The recent catastrophe in the Gulf has serious implications across many different fields of thought and focus. One of the frequently overlooked implications has to do with media.
This event has been covered in such incredible detail, down to High-Definition video of the actual leak nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Maps, GIS information, photos, videos and tens of thousands of personal accounts of the aftermath have been flooding out of the area via platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
But there is a question that is very rarely asked. Is it possible that this enormous amount of information doesn't enhance but in fact actually dilutes the impact of this event on our lives? Watching oil spew from beneath the ocean is hard to put context to and the conversations about this incident that tend to happen in mainstream news outlet are superficial at best. Are these news reports mobilizing people to action? Are our lives better that we can see in HD oil filling an ocean? And a secondary question to that, is that do these same tools of communication and media provide us with the ability to take action in a way that we couldn't before, and is that worth the possible downsides this hyper-connected media world may bring with it?
Although this event doesn't necessarily itself change the way media works (though there have been some interesting related innovations, like Grassrootsmapping.org) it is at least an interesting example of how exponential media coverage is growing in our world and should serve as a reminder of how important is to look at these issues closely. This should, at the minimum, provide a foundation for a more in-depth look into how media is changing, and how that is going to impact out lives, government, culture, environment and world.
As always, I seem to enjoy asking the questions, rather than answering, but I hope if you are reading this, you will leave your comments and thoughts on these issues below!
No comments:
Post a Comment