Talk:New media

New media received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Media B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

New media and Archives

Maybe i missed it, but does this page address the challenges face by archives in retaining information since "new media" is in the digital format, and thus, not paper. --130.108.192.193 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper can be digital media. Punch cards and punched tape are paper that hold digital information. Digital electronic media such as optical discs can be permanent and even more durable than paper. The only information in new media that is not permanent is information stored in volatile memory. Oicumayberight 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Discuss the proposed name change here.

quote from below: "the current article's content, though well-referenced, belongs in an article on new media studies, not one on the phrase 'new media' itself"

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Oppose Olia lialina 19:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: suggest creation of New Media studies as a redirect pointing at New Media because the content here appears to cover both the discipline and the class media itself; the redirect should be qualified by {{R with possibilities}} and a split conducted when content warrants. Courtland 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support the field should define the field of study not the field of study the field. what about redirecting music theory to music and altering the page about music to reflect on music theory? Martinpi 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stefán Ingi 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that there was no consensus on the move and that there has been no significant activity for many months, I have removed the move request. -- zastard 13 June 2006

Discussion

This is a terrible and biased definition of new media. Could we rewrite this?

That is a separate issue from the move to a new title; suggest addition of an appropriate cleanup template, such as {{cleanup-rewrite}}. Courtland 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indeed

I suggest a new version where the focus is moved to New Media as a field of studies. Because this is exactly the context in which this term has relevance.

--Olia lialina 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

true

i think new media has more relevance than just in the field of "new media studies". think new media art, creative industries, computer game theory, mass media, ...

as a quick fix to this article (that should really be re-written) i added a lot of links to other wikipedia entries.

but

it seems to me that the term new media is not very useful, maybe more accurate would be digital media or even as some have suggested post-media

proposal

I suggest that everything below the headline "besides" should be moved into the article "media studies".

Don't confuse the general "new" with the term "new media"

The term "new media" doesn't describe media that are currently regarded as new. This term was never used for film or radio. Logically it is impossible that the only new medium of a certain time (like film) would be called with the plural "new media".

"New Media" as a term appeared together with the widespread use of "multimedia" (bad term, but useful to explain) computer technology that created impressions of unified and new forms of known media. The plural is important here.

To put "New Media Studies" into a side term is not useful, because "New Media" as a field of study is the only meaningful appearance of this term.

When it comes to artistic or design practices the terms like "digital culture", "mobile computing", "net art", "interface design" or even "information architecture" describe precisely the field of activity.

I would also kindly ask editors to get a login on Wikipedia so the discussions can be more fruitful.--Olia lialina 17:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

throwing my lot in

Olia writes: "The term 'new media' doesn't describe media that are currently regarded as new. This term was never used for film or radio."

This is debatable. In "Understanding Media", McLuhan uses the phrase "new media" often, but in a generic sense: "In Othello, which, as much as King Lear, is concerned with the torment of people transformed by illusions, there are these lines that bespeak Shakespeare's intuition of the transforming powers of new media" [...] Or: "Education is ideally civil defense against media fall-out. Yet Western man has had, so far, no education or equipment for meeting any of the new media on their own terms. [...] The vested interests of acquired knowledge and conventional wisdom have always been by-passed and engulfed by new media." [...]

Cantsin

New media has both generic and narrow meanings and one should not be shut out. Also, I support the move to new media studies. Erickaakcire

recent rewrite

First, for the sake of posterity, I'd like to note that the anonymous complaint at the top of this page -- with which Olia lialina seems to agree -- actually dated from 2003 and referred to this version of the article, not the one which Olia lialina deleted and rewrote. Second, I agree that most of the current article's content, though well-referenced, belongs in an article on new media studies, not one on the phrase "new media" itself. I don't have time to monitor and contribute to this article right now, so I can't fairly take serious issue with it, but I would like to note that the rewrite was not a matter of consensus and appears to me to have deleted useful material. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"New Media" vs. "Interactive Media"

Someone just recently modified the opening sentence of this article in order to equate "New Media" with "Interactive Media". Is this an accepted synonym? Courtland 03:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! :) --Olia lialina 10:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, even i agree Martinpi 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I'll take two people in addition to myself as a quorum .. the incorrect synonym has been removed. Courtland 13:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue that will ultimately render this discussion and both terms irrelevant and insignificant is net neutrality. Whereby citizens, who once enjoyed the last bastion of free speech are now subjected to the same mass media commercialism and fundamentalist lobby agenda format that todays six, count 'em six, television moguls beat us into submission with. And as usual, it's all disguised under the friendly misnomer of DEREGULATION.

