Tag Archives: New Media

Pressing ‘Reset’

In 1993, after two decades working for newspapers’ print editions and for two of the world’s major international news services, I switched the focus of my career to working full-time on journalism’s transition from print and terrestrial or cable and satellite broadcasting to online. As would be for anybody working in a relatively new field, my portfolio was relatively wide, ranging from how online changes the consumption and hence business models of the news media and changes the nature and contents of journalism itself. I became a frequent contributor to the news media’s internal discussion lists and discussion forums about these changes; a frequent speaker at media industry conferences, and became a consultant helping news industry companies begin making those changes.

By 1998, however, I had become vocally dissident compared to most of the people working in that growing field. I realized — and had the data showing — that online distribution wasn’t going to be a lucrative venue for traditional publishers or broadcasters. By traditional, I mean companies that produce packages of Mass Media contents. Online couldn’t lucratively be used as merely an electronic’ or ‘paperless’ means of distributing such Industrial Era products. Online was different and much more than that. These predictions, which with every subsequent year have become more obviously valid, didn’t endear me to most people working in those traditional news companies. ‘I apologize, but I can’t have you speak at this year’s conference because what you said there last year depresses everyone,’ one conference organizer told me. Most people in the industry not only thought I was wrong but pointed to the record profits that Mass Media companies were making during the first few years of this century as evidence that I must be wrong.

If record profits were a true indicator of a company’s or industry’s future viability, then horse livery stables, the Penn Central Railroad, Enron, and Blockbuster Video, to name just a few industries or companies that went bankrupt only a few years after earning record profits, would be doing business today. Not only during 1998 to 2006, when Mass Media companies were posting record profits, but ever since the mid 1980’s, Mass Media’s audiences (as measured by readership or listenership or viewership if respectively print, radio, or television or cinema, and as measured daily if a daily publication or broadcast, measured weekly if a weekly publications or broadcast, etc.) have been declining per capita in the United States and other developed countries. Those declines started years before the Internet was opened to the public in 1992 via the first commercial Internet Service Provider to consumers. And Internet access to consumer exacerbated those declines in the U.S., particularly after 2004 when approximately half of consumers obtained ‘always-on’ broadband access to it, access which changed how they consume news, entertainment, and other information. The change in how they consume is the key.

Since the late-1990s, when companies such as Nielsen (formerly AC Nielsen) and ComScore began recording how and how often consumers online consume news, entertainment, and other information, it’s been obvious that consumers do so in far different ways than they had (or still do) consumer printed publications and over-the-air, cable, or satellite broadcasts. Although consumers spend increasingly more time online each month, they notably consume the websites of publishers of printed periodicals and those of traditional broadcasters far less frequently and far less deeply than they had used those same publishers’ printed editions or same broadcasters’ traditionally broadcast programming. Indeed, it’s become obvious that consumers use all Mass Media companies’ contents far less frequently and far less deeply that way.

The radically different ways in which consumers online consume news, entertainment, and other information, than they did those same contents in print editions or traditional broadcasts has had devastating effects on the industries and companies of Mass Media. The more of their consumers who switch from consuming printed editions or traditional broadcasts and instead consume online, the worse the situation of those industries and companies get. Although Mass Media companies expected their online consumers to pay either the same (or even a significant fraction of the) subscription or newsstand rates that those same consumers had paid before going online, most of those consumers did not and have not. Moreover, Mass Media companies have not generated sufficient revenues from online advertising to compensate those revenues lost from subscriptions or newsstand sales as their consumers went online. Nearly all Mass Media companies earn far less revenue from online than those companies had from printed editions or traditional broadcast. For example, although U.S. newspapers’ annual revenues from online grew from $900 million in 2004 to $3 billion in 2016, those newspapers’ revenues from print edition shrank from $42 billion to $19 billion, a net annual loss of nearly $21 billion or almost 50 percent.

My family in 1877 began publishing a daily newspaper in Connecticut. By 2004, I had convinced most of my family members who managed that newspaper to sell the company. However, one family member disagreed (we ultimately sold it last year for markedly less than it was worth in 2004). By 2006, I’d grown tired of consulting to an industry that I’d literally been raised in but that had become suicidally adverse to change, and the following year I joined both the faculty and the staff of Syracuse University’s S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. There I formulated and for the past ten years have been teaching a postgraduate course entitled “New Media Business’, a required course for New Media Management master’s degree students. It focuses on how the Individuated Media, products of the dawning Informational Era, have already begun replacing the Mass Media, products of the waning Industrial Era, as the predominant ways in which most consumers in developed countries now obtain news, entertainment, and other information.

