Presentation notes: "Web 2.0 - Participation or Hegemony?"

• Intro and Basic Notes:

---> Has Web 2.0. really democratised our access to the media, switching the power from producers to audiences, or whether it has simply become absorbed into values of 'old media.'

--> Web 2.0. has been described as a medium which allows audiences to become producers of media texts. It requires web-based software, such as blogs, which audiences can use to produce and share their own work.

--> Yet, it can be argued that 'Web 2.0.' often referred to as 'We Media' democratises the media as anyone with a web connection can create and publish texts, (user generated content); we no longer have to rely upon professional or traditional 'old' media.

--> Some critics believe this had led to 'dumbing down' and 'culture of amateur' because anyone - regardless of ability can create texts.

--> With research into 'YouTube' people found that nowadays most clips were uploaded by fans rather than the traditional media companies themselves. In addition, YouTube allows users to create their own channels and is currently plugging channels by Rihanna, Beyonce and Katy Perry. Clearly, these artists are using the site as a promotional vehicle.

--> Additionally, Jean Burgess and Joshua Green concluded that there are 2 'YouTube's', they say it's a space where these 2 categories (traditional media and home video) co-exist and collide, but do not fully converge.

--> What they suggest appears to be happening is that 'YouTube' is now used more frequently as a commercial network for promotional and catch-up purposes that runs alongside and often dominates original, trivial 'user generated content.'

--> They also explain that even though we become used to watching television programmes on computers, mobile phones or music players, we still experience it as television.

• Co-opting the amateur:

--> This co-option of the 'amateur' is also clear in the way that it is structured by the dominant ideological discourse. For instance, although 'YouTube' has allowed ordinary people to become celebrities such as "Charlie is so cool like!" They do not have the same status as celebrities created by traditional media.

--> Graeme Turner argues, "Even when ordinary people become celebrities through their own creative efforts, there is no neccessary transfer of media power: they remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media."

--> Some say that without the help of traditional media Charlie McDonnell (Charlie is so cool like) cannot excercise 'celebrity power'; he is defined as a celebrity in the terms of traditional media only.

• Conclusions:

--> The real question is has Web 2.0. switched power from producers to audience? The answer is perhaps a "NO" but the balance has shifted as we - the audience - no longer have to rely upon the 'access' traditional media offered us, such as newspapers, letters, pages or radio phone-ins.

--> Instead, today we can easily produce texts ourselves even if we seem to be more interested in mimicking traditional media by becoming YouTube celebrities, or watching music videos and/or television programmes by our favourite artists.