“What the F*** is a Blog?”

There is much I agree with in Gauntlett’s two articles, particularly its emphases on the failure of much of media studies to adapt to a new reality brought about by the diffusion of the Internet and the web into daily social life. However, as a media studies student (a term that should not be used without specificity), specifically of information policy, I think there is also much to say about power dynamics that have been replicated on the web. So, whenever I think of Web 2.0, I find it useful to return to the fascinating paper by Arsenault and Castells (2008) that maps current macro-level dynamics on the web. There are two central conclusions here. The first is that “leading multi-national media conglomerates and diversified Internet/digital companies (i.e., Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Apple) have developed strategies to ensure that the Web 2.0 Internet environment reinforces rather than undermines existing power configurations” (710). The second, and the more nuanced of the two, is that these companies do not wield absolute power:

“User generated content and autonomous social action are now fundamental components of the global network of communication. As they recognize their market potential, global business networks are bringing these new networks of communication under their corporate control. Nonetheless, to be able to tap into this reservoir of active customers, they must respect the specific cultures of this new media. They should not excessively curtail free speech in social spaces. They must limit intrusions into user privacy. They ought to be tolerant of remix culture; and they must adapt their business models to the practice of multitasking and wirelessly distributed networks of communication” (744).

Admittedly, as I mentioned earlier, their approach is macro-level (more-or-less top-down), namely precisely what makes Gauntlett scoff with disapproval, as he articulates his measured, but ultimately optimistic view of the web’s potentials by focusing on users. Yes, his account doesn’t address things like net neutrality and its potential impact on innovation, data collection practices and surveillance which impact online self-expression, or the increasing commoditization of user-generated content by a handful of powerful companies, but he’s right that focus on media producers and consumers is important. He's also right that much of the old new media research is the same as old old media research. At the same time, I think new media research needs to take into account the power dynamics that shape the web as well as the points of resistance within it.

What’s new about new media? In his discussion of the presence of criminals and racists on the web, Gauntlett decries the blame on the Internet by comparing it to TV – it is just a medium and the people that are on it have little to do with it. This mistake answers the question: new media is a participatory site of human interaction to a much bigger extent than traditional media. Unsurprisingly, social media platforms are increasingly faced with questions regarding the negotiation of free speech and hate speech, questions that exist offline as well. In a sense, what’s new about new media is how blurred the boundaries between online and offline have become on it.

Finally, in Gauntlett’s spirit, I’d like to throw out a 2010 Wired article, about the death of Web 2.0 and the increasing dominance of applications on the Internet. Does this require us to rethink it all over again?