It goes back to my 1998 paper (updated in 2006) entitled What is ‘New Media’? That paper stated that the ‘New Media’ isn’t simply any new device through which information can be conveyed. Nor is the ‘New Media’ printed or broadcast information placed (‘shoveled’) online. Instead, the ‘New Media’ is a more profound, potent, and pregnant concept than the Mass Media, which it already is superseding.

Mass production was an innovation of the Industrial Era: the mass production of books and later newspapers and magazines, and then over-the-air broadcasts of sound and video. The analog printing press (c. 1440) and the analog broadcast transmitter (c. 1896) respectively permitted the mass consumption in homes of printed information and the mass consumption of audio and later video. However, Industrial Era mass production technologies have a hallmark flaw: each produces at once one product for all its consumers.

For example, a daily newspaper produces the same daily edition for its readers on that day. (At a very large-circulation newspaper there might be some minor variations among that day’s editions, such as the New England edition of The New York Times including a different selection of stories than that day’s West Coast edition. However, most of the stories selected for inclusion in any of those editions will be in each that day.) Similarly, all viewers of a TV channel simultaneously see the same program at a given time. Mass production increases the reach (i.e., number of recipients) of a media product, but all recipients receive virtually that same product at that given time. Yet there is no way in which Industrial Era technologies can create a unique edition (or mix of broadcast programs in a schedule) for each recipient, a unique product containing a mix of stories or programs matching that individual’s unique mix of needs, interests, and tastes. However, the Informational Era’s computer technologies can create a unique mix of stories or programs that match an individual’s unique mix of needs, interests, and tastes, simultaneously for mass numbers of consumers.

Consider the Industrial Era media product known as a newspaper. A daily newspaper’s newsroom receives hundreds, if not thousands, of stories each day from its reporters, news wire services, and news syndicates. However, the Industrial Era production technologies used to print a newspaper, namely an analog press, which presses paper onto inked type, cannot from among those hundreds or thousands of stories produce a unique edition for each individual reader’s own unique mix of needs, interests, and tastes, the mix that makes that individual reader individual. It’s a technological limitation. Instead, those Industrial Era production technologies forces that newspaper’s editors to choose a limited number of stories which they think might best satisfy the greatest aggregate number of readers. That same selection of stories, which might range between 20 and 100 depending upon the circulation of that newspaper, goes to all readers. However, online technologies have no such technological limitation. Programmed with appropriate algorithms, a website can be made to identify each individual reader and match its mix of contents to match that individual consumer’s expressed needs, interests, and tastes. The ‘New Media’ are media products that, as with Mass Media, have mass distribution but, unlike Mass Media, customize the content each recipient sees for that recipient.

[I’m a stickler for accurate terminology because marketers often conflate or blur the real meanings of too many words and phrases. For instance, enter the work turbo in Amazon.com’s search box and among the results will be Turbotax, Turbo Tide laundry detergent, Gillette Mach 3 Turbo razors, etc., none of which actually have anything to do with turbines or turbochargers. Marketers misuse the real meaning of turbo. Likewise, too many misuse words and phrases such as digital, interactive, personalization, and New Media. For example, an unsolicited, commercial marketing postal letter mass mailed to tens thousands of individuals including me might begin with ‘Dear Vin’ but that personalized greeting doesn’t mean the letter is customized in any way to me and my needs, interests, or tastes. No more than a personalized golf ball on which my name appears is fundamentally any different than any other golf ball. Personalization isn’t customization. Customization of content is customization. And complete or perfect customization is call individualization, the latter word based upon the psychological term for that which makes a person a unique from others.]

Facebook, Spotify, Twitter, Pandora, Tencent QQ Flipboard, Vkontake, etc., are all examples of New Media companies. Their contents are individually customized for each one of their many users. Is Facebook a Mass Media company? No. Although Facebook reaches more than 2 billion consumers, the greatest mass reaches of any media company in history, each of those consumers simultaneously sees different contents than any other consumer. The mix each sees is customized to that consumer’s explicit ‘Like’s of contents and mix of friends on Facebook. Mass reach with true customization (beyond personalization although perhaps not yet individualization) are the hallmark of true New Media and of truly New Media companies.

