COMS 203 Padlet by

July 3 Padlet: What are some key differences between what we would today refer to as new media and the media that preceded it?

annanieuwenhuis — 2025-07-03 19:36:22 UTC

One key difference between media today and media that preceded it is our current ability to manage it. We can attribute this idea to the “expressive technologies of any period that outpace their culture’s ability to control them” (Rinehart and Ippolito in Flew and Smith 3). I see this idea applicable when discussing the rapid spread of artificial intelligence today. Due to the skepticism regarding the ethics of the tool, and the fear that AI could take away many jobs is an opinion shared by many today - including myself. Since AI has been a sort of “Pandora's box” that we have been unable to govern as of late, I would consider it to be classifiable as new media.

Another key fact that differentiates media today from its pre-existing counterparts is that we can define new media as “convergent media” (Flew and Smith 5), meaning that it combines computing technology, communications networks, and content together (Flew and Smith 5). Previous types of media did not fall into all three categories (eg. film does not have communication networks embedded within it). I view social media as new media because it is convergent, ie. It is coded using computing technology, users are able to contact each other via communications networks, and it allows users to post content.

The third key fact that is characteristic to media today is the “blend of large groups and interactivity” (Flew and Smith 8). What this is referring to is the ability to aggregate a mass audience while involving participation at an individual level (Flew and Smith 8). In discussing this idea, Flew and Smith make reference to Letterboxd - a favorite app of mine because I love the way it connects cinephiles from around the world. I see Letterboxd as a perfect example of new media because of the way it creates a mass community centered around a common love for cinema, while not sacrificing interactivity with the app’s interface. As a user of Letterboxd, I feel like I can be a part of a mass culture of film lovers through contributing my own thoughts on various movies through the app’s interactive features.

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media : An Introduction. Fourth Canadian edition., Oxford University Press, 2021.

July 11 Padlet

annanieuwenhuis — 2025-07-11 21:49:43 UTC

The current state of the internet can be viewed as a cultural landscape that appeals to many people due to it being full of “valuable destinations for everyday users” (Flew and Smith 12). According to Flew and Smith, these destinations are present on many sites, including those that host user content - like YouTube (12). I think YouTube is so successful because it manages to intersect creation with consumption, as well as with interactivity. YouTube has always been marketed as a space for amateur video artists to find an audience and create community through interaction with their audience. However, one thing I dislike about the current state of YouTube is how difficult it is for new creators to really “breakthrough” to find that audience. Flew and Smith mention Despacito’s success - garnering more than 6.5 billion views (14), but they refrain from mentioning YouTube’s lack of neutrality towards certain content posted on their site. I have been noticing that YouTube’s algorithm has been making it very difficult for up-and-coming creators to gain traction, because of the way it prioritizes videos made by popular music artists, companies, and ultra successful youtubers. As of today the top of the YouTube trending page consists of music videos from Kpop groups, a gameplay from the official Playstation channel, a Justin Bieber music video, and a video from Will Tennyson - a youtuber with 3.9 million subscribers (Trending - YouTube). In turn, videos by smaller creators have been buried beneath these videos, and as a result I argue that the concept of “going viral” has largely become obsolete. The YouTube algorithm has created a space where vlogging, which has been typically supposed to “operate in opposition to big production mainstream media content and reward authenticity and low production value” (Flew and Smith 15) is not set up for success. How can viewers be exposed to more authentic voices when these are the very voices that the YouTube algorithm puts at a disadvantage?

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media : An Introduction. Fourth Canadian edition., Oxford University Press, 2021.

Trending - YouTube, accessed 11 July 2025, www.youtube.com/feed/trending

July 18 Padlet

annanieuwenhuis — 2025-07-18 20:38:12 UTC

I find the skepticism expressed by many regarding the safety of the radiation emitted by our mobile devices as quite fascinating because it can demonstrate a lack of education that has been done to inform many about the safety of these devices. However, I also wonder if there is a kernel of truth to this conspiracy, since not much has been done scientifically to debunk these speculated health risks once and for all. Though Flew and Smith largely argue against the validity of our mobile devices in causing health implications, they also iterate the difficulty in studying the effects of our cell phones because the scientific testing to do so would focus on “population health measures” over a long period of time (126). However, this type of testing is often influenced by “so many other variables that can affect human health” (Flew and Smith 126) so it can be difficult to pinpoint direct causation. From this information, I can conclude that though human health risks are likely low from our mobile devices, it is difficult to gather conclusive data that exemplifies a justifiable verdict on the matter. This uncertainty doesn’t comfort my worries, as in the past I have experienced a mild degree of fear in regards to possible health implications of radiation. My skepticism may stem from being raised by ‘microwave fearing’ parents, but the fact that France banned the iPhone 12 from being sold in the country due to the phone surpassing maximum emitted radiation standards (Williams), does not put my worries at ease. This makes me wonder why the iPhone 12 was banned in France, but not in other countries - such as Canada, which has significantly stricter radio frequency safety standards than Europe (Williams). With all this considered, I am not overly alarmed about health risks associated with cell phone radiation, but I’ll still continue to put my phone on airplane mode when it’s in my pocket for long periods of time - even if my worries may be considered ‘unfounded’ by many.

