As a huge variety of new channels to spread media content evolve, everybody seems to get his share of the pie. Traditionally, powerful news and entertainment corporations and media enterprises decided on which content every one of us would be able to receive, taking a decisive role as information gatekeepers. But since a decade, channels like Youtube, Flickr, Dropbox, Blogs oder Twitter open up a variety of chances to participate in creating and distributing news and entertainment contents. In my opinion, that is basically an advance, as for example it gives artists or subcultural movements a voice and lets them publish their work and footage more easily and for free. But I also do have doubts, for example in terms of the shortcomings of journalistic quality in news reporting, for instance via Twitter. What do you think? Do the new channels of communication really constitute a democratization of news distribution?
I’m agree with you. Due to the growing of web 2.0. applications, such as Twitter, Flickr and Facebook, the journalistic quality is the mourner. Furthermore, every consumer can also be a producer of content. Articles from professional journalists lose more and more in value. In my opinion, the new channels of communication constitute a democratization of news distribution. You get your information in each channel, no matter if it’s professional or not.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean. But I guess the good thing about it is that with the new forms of media today it gives even the novice reporter or journalist, filmmaker, etc a chance to publish and be seen/heard. Where in the past only professionals were the ones getting their work out. Sure the quality might not always be that of a professional but it gives the opportunity to everyone to be involved.
ReplyDelete