As Stated Above

This is a wretched definition of little scope. This is obviously written by someone with very little background in new media. I belive the term was first coined by the Italian poet F.T. Marinetti in his 1909 Futurist Manifesto of "incendiary violence," in which he called for an end to all art that refused to embrace the social transformation brought by technology in the new century.

I have time, can help.

Which artist can be credited here?

Just wondering, can any artist put their name here, or anyone can just add on artist list? Which level should an artist reach before we put here? -- BlueCall 06:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tempted to remove all those unknown (self-declared?) artists.

Media / Cultural studies

This subject is in dire need of a complete rewrite.

New Media doesn't only apply to art, as the current definition seemingly implies. New Media exists in Media/Cultural Studies as well. The following chart, from the book New Media Cultures (P. David Marshall, Arnold:2004) illustrates the term:

Old Media Printed (books, newspapers, magazines); Images (photos, film, tv); Sound (telephone, radio);

New Media Printed (Internet, www, email, mobile phones); Images (DVD, digital photography & cinema, Internet, etc); Sound (iPods, Mp3s, mobile phones, podcasting, internet radio).

Bewussyn 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are confused between medium and product. iPod is not a medium, it's a product that plays mp3 files, mp4, etc. And by the way, Internet, mobile phones, etc.. are not printed ! What you are trying to do is to classify the medium of communication in its way to reach human sense, in this case; text, image, sound.

-- BlueCall 06:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the iPod, and medium/product. Just want to point out that its not MY classification, but an academic one from the book by P. David Marshall. And yes, a better way to put it would be "text" and not "printed", but the essence stays the same. New Media is larger than the current definition states. Bewussyn 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal

I suggest replacing the contents of the article on "New Media" with the up-to-date contents of this Talk page on the subject. To me, this expresses the essence of new media better than any attempt at an encyclopedic definition. Jon Ippolito 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written

I have rewritten the article with the basis being on what New Media is in its basic form. There are no doubt things that have haven't included but you folks are knowledgable on the topic, so of course, add and change whatever you feel necessary. I thought that this would be a good start, and hopefully the article is pointing in the right direction now.

Dcastlebeck 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This text is not pointing in any direction now. It is the emptiest bla-bla in the world. As nas been already noticed "This article or section reads like an advertisement". But I can't imagine a person or institution benefiting from it.--Olia lialina 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of a book, The Language of New Media by Lev Manovich, and there seems that this article really is not exactly getting the point of new media or exactly what new media is. It is much more complex than a mix of digital and interactive medias. The definition I would use for new media is: The breaking down of all digital media, of the same code, into objects without degradation to which users can choose which objects to display or follow paths to generate unique work; all by the use of one machine(a computer). New Media is just about theory and communicating about the future of media. Though I tried to best sum up new media in my definition, because it is theory and proned to changes, it will be hard to totally decribe what is new media is. GWatson  ^TALK 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-word

"newspreneurs" is not a word! I plan to remove it. 217.154.138.215 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "closely associated with the term Web 2.0"

Can anyone justify this past "They're both contemporary tech buzz words!"? "Web 2.0" is about user-centric web applications with thick client functionality. New media loosely denotes electronic media which includes more than just hypertext. And hypertext has been around long before people starting yapping about "Web 2.0", so what's the salient connection? The mention of "Web 2.0" in this article really diminishes and trivializes the subject at hand in my opinion. AdamSap 08:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and plan to remove it. P.S. I edited without logging in, so I reverted the changed, logged back in and put my changes back. FreemanMAS214 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cleanup" flag placed at start of this article

Among the problems I observed without even looking closely are that "new media" is referred to inconsistently -- sometimes in single-quotes, sometimes double-quotes, sometimes italicized; why not just define it "New Media" and then refer to it that way throughout?

The "Common Association and Misconceptions" section, in particular, needs significant work. Steve Bob 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of splitting the first sentence into two sentences. I felt that joining two ideas with hyphens didn't quite obey punctuation rules. Sorry if I caused any major problems. Mandanthe1 04:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Media : Can't Be Defined

