Eyman’s Definition of “New Media”
In the “New Media” section of Chapter One, “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric,” of his book, Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman sets out in defining the term “new media” as it relates to digital rhetoric. He poses the guiding questions: “when do particular media stop being ‘new’? And are the ‘media’ of ‘new media’ necessarily or obviously digital?”
Eyman comments on the similarities between the process of new media and that of digital rhetoric. These similarities being that both are “subject of competing interpretations and definitions.” However, Eyman also agrees with Packer and Jordan’s analysis. “There is value in proposing and discussing… definitions of digital media,” write Packer and Jordan, “even if these definitions are contingent, bracketed by circumstances… The definitions of today will inevitably be replaced tomorrow, as new applications for digital media emerge over time.” This is an interesting alternative to Patricia Sullivan and James E. Porter’s argument that “trying to establish a common meaning can have the effect of excluding enriching diversities.”
My Understanding
Furthermore, Eyman also comments on the similarities between new media and multimedia. He writes “Two of the key elements of multimedia shared by new media are the mixing of media and the requirement for users of both forms to engage multiple literacies.” I think this concept of “multiple literacies” helps to frame new media in the field of digital rhetoric. My understanding of new media tends to align with Cynthia Selfe’s definition that it is “created primarily in digital environments.” However, I also agree with Selfe’s description of “the relationship between new media as text and traditional print.” Selfe writes that “although such texts often include some alphabetic features, they also typically resist containment by alphabetic systems, demanding the multiple literacies of seeing and listening and manipulating, as well as those of writing and reading.”
Leave a Reply