Class was a doozy again yesterday, and it’s not my peers’ fault. New media has seemed to send them down a spiral of “How new does new have to be, to be new media?” Confusing, right? I didn’t write that just to get an evil chuckle out of it—I’m making a point. New media’s name causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. This isn’t just the case with people new to the field; it seems to affect even to those who have been around for a while. If you don’t believe me, read Doug Eyman’s (2015) “Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice” (pp. 51-55).
In the piece, Eyman cites Lev Manovich (2001), and Randall Packer and Ken Jordon’s (2001) new media principles. The issue is, however, their proposed principles work under the assumption they mostly, if not only, apply to the digital (p. 54). This might not be the case, as Eyman points out by referencing Anne Wysocki (2004). She suggests that what makes new media what it is, is the increase in functions it affords to designers. That is, functions that were not possible to achieve with any older medium (p. 54). It’s like trying to make a 2015 WordPress theme do what a 2025 one can: It’s not possible. (I’m totally not speaking from experience right now.)
Where it Went Wrong
I think the reason behind this weird hyperfocus on the digital stems from the beginning of this section of Eyman’s paper: “Digital media.” We see the digital as new (as we should), and it is ever-growing. And new media is called, well, new media. This would explain why Packer and Jordon said, “The definitions of today will inevitably be replaced tomorrow, as new applications for digital media emerge over time” (xxxii). We call it “new,” and the digital is the newest thing we’ve got. But the thing is, as Wysocki points out, it isn’t exactly about being new. It’s about new functions allowing for the creation of currently different media. However, it will eventually become old news to us, and thus no longer “new” media.
So, for the sake of history, and the comprehension and sanity of folks of all levels in this field, I strongly encourage a new name for this kind of media. Anything that encapsulates the functions made possible by it, without causing misunderstanding across the board, would be better.
Leave a Reply