In 2001, Jonah Peretti and Nike had an email
exchange over the customization of a shoe with the word “sweatshop” and it
became hit on the micro media that quickly saw its way into the mass media, described in this article by Peretti http://www.thenation.com/article/my-nike-media-adventure. This article, shed some light on the distinction between micro and
mass media. Personally, I had not realized the extent nor just how big this
distinction was. I will begin by highlighting the characteristics of the three
stages of micro media, the transition, and mass media. Peretti describes how he
had emailed his correspondence with Nike to some friends and it had circulated
from there reaching hundreds upon hundreds of people such as the college
students and activists he describes. He notes the posting of his correspondence
upon websites such as Plastic.com the transition between micro and mass media
before it become discussed on publications such as the Time and Wall
Street Journal. He also attributes reaching the mass media level with the
increased number of emails he receives, the international stemming of his
emails, and the extremity of his emails.
What
I notice is that the separation between the micro and mass media is very small.
I go from email and Facebook to articles, discussions, and videos of mass media
seamlessly. This is why I had trouble highlighting this distinction between the
two. But there is a large difference between the two. Micro media contains
everything, while Mass media only contains that either have vested interest, or
that will sell and lead. This distinction can be highlighted by the Kony 2012
movement inspired by the group Invisible Children. They made this video and it
became a sensational hit on the micro medial level, racking up millions of
views, millions of likes, millions of shares, millions of emails, and so on.
People were talking about it, it was praised, it was criticized, it was big.
And the video made it to the mass media because of the hit it was in the micro
media. It was noted for being the biggest viral video but also faced for stark
criticism for being fictitious. Jason Russel, leader of Invisible Children, was
featured on many TV and radio shows, describing the purpose of the video and justifying
his cause.
I have come to understand that from both the Peretti article and Kony 2012 is that the mass media, though a
huge body capable of sustaining itself, depends on the micro media as its feed
to the people to which it caters to. If people are talking about something, it
will be in the micro media. If hundreds of people are talking about it, it will
be all over the micro media. If “everyone” is talking about it, then the mass
media will be on it too. The mass media, as much as it is a source of news and
information, does seek to cater to the people by making huge what is the
popular trend of the moment. A current example is the song “Gangam Style” by
South Korean artist Psy. What is particularly sentimental or great about this
song? Nothing, other than its catchy tune and funny dance moves. Yet it raged
all over the micro media that soon enough Psy was dancing on talk shows and the
Chicago Tribune had an article about his
song; he had reached the mass media.
The micro media is what we listen to, what we
are watching, and what we are learning.
And the mass media is what it sounds like: the larger of mass of songs
and news catered to the world. But as described, the mass media is a factor of
the micro media. The news the mass media broadcasts or the information it
shares is an attempt to not simply inform the public, but to garner the
attention of the public and get them involved through the micro media. The mass
and micro media’s are woven together in a fine relationship, and we should seek
to not just watch this go by, but to use this interaction between media to our
advantage of an ever-connected world.
I definitely agree with what you're saying, and it's really an interesting relationship - micromedia vs. macromedia... But I was wondering, do you think people are typically aware of the two? Especially micro media? Would it make a difference knowing that the two exist?
ReplyDeleteI almost think that in a way that we do lose a lot of knowledge/awareness by having the two exist because those who only listen to Macromedia might not be aware as much as people who rely on micromedia... Do you think it's a significant loss?
First, I do believe that people are aware of both medias, some more than others. There is a clear difference for some people. The person who sustains email correspondence and the reads the newspaper understands the distinction between the micro and macro media respectively. Then others who have email, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accounts have a much larger micro media almost on the verge of mass media. So to some extent, everyone is aware of the two medias though it may be more conscious to some people. The difference between knowing that the two exist comes more as an understanding. That something that you see on Facebook can likely stay within your friend group. But when Gangam Style hit the macro media, that means that his song garnered enough attention of the micro media that he could be presented by the mass media to speak to this attention and get more. Basically, understanding that the macro media is rooted in the micro media.
DeleteTo speak to your second question, it is true that those only tuned to the macro media might not be as well aware as people are involved in both medias. But I do not think that it is a significant loss because of the nature of the macro media. The macro media has the breaking news, the big stories. And if it is significant enough to be presented by the macro media, it is significant to extent, while the micro media is significant to only those it involves. Thus, I believe that being tuned to both medias can only enhance your awareness but it is not too significant of a loss.
I would also be curious to your thoughts on the following:
ReplyDeleteCan mass media enter the micro? For example, during the recent debates, people took to using Twitter as a way to express their ideas and opinions. The mass media took this and displayed it, bringing out of the micromedia in a way you identified. But didn't the opposite happen, too? Wasn't the mass media brought into a micro level? Perhaps, this pull isn't as significant since everyone sees mass media but not everyone sees micro media.
@ Elizabeth Woo
I feel that the loss in only following mass media is increasingly insignificant, and comparatively, the loss for those only following the micromedia is more significant. The mass media has begun to bring micro media into reports (Gangnam Style, my Twitter example). Meanwhile, micromedia cannot, by definition, bring all of mass media in.
I do not think that is the macro media entering the micro media, but rather just another event that was presented by the macro media intended for the micro media as its audience. The Presidential Debate, for example. As the presidential debates drew nearer, they became more hyped and had great anticipation by many people, the people of the micro media. Seeing this attention, I presume that is why macro media providers broadcasted the way they did: featuring them as headlines and front pages on newspapers, multiple channels on TV, able to watch on many websites. There were offers, "tweet about the debate" and "post your opinions" on many of these locations as well. I see this as the macro media begging the attention of the people of the micro media. It had been great buzz in the micro media, so the macro media was feeding it back to the micro media to generate more viewers, more attention, and just make it big, as macro media providers always do. So I feel that as much as the macro media takes from the micro media, it feeds it too. But this is different than itself entering the micro media.
Delete