If you were given the choice of either consuming a mix of contents based not upon your unique mix of needs, interests, and tastes, but upon the aggregate demographics people who live near you, which of those mixes would you prefer to consume? Most consumers will gravitate towards a mix that matches their own individual mix of needs, interests, and tastes. This is natural. That is why hundreds of millions of consumers, indeed billions of consumers, have been gravitating to customized media services such as those produced by Facebook, Spotify, Twitter, Pandora, Tencent, Flipboard, Vkontake, etc. Within just a little more than a dozen years, those companies’ Individuated Media products have superseded traditional Mass Media companies’ products as the predominant ways in which most people in developed countries obtain news, entertainment, and other information.

All media industries and all media companies need to understand and adapt to this epochal change in the media environment: the era of Mass Media is waning and the era of Individuated Media is dawning. If traditional media companies and traditional media industries are to survive, they must adapt their products, their production and distribution practices, and their business models, to fit this new era. What has made Facebook, Spotify, Twitter, Pandora, Tencent QQ Flipboard, Vkontake, etc., successful isn’t necessarily their managers or investors but that those companies, born of the Informational Era, happened to design their products and service toward individuation. Indeed, search engines such as Google, Baidu, and Bing, likewise are Individuated Media because each of their users uses them to find contents that match their individual needs, interests, and tastes, rather than those users simply relying on the generic or demographically aggregate mixes of contents that comes in the printed periodicals or broadcasts that they already receive. Individuated Media superseding Mass Media.

Today, I reset my career and hang my new sign as one of the world’s leading consultants about Individuated Media.  Although I continue to teach my postgraduate course at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications, it’s time for me to consult about what is blossoming rather than what is shrinking or withering. Embrace and develop the future rather than manage the fading past. Want to know about the true epochal change underway in the media environment? Then give me a phone call or email.

The Spectrum of Change


Previous webpage: Maelstrom as the Flow Changes

 “I wasalmost a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
— Nikolai Tesla about Thomas Edison’s exhaustive experimentations.

Access and choices of news, entertainment, and information for the majority of the world’s population has shifted from relative scarcity to surplus, even overload. More than three billion people can now—via desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone—access more news, entertainment, and other information than had ever before in human history been printed or broadcast. The ranks of these of people will increase to nearly six billion by the end of this decade because all mobile phones now being manufactured are smartphone models capable of accessing this newfound cornucopia of content.

This epochal shift in readily accessible supply of news, entertainment, and information began four decades ago: no more than a wink in human history yet more than a generation ago in the lives of humans today. The shift occurred so quickly that young adults have not known anything but surplus, yet so slowly that older adults are only beginning to perceive the profound changes it has wrought. This cognitive gap, more difficult to bridge than a mere generation gap, today rends the media industries. The older adults who lead these industries or teach media too often use outdated theories, doctrines, and practices rooted in the waning era of scarcity; yet the younger adults who staff and the students who’ll soon join those industries haven’t yet enough lifetime experience and wisdom to fully formulate new theories, doctrines, and practices that comprehensively explain exactly how these industries must adapt to the dawning era of surplus.

Four decades into the epochal shift, the majority of executives and scholars still don’t understand how this change from scarcity to surplus is radically altering the media environment. Although some of them perceive scarcity’s dusk, but most seem myopic to the remarkable transformations in media theories, doctrines, business models, practices, and products that are dawning from surplus. They instead misperceive New Media merely as electronic distribution platforms the traditional media products, practices, and business models that were conceived in and based upon the scarcities of the Industrial Era: in other words, Mass Media. Failing to perceive and adapt to the epochal change underway, they are leading their industries into obsolescence. Their declining circulations or listenerships or viewerships once adjusted for population growth, and their fading market capitalizations and equity prices without adjustment, all attest their misperception and failure. Many major U.S. media corporations, in tacit admission of failure to adapt, have traditional products’ declining revenues once adjusted for inflation, their products’ been jettisoning their eldest and formerly most robust media sector products, the sector that first directly encountered the epochal switch: their newspapers subsidiaries.

