"Digital network media make no essential difference to the relations between publishing institutions and society."
Abstract
A discussion of the impact of new, networked media in the realm of publishing and publishing institutions must first come to terms with the very notion of publishing. A solid definition of publishing will help us understand the way network media restructures and distributes power through the traditional relationship between the institution and the individual. To illuminate the inherent powers of individuals who publish, we look at the affordances of network media, especially the user comment function, the Internet as a both an example of network media and a publishing institution and the impact of blogging and online news websites. The aim here is not to draw definitive criticisms about how new media redefines the relationship between publishing institutions and the individual, but to explore what potential powers of publishing are given to society through the advent of the Internet. What are the implications of these powers and what types of communities are created as publishing power in aural, visual and textual domains becomes increasingly liberalised?
Towards a complete definition of publishing
The most basic definition of publishing relates to the physical process of printing words onto paper. This traditional understanding of publishing is deeply rooted in an academic and journalistic context. Battelle (2010) defines publishing as “connecting a community through the art and science of communication.” This is by no means an academic-centric perspective. In-fact, this is a definition that attempts to widen the scope of what publishing actually entails, appealing to the idea of publishing techniques and modes. More traditional definitions of this concept are tied to the idea of information and intellectual systems. Altbach (1975) understood that publishing could be vital to the intellectual sustainability of an economy as it could preserve scholarly research, which was, and still is a necessary feat. Maxwell (1987) sustains this view of capturing information in the moment but suggests that it is the different emerging technologies and applications for “information processing” that should preserve these thoughts and theories. In essence, he began to embrace the process of digital information distribution on the part of the producer, and greater technologies for retrieval of this information on the part of the user.
The medium of on-line publishing, fostered by the networking capacities of the Internet is widely recognised. Typing comments, blog posts and tweets: these are the kind of acts that are now synonymous with new media publishing. The traditional models of publishing, as explored by Henry (2003) is criticised for its difficulties in achieving academic collaboration. He claims that the collaboration process is inherently incompatible with traditional modes of publishing, as the sharing of ideas requires either face-to-face contact or the use of letters. In the online domain, the label of publishing has extrapolated, to encompass many different actions. Even the simple action of posting a few sentences in a blog space is now seen to be an act of publishing.
Whilst the medium has changed, it is fairly clear to see that the intention and purpose of an individual's thoughts and ideas is being put into an advantageous position. Digital network media such as the Internet, perhaps one of the most expansive digital networks has redefined modes of publishing. New media on-line publishing is characterised by greater freedoms in sharing knowledge and information. Now, the process and result of academic publishing on-line is intensely based on easier modes of collaboration, the combination of simulations, moving image, video into the author’s work and easier methods of locating, responding or propounding this information to new sources by society.
Our foray into a ‘complete definition’ of publishing’ has left the concept spliced between old publishing models of the 19th Century (under the term, “traditional print publishing”) and new digital publishing (dubbed, “on-line publishing”). Since our point of exploration concerns the impact of digital network media on both publishing institutions and society, we will be dealing exclusively with on-line publishing and how this advent gives greater power to the user in the context of information sharing, more specifically, in the realm of online journalism. We want to localise here, two specific ways that the user has gained power in this field by examining two fairly prominent features of digital network media. These features, made possible only by the Internet are the user comment function and the blog. They are critical areas to discuss due to their prevalence in all aspects of the Internet and their importance to the concept of publishing.
Key literature
Two useful articles that have previously emerged on the topic of user comment functions and blogging is Manosevitch & Walker’s, “Reader Comments to Online Opinion Journalism: A Space of Public Deliberation” (2009) and Aarons-Mele’s, “Bloggers: Citizen Journalists or Entrepreneurs?” (2008). Both are fairly recent studies, which look directly into the ability of users to leave comments on the opinion and video sections of online news sites, and which look into the self-directed impact of the modern day blog on journalistic institutions. This literature has been cited to illuminate the politics behind user participation at the simplest level, mostly by referring to Gastil’s (2008) definition of public deliberation, applying it to the affordances of comment forms, and gauging the results of the actual comments made.
