A clarification of the term was in order. Ambiguous on it's own, Digital Media was a class I couldn't place within the context of Ryerson's Radio and Television program.
I took the term Digital Media to mean internet/computer-based production. It's turned out to be what I half expected: Photoshop, After Effects and Dreamweaver. I thought there would be some Final Cut Pro thrown in as well. What I wasn't expecting was the required use of Twitter and Blogger. I can understand it. It's how most people get their news now: short bursts and/or uninfluenced sources.
I was hoping to avoid Twitter indefinitely; I'm on a slow boat to the digital age. I don't misunderstand Twitters value. I just wanted to be a non-participant. But now I'm on it, giving, receiving and participating, and I feel it's value. Being dragged into digital media, not quite kicking and screaming, more along the lines of grumbling and scowling, might be a good thing.
I begrudgingly admit it: Twitter is necessary for damn near everything. To have a media-based university program require students to be familiar with Twitter as a medium makes sense. Cross-platform media, in news delivery, story telling and information sharing is a growing trend. Likely, most, if not all, possible job and career outcomes will require, or at least benefit from, Twitter.
So here I am, talking about Twitter. The medium. I think Marshall McLuhan was right. News on Twitter is as immediate as it gets right now, save from first hand experience. Character restrictions shape what's important, and people can react, immediately and on what's important. Print cannot invoke that reaction.
If I understand the phrase correctly, McLuhan was extremely insightful. There's no real right or wrong to it, but he definitely knew what he was talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment