NDM baseline assessment learner response:
WWW: Some well argued , original points. Good critical anatomy.
EBI: Needs more content/ More on institution/Pareto's law and include a conclusion.
...Conclusively, yes, developments in new/digital media do empower audiences but maybe only to a certain extent. There are both downsides and advantages of information being held in the Internet for example, and sometimes the mutuality between free speech and having a voice in the realm of the Internet is unbalanced. Yes, peoples' opinions can be shared in the Internet, such as in social networking platforms like Twitter, however to have access to such a big fan base with genuine users that are interested with your profile is an obstacle to start with. Therefore as a result opinion leaders (and stated by Pareto's law) rightfully deserve their name, as they hold and 'control' social platforms. Fortunately, Twitter has features such as the 're-tweet' and 'like' button, where there is a synergy of posts that pop up on peoples' feeds, and there is kind of a snowball effect, where one re-tweet may result in a thousand re-tweets, simply from the mutual support users in Twitter have. But all in all, in this day and age where e-media is constantly evolving, it is safe to say and lean towards the fact that audiences do have power, however certain factors always influence the dynamics of such a complex place like the Internet.
...Institutions could also hinder peoples' voices. Example in news, particularly when there's a live interview, if something is leaked or something said that puts a bad name, they will not air it and try to conceal and cover up what was said as much as possible. This is a perfect example of corruption and a tyrannical media. An example follows in August, 2008, where a 12-year old American girl visiting relatives during the conflict in South Ossetia had thanked Russian soldiers for saving her from the Georgian attack. However, America's Fox News attempted to cut her and her aunt off air, trying to reason it with a "commercial break".
...Conclusively, yes, developments in new/digital media do empower audiences but maybe only to a certain extent. There are both downsides and advantages of information being held in the Internet for example, and sometimes the mutuality between free speech and having a voice in the realm of the Internet is unbalanced. Yes, peoples' opinions can be shared in the Internet, such as in social networking platforms like Twitter, however to have access to such a big fan base with genuine users that are interested with your profile is an obstacle to start with. Therefore as a result opinion leaders (and stated by Pareto's law) rightfully deserve their name, as they hold and 'control' social platforms. Fortunately, Twitter has features such as the 're-tweet' and 'like' button, where there is a synergy of posts that pop up on peoples' feeds, and there is kind of a snowball effect, where one re-tweet may result in a thousand re-tweets, simply from the mutual support users in Twitter have. But all in all, in this day and age where e-media is constantly evolving, it is safe to say and lean towards the fact that audiences do have power, however certain factors always influence the dynamics of such a complex place like the Internet.
...Institutions could also hinder peoples' voices. Example in news, particularly when there's a live interview, if something is leaked or something said that puts a bad name, they will not air it and try to conceal and cover up what was said as much as possible. This is a perfect example of corruption and a tyrannical media. An example follows in August, 2008, where a 12-year old American girl visiting relatives during the conflict in South Ossetia had thanked Russian soldiers for saving her from the Georgian attack. However, America's Fox News attempted to cut her and her aunt off air, trying to reason it with a "commercial break".
No comments:
Post a Comment