So the Government is waking up to the idea that you can't just ignore the digital revolution, but what do they propose to do?
The main issues that have stood out to me:
Firstly, Broadband internet is to be made accessable to all at a minimum speed (hurray). A retro Labour socialist ideology in the digital age? Gordon Brown actually likened the need for internet to that of electricity, water and gas. Does this mean you will be able to keep downloading movies when you go bankrupt because it is a staple resource that can't be cut off?
Secondly, Due to the fact that the ability to download/ watch programmes online has affected the profits of commercial companies there is a suggestion that the licence fee should be shared by the BBC with other broadcasters. So, ITV has made cut backs to local news coverage due to a lack of funds - should they be given licence fee money to fund these programmes?
ITV spends a lot of its budget on reality shows, sports and soaps that are arguably lowest common denominator broadcasting, which makes them a lot of money in advertising sales. Would ITV not just decide that they can put more money into this type of programme and allow the license fee to take care of shows that they feel do not have as much commercial value? Would this lower the quality of television produced?
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThats crazy - the internet is not a staple resource in a house. Electricity, water and gas - storage for food, hygiene and warmth. Internet - information, which is mostly porn, and communication. I have said - and I'm sure that i have said this to you personally - we have globalisation: you can travel anywhere in the world, but don't feel safe at home, we live in a consumer-nation: we can buy anything from anywhere, at anytime but it never fulfills our personal goals, and finally communication: you can contact anyone, anywhere in the world at the flick of a switch, but nothing tops the intimacy of talking to someone in a room.
ReplyDeleteSeeing the internet as a staple to the family household, in my eyes, is ignoring the lack of community in our culture. The idea of buying a newspaper, going to library, reading in a cafe - all facets to a community. Seeing the internet as a staple of the household is lonely, depressing and ignores the importance of a community.
Just to clairfy the post 'deleted by the author' was, in fact, just this post but with a conclusion that made absolutely no sense.
Ha. Brilliant. i agree that claiming the internet as equal to those items is going a bit too far.
ReplyDeleteThough I feel that there is a point here. The internet is a tool that performs everything that you have mentioned - newspaper, book, communication tool and don't underestimate the strength of online communities.
I think the critical point here is that the internet is now the major tool for gathering information and to exclude people from access to that information is wrong. The public library was invented so that the poor could have access to literature without having to buy books after all.
"online" communities. Social interaction should be so much more than 'lol' and 'tag'-ing. The internet is also unreliable and can often be discredited. By claiming it is such an 'important' source of information, disregards the highly important nature of newsprint and books - forms of communication that are losing money and are being less distributed.
ReplyDeleteDavid Simon of 'The Wire' fame feels really strongly - and I agree - that the internet is destroying good journalism and criticism. Nobody pays for information anymore, so the lack of money funding newspapers ultimately affects the quality of the information. If people turn to the blogger (am I insulting us???) who has no political experience, but has some passion for a current administration instead of a journalist who has followed and is ultimately more informed of an administration - then the information we have access to - so freely - is ultimately illadvised and uninformed. Confidence needs to be restored to the archaic forms of news because they hold experience in them which, though expensive, needs to be supported.
I think im mincing my words. Point is this - by the internet being free and accessible, the information on it is not as credible, while community newspapers (Shropshire Star... Cambrian News...) and national newspapers which have spent years establishing a service that delivers credible information to the public is thrown to the wind. The print press has been losing finance for many years now and - although there are many other factors - the internet is the main contributor to its inevitable demise.
The problem is not the internet it is how the internet is being used.
ReplyDeleteIf the internet is available to everyone - then everyone can access the online versions of newspapers. No change just a different format. The newspapers can charge the same price as they do for newspapers at the moment for people to subscribe to the website.
I think there is an element of fear of the internet that needs to be taken into perspective.
we are just in a state of flux my friend -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttcboE1GrNg
The readership of local newspapers - and for Shropshire Star definately - is mostly 50+, because the younger generations are going to look on the internet. When the readership of shropshire star dies out, then the newspaper dies. Why are people going to pay for something if they can get if for free? The internet has its purpose (and a very important purpose) - but so do newspapers - and we should not all jump on the internet band-wagon.
ReplyDeleteEvents in the local town are normally advised by the local paper because - as you read the paper - you find the details without neccessarily planning to. You would have to be a big fan of Hoo Farm to know their regular calendar. Again, it is this community that is being erased.