New Media is to me the marriage between communication and technolgy. That being said: there are always new ways to communicate and new technology every year. I really believe that there is a rule of 5 years. Every 5 years something becomes popular and then hits mainstream until something new comes out and replaces it. A Perfect example is cell phones. There was the car phone, then the travel pack phone, then the true cell phone, then nokia's became big, then the internet and messaging phones, now the razor and even more recent the i-phone. New Media is the search for perfect and convient communication. Why can't it be defined? I believe it can't be defined because it will always change until it is as simple and complicated at the same time as it can get. People want to believe that technology is simple and that it should never fail you and people that design technology know the opposite is true. So when will we finally be satisfied; I say never. And we shouldn't. New Media is an advancement in communication that is taken for granted and underappreciated everyday. On the brightside it is endless in possibilities and potential. New Media is exactly what it says, NewMedia. So when is new media old media? Unfortunitally everyday. That is why I feel it can't be defined. In order to know what is new you have to know what is next and only the people designing in that field know what is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgone64 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fundamental problem is that the word "new" to describe anything is not only relative to a time period, but vague even within that time period, and doomed with an unspecified yet inevitable expiration. Oicumayberight 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if it can or cannot be defined, it certainly is a term that is used in a variety of ways in public discourse and as such can be chronicled in its various uses. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if it can't be defined, what should the article be about? Oicumayberight 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me there's a clearer line between "digital media" and "analog media" than between "new media" and "old media." The article even says "Most technologies described as "new media" are digital." Why use a fuzzy term whose meaning will change with time when you really mean something more specific? The one problem is that "media" is commonly used to mean both the content (as in mass media and news media) and the medium used to represent that content (as in digital media which as currently described focuses more on the latter). However the term "new media" is a pretty feeble way of distinguishing content from medium and will get old awfully fast. How about "web media"? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statements

In the "old media vs new media" section, the sentence that states "the distinction between new media" and old media is not distinct" is poorly worded if not an outright contradiction. I'm not sure what the original point of that sentence is. Should be either "there is no absolute distinction between new media and old media", or "the distinctions made between new media and old media are not absolute". Oicumayberight 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire old vs new media section is poorly written and factually baseless - it requires a substantial rewrite... If i have time i'll try and get around to it over the next week or so

SyTaffel 16:45 4 October 2007

The new introduction section is unsupported and gives a poor definition using series of words such as 'interactive' which are frequently dismssed as meaningless hype by new media scholars (eg Aarseth 1997, Manovich 2001) - so i'm going to remove it

SyTaffel 19 October —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New media vs digital media

Oppose

There seems to be a consensus among scholars that new media is a "narrowing down" of digital media. Both Lev Manovich (his five principles from the book "the language of new media" are mentioned under the introduction), Terry Flews ideas of convergent media (new media - oxford university press 2005) and the ideas of convergence culture (users and producsers, as Henry Jenkins spent a full book on in "convergence culture - where old and new media collide", imply that digital alone, does not make digital media new media. Manovich further argues that the these principles of new media are not soley attached to new media being created but also apply to old medias.Goolsbymedia (talk)

I'll sum thise ideas up with a quote from the introduction of the book "new media old media - a history and theory reader" by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun & Thomas Keenan: "Computation may be the key to new media, but computation does not automatically lead to new media or to software". I read that as "digital media (media readable by a digital computer) dos not mean new media, until we add some of the possibilities of the digital environment". That may be elements like hyper text, software, database handling and reorganization and so on.

New media, as mentioned, is a highly academic word and might not be very useful outside this context (even though the big media corporations officially state that new media is a field the will go after, they seems to mean digital media or web based media), there is a distinct difference between new media and digital media. My opinion is that this article needs rewriting, not merging with digital media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.32.93 (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As the article currently states in the introduction... digital means sampled - not electronic or something written in binary code or media readable by a digital computer (as the above post suggests). 35mm film is a digital media - it samples time 24 times a second. television goes further by also sampling space... neither 35mm film nor broadcast television are new media.

user:SyTaffel

35 mm film as "digital"? I don't think that's correct at all. It records analog visual images on celluloid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35mm film records analog images (35mm photographs) digitally (discretely sampled) - by shooting 24 frames a second. each frame is a discrete sample of time - which when played back at the correct speed gives the impression of movement.

if 35mm was a fully analog medium then it would record images continuously - not as discrete samples

user:SyTaffel 6 december 2007

Mmm, this is a tricky one. If you are to argue that film is a digital format because cameras sample 24 times a second then you would also have to say that taking a photograph is a sample of any given moment, and that all mechanical devices that record likewise momentarily are digital, thus (perhaps) rendering the term meaningless. If you examine each frame of film, however, it has been recorded in continuous space (just as a photograph is). What I mean by this is that each image has height and width that are not broken down into discrete states, further, it takes time to record each frame and this time will vary between frames (depending on lighting/sensitivity of the film etc.), thus each image is representative of a continuous, short, variable time frame. And yes, I do realize that this last point is problematic because it can apply to digital photography/video too, but there are always non-digital elements to digital technology and media and I would count this as one of them (along with optical zoom for instance). Also, we can't disconnect the sound from film which, for most of its existence has not been digital in any sense of the word. If you class film as digital then you would also have to count Muybridge's photos, comic strips, and even the English language (which is broken down into 26 discrete characters) as digital. For this term to be useful I think we have to assign it meaning beyond a very stripped-back, disconnected, dictionary definition. It has to represent social, historical and common usage.
Greg S. 60.228.51.3 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do-over

I fear this article has become a bit too much like someone's college essay on new media, filled with uncited assertions and flowery language.

