What is 'Empowering' and who the 'Users' are in the new media

Anlam üzerine mücadele politik ideolojilerden ayrı düşünülemez. Makalemizde, bu sebeple, medya çalışmalarında yaygın bir ifade haline gelmiş ‘kullanıcının gücü’ nosyonu, liberal ‘çoğulcu medya’ ve radikal ‘medya emperyalizmi’ teorileri kapsamında, yeni medya uygulamalarından seçilen çeşitli örneklerle değerlendirilecektir. Yeni medyanın amiral gemisi Internet liberal modelde ‘fikirler pazarı’ olarak kabul edilirken, eleştirel gelenekten olan iletişimin politik ekonomistleri, yeni medyayı, kültür endüstrilerinin kompleks yapıları ve kültürel objelerin kapitalist ekonomide değer kazanma süreçleri bağlamlarında incelerler. Günlük hayatımızı bu derece sarıp sarmalaması, medyanın kullanım biçimleri ve rolünü kavramayı çağımızın en karmaşık konularından biri haline getirmiştir. Ancak toplumsal hayatımızın çok boyutluluğu ışığında, pozitivist tekno-küresel bir ‘İdeal Çağ’ beklentisine karşı uyarıda bulunmak bir gerekliliktir.

Yeni medyada "Kullanıcının Gücü"

The battle on the meaning is inseparable from political ideologies. In this paper, therefore, the notion of ‘empowering for users’ as a common expression in media studies will be evaluated by focusing on various examples selected from new media applications on the scope of the liberal ‘media pluralism’ and the radical ‘media imperialism’ theories. As the flagship of the new media, the Internet is acknowledged as the perfect ‘marketplace of ideas’ in the liberal model, while critical political economists of communication delve into the complexity of cultural industries and the valorisation processes of cultural objects in the new media context. Understanding the use and the role of the media is one of the most complex issues of our time, as they are inextricably intertwined with our everyday lives. However, warning against a positivistic techno-global millenarianism in the light of the multidimensionality of our social world is a must.

PDF

___

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). ‘Discourse in the Novel,’ in M. Holquist (ed) The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 259-422.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (1998). ‘Media imperialism reformulated,’ in Electronic Empires: Global Media and Local Resistance. London: Arnold, pp. 157-176.
Dahlgren, P. (2007). ‘Civic Identity and Net Activism: The Frame of Radical Democracy,’ in L. Dahlgren and E. Siapera (eds.) Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 55-72.
Dyer-Witheford, N. (2007). ‘Hegemony or Multitude? Two Versions of Radical Democracy for the Net,’ in L. Dahlgren and E. Siapera (eds.) Radical Democracy and the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 191-206.
Ericson, R. et al. (1987). Visualizing Deviance: A Study of News Organization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fiske, J. (1988). Television Culture. London: Routledge.
Fiske, J. (1989). ‘Popular Television and Commercial Culture: Beyond Political Economy,’ in G. Burns and R. Thompson (eds.) Television Studies: Textual Analysis. New York: Praeger, pp. 27-30.
Flew T. and S. McElhinney (2007). ‘Globalization and the Structure of New Media Industries,’ in L. A. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds). The Handbook of New Media. London: Sage, pp. 287-306.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Goldsmith, J. and T. Wu (2006). Who Controls the Internet? Illusion of a Borderless World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, S.(1982). ‘The rediscovery of ideology: return of the repressed in media studies,’ in M. Gurevitch, et al. (eds.) Culture Society and the media. London: Methuen, pp. 56-90.
Jenkins, H. And D. Thorburn (2004). ‘Introduction,’ in H. Jenkins and D. Thorburn (eds.) Democracy and New Media. Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 1-17.
Lemon, S. (2002). ‘Yahoo Criticized for Curtailing Freedom Online’ at http://www.pcworld.com/article/103865/yahoo_criticized_for_curtailing_free dom_online.html (accessed 10 Jan 09).
Mattelart, A. and M. Mattelart (1999). Theories of Communication. London: Sage.
Mattelart, A. (2003). The Information Society. London: Sage.
McChesney, R.W. (2000). Rich Media, Poor Democracy. New York: New Press.
McLuhan, M. (2001). Understanding Media. London: Routledge.
McQuail, D. (1992), Media Performance. Mass Communication and the Public Interest, London: Sage.
Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox, London: Verso.
Morley, D. (2006). ‘Unanswered Questions in Audience Research’. The Communication Review, 9:2, 101-121.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Vintage.
Rantanen, T. (2005). The Media and Globalization. London: Sage.
Rushkoff, D. (2003). Open Source Democracy. London: Demos.
Schuler, D. (2000). ‘Reports of the Close Relationship between Democracy and the Internet May Have Been Exaggerated,’ in H. Jenkins and D. Thorburn (eds.) Democracy and New Media. Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 69-84.
Poster, M. (2007). ‘Culture and New Media: A Historical View,’ in L. A. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds). The Handbook of New Media. London: Sage, pp. 134-.140