What you’re reading now is a primer about the epochal change underway in media, its many aspects, and what effects causes. This primer is condensed from the first month of the New Media Business postgraduate course that I’ve taught since 2007 at Syracuse University’s S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. It’s aimed at anyone who needs help perceiving the full spectrum of media change underway. In it:

  • I’ll outline the basic spectrum of change underway in the media environment (including some aspects or ‘colors’ not easily or normally visible).
  • I’ll delineate that spectrum into ‘color’ categories based upon whether aspects of that ‘color’ primarily affect consumer behavior, production and definition of content, or transaction and distribution of content.
  • I’ll describe why the epochal switch from scarcity to surplus in people’s access and choices of news, entertainment, and other information, has made very many, if not most, of the Industrial Era theories, business models, practices, and products, all colloquially known as Mass Media communications, which have dominated media for centuries, increasingly unsuccessful, archaic, or obsolete.
  • Likewise, I’ll specifically explain why a major effect of the changes underway is that general-interest Mass Media vehicles—such as newspapers, news magazines, and news broadcasts—are failing not only in their legacy forms but also when put online; and conversely why topical or ‘niche’ media in almost all forms are flourishing.
  • Finally, I’ll explain why traditionalists in the media industries need to abandon their nigh alchemical search for a business model that will let their traditional Mass Media doctrines, practices, and products thrive fundamentally unchanged in this new environment. If traditional media companies want to survive, they must embark upon a radical overhaul of their doctrines, practices, business models, products, and industrial infrastructures. Their embarkation is already overdue.

The starting point for all of that is to look beyond the superficial of changes. Let’s start by slaying a pernicious misperception. Virtually all traditional media executives and traditional media academicians mistakenly think that the major change underway in the media environment is that people are switching their consumption habits from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’. These academicians and executives see fewer and fewer consumers reading printed periodicals or listening to over-the-air radio broadcasts or watching over-the-air or cable television video programming, and instead see more and more consumers reading, listening, or viewing news, entertainment, and other information via personal computers, electronic tablets, smartphones. The executives and academicians thus myopically assume that an ‘analog-to-digital’ switch is the greatest change underway; that the greatest, most important, or even most motive change underway in the media environment is that billions of consumers are becoming ‘wired’ or ‘hooked-up’ or going ‘digital first’. Similar misnomers are media ‘convergence’ or ‘multimedia’, terms which nowadays belie an Industrial Era perspective on media.

Although it is true that billions of consumers are now consuming media contents via computerized devices, that change is incidental. Those billions of consumers aren’t switching to use of computerized device because consuming media via computerized devices is easier. The devices’ screens are smaller than most television screens, harder to read than a book or magazine, more expensive and fragile than paper, and require a live connection to the Internet. Besides, most consumers in developed countries had already had books, newspapers, magazines, and radio and television receivers in their homes. Nor are those billions of consumers switching to computerized devices necessarily to obtain multimedia; the vast majority of the contents they consume on these devices is monomedia—a video clip, a song, or a webpage with or without still photos. Nor are those billions switching necessarily because computerized devices necessarily because these computerized devices can provide them with more up-to-date or information while mobile: the vast majority of contents they consumer on these devices is no more up-to-date than a daily newspaper or news broadcast and the majority of usage consumers make of these device is at home or in their office. Billions of consumers aren’t switching their media consumption to computerized devices for the sake of ‘digital’ or ‘wires’ or ‘wireless’ or being ‘digital first’. They are switching their media consumption for an even greater reason: because these devices provide them with so much more news, entertainment, and other information than all the paper ever printed and all the radio and television broadcast ever made can. They switch because New Media not only gives them much more news, entertainment, and other information than traditional media can, but commensurately let’s each of them find a better match of that media content to their own individual mix of needs, interests and tastes. The sheer appeal of that, fulfilled by every-increasing progress of New Media technologies, has fomented the greatest change in the history of media.