For example, right in the introductory sentences is the statement "New Media is the use of old media in a new setting." Ok, says who? I imagine Bolter & Grusin would assert that, but it is by no way an undisputed fact. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should not be merged, but both need a lot of editing

I thought I had a pretty clear idea of what "new media" is, at least in common usage. I struggled through this terribly confusing and poorly argued "college thesis" (to use very the appropriate description given above), and found my understanding far more confused than clarified as a result of reading it. Obviously this article is not up to Wikipedia standards.

Next I looked at the "digital media" article, since supposedly these two terms are so closely related that a merger is being considered. It didn't help. That article is largely some very specific examples of digital media and a list of digital media artists. Reading the two, it would seem that the two articles certainly should not be merged, as digital media appears to be a very narrow subset, and yet slightly different, part of new media.

Wikipedia is not a forum to present an argument. The whole "he said, but he argues, but here's his rebuttal" nature of the new media article needs to go away. It only confuses things and makes the whole article practically useless. People don't come to Wikipedia to watch a court room drama of two experts arguing a case before a court of peers. They come here to get a basic answer to "What is ___". Digital media at least does that, but new media contradicts itself so often and is so unfocused, that it is as waste of time.

If there are two sides to the issue, then present them succinctly and separately. Figure out the things that most people agree are in common with New Media and write a nice clear description about those aspects. Then, figure out which of the two "experts" has more followers/believers, and write how that person thinks New Media is different from, or expands beyond, or whatever the main definition is. Then, in a third section, give the alternate view. Don't make it an arguement. Instead, just set out the basic principles. If it were a Christian religon, you could summarize things in a similar way. Talk about the things they have in common beliefs (belief in Christ), then how they differ (key differences in ceremonial aspects, governing bodies, views on controversial topics, etc.). The general summary should be the largest part of the document. The differing views should be a paragraph to a paragraph each. Use the see also or external links section to point people to additional research or discussion on the matter.

Votes: I strongly oppose the merger of new media and digital media (in either direction), because they are clearly different things. I strongly agree that both articles need a lot of cleanup and pruning, and in the case of new media, I think a complete rewrite is in order--at least for the sections debating the different definitions. Willscrlt (Talk) 07:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much to say about either subject. The only thing special about "new media" is that it is new, and only for a while at that. The things that are special about digital media are more due to the content and signal processing methods than the physical storage medium that they use. But I agree that they shouldn't be merged with each other.

"New media" should be merged with media (communication) if anything. If "New media" is kept as a separate article, it shouldn't be anything more than a stub about the buzzword that it is, with maybe a little categorization that certainly will change over the years. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "New Media" is a fluid term, which necessarily shifts in meaning (almost) as fast as the technology that supports it. Crikeymiles (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Digital media" should be merged with the digital article if anything. It would also work well as a disambiguation page pointing to:

Any medium that uses codecs.
- Electronic media that uses codecs or stores digitally encoded content.
Digitally encoded media content.

I may be off base with some of these suggestions, but I do think something should be done to keep these two articles from being constantly redefined and refocused. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'If there are two sides to the issue, then present them succinctly and separately. Figure out the things that most people agree are in common with New Media and write a nice clear description about those aspects. Then, figure out which of the two "experts" has more followers/believers'

Not a helpful suggestion at all. There are about thirty different theorists who could be used here, who all have different takes on what new media is (and a number of them claim its no longer a useful descriptor because it is used in so many contradictory ways). How exactly do you suggest figuring out which of those is the most popular? No one here can carry out a global survey to provide that kind of data.

