Among other things, I’m a media critic. For more than 15 years, I’ve practically made a living out of warning people about the perils of commercial media.
In books and speeches, in columns and workshops, I’ve shared research about the negative social impacts of fashion magazines (body image and self esteem problems in women), violent video games (decreased sensitivity to the suffering of others in teens), sensationalized TV crime coverage (increased fear and inflamed prejudice among seniors), and the pervasive advertising suggestion that the solution to all our problems lies in purchasing new and improved stuff (the destruction of our small and fragile planet).
You can imagine how much fun I am at parties.
Then, six months ago, I was invited to deliver an upcoming conference keynote exploring the socially progressive opportunities presented by web 2.0 technologies. I was embarrassed to admit that I wasn’t really sure what ‘Web 2.0′ meant. Fortunately, Google and Wikipedia came to my rescue: web 2.0 merely refers to media technologies that are interactive, permitting people to participate in creating and circulating their own ideas and images. Facebook, YouTube, the blogosphere, Twitter – and of course Google and Wikipedia themselves – are part of the web 2.0 revolution.
But I’m not exactly what demographers would call “an early adopter” of new technologies. For example, I don’t text message on my cell phone (partly because finding the letters requires an acuity of vision I no longer possess). And although I had signed up for a Facebook account a year or so ago at the urging of a colleague, when I discovered the site was a competition for friends and I was already 329 behind, I logged off immediately.
In the meantime, my perception of the power of new media was being shaped by the articles I regularly came across in old media. You may have seen a few of these stories; they tend to sport headlines like: “Facebook bullying victim commits suicide”, “Second Life virtual affair provokes real life divorce”, and “Sexting trend turns teens into child pornographers”. The picture being painted isn’t an encouraging one.
And yet the truth is, despite the reported downsides, interactive media also offer enormously exciting opportunities for people to connect and engage in beautiful and transformative ways – ways that old media can’t even approach.
Glossy magazines and TV broadcasts, for instance, are expensive to make and so have typically been accessible to a relatively small group of wealthy producers. Not surprisingly, they have tended to privilege their own voices and perspectives – which have largely been white, affluent, able-bodied, heterosexual, and male. Because most depend on advertisers, the content they disseminate is often influenced by commercial considerations (will this program interest affluent viewers? will this feature help sell cosmetics and cars?) In addition, the need to attract large audiences often translates into material that appeals to the lowest common denominator, and fails to challenge or enlighten in any meaningful way.
In contrast, new media forms like YouTube and other social networking sites rely on user-generated content. Anyone with a cell phone or access to a computer and internet connection can produce and disseminate their images and ideas. As a result, these vehicles are much more democratic. They give voice to much greater diversity and embody the views and talents of a much more representative sampling of society.
Through blogs and video-sharing, previously marginalized individuals and organizations are able to share their opinions, art or campaigns with 5 friends, 500 acquaintances, or 50,000 strangers. They don’t need money, power or sophisticated production skills. They can eschew 10-second sound bites and discuss complex issues. They can feature Botox-free faces and naturally aging bodies. They can invite dialogue and reflect paradox.
As a result, web 2.0 technologies are revolutionizing the way people interact with one another. They’re helping friends and families to connect across time and space, while introducing strangers who share interests and priorities, but not necessarily physical or social spheres.
And online spaces are removed from the judgment and stereotypes that often accompany face-to-face relationships. Being freed from the evaluation that occurs on the basis of weight, gender, age, disability or social group liberates people to engage in more open and authentic self-expression; users can sometimes experience a degree of autonomy and power not accessible to them in their day-to-day lives. In some respects, the web is serving as a great equalizer.
Michael Wesch, an anthropology professor at Kansas State University who studies YouTube with his students, celebrates the capacity of user generated content to express cultural values that the marketplace is largely ignoring. Love and generosity, tolerance and empathy, the essential interdependency of human beings – these are not qualities that commercial media give priority to, he says, and that’s why they get articulated online.
Filmmaker Woody Allen famously observed that 80% of success is showing up. So individuals and organizations committed to nurturing human connection, promoting inclusiveness and celebrating the gifts we all have to contribute to one another, need to show up online.
PLAN Institute’s exciting new initiative, Tyze, offers a dramatic illustration of what’s possible when new media technologies are married to positive social values. When we embrace and exploit online communications to spread messages of hope and resilience, of love and laughter, we get to harness the virtual world in aide of making the real one a better place for everyone – the connected and disconnected alike.
No obligation 30-day trials of Tyze are now available
Click here to start your trial now.
