Media Graffiti | ONLINE MEDIA

	Writing on the Highway: the lowdown on the online-traditional debate In the immortal words of AC/DC, "It's a long way to the top..." If you want to rock and blogroll. The debate, on whether online media in its many forms will replace the more traditional forms of media, has been argued endlessly since I stepped inside the hallowed Plaridel Hall. (That's the College of Mass Communication in the University of the Philippines, for those of you who for some strange reason stumble into my site.) The debate has been there before me, has been, in fact, since a Canadian programmer named Andrew Smales launched the first free tool enabling ordinary citizens to publish their writings to a massive audience, the Internet. But over the recent years the dispute has grown more heated, due in part to the rise of Web 2.0, with its characteristics of openness, freedom, dynamic content, and collective intelligence-- a new kind of democracy which allows users to participate more.
Warning: This column is geared for graffiti. May contain obscure references, PG-cussing, and other slips of the tongue. Brace yourselves. Articles: Writing on the Highway * links may not work in UP during office hours.
The debate mostly centers around blogs, which derives from the term "web log." Essentially, they are journals written online combined with news and carefully chosen links to other sites of the blogger's interest. There are a gaggle of free blog hosts to choose from, including Live Journal, Blogger, and Wordpress, to name a few, as well as social networking sites like Multiply, Friendster, and Myspace that have a blogging service. It is through these sites that bloggers, with a push of the button, can easily publish anything they want. With adjunct applications like Youtube, a video streaming service, and Twitter, a mobile-to-blog tool, blogs have empowered the readers and audiences of newspapers, television and other forms of media to become themselves the bearers of news. And thus, the debate. Catch words like "citizen journalism" (essentially, news written by "citizens") and "participatory journalism" (two-way communication between established media and their audience) have made their way into the argument, both with their hosts of problems. Then there's the traditional Gatekeeping function of journalists, which some say is negated by the bloggers' virtually unchecked flow of information. Citizen journalism, pundits say, is great because it reveals news and other information not generally seen in traditional media. But the challenge to gatekeeping, as Singer says, isn't necessarily good--the lack of editing equates to grammatical and accuracy errors, and even ethical violations. Participatory journalism or collective authorship is also ostensibly a positive thing, as it facilitates transparency, generates instant viewer response, and adds immediately to the public's body of knowledge. And yet, these sources as well are difficult to verify, as most of those "instant feedbacks" come from comment spaces and chat boxes which allow anonymous posts. I tend to support the view that rather than hurting the media, the new technologies supplement their profession. "J-bloggers", or "journalist-bloggers," seem to combine the best of both worlds, adapting to the interactivity of Web 2.0 while still maintaining their professional standards. The online media definitely won't replace Philippine traditional media, as the digital divide here between those with access to Internet and those whose main source of news is the radio is still too wide. But that's another story altogether.

Comments? | Back to Writings | Additional Links