Peer review

I've tagged this article with various issues that plague it, and nominated it for peer review to get more opinions and help. This article's topic is much too important to have in such poor shape. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review page, with various suggestions for improvement, is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/New media/archive1. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested semi-protection

I've requested semi-protection for this article as there seems to be a rash of brand new editors adding what seems to be sections out of school papers about new media, or rambling paragraphs that summarize a favorite theorist. We need to pare down the arbitrary quotes from books, and hone this article down to a proper encyclopedic treatment of the topic (i.e., see my peer review request noted above). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperreality and the mass

Before the postmodern era, the media used to act as a reflection or mirror of reality. With new technologies and a consumer culture, the media has responded with a new concept of real. We are now given images and signs that are “more real” than real, a form of reality on steroids. These exaggerated messages encourage us to continue participating in our money culture and meet the expectations of this "realer then real reality." We have had to find new mechanisms to express our individuality, yet remain as one with the mass. With these amped up images and themes confronting us at every turn, the distinction between real and fantasy becomes blurred and misconstrued. As the younger generations become accustomed to these exaggerated characters and images, they lose all the meaning and content of reality. According to Jean Baudrillard, the loss of these meanings will result in total entropy and all content implodes into one form. We no longer understand the meaning of a simple image, but only its new representation and the desire to meet the standards it implies.

Hypperreality has a direct effect on the consumption and absorption of the fantasy it presents. Massification is intensified as we are bombarded with these images and concepts as a mass audience and encouraged to compete for our individuality with the mass. These massified messages are given to as a mass audience, but try to develop a reassurance that as we continue to focus on the object as opposed to the subject we will reach our individuality. However, as we do try to express our individuality through new technologies, we are still controlled and assumed as "just a part of the mass" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiassignment (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalisation and New Media: According to Flew and McElhinney (2001) "Developments in communications have made an important role in all of these processes of globalisation. The technological forms that are used to communicate messages influence the communicative practices of individuals and institutions, and this in turn influences societies and cultures. Developments in communications media are important in all processes of globalisation. There are three dimensions to this centrality of media to globalisation. First, media constitute the technologies and service delivery platforms through which international flows are transacted. Second, the media industries are leaders in the push towards global expansion and integration. Finally, the media provide informational content and images of the world through which people seek to make sense of events in distant places.

Thanks, MFD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariefrancedagenais (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Media's ever-changing state

New media is an open system and it's definition will always be up in the air; the new media of today is not that of the 1940's! For this reason I suggest chronicling the times at which communication mediums were considered “New Media”. For example, early examples of new media involved scribbling on cave walls (5000+BC). Within the last century, new media has evolved rapidly with the advent of radio, television, the computer, the internet, the mobile phone, etc.

The definition of new media should be no different even though the mediums of new media change. The effects and consequences (which there are many) of new media can be generalized, as many theorists have attempted to do, but without pertaining to a particular medium it is difficult to remain accurate. These are my suggestions from a novice wikipedia contributor...good luck with the open encyclopedia! --Karlkamper (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interactivity and New Media

The advent of the internet (as a means of marketing and selling) and DVD (as a delivery Medium) has revitalized interest in selling/delivering ‘alternative’ moving image work direct to the public. The potential these avenues offer for reaching wider audiences are proving particularly attractive in the light of the recent UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity. However, similar initiatives were undertaken when VHS took off as a mass delivery medium in the 1980s.[www.scholarsportal.com] From this point on there are thousands of different types of technology that are used to create videos that are legal and made in Hollywood to home made videos, but in the 21st century we have now resorted to one of the newest and updated technologies that we call the tube, as known as youtube. This is a website that allows the public to upload videos. Influences like youtube have increased people’s free expression and allowed the public to express their concerns, habits, interpretations, talents and more. We now have availability to express ourselves freely and for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berry the bear (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete term

This article should be part of Social Media they are the same thing except Social Media is the current term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.18.97 (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in music?

Why is this under related topics at the bottom of the page when it is not mentioned within the body of the article? I suggest we either remove it or make it relevant, but in its current state seems arbitrary and non-essential to the integrity of the article.

Also, I previously included wikilinks for CD-roms and DVDs at the beginning of the article. Why has it been decided that these mediums of new media are not relevant enough to new media to warrant wikilinks to them?

Offices of US Governors

The section Offices of US Governors doesn't make much sense. For one thing, instead of using an actual bulleted or number list, it has numbers that are sometimes followed by periods, sometimes by colons, and sometimes by nothing; and hyphens for bullets. The sentence "Accepting an estimate (based on the 80/20 rule) that NM impresses many times on 20% of the state's citizenry, a bit on another 60% of the state's citizenry and not at all on the remaining 20% of the state's citizenry" strikes me as complete gibberish. I'd fix it if I had any idea what the author was trying to say. --Kitsunegami (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this belongs here at all. This is a general article about "New Media" with a very specific-and-detailed example about how some US Governor's offices use New Media. It should be removed or moved. 205.143.123.10 (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]