So the media have changed. Everyone agrees on that and everyone agrees that the new face of the media, the new way to communicate is what is relevantly called the new media, the social media...
My question is whether facebook and twitter can possibly last as long as the printed New York Times and CNN. The fact that social media are not political tools in their essence, that their use in politics is only a "detournement" of their primary goal questions in a way the possibility for this media to be as lasting and prominent as the printed newspapers, the radio and cable news. It is true that the social media can only be more effective in the modern society where the young generation disinterests itself from politics and where the social rules and pressure are perhaps stronger than ever. But when this generation comes to full maturity, will facebook and twitter come to full maturity with it? And who can guarantee that facebook will not lose its relevance as fast as it got it? Online instant messaging for instance used to be huge and has then drastically declined, going from the "cool" thing to do to a normal feature of modern life that has been outdated by BBM, and phone instant messaging in general. Who can ensure that the social media will stay as strong and essential as it is now and won't evolve as a common thing, just one feature of modern life while something else and bigger replaces it as the official voice to the young generation and the average american?
Moreover, when news come to facebook, they are accredited by an older media source. When people "share" an article, this article comes from the NYT, the Washington Post etc... Facebook is not a political media. It doesn't create news, it doesn't tell the news; it helps sharing them which is a huge difference. So will the new media destroy, or have the new media destroyed or made irrelevant the cable, radio and printed media? Not so sure...
No comments:
Post a Comment