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media : An Introduction. Fourth Canadian edition., Oxford University Press, 2021.

Williams, Andrew. “The iPhone 12 Isn’t the Only Phone to Fail France’s Radiation Test.” WIRED, 23 Sept. 2023, www.wired.com/story/the-iphone-12-isnt-the-only-phone-to-fail-frances-radiation-test.

July 30 Padlet

annanieuwenhuis — 2025-07-31 00:20:22 UTC

I find knowing the distinctions between disinformation, and misinformation to be very critical skills in today’s modern media landscape. I frequently hear these two terms being thrown around on social media as buzzwords - with the seeming purpose of eliciting a reaction out of the reader, but I've also noticed that through widespread repetition these terms have been being used as synonyms of each other in the public sphere. We must take a step back to differentiate these words so that we become better informed about the situations in which these examples of potentially harmful fake news take place. Disinformation is the term I am more familiar with, as it refers to “false content that is intended to harm a person, social group, organization, or country” (Flew and Smith 219). This definition makes me think of the example of the COVID-19 vaccines, which were scientifically tested as safe but had a lot of disinformation circulating around how they supposedly gave people COVID. Lies to increase vaccine hesitancy were in part spread by "foreign states” with the intent to "deceive and divide people” (Service Canada). Furthermore, we can also similarly inspect the role of misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation is defined by Flew and Smith as “false content that is not intended to cause harm” (219). I find this particularly interesting because even though it can be harmful, misinformation is viewed as not inherently malicious in nature. The World Health Organization has a page dedicated to mythbusting common COVID-19 misinformation (COVID-19 Mythbusters - World Health Organization). The showcased myths are considered misinformation because they were “often spread by individuals who believed it to be true” (Service Canada), who thought that by spreading this “info” they would be protecting fellow citizens. Through this example, we can see that there is not necessarily an intent by conspiracy theorists to cause harm to the public, but unfortunately their beliefs still routinely cause harm despite this lack of ill intent. To conclude, I believe that we must work harder to condemn and distinguish deceptive media from truthful sources so that we can advance as a more well informed, media literate society.

COVID-19 Mythbusters – World Health Organization. Accessed 30 July 2025, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters.

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media : An Introduction. Fourth Canadian edition., Oxford University Press, 2021.

Service Canada. “Online Disinformation.” Canada.ca, 16 July 2025, www.canada.ca/en/campaign/online-disinformation.html.

August 9 Padlet

annanieuwenhuis — 2025-08-10 03:39:42 UTC

When it comes to the presence of laws surrounding copyright and intellectual property I find myself conflicted on whether their existence is justifiable. This issue posed by Flew and Smith is described as “the balance between individual rights of ownership and social use for common benefit” (290). On one hand, I believe an artist’s work should be protected from theft, and they should be compensated fairly if their work is reused by others. On the other hand though, I also recognize the barriers that many up and coming artists face when wanting to use copyrighted music. From my own experience in amateur filmmaking, I have written films that revolve around copyrighted songs which would be quite expensive to purchase the rights to - but even if I had an expendable income it would still be so difficult to get the rights in the first place because of so many of the barriers set in place by record labels. It is highly unlikely that they would even consider granting rights to someone with no film studio connections.

There are exceptions to copyright laws under the “fair use” umbrella, which Flew and Smith define as “the principle of copyright law that some users, sometimes, have the right to use copyrighted material without paying a fee or obtaining a license" (331). Though this categorization is usually designated in the context of research or criticism, I have heard about ways artists have found loopholes to use copyrighted content without paying a fee. The most pertinent example of this that I can think of is in Canadian indie director Matt Johnson’s series “Nirvanna the Band the Show”, which ripped entire scores from source material such as the Indiana Jones films without paying a single cent. Johnson explains in an interview that he was able to dodge copyright laws in this way because he connected the narrative of his show so strongly to Raiders of the Lost Ark (TIFF Originals 2.25) - thus, making the case that his show relied on the source material.

To conclude, though I have opposing feelings regarding the stringent copyright rules faced by filmmakers today, I can optimistically view the presence of copyright barriers as something that fosters innovation - like encouraging video artists to explore ways to make art from scratch (composing a soundtrack), or through finding legal loopholes (in the case of Johnson’s show).

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media : An Introduction. Fourth Canadian edition., Oxford University Press, 2021.

TIFF Originals. “How Not to Get Sued With NIRVANNA THE BAND THE SHOW | TIFF 2018.” YouTube, 23 Feb. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXxw6PUu_4.