Okay I understand the premise behind calling it “new new” media but it seems a little short-sighted because will “new new” media ever become “new” media ever become “old” media? In fifty years the term “new new” media will have little relevancy when you look at what the definition of new is.
Levinson’s backing for the existence of “new new” is Time magazines use of it as well and then he has to put in parentheses that he was already almost done with his book. Huh? Doesn’t that make his point pointless and his aside rather childish?
Levinson claims that “new new media are always free to the consumer.” I cannot agree with this argument when he claims that you have to pay for items on Amazon and iTunes therefore they are not “new new” media because there are select downloads that are free. Levinson then claims that Youtube is “new new” media because everything is free when there are select downloads that you have to pay for.
I don’t have the “right” answer but I think that it is close to impossible to draw a line in the sand the way Levinson does on what constitutes “new” media and “new new” media and that one is free while the other isn’t.
Just because we can now produce and consume content from hundreds of millions of people to me doesn’t automatically make “new new” media a positive thing. Which is probably why I have been an the delayed side with interacting on Twitter or starting my own blog.
- There is a lot of disinformation out there and how are to know what is accurate?
- How much time will we waste in the future wading through the plethora of consumer produced content?
- And will this drive up the price of the quality produced content? That must be why our text cost $70 right?
Ultimately this chapter stirs up more questions in me than it gives answers. Only time will tell right? Well hmm. Probably not because then we will be on to “new new new” media and we will be learning about how archaic Twitter is.