Small Talk - Brevity and Symbolism in New Media Communication

Gone are the days of epic poetry and long winded letters. Communication is now dominated by status updates, tweets, instant messaging, texting, and picture and video sharing.  Is it surprising then that the very structure of communication would also alter along with its methods?

The digital age has seen an increasing level of media convergence. According to Henry Jenkins "convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content." Convergence also allows for the creation and sharing of information amongst consumers. Rather than exclusively functioning as consumers of information they are also producers.

With the overwhelming amount of information being shared and distributed and the incredible speed at which it is being transferred there is a need to convey as much as possible as quickly and succinctly as possible. For this reason communication via new media is dominated by a focus on brevity. This has led to a revolution in the structure of communication. Short words instead of long; an increase in acronyms and abbreviations; and the sharing of images. All trends derived from the need to convey information as quickly and efficiently as possible.

This focus on brevity has surfaced in a number of forms which new media communication takes. Beginning with the early forms of online instant messaging and texting, messaging has developed a number of ways to streamline communication from acronyms such as LOL (laugh out loud) to emoticons (a combination of keystrokes used to create a facial representation such as a smile or frown), and the creative use of capital letters  to create emphasis. Even punctuation has been transformed. See the following example from Lauren Collister 

http://theconversation.com/emoticons-and-symbols-arent-ruining-language-theyre-revolutionizing-it-38408

Here a question mark stands in for the actual question while the exclamation mark indicates a positive reaction. Repetition of this form of punctuation then indicates emphasis. More recent developments in messaging lingo have resulted in a turn away from written language indicators to pictographic language most prominently represented by emojis, a small image such as a smiley face meant to convey an emotion or idea.

http://time.com/4408803/how-emoji-have-completely-revolutionized-communication-from-tears-of-joy-to-bacon/

Brevity in new media communication can also be seen in the prolific use of image sharing. This is visible in popular image sharing apps and programs such as Snapchat. This app allows individuals to send messages that are almost exclusively image based. Images may be accessed by the recipient for only a few seconds before the image is lost. Such images then are the height of brevity of communication. What may have taken several sentences of text to communicate has been conveyed in only a few moments.

Snapchat photo courtesy of Megan Helston

The above screenshot of a snapchat message is an example of the wealth of information that can be conveyed via a momentary image. The above is a photo of a political party sign in Canada. Someone has placed the sign in the public trash demonstrating a rejection of this party. By sending this image the sender is demonstrating that they agree with this sentiment. This is made more clear by the inclusion of a short form of messaging, the acronym LOL (laugh out loud) which indicates that the sender finds this image humorous.

One  of the most prolific forms of image based communication is the Internet Meme. The term meme was coined by Richard Dawkins to "describe small units of culture that spread from person to person by copying or imitation." Internet Memes sees this phenomenon online and is described by Limor Shifman as "as (a) a group of digital items sharing common characteristics of content, form, and/or stance; (b) that were created with awareness of each other; and (c) were circulate, imitated, and/or transformed via the internet by many users." Internet Memes then use a particular image which is then shared to indicate agreement with the original sentiment or "remixed" (edited) to create additional meaning.

The above image is an example of a remixed Internet Meme. This image is a picture of Jose Bautista a baseball player from the only Canadian team in Major League Baseball, the Toronto Bluejays. In 2015 the Bluejays were in position to proceed further in the playoffs than they had in several decades. For many Canadians this image is iconic as the "Bat Flip." A frustrating game for the Bluejays saw a moment of intense catharsis when Joey Bautista stepped up to the plate and hit a home run. He then proceeded to flip his bat to the side with a degree of drama that was intended and perceived as a retort to the game thus far, a "take that!" moment. This image was shared, remixed, and reposted countless times. Here the image is remixed to refer to the Federal Election that took place only a few weeks later. A significant portion of the young Canadian voter population was frustrated with the leadership of the Canadian government at the time and the election saw a massive surge in support for the opposition leader Justin Trudeau. This image uses the iconic image of Jose Bautista and the "take that!" attitude he expressed as a way to indicate personal sentiments. Using such a familiar image the sharer of the image is able to access the emotions that this particular moment evoked and use it as a metaphor for their feelings regarding Canadian politics and the election.

Although many individuals have pointed out that new media has created a more visually driven culture this is not all that revolutionary. As Shaun Wilson points out, much of how society remembers the recent past is through images. Wilson provides the example of the bombing of Hiroshima and the iconic photo of the Vietnam war "Napalm Girl." The iconic nature of both photos demonstrates the fact that culture was becoming visually driven long before the digital age.  

The prevalence of television, film, and visual advertising only further points to the fact that society has for some time then been oriented towards a visually driven culture, new media merely allows this inclination to flourish. This view of new media then sees the rise in image based communication from a Constructivist viewpoint where new media technologies are being created to serve the needs of society for visually driven communication rather than the perceiving technology itself as the architect of this culture.

