Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Mass Amateurization


Clay Shirky's argument throughout this chapter was focused on the world wide web. Up until the late twentieth century, the only sources of media were books, newspapers, radio, movies, and television. People who had permission to write for or be a part of these sources were mostly professionals. These groups of professionals were experts in a certain field and only they would contribute to the mass media world. However, anybody can share information on the web and anybody can read it; this is what makes the internet stand out. Shirky's idea of mass amateurization is simply that amateurs are now beginning to control the media instead of professionals.
Take the website youtube for example: there are millions of videos uploaded by people from all over the world. Anybody can upload a video of absolutely anything, and anybody can watch the videos. Fifty years ago, only professionals could share videos they've made with the public. Now, amateurs have that ability as well.
Of course, youtube is only one example of mass amateurization. There are blogs, websites, photographs that are shared on the web. I, personally, think that this is a good thing. It seems, in a way, like the opposite of media consolidation. We are no longer looking to a small group of people for answers and information; so many more viewpoints are shared. Not only are we now exposed to more information, but, for the most part, we don't have to pay for it. Shirky mentions how there is only a limited number of stories that a newspaper can publish, because of space and money, but there is an unlimited amount of information on the internet. Most of it, like youtube, is even free.
The only real down-side that Shirky talks about is how some of these professionals are losing their jobs because of the web. He also says that these losses are okay if they benefit society as a whole. I believe they do. We always want more information from more places. I think professionals will still always have their place. Professionals will usually do their jobs better than amateurs such as making movies, taking pictures, and reporting news. They will still be available, but not as abundant.

1 comment:

  1. That's very interesting! I never thought about it in that way. We've been discussing media conglomeration so much and the way you speak of mass amateurization, makes it seem like such a positive move forward in the right direction to fight the media monopoly.

    Perhaps citizen journalism will force large companies to take mass amateurization seriously into consideration for the future of news.

    When I see or hear of people worried about media conglomeration, I will suggest they take the matter into their own hands and fight fire with fire. Now we have the freedom and access to produce and distribute media. So we should take advantage!

    It's comparable to voting. When people who don't vote complain about who's in office, it is frustrating. They have the chance to make a difference. In the same vein, we can make a difference in media. Think there is too much media power in large corporations? Take away some of their power by doing their job!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.