My Understanding of Key Terms from "Critical Media Studies" by Brian L. Ott and Robert L. Mack

  Which came first, postmodernity or new mass media? I am still not sure. But the connection between the two is undeniable. One cannot fully explain postmodernity without mentioning new media and vice versa. 

 Did the spirit of the postmodern, baby boom, freedom of speech(and everything else), Albert Camus-absurd-era need a new type of mass media in order to entertain the humankind, or is new media some kind of monster created by some contemporary Victor Frankenstein whose powers were beyond human control? History says that postmodernity emerged first, during the 1960s. Shortly after, in the 1970s ,the basis for development of new media were set after the internet began to catch public’s attention. I would say that the answer lies in the middle, as it usually does. So, although new media was indeed needed, perhaps it got out of control.

 Understanding postmodernity is rather complex, I would say. Postmodernity refers to the historical epoch that began to emerge in 1960s, as previously stated, and it has not finished yet. It is the age of communication and asociality, immense industrial and technological progress and decline of morality. It is the age in which all the entertainment you need you can find in your own home(or simply in your phone), and if not, you can have it delivered. The age in which we are more connected, yet, more separated than ever. Pretty complex, huh?

 One thing that separates postmodernity from all the previous epochs is the emergence of media convergence. Briefly, about 200 years ago you would read print media in order to consume textual content. Around 50 years ago you would consume audio or video content through radio or TV. In this age, different types of media content can be enjoyed using a single, integrated platform. Convergence does not only relate to its technological dimension, but a social and textual one, as well. Convergence is a phenomenon that allows for new cross-media content(or products) to be created while not having to be particularly original at all. Yet, after 6500 years of content creation, we would all agree that “nothing is original” anyways.

 Nowadays, not only are the boundaries between various types of media erased but also the boundaries between reality and simulation. I am aware that media is not nor has it ever been real(since it is biased a priori), however, the phenomenon of simulation has never more than now impacted so many. The reason for this, I believe, is the fact that new “high-quality” media content is being created constantly and ruthlessly pushed upon us, which makes individuals live in a state of mind lulled by the content we think we chose. Fragmented simulation can truly feel more inhabitable than reality. Additionally, while serving as a form of escapism, it also shifts our perception of reality (enabling cookies does seem innocent, but we keep forgetting that algorithms shape the content we receive, thus shaping our point of view). All of this makes mass media a very powerful weapon and this “age of free will” not so free at all.  

 Another phenomenon that affects and is closely related to postmodernity, mass media, convergence and simulation, is globalization. Global capitalism, free trade policies, as well as cross cultural exchange allow for different cultural products to be brought to different, distant markets. Ideally, through globalization we should be able to create a unique global market, have higher standards of living across the globe, spread innovation and potentially end xenophobia. Reality is not as ideal. This is how I see it, the rich are still rich, the poor are still pretty poor, spread of innovation might upgrade our quality of life but it certainly will not make us happier(intrinsically). Besides, more trade is equal to more content, and more content equals more simulation. Adding a plethora of new media content to individuals already oversaturated with it is not as bright of an idea, especially when it is easily manipulated and when the information that we get is not only biased, but also, more often than not, false. To conclude this paragraph, I would just state that it is much easier to spread fake information about a distant country than the one you live in(which is also pretty easy don’t you think?)

 Finally, I want to state that I understand that media has a lot of positive sides, yet I chose to approach it critically since I believe that downsides shall always be pointed out in order to make a difference.