it will, as optimism would suggest, help the masses to voice their concerns and force the power elite to listen and react. Of course, under these circumstances, what would become of ultimate importance is that the voice of the masses remains worth hearing. This would require, unquestionably, an investment in the masses—in their education, in their ability to nurture their intellect, and in their ability to build upon their individual, unique abilities as intelligent beings.


Works Cited:

Ashford, Gerald. Everyday Publicity. New York: Law-Arts Publishers, 1970.

Morris, Dick. Vote.com. Los Angeles: Renaissance Book, 1999.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964.

Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.