By Thomas Hershberger
The internet has come to supplement, if not supplant, all media that came before it. While this concept is hardly unprecedented (as we all know, video killed the radio star), the rate at which it has taken place, and the sheer scope of its effect, is more than cause for alarm in a number of arenas.
Technologies are only afforded as much power as society is willing to grant them, and perhaps it says something about us that the internet has been allowed to become such a pervasive entity. The prevalence of internet usage in our society has expanded the amount of time we spend in front of a screen, but in academic and professional settings there seems to be little choice involved in this. Now, the manner in which we learn, and the way we perform, is almost always wedded to the digital medium.
Because of this, and the tendency for older media to fall off the table with the unveiling of the shiny new toy in town, it was always inevitable that print would begin to die. Print had a long life – stretching some 550 years – and was largely due for a makeover anyway. The concern is that the digital revolution has not only replaced an existing medium (as print rendered script obsolete), but that it seems to have replaced far more than that alone.
It is natural that media be replaced over time, as it represents a neat parallel with which to gauge society’s evolution. Writing was the first to shake things up, supplementing speech – the initial evolution in human communication. Print, radio and television each took their turn on this carousel, building on the progress the predecessor had made and offering new lines of production and dissemination. The internet, however, is a different beast. This marks the first time that a medium might serve to replace all those that came before.
Previously, new media mainly entranced those identifying with mainstream society, but always appeared to leave wiggle room for existing media to retain niche markets. While the newest option was nearly always the most widely adopted, it also gave the impression of an agreement of co-habitation between the channels. Just because television won the day in the 1950s didn’t mean print media was in any way obsolete–the two could serve to aid one another in marketing endeavors.
Computers are threatening in their ability to be all-encompassing. Through my own outdated and well-traveled laptop, I can access live television, radio and the digital incarnation of print media. As all of these can be accessed from a single platform, they can be combined in novel ways that obstinately enhance the effect of each. It is undoubtedly a revelation in the way we process media, and can feel a bit like owning a bottle opener after years of grinding off the Guinness cap with your teeth.
The positives of this digital revolution cannot be discounted. The resulting increase in connectivity and a new capacity for boundless communication represent what is probably the clearest instrumental manifestation of the Anthropocene to date. At the same time, we are right to look upon the apple cautiously, as this melding of the media is something utterly without precedent. Having every mode of communication in a solitary package is convenient, but – from a perspective concerning attention and consideration – it will also have a detrimental effect on how each is created and received.
Indeed, the internet has warped the way we present and consume content itself. A future where everything is hard news is now not difficult to conceive of, and even what constitutes “hard news” is likely to change as well. Soon, entire stories could be comprised only of bullet points, very much resembling a fact sheet. This may even be preferable method of consumption for today’s consumer!
That all media now compete for the same real estate means that the attention of the consumer is at a premium. Soon, any unique and artistic construction of sentences will be eradicated, reducing language to a level which could, and probably will, be written by computers. We are plunging into a world without feature stories, without The Odyssey, and without full-length albums, and we are doing it rapidly and willingly.
It must be noted that this effect is relative to the new forest we find ourselves in. It represents a change both frustrating and necessary for companies that wish to remain relevant going forward. This time, there will be no refuge for the laggards who cling to their radios and print editions of the New Yorker, and this means that many will have to take a leap of faith. This feeling of inevitability however, is mostly a sign that this digital medium is by far the most successful to have ever come along.
That I get most of my news through social media, and rarely check any actual publications, is indicative of the fact that the industry is marching to a future of two-way communication for all. There will be a place for the sprawling features in Sports Illustrated and Rolling Stone that I’ve enjoyed so much, but they will likely become watered down by their more tenuous existence in a digital form. Even posts such as this may be deemed to have been written “too long” in the near future.
The result of all this is the phenomenon of Digital Darwinism, and it affects both companies and those in the work force. The digital tools at our disposal have permanently instilled an effect of exponential progress in society, and humanity’s individuals must move apace – or be disposed of. We’ve been lured into the van with the promise of candy, and now we can only accept the ramifications and duly submit ourselves in return.
Comments