In Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky uses the term, “mass amateurization” to describe the shift in who has the power to produce, organize, and disseminate written (and spoken) word. Historically, there had been a very small group of “professional” individuals and organizations with the capability and ability to publish work. Those specific professionals claimed authority based on the concept of “scarcity” (of resources and skills) and “professionalism” and “specialization.” Because the means of production--the actual machinery, paper, ink, layouts, know-how were formerly maintained by publishing houses and employees--they basically held the reins of the entire process of setting and maintaining what was seen by and accessible to consumers (of media) and the general public. For example, they were the dominate figures that decided what books would be published and thus readable by the public, what articles would appear in newspapers and essentially, what messages and information would appear on television and radio (within their own respective companies. However, since the inception, advancement, and proliferation of the Internet, that entire power structure has been challenged—-an alternative one has been growing alongside the traditional systems of books, newspapers, tv, radio etc. While there was certainly an avenue for so-called independent productions before the wide-spread access to and use of the Web, that avenue has become millions of times wider.)
Nowadays, if you don’t like what you see going on around you, you have many more available sources to not only voice your opinion, but to have it heard and by a potentially huge audience. There seem to be a few elements that enable this. Firstly, computers and other modern-day technology are moderately widely owned/accessible so something as simple as being able to create a letter, video, photograph, song, show has become easier by leaps and bounds in comparison to a decade or few ago. Making something creative has not only become easier, quicker and a more realistic reality, but it has become far cheaper, which is really important. Coupled with vastly reduced production costs (that were once factored into the (importance of the) existence of production companies as a professionalized service), the costs and ease of spreading said products and creations are near free if not completely free to any general person near a computer with a connection to the Web.
Thus, there has been a quickly-expanding “mass amateurization” of “the overall ecosystem of information” (56). “The Average Joe”, so to speak now has the ability via the Internet to contribute to the creation of the new and concurrent (information) ecosystem. An example of this is the emergence of tutorial videos particularly those on Youtube.com. As a photographer, the Web/Youtube.com has proven to be surprisingly helpful. It is a vast source of (generally) shorter educational snippets that make the act of going to a bookstore to purchase digital photography books increasingly obsolete. For the book maker (who does not have any of their content online), that certainly cannot be desirable, but for the individual who has a very specific need, educational and/or instructional videos on Youtube.com have been a very practical and viable educational tool. Many of the videos I have seen have been uploaded by people with no affiliation to any company or organization—they were simply posted by people interested in similar topics with the desire to attach some sort of reputation to their name (ego, marked authorship, ownership of one's voice are also important). You no longer need to seek out professional photo and digital companies and pay them for information; you can simply get it from a friend of a friend of a friend for free you never knew you had.
What we’re seeing now is “normal” people—-amateurs—-are in essence, shaping what is important and newsworthy and what is not, even if that goes against what traditional media outlets push as news. The decreased scarcity of resources for professionalized production along with the decrease in production and distribution costs has helped led to a completely new environment.
What will continue to happen is the diversification of topics “covered” by amateur “reporters” as well as increased transmission between sender and receiver across various scales—interpersonal, group, mass. Because individuals who are posting online about certain topics are not concerned with packaging a product (stories, advertisement, comics etc) that will be profitable on stores’ shelves, there is less “uniformity” (65) in what can be talked about on the Web and in day to day interactions of regular people. There are some issues, however, that Shirky sees as being important components of the future of media production such as who gets special privileges in terms of journalists’ rights, which is linked to confidentiality of sources and thus produces allegedly less biased more objective and honest news reporting. “’Now that there is no limit to those who can commit acts of journalism, how should we alter journalistic privilege to fit that new reality?’” (74) describes how the changes in broadcasting ought to be re-examined. Shirky sees sharing information and thoughts online as an alternative to publishing altogether, and not merely as sites of alternative sites of publishing, which I thought was very interesting (66). Shirky doesn’t seem to think that older forms of media will become totally antiquated and die out, simply that there are now more spaces and processes that serve new and different functions for new and different reasons to be consumed by the public. “Mass amateurization” is simply a new breed of media.
Personally, I think the effects of the Internet and Web will not mirror exactly those of the mechanized printing press on scriptorias; I don’t think the changes will be so dramatic as to make black and white newspapers and television sets obsolete. When scribes (who were more often than not notably religious) began to have less and less demand for their professional skills, they found themselves in a very uncomfortable and lost position. The difference today is that while there very well might be a lesser demand and need for writers who work on pieces to be published in a "hard copy" format for large organizations, those people will not all of the sudden stop being writers. The need for their skills does not disappear, it is simply utilized via different forces and mediums (ex, an online version of something that was historically, off-line, a personal blog or commentary site, a forum, etc.). I think blogging, creating websites, chat rooms, forums, using applications etc. has opened a very exciting additional media lane to our expressway, an HOV lane if you will. Sure some people will try to jump over when the rest of the lanes appear too slow or indirect, but the addition of new routes don’t necessarily cause the rest of the road to be demolished due to total and immediate abandonment. The “traditional” media outlets need to figure out a way to not only maintain their readership (more or less), but to turn a reasonable profit, and I believe they will eventually. In the mean time, there is nothing wrong with individuals taking charge of the information world around them. I think it’s all very exciting, this near free access to this global classroom. I think it is very empowering because we're seeing that people actually DO care, and furthermore, are spreading more diverse information as an act of defiance against traditional media that has become, let's admit it, kind of tyrannical. While media anarchy is maybe not the best idea, a little push back and forth and competition is in my mind, always a good thing.
For further study: I always find debates on blog sites about all topics really interesting not to mention entertaining. In this case, it is about net neutrality. I know I'm just a biased dirty hippy liberal, but it seems like those in favor of bucking neutrality are constantly bringing up points that are overwhelmingly illogical and harmful to individuals, the idea of education, and the nation and globe as a whole. It's a bit scary. Sure, capitalism is a driving force of your economy, but that doesn't mean as a collective we should break our backs to help create a monopoly, especially when it comes to service we are now seeing as critical to our well-being as even, a right.
Sources: Shirky, Clay. Everyone is a Media Outlet in "Here Comes Everybody"
Image: Wordpress: "All Geek to Me"
No comments:
Post a Comment