From 154f69c3c6873798dfb1cfd58d062a30aae55e31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Ortega=20Froysa?= Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:53:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] New post on new media usage. --- blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.cfg | 5 ++ blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.cfg create mode 100644 blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html diff --git a/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.cfg b/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5b7bf86 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html +title = New Media Usage +description = A reflection on the usage of new media outlets as a means of conveying and communicating useful information in a meaningful way. +created = 2021-04-20 +updated = 2021-04-20 diff --git a/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html b/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ed0c9b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2021-04-20-new-media-usage.html @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +

Anyone that knows me personally - or maybe I've mentioned this in a +previous post - knows that I'm generally a technology skeptic. I'm +highly skeptical of new technologies, and I'm very conscious about the +negative effects they seem to have on our lives. This is so to the +extent that I do not use a smart-phone and I refuse to make use of +social-media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter. In the case of +Facebook specifically, I used to have one, and when I got rid of it +(initially for privacy reasons) I had discovered how much of an absolute +time suck it was for me. But this even goes into other means of +communication, like how I often prefer e-mail over other means of +instant communication, or this very website which is absolutely spartan +in its design and maintenance.

+ +

Perhaps my largest critique of modern media specifically has been +superficiality. If one takes a look at the kind of content that is +absolutely abundant on most of these media platforms, it is mostly +superficial nonsense. Very flashy, very trendy, very catchy nonsense. It +may even be nonsense related to a cause I sympathize with, but being +reduced to nothing but pure image, pure superficiality, I cannot help +but feel repulsed by the lack of real content. However, recently I've +begun to rethink my view on these platforms (although not necessarily +the content to which I have previously referred).

+ +

I've been listening to a few episodes of Bishop Robert Barron's Word +on Fire ministry[1], and something that he +he insists upon very much is the use of new means of communication (or +media) to connect with more people (especially youth). He mentions +especially his use of some platforms like Reddit, Facebook, and YouTube, +where he has done a lot of work of online evangelization, not by posting +content that superficially appeal to the viewer's senses (i.e. +sensationalism), but rather by posting content that truly contains +profound meaning, forcing the viewer to actually think and not simply +react. And by thinking, meditating, and reflecting upon that content, +the viewer can truly internalize what is being said in a meaningful way +instead of a catchy post that will soon be forgotten, as they simply +move on with their lives.

+ +

Before getting into the main point of this article, I did want to +stop here to point out that this is actually what evangelization should +be about. If someone is exposed to the Good News as if it were just +another post in their feed, then we're not doing our work of +evangelizing correctly. The Good News needs to be something that sticks, +that profoundly impacts people's lives. If it's not doing this, we're +doing something wrong. And this is a high bar to meet indeed, but one we +have to work towards nonetheless.

+ +

Now, getting into the actual point of this post which is more general +and does not only apply to evangelization. What this got me thinking is +something that, although I had always somewhat acknowledged this, I +hadn't truly internalized it: a technology is good or bad depending on +how it is used. Although technology most certainly does impact the way +we do things, and there are some which most definitely make meaningful +use difficult or near impossible, when it comes to new media we can find +ways of using these in a meaningful and good manner. The fact of the +matter is, even traditional media such as film or literature can be +meaningful or trivial depending on the use which is made of it. We've +seen how in television there are really good and thoughtful TV shows, +but there are also trivial shows that do nothing to stimulate us +intellectually relying simply on cheap entertainment.

+ +

So what about modern media? It's truly the same thing. It can be used +adequately, but we need to know how, and we need to learn to sift the +content we consume on these platforms, just as we do with traditional +media, and always making sure that it's using the platform in a manner +which is compatible with its modus operandi.

+ +

Perhaps the easiest mistake to fall into is that meaningful media is +simply media we agree with, that tells us what we want to hear. But this +isn't it at all. Many times this leads us to simply finding absolutely +trivial media that stimulate our senses, and therefore cause a very +superficial gratification. Meaningful media shouldn't be necessarily +that which we agree with or stimulates our senses, but rather that which +causes us to think, that which stimulates our mind.

+ +

It's also worth noting that not every platform will be useful for +publishing content of the same kind of caliber or kind, but may be +useful as an auxiliary. As an example, last I knew the media platform +Twitter allows only 140 character (or maybe now it's up to 250, I +haven't checked). It's truly difficult, if not impossible, to publish +anything meaningful in simply 140 characters, and as a consequence I've +seen examples of people chaining multiple Twitter posts/replies together +in order to form longer messages. This simply is a bad use of the +platform. It's not what it was made for. Much less for having long +drawn-out discussions. Instead, Twitter is the ideal platform for people +to subscribe to quick updates on things like events, or to post links to +posts on another platform (where the discussion can truly take place). +That is, making Twitter not a place where one finds the content itself, +but a reference to the actual meaningful content.

+ +

Obviously, I'm not going to say how each platform should be used, +primarily because I don't have an account on any social media platform. +I'm content with my website and e-mail as my public means of +communication. However, I believe that this provides a general guideline +for how to navigate social media and sift out the trivial, picking only +that which is meaningful.

+ +
    +
  1. Word on Fire
    2. +