Unfortunately, those media executives and media academicians who instead misperceive some sort of ‘analog-to-digital’ switch or being ‘wired’ or ‘hooked-up’ or ‘digital first’ (or even ‘desktop to mobile’) as the greatest, most important, or even most active change underway in the media environment are blinkering, if not blinding themselves, to this greatest change and its panoramic spectrum of effects on the environment. Such simplistic and seductive misperceptions are the worst miscalculations a media executive or academician can make today. Those misperceptions lead them into the grave error of thinking that the New Media are merely ‘digital’ distribution mechanisms that have arisen for their traditional contents and products (i.e., ‘How can we put our newspaper online?’ ‘How can we use Pinterest as part of our broadcast?’ ‘How can we promote our magazine on Twitter?’). This myopia prevents them from seeing the New Media have reshaped the media environment in ways that are alien to traditional media theories, doctrines, practices, and produces; fields in which traditional media are themselves alien and unsuitable for transplantation. Executives and academicians who misperceive this way miss the truly major opportunities and changes underway in this new era.

The switch from ‘analog to digital’ (my catch-all term for all those misperceptions) is but a single hue in a far more colorful, powerful, and complex spectrum of change underway. The world’s media industries are woefully overdue to examine the complete spectrum, which is why most media industries have become, to use another trite term, ‘disrupted’.

Next webpage: The Prism & New Media Chromodynamics

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2014


Singaporean TV News Coverage

The Singapore Press Holdings Foundation each year hosts a media lecture in the Drama Centre of the National Library. This year’s theme was Media in Transition: Social & Economic Impact. I gave the lecture. Here is TV news coverage of that speech, delivered on July 14, 2010. To see the entire lecture.

EPublishing Innovations Forum 2008

My opening keynote speech at the 2008 EPublishing Innovations Forum, London, May 7th

Thanks, David! Two linguistic notes before I begin.

First, please forgive my Yank accent. My great-grandfather Crosbie, who was born in London, would wince at it.

Second, doe anyone here speak Chinese? I ask because, after people who read English, the second largest linguistic group online today is people who read Chinese. To make sure they benefit from my speech, I took the title that the conference organizers suggested – Thriving in the digital age: threats and opportunities for digital publishers – and put that into Google’s English-to-Chinese translation engine. Then, just to make sure that I got the Chinese version right, I took that result and put it into Yahoo’s Chinese-to-English translation engine. The resulting title is Watts that you say? Screw Gutenberg, the Change Underway is Even Larger. So that’s what I’m going to talk about.

Gutenberg. The Screw. Watt. And why the changes today underway are even larger than during Gutenberg. (Don’t worry, I’ll explain the screw.)

Here is a slide of Gutenberg in Strasbourg. His statue in bronze and a target today for pigeons. He’s also a target for quotes about the Internet. My guess is that you’ve all heard most the quotes before:

‘The Internet is the biggest things since Gutenberg.’
‘The change underway will be the biggest since Gutenberg.’
‘The Internet will change things as much as Gutenberg did.’

Well, don’t get me wrong: Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press probably sparked the Renaissance. Yet it’s time we understand something: The change today underway is even larger!

The change now underway is bigger than mass production was for the medieval calligraphers and scribes who Gutenberg’s invention put out of work. Moreover, it’s not just a change from production of single calligraphic editions to mass production of millions of books. What is underway is an intellectual jump. It’s a quantum jump in how information is distributed to people and how they find information.

I’ve lately become an academic, and in academia we have a technical term for the magnitude of the change today underway. It is an academic term that combines Norman French and Anglo-Saxon. We call it a Mindf*ck.

It’s like a jump from two to three dimensions. And from this new dimension arises phenomenal new opportunities for publishers. Opportunities we’ll talk about.

Unfortunately, most publishers today still think only in the old two dimensions – and therein lay the only threat to their livelihoods. Their failure to understand the new dimension underway in publishing is the threat. Understand me: The only threat is not to understand the change underway.

Let’s go back in time for a moment. The U.K. Statistics Office says there are more than 10,000 Britons who are more than 100 years old. In 1908, the streets outside this hotel, and all the streets of London, were full of horse carriages and horse carts. Though the 20th Century was new then, people nevertheless knew that the 21st Century would be a mechanized age despite the abundance of horses.

The early automobiles showed promise. Telephones were beginning to become common in offices and homes. Tesla and Marconi were each experimenting with something that would eventually be called radio. Yet nobody knew how quickly all those things would affect London’s seven million people, one million horses, 25 daily newspapers. Also, more esoteric and far-reaching things were also being developed in 1908. Things like quantum mechanics, which would later give us devices such as television, the transistor, the computer, the laser, and the CD, DVD, etc.