The younger generations dictate the future - so the nature of downloading music, hence music itself, is dictated by the people who buy it/don't buy it. If they are brought up in the world whereby info is free on the net and music and film is free on the net, then they are not going to be too keen to suddenly start paying for it. We need to instill the importance of supporting industries that the internet is, bit by bit, destroying.
I have to say that I very much like the idea that the internet will become a staple part of life and made a consistent and affordable resource for all.
ReplyDeleteThe criticism that seems to have been going on seems to revolve around three fundamental ideas:
1. That the internet is destroying newspapers and other industries.
2. That the internet is destroying communities and social interaction.
3. That the internet makes mistakes.
So why don't these newspapers and other industries step up to the mark and provide a service that people want? If people aren't buying them then they need to adapt so people do buy them. It's true that people can get information for free on the internet but I would suggest there's still a market for good journalism. Perhaps the problem is that there is too much content (and too much bad content) that has left people unsure where to turn, unwilling to take a chance on it and generally disillusioned. Incidentally I am hopefully that the aging demographic issue applies to the Daily Mail which will go spectacularly bust in my lifetime as fingers crossed no-one under the age of 50 reads it anymore...
I agree that people must learn to pay for music and film and everything that is good in the world however given that the illegal downloading horse has somewhat bolted this is going to require a cultural shift. We need to convince people that they should pay for content. Hopefully this'll lead to a slimming down where only good quality stuff is produced or we'll find different ways to pay.
Secondly isn't the internet creating new communities? These communities don't always have to meet in the great outdoors to gain satisfaction, they can laugh and get angry with each others endless commenting (I think I'm insulting us too) from the comfort of a comfy armchair. And these communities are built on very common and very specific interests which in turn perhaps creates stronger relationships? We live in hope. Suffice to say if you want to build a romantic relationship or join a sports club or find people who also like M. Night Shyamalan then you can always find people who share your goals on the web. And it's easier than ever it was before and it's open to everyone. Except becoming a member of Wimbledon which requires nominations from three existing members. Those tennis snobs need an injection of socialism and no mistaking.
Finally mistakes and lies and propoganda abound all over the www. So it is up to people to decide what to believe, was it not always thus? The internet may have taken nonsense to a whole new level but given its size there's still a hearty selection of good, clean fun available and damn straight it should be available to everyone for all time.
1. Reg Internet destroying newspapers, etc
ReplyDeleteYou hope the readers of 'The Daily Mail' will die out - as will the readers of 'The Times', 'The Telegraph' and the range of opposing and differeing opinions that make the newspapers so informative and varied. What news channels have we got? BBC News (Publically funded...) and Sky News (6 hours on Jade Goody's funeral...). Its not a good sign for the future. Where do you think the money is going to go on the internet...
2. Communities/Social interaction.
We banter on here but we also meet on a regular basis. What about the 'relationships' on SecondLife, the medical information about internet addiction and whatnot. We probably don't know the introverts who don't go out much and stay on their PC's ... because they don't go out much and stay on their PC's. Communties are being lost in local towns - thats a fact - and i think things like the internet contribute. We need intimate physical interaction - in front of a PC is NOT the same. FACT.
3. Internet mistakes
Fair point. I know I rely on things too much on the internet and, ultimately, thats my fault. Not the internets.
1. I am all for a varied selection of media and would be very happy for The Times (if only for Pizza Express vouchers) and The Telegraph (if only so Boris can feed his chickens) to keep going. It's only the Daily Mail and Sun I'd like to shut down because I suspect they detract from society more than contribute to it. However they are the two most popular daily papers around and I don't read them so who am I to judge. Perhaps they are beacons of hope and neutrality keeping us on a steady course in these crazy seas. I'm gonna go with the assumption that they are right wing, bile spewing hate mongers with a distinct lack of respect for truth, justice and useful news.
ReplyDelete2. But my point was that the internet could allow introverts to meet other introverts who share their passions. Even if it's online that's still an interaction that might not have occured without the internet. An introvert is an introvert is an introvert? Also we do banter in real life but also spend a suspiciously large amount of time arguing via email/blog (is it less violent and more reasoned that way?) Perhaps we should take up sports before criticising the internet for turning the nation into slobs locked in front of a glowing screen.
3. And also I think the internet gets an unfairly bad rep, a lot of its information is okay in a general sense (probably as okay as the stuff in newspapers). Surely internet writers have similar rules and the perogative for getting things right as other journalists. A few bad eggs shouldn't sour the whole pudding. Even crazy conspiracy theorists have their place...