Supporting literature will come from Gastil’s, “Political Communication and Deliberation” (2008) which sets up a review of the potential powers that are given to individuals, both in the blogging and comment form sense. Through this perspective, we can begin to see how users are empowered with as power is shifted from publishing institutions directly to society. The publishing institutions that we are referring to here are networks like Fairfax Digital Networks, which own news websites such as smh.com. In various sections of these news websites, there is a comment box or form, which encourages you to share an opinion on the topic. On the blog side and through Gastil’s concept, we are looking at the creation of an informal publishing institution that is not subjected to the journalistic codes and principles of established media outlets.
Discussion
Gastil firstly defined deliberation as “discussion that involves judicious argument, critical listening, and earnest decision making” (Gastil 2000; 22). He later updated this definition of deliberation by claiming that it was both a product of diverse perspectives and equal consideration of these views (Gastil, 2008). The user comment function that is prevalent in all visual, aural and textual aspects of the Internet is a method of connecting with journalistic institutions. The aim is to create a sense of democratic discourse, to create a vibrant forum to respond to issues of importance that have been published by journalists. The effectiveness of these forums is not a point of discussion here. We are more concerned with how this opportunity has altered the relationship between publisher and user, and displaced traditional expectations of publishing newsworthy information. Rosenberry (2005) claimed that it is the networking capacities of the World Wide Web that allows online newspapers to combine institutional and public voice in one sector. What are the implications of this combination? What are its advantages?
Manosevitch & Walker’s (2009) study concluded that the presence of comment boxes to respond to news stories actively facilitated the process of public deliberation. The advantages of this combination between public and institutional are noted by this study. The study’s results indicated that most users provided input that pertained to the social and analytic processes needed for public deliberation. In essence, the bulk of the comments were accessible in terms of their terminology, and the level of knowledge that they assumed. The implications of the combination were also observed. Many comments sought to destabilise basic online etiquette with harsh critique and personal insults, althought this was noted as an expected result with minimialist censorship technologies employed in the sites studied. Another recurring problem noted was that all the journalists responsible for writing the articles studied never replied to the users comments, directly or indirectly.
Aaron-Mele’s (2008) examined the ethic of the modern-day citizen journalist blogger and how they responded to claims that they are displacing the traditional model of journalism. One of the consistent thoughts in the mind of the bloggers that were studied was an intension to be self-regulated. Furthermore, the author found that the bloggers never labeled their work under the framework of journalism. They considered themselves above this institution along with the ethics associated with this profession. Alternatively, anecdotal evidence from other bloggers revealed tendencies to want to sound like a journalist in their blog posts, in the hope that their blog might influence professional journalists. This is an interesting point to build on our original idea, where we claimed that the intended purpose of blogs might be to distance oneself from this kind of publishing institution. In this case, the relationship between the formal publishing ethics of print journalism and the informal autonomy of on-line citizen journalism (through blogs) is not quite as separated as we previously suggested.
Conclusion
We have tried to reach a rounded definition of the concept of publishing by examining two studies, which indirectly discuss the relationship between publishing institutions and the invidividual. We also have sought to define publishing through this relationship and have learnt that each party exists symbiotically off each other. In the on-line domain, professional journalists working in publishing institutions must now have their work subjected to both appraisal and criticism from users. Alternatively, users are now attempting to be involved in the journalistic process of informing the public by engaging in active deliberation via forums and comment forms. The questions of what actually constitutes genuine acts of publishing does not necesarrily need a definitive answer. However, an embracement of this newly defined relationship between publishing institutions and society is important for the progress of publishing as a whole.
List of References:
Aarons-Mele, M. (2008). Bloggers: Citizen Journalists or Entrepreneurs?, GoodWork Project Report Series, Number 56, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Altbach, P.G. (1975). Publishing and the Intellectual System, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Perspectives on Publishing, Vol. 421, pp. 1-13.
Batelle, J. (2010). Towards a New Understanding of Publishing, Searchblog,
Gastil, J. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Sage.
Gastil, J (2000). By Popular Demand, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Henry, G. (2003). On-line Publishing in the 21st Century:Challenges and Opportunities, D-Lib Magazine, vol. 9, no. 10.
Manosevitch, E & Walker, D. (2009). Reader Comments to Online Opinion Journalism: A Space of Public Deliberation. Kettering Foundation, Ohio.
Maxwell, R. (1987). The Future of Publishing, Leonardo, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 361-362.
Rosenberry, J. (2005). Few papers use online techniques to improve public communication. Newspaper Research Journal, 26:4, 61-73.