Today in 2008, people still get information distributed on paper pulp or from analog broadcast transmitters that fundamentally have changed little since Marconi’s time. Nevertheless, we know that our new century will be an all- digital age. An age of pervasive information. If the personal computer and mobile phone were our equivalents of the newfangled telephones and automobiles for people 100 years ago, so too can we now foresee things that are only recently being and invented, things we’re starting to have a clue that will shape the 21st century.

The one million horses were gone from London’s streets by 1920, only a dozen years’ after 1908. Likewise, the changes between now and 2020 will be phenomenal. If you think that you’ve seen change during the past dozen years, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

I’ve a bold agenda this morning. My job is to tell you how much things will change and explain the general themes and opportunities in those changes for publishers in the 21st century.

  • I will explain why 1.3 billion people have gravitate online despite their already having access to mass media in much more convenient formats than online.
  • I will explain why the fragmentation of audiences is an illusion.
  • I will explain why traditional newspapers’ and news magazines’ circulations, and news broadcasts’ viewerships, must ineluctably evaporate. And the reason is not because people don’t want news.
  • I will explain why most newspapers’ and news magazines’ and news broadcasters’ Web sites won’t save their companies. (In other words, why what you here in British publishing circles are calling the Rusbridger Cross won’t occur.)
  • And I’ll explain why people will be even better served by New Media than by Mass Media. In other words, why the change today is even greater than that during Gutenberg’s era.

That’s an ambitious agenda, so let’s begin.

Continue reading EPublishing Innovations Forum 2008

What is 'New Media' (redux)

[I earlier this week wrote that:

    The radical changes the newspaper industry needs to implement arise from a more true understanding by that industry of why newspaper readership began declining well before the Internet was opened to the public; about why one billion people worldwide have gone onto the Internet after it was opened to the public (they didn’t do it to read traditional media on computer screens), and about why all that plus the misnamed and illusionary ‘fracturing’ of media audiences requires semantic solutions.

At the root of that problem is a misunderstanding about what the New Medium actually is; a misunderstanding by almost all companies that broadcast programs or that publish newspapers or magazines.

I’ve long been reluctant to explain this misunderstanding only because I’ll need a long post to explain it. This is that post, a new version of my 1998 essay What is New Media? (which is currently being taught in the journalism, film, technology, and game design courses at several universities in North America and Europe). It’s 3,200-words long, but I consider it the most important thing I have ever written except for the original essay. I need to have this new version online because I plan to refer to it in future postings, specifically those about what radical changes that media companies need to implement.]

Misunderstanding ‘New Media’

A newspaper isn’t a medium, nor are newspapers media. Magazines aren’t media nor is a magazine a medium. Television isn’t a medium nor is radio nor are radio or television stations media. A website isn’t a medium nor is the Internet media.

Companies that broadcast programs or that publish newspapers or magazines are having problems understanding and adapting to why and how one billion consumers are now using Internet-based technologies to receive news, information, and entertainment.

Those companies have the problems simply because they misunderstand the meaning of media or medium. It is that starkly simple. Their misunderstanding of these terms– not the new technologies that consumers use — is the root of the companies’ problems.

Ask their executives if they work in the ‘Mass Media‘ (the Mass Medium) and they will be correct if they reply yes. But almost all will take that a step further — a misstep — and say that their broadcast, newspaper, or magazine is a medium.

Rhetoricians and cognitive linguists refer to that extra step as metonymy: the use of a well-understood or easy-to-perceive characteristic of something to stand for either a much more complex whole or for some aspect or part of it. (Another example of metonymy is use of the name Hollywood to describe the entire film industry worldwide)

Broadcast and publishing executives mistake Mass Media as a catchall phrase for all possible media, as if no other medium can exist except as a Mass Medium. Moreover, they extend this mistaken meaning of medium to cover their own broadcasts or publications.

So entrenched has the contemporary misunderstanding of the terms media and medium become that the mistake limits the abilities of most publishing or broadcasting executives to comprehend what exactly is a medium or the media in which they work.

So, what are media, what is a medium?

Continue reading What is 'New Media' (redux)