998488408
Jiaxing zhao
Quantity or Quality? A qualitative analysis of digital media literary effect on youths
Introduction
It appears that no critics are able to dismiss the very fact that digital media technology has in fact contributed to a substantial improvement in information availability (Kawamoto). Despite the fact that government may employ consenting attempts, the true of the matter remains that the variety of digital media always seems to finds its way to receivers. The quantity aspect of digital media therefore is unchallenged; digital media has in fact made our population more informed then ever. On the other hand, the quality aspect of digital media information has become a very active arena where scholars and critics conduct their researches and analyses. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the quality of literary contribution delivered by digital media. This essay argues that the educative aspect of digital media can be extremely effective yet dangerous upon vulnerable populations. The definition of vulnerable groups in this essay is defined as persons who have not been professionally educated or young in biological age.
Inaccuracy
The quality of digital media information is often incorrect due to the easy access of digital media. It is important to notice that, unlike traditional setting of academic intellectual realm, the new digital media environment allows virtually anyone to participate at will (Bennett). Therefore, inaccurate or findings without peer reviewed may be circulated online that create ultimate effects that is not predictable. The harm of inaccurate information often has very limited effect on intellectually trained persons. On the contrary, the curious characteristic of venerable groups causes inaccurate information or personal opinions to be taken as truths (Willett and Buckingham).
The commercial element
The commercial element of digital media has deeply penetrated into the content presented by digital media, creating a very dangerous effect upon vulnerable groups, especially our youths. Ultimately speaking, in this materialistic world, all inventions and human progresses are closely associated to economic contributions. The development of digital media would be impossible without the support of economic resources; therefore digital media itself has to be also profitable. Corporations and governments therefore have a very intimate relationship with digital media (Bennett). On one hand, corporations and governments have both noticed the important role of digital media to educate and inform the public mass. On the other hand, digital media requires financial and economic resources provided by these entities. The consequence of such intimate relationship is that digital media becomes very economic and perhaps political oriented. The spokesmen position of digital media imposes significant threat against vulnerable groups because vulnerable groups do not have a very adequate intellectual basis that shapes their course of actions. The “nag” effect (a method for children to convince their parents to buy them more things) taught by the digital media driven by corporate interest is an excellent example that the educating role of digital media can be dangerous for unprepared minds (Montgomery).
Bias
Digital media has a biased interest in favor of powerful interest groups, creating a manufacturing consent effect over the mass. It is remarkable to notice that the share of voices generated between individual opinions and interest controlled by interest groups are not equal. Traditionally, mass media had been monopolized by power interest groups (Entman). Media communication was almost completely dominated by monologist fashion. The rise of social network has helped reverse such balance, but did not create enough momentum (Castlells). The phenomenon remains that power interest groups have a much larger voice in educating the public than individuals. Powered by interests, these groups are bound to distribute messages that are advantageous (MacKuen and Coombs). The digital media therefore may be argued as a very powerful agent that is both educative and manipulative. It is educative because it is designed to spread message in effective and cost efficient manner (Parenti), however the subjective characteristic of digital media once again puts vulnerable minds at risk. The vulnerable groups are especially affected by biased messages because monologist communication does not allow the mind to challenge “facts” presented in digital media, in addition to the fact that vulnerable minds are less resilient against education. It is unsurprising to learn that digital media controlled by interest groups may only distribute information that is designed to fit the interest of interest groups. In other words, digital media’s education in terms of quality is in fact highly questionable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the previous argument has taken a quite unconventional potion to claim that digital media can in fact adversely affect the literacy of population, especially for those who are vulnerable against inaccurate and bias information. This essay suggests that digital media is undoubtedly a power channel to distribute knowledge, but its quality is very questionable.
Reference
Montgomery ,K.C. (2010). Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies Volume 7, No1, 94–98.
Willett, Rebekah and Buckingham, David (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bennett, W. Lance. Civic life online: learning how digital media can engage youth
Lankshear, Colin ,and Knobel, Michele. (2008). “Introduction”. In Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices. Lang, Peter Publishing, Incorporated.
Buckingham, David. (2006). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2006, NR 4. Retrieved from:http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2006/04/defining_digital_literacy_-_what_do_young_people_need_to_know_about_digital?languageId=2
Castlells, Manuel. (2006) Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journals of Communication. pp 238-266. Retrieved from:http://www.sfu.ca/media-lab/archive/2012/226/readings/Castells_2007_Communacative%20Power.pdf
Parenti, Michael. (1996). “The ‘Liberal Media’ Myth.” In Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, ethnic life and class power. City Lights Books.
Entman, Robert M. (2007). Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of Communication. Volume 57, Issue 1, 163–173.
MacKuen, Michael Bruce, and Coombs, Steven Lane. (1981). “Selected Pages”. In More than news: Media power in public affairs. Sages Publication.
Kawamoto, Kevin. (2003). Digital journalism: “Emerging media and the changing horizons of journalism”. In Digital journalism: Emerging media and the changing horizons of journalism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp 1-29