While it is important to note the increase in the visual nature of communication in the digital age the need for brevity has created an evolution in form and structure of communication that has produced a more interesting development, the definitive turn towards a more symbol driven form of communication.

While all the forms of new media communication that I have mentioned above are clear examples of a visual culture they are also all examples of the use of symbols and symbolism in modern communication.

Definition courtesy of Oxford Dictionary

Short forms of messaging directly correspond to the definition of symbols as objects or groups of letters that express or represent a particular idea. The Snapchat photo of the party sign also represents a symbol as an "event... that expresses or represents a particular idea." The "Bat Flip" meme is a clear example of symbolism as it aims to "express... emotions, and states of mind."

However, this use of symbolism goes even further than these definitions. Traditional literary forms of symbolism can also be seen in new media communication. An example we can observe above is in the Snapchat photo of the political party sign being thrown into the trash. This image utilizes metaphor where the party sign represents the party itself. The sign being placed in the garbage indicates the need to dispose of that party. Another literary form which can be seen in new media communication is the use of allusion. Many remixed memes utilize allusion, the process of referring to a separate subject such as a place or event by means of passing reference. It is up to the individual to connect the meaning to this reference. The "Bat Flip" meme is an example of allusion where the creator is referring to an event and it is up to the "reader" of the meme to make the connection of the image to that particular event.

New media symbols and symbolism are even beginning to reach beyond the confines of new media technology. People have begun to use short form messaging language in RL (real life) conversations. Acronyms like GG (good game) have transgressed the realm of online gaming and are being used by individuals playing physical sports. Even allusions to memes are making their presence known in the physical realm such as the below image of a protester of the American President Elect Trump which references the popular online meme "Damn Daniel." This meme is a viral video which features a young man recording his friend wearing white "vans" (a type of shoe) and praising him on how good he looks (in this instance "Damn" is positive). The protester uses allusion to this meme ironically as he is protesting Donald Trump and his policies.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/not-usually-a-sign-guy-but-geez?utm_term=.ur1wWx1m3#.aeXJpKOkz

 As convergence develops the need to exchange information among many individuals quickly and efficiently it creates a focus on brevity which has driven a revolution in communication towards symbols and symbolism. While at first glance new media communication may seem simplistic compared to the eloquent language of the past this brevity belies a profound level of complexity. New media communication may focus on small talk but this only disguises larger meanings. 

DVB-T and Chill - From Mass-Media to Class-Media?

DVB-T2 arrives in Germany and there’s no way to stop it. But what does the new technology means for the consumers? A long overdue increase of quality or a rip-off in disguise? 

Ready for the electronical waste: German DVB-T receivers 

 

Maybe a lot of Germans didn’t even notice but they are in a “cost-free-phase” since the 31. May 2016. Those are good news, aren’t they? But what exactly is cost-free since then? Well the private TV-channels of cause! You are not impressed now because the private channels like “RTL”, “Sat-1” or “ProSieben” were cost-free all the time due to the fact that they finance themselves by commercial breaks? In this case the private channels throw a loud “But not much longer!” directly in your face. The new TV-reception-system DVB-T2 arrives and brings fee-based private channels with it. But let’s take one thing at a time.

A few years ago the main TV-reception-system switched from television antenna to DVB-T ("Digital Video Broadcasting - Terrestrial"). Most of the Germans will remember the informative TV-spots which warned us that soon we won’t be able to pick up a TV-signal via antenna anymore and that we have to change the set-up. So the consumers did as they were told and bought DVB-T receivers. But the new reception-technology was not a real treat: It offered only a few channels compared to reception via satellite or via cable and the quality was often affected by statics. My opinion as a year-long user of DVB-T: So what? I was able to watch TV! That’s what matters! To say it with Batman from the “Dark-Knight”-Movie: “It wasn’t the reception system we deserve but the one we need.”

But now DVB-T2 is coming. Well actually it is here already since the 31. May 2016 but it will supersede DVB-T completely at the 29. March 2017. That means you can already plan to bring your DVB-T receiver to the electrical waste. Yep, that’s true! The new technology makes the old receivers useless. But why is new technology necessary anyway? Apart from the fact that the government tries to clear frequencies for providers of mobile-communication, all television broadcasts improve to High-Definition-Quality. Even to better HD-quality than current HD satellite- or cable-channels. Furthermore there will be a range of up to 50 channels. So no more need for me to be envious of my friends with satellite or cable who tell me proudly about “Eurosport”, “Disney-Channel” or “Comedy Central”. So far, so good.

Everything would be alright when we just would have to buy a new receiver – we are used to it anyway.

Onetime acquisition costs for 50 channels in HD-quality. I think the most of us would gladly agree to that. However the problem is that the costs don’t stop at this point. As mentioned above, the private channels don’t upgrade their technology for charity’s sake but demand a fee of five Euros per month. That doesn’t seem to be much but if you compare it to streaming providers like Netflix which demand a fee of eight Euros per month it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. You are forced to pay nearly the costs of a streaming-provider for usual television without the benefits of streaming. You can’t choose what you want to see, you have to deal with long commercial breaks…Exactly the things you try to avoid by paying for a streaming provider. 

