The topic on everyones lips, or better yet everyone’s research papers appears to be media, more particularly its evolution. You see it is evident that a vast amount of scholars appear to be extremely concerned with the changes of technology and its impact on the mode and content of media.
All works it appears, feel as if media has unintentionally transformed society’s views on caring more about the medium as opposed to the content of the media. Such is apparent within the view of technological determinism, which in its simplest form refers to the belief that technology is the agent of social change. Furthermore it appears that scholars, such as Marshall Mcluhan have gone as far as to say that ‘the medium is the message’, re-affirming this belief that people today are more intrigued with the mode (whether it be through an ipad, online etc) rather than the content that the mode produces.
You see what baffles me is that everyone appears to be complaining about the changes in mediums, however no one has stopped to ask and think why have these mediums been so successful? You see it appears that historical interventions such as the printing press and clock, were initially invented in China, however society elite produced no support for these inventions and thus they died down in China. However, we put the same technology in England, and it became an industry that blossomed.
Thus what I want to leave with everyone is, before you begin to criticise new mediums, ask yourself, if you don’t like them so much then why engage with them? The most prominent example i can think of at the moment is facebook, everyone complains about it, but you still see regular check ins, constant likes, and people love to post on each others walls (or timelines).
Photo available at: http://firm-marketing.com/social-media-marketing/facebook-changes-and-the-social-media-impact-part-2-of-2/