Media access : social and psychological dimensions of new technology use / edited by Erik P. Bucy, John E. Newhagen. [0805841091 ] Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum, c2004.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P91.28 .M43 2004

In Media Access, John E. Newhagen and Erik P. Bucy discuss what it means to have “access” to the Internet. More than simply being able to sit in front of a computer, Internet access holds several dimensions that demand certain levels of literacy and understanding from its users. The authors utilize a number of self-created terms (“system access,” “content access,” and “social access,” to name a few) that segment Internet usage in ways that I had not previously considered relevant for my purposes. However, their distinctions do provide much useful information for considering how users absorb what comes to them from the computer screen, which seems to fit well with my topic. They also lay out a specific difference between disseminating information from a television screen versus a computer (internet) screen: that internet computer screens allow us to accurately process both text and images through utilization of a higher resolution, which TV and cinema screens have thus far not been able to do. I’m not entirely sure I completely understand what this idea means, and thus I can’t wholly endorse it. But, it does give me a place to start when considering the differences between these two screen cultures.

The above argument also prodded me to consider the Internet’s role in how the screen culture changes from TV/cinema to computer/iPod/PDA/whatever. I had not thoroughly contemplated how it changes the media experience, but it clearly does; it also complicates my two divisions somewhat. You can, for example, have the Internet on your phone and computer, but not on your iPod (yet); but the iPod screen, to me, fits so clearly in with a new media approach to absorbing screen images that I feel compelled to fit it in with computer and phone image absorption. Perhaps, then, I’ll approach a discussion of the Internet’s effect on only certain new screen technologies.

The other aspect of this chapter that I thought I could prove useful was the authors’ discussion of the process of media access. They devote a good portion of the chapter to this concept, outlining both linear and nonlinear accesses and their presence in media. Ultimately, they suggest that linear access fits in with older (read: TV, non-Internet) screen cultures, and a nonlinear, or more engaging, method of media consumption, with new forms of screen technologies. While this simplifies the argument somewhat, it’s useful in a general way to indicate a potentially more active user response in newer media forms, which may in turn hint to a larger difference between viewer engagement with different forms of screen media.

White, Michele. . Body and the screen : theories of Internet spectatorship / Michele White. [0262232499 (alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006

 

The Body and the Screen looks at theoretical models of Internet and computer spectatorship as a way of illustrating how these new technologies might not be as controllable as many think they are. Michele White views spectatorship as relatively similar between old and new media in certain ways. Just like in television and cinema, the images that appear before us on computer and phone screens hold a certain amount of cultural and social bias that cannot be removed. Consider the appearance of the “Ask Jeeves” butler – a Caucasian butler, and an image that has transferred exactly from old media to new. This idea is significant because it represents a departure from “traditional” ways of considering spectatorship in this age of digital screen interaction. I think her point-of-view provides a unique angle that I could perhaps use for my paper, especially since she outright disagrees with Anne Friedberg’s concept of an Internet/computer “user.”

The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.

Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.
 

Media access : social and psychological dimensions of new technology use / edited by Erik P. Bucy, John E. Newhagen. [0805841091 ] Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum, c2004.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P91.28 .M43 2004

 

In Media Access, John E. Newhagen and Erik P. Bucy discuss what it means to have “access” to the Internet. More than simply being able to sit in front of a computer, Internet access holds several dimensions that demand certain levels of literacy and understanding from its users. The authors utilize a number of self-created terms (“system access,” “content access,” and “social access,” to name a few) that segment Internet usage in ways that I had not previously considered relevant for my purposes. However, their distinctions do provide much useful information for considering how users absorb what comes to them from the computer screen, which seems to fit well with my topic. They also lay out a specific difference between disseminating information from a television screen versus a computer (internet) screen: that internet computer screens allow us to accurately process both text and images through utilization of a higher resolution, which TV and cinema screens have thus far not been able to do. I’m not entirely sure I completely understand what this idea means, and thus I can’t wholly endorse it. But, it does give me a place to start when considering the differences between these two screen cultures.

The above argument also prodded me to consider the Internet’s role in how the screen culture changes from TV/cinema to computer/iPod/PDA/whatever. I had not thoroughly contemplated how it changes the media experience, but it clearly does; it also complicates my two divisions somewhat. You can, for example, have the Internet on your phone and computer, but not on your iPod (yet); but the iPod screen, to me, fits so clearly in with a new media approach to absorbing screen images that I feel compelled to fit it in with computer and phone image absorption. Perhaps, then, I’ll approach a discussion of the Internet’s effect on only certain new screen technologies.

The other aspect of this chapter that I thought I could prove useful was the authors’ discussion of the process of media access. They devote a good portion of the chapter to this concept, outlining both linear and nonlinear accesses and their presence in media. Ultimately, they suggest that linear access fits in with older (read: TV, non-Internet) screen cultures, and a nonlinear, or more engaging, method of media consumption, with new forms of screen technologies. While this simplifies the argument somewhat, it’s useful in a general way to indicate a potentially more active user response in newer media forms, which may in turn hint to a larger difference between viewer engagement with different forms of screen media.