At least the public channels stay cost-free further on. Or, to say it better, the costs are still included in the obligatory radio-and-TV-license-fees. So even if you don’t pay for the private channels your TV-screen won’t stay black.

But where does this decision leads to? As we all know, the predicted extinction of the old mass media including the television by the internet never happened. Instead you can observe that old and new media tends to form a peaceful co-existence. It is the device that changes not the content. We still have radio broadcast, even if some of the functions have changed, we still have theatres, cinemas and of cause we will still have the television in Germany when the device changes from a DVB-T to a DVB-T2 receiver. But nonetheless the demanding of fees for an old mass media like the television seems like a risky approach for me. I think one of the reasons that streaming-providers don’t endanger the television is that you can receive television programs nearly cost-free. But if I look at my own development I’m not sure if the TV stays stable when it becomes completely fee-based. I have barely watched TV in the last year. Instead I watched online-streams, Youtube-Videos, streaming-providers like Netflix or DVDs with friends. The program of most of the TV-channels is not my cup of tea anymore so I don’t watch it but own a TV nevertheless. But when Pay-TV will become obligatory I see no more reason for me to watch TV at all. Why should I pay for the usual old fashioned TV (apart from the HD-quality) when I nearly pay the same for a streaming-provider (in HD-quality as well)? 

I’m sure that there will be a lot of people who will pay for the new private channels but I can not exclude the possibility that this could lead to a gap between internet and TV audiences. The first possibility could be that only people who earn enough money will pay for the new private channels. But I don’t think that this is realistic because the standard of the majority of the private channels seems to get lower and lower every year. For that reason people with a high social position could lose the interest in it completely unless the private channels change. The other possibility could be that lowly sophisticated people are more likely to pay the fee even if it’s difficult for them because they don’t want to lose their reality-soap and Superstar-programs. In this case the private channels could stay the same but there would be a growing gap between a sophisticated internet-society that chooses the information it is interested in (apart from problems like the “Filter Bubble”) and a low level TV-society that is exposed to a content stream of information the mass media wants it to see.

That would be co-existence of the old and the new media as well and maybe the television or the streaming providers will change their functions due to this development. From a media-studies point of view that wouldn’t be surprising but could lead us to new social problems and new forms of informational division.

It remains to be seen if the private providers shoot themselves in the foot by banking on the willingness of the consumers to pay a monthly fee just to watch programs like “Germany’s Next Top Model” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!”. But that’s another matter.

                                                                                                                                                                 (Thorben W. Lucht)

The small screen that has a big influence

            We all agree that television was a great invention, right?

            Nowadays, the television has a big importance in our lives since it can inform us about what is going on in the world, including some cities and peoples that we probably never heard about. It’s actually rare and strange to see someone without a television in his or her home and it is more and more common to see a family with three or more televisions. 

            In the past, the only way to hear the news, music and soap operas was the radio, and that was a big entertainment to people. Radio was a great invention since people could hear and know what was going on in other parts of the globe. However, when television appeared, people now could not only hear but also see what was happening in other countries.  The television is a great way of spread the information, we can hear and watch (sometimes with direct transmission) what is happening in other communities. Moreover, television is a big entertainment to those who don’t get too much attached to it since people can acquire knowledge from it and have fun with it.

            People now have access to films and even theatre plays without leaving home and that had brought problems to the cinema and theaters since fewer and fewer people attend those places.

            Nevertheless, television has some disadvantages such as the fact that people are really influenced by what they see on it: they want to copy and buy what they see in the commercials, the programs and in the soap operas. Otherwise, sometimes young people become insensitive to situations of violence in real life because they have become accustomed to see much violence in the movies and also in the news. Also, people who get too much addicted to television become antisocial and obese since they don’t interact with other people, including their families, and pass the day seated in front of the TV, without doing nothing.  

            On the other hand, there are some programs such as animal documentaries and cultural programs that can teach a lot to teenagers since they can acquire more knowledge about the world in general, although many people find it uninteresting.

            We can all agree that television has altered our world but we can not say that it had modified our world only for better because of the reasons that I have already mention above. I personally agree that every technology has its pros and cons and television is no exception. It is true that if we watch TV with moderation, we can benefit from the things that television gives, such as inform us, educate us and at the same time entertain us. And if it weren’t the television, who can affirm that people wouldn’t had developed something else similar (or not)? We live in a world full of possibilities to create anything and if it weren’t the television, someone would come up with other technology that could manipulate and entertain us too.

            It is so unconscious the act of turn on a TV that we do not even realize how influential it can become in our lives.

            Television is one of the most widespread communication vehicles in the world and we can affirm that television has changed the way that the world communicates. TV is and will continue to be involved in a constant process of evolution and adaptation to new technologies and social needs. Moreover, it should be noted that technology is increasingly associated with society and that provides the necessary tools to develop it in a way that contributes to the evolution of society.