Advances in social media production and consumption in the twenty-first century has had a profound impact on public communication, and on the need for digital media literacy. Digital literacy involves the ability for consumers of digital media to make informed decisions about what media to use and pay attention to based on critical thinking skills. Among the most valued across academic disciplines are scientific and forensic values, echoing Toulmin's model and focused on evidence-based public arguments. These skills are valuable both in coursework for students and in terms of their potential civic engagement. This ability is key to a person's ability to establish their own personal ethos and credibility online.A number of recent incidents involving cyberattacks, data harvesting, surveillance capitalism, cyberbullying, hacks, identity theft, security and data breaches, privacy standards issues, and algorithm manipulation all illustrate the need for digital media literacy among consumers (Baruh & Popescu, 2017; DiGrazia, 2017; Hamilton, 2018; Selznick & LaMacchia, 2017). Consider the following explanation:
We are now in an era where we rely on interconnected smart devices in almost every aspect of our lives. With the added convenience of being able to access your banking information via your smartphone or asking Alexa to order more paper towels, we are exposing our personal data to a host of new cybersecurity threats. The digital revolution has enabled us be a part of a highly interconnected world where we are constantly connected to the Internet of Things (“IoT”) including things such as smart TVs, thermostats, cellphones, cars and even industrial control systems (“ICS”). By connecting all of these devices and digitalizing troves of sensitive or proprietary data, it opens the door for bad actors to perpetrate malicious attacks. (DiGrazia, 2017, p. 255).
Research further illustrates how consumer behavior in the 21st century is strongly tied to ideological standpoints and how rhetoric and communication is intentionally directed toward specified consumer groups, encouraging the spread of biased and mis-information and news, clickbait, and (de Zuniga, Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012; Greenhow & Lewin, 2015; Hashemi & Ghanizadeh, 2012; Pew Research Center, 2014a, 2014b; Savin-Baden, 2015). Plagiarism, copyright standards, and other data and text usage standards and laws also play a role. All of these issues are significant for individual media users, small businesses, educators, students, activist organizations, and other entities online (Baruh & Popescu, 2017; DiGrazia, 2017; de Zuniga, Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012; Greenhow & Lewin, 2015; Hamilton, 2018; Hashemi & Ghanizadeh, 2012; Selznick & LaMacchia, 2017).
Digital Lives
A new label began to be applied to computer based communication studies in the 1990s—studies in new media technologies (Leonardi, 2003; Manovich, 2001; Meadows, 2003; Rafaeli, 1988). These studies were often centered on two types of communication processes: socially oriented communication and task-oriented communication (Rafaeli, 1988; Walther, 1992; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). New media based socially-oriented communication was found to be valuable in different ways than its task-oriented comparison. While task-oriented communication studies focused on efficiency, rather like the earlier CMC studies of business communication, socially-oriented communication focused on identity formation and presentation through new media (de Zuniga et. al., 2012; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009; Lee, 2004; Scott, 2007). These studies revealed an online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) that users of socially-oriented communication were much less inhibited in how they presented themselves than task-oriented users, and that this lack of inhibition was often greater than the same subjects illustrated in f2f communication.
Because of this relative inhibition, new arguments emerged that some people were better able to express themselves through new media than in face-to-face situations. In this way the new media form being used, especially those that are aimed at social networking, directly influences how messages function, and the variety of messages possible. However, disinhibition can be both good and bad. It's good when it allows communicators to reduce uncertainty, and for some to get past social anxieties in their communication practices (Mesch & Beker, 2010; Suler, 2005). However, inhibition can also create toxic online communication and lead to cyberbullying and trolling as well as other forms of cyber abuse (Gray, 2012; Hollenbaugh & Everett, 2013; Mesch & Beker, 2010; Neubaum, & Krämer, 2018; Suler, 2005).
Thus, the narrative architecture (Jenkins, 2004) of social media encourages social interaction, and McLuhan’s (1964) argument that the medium is the message again becomes significant. Narrative architecture is the structures prescribed by the media platform, and the narrative or storytelling style and social scripting allowed within those structures. It involves both consumption and production of meaning, and the ability to pass by gatekeepers of the architectural style.
Gatekeepers play a major role in managing what narratives and identities are promoted in media. Consider, for example, the recent example of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and messages from his InfoWars site being banned and suspended from a number of social media sites due to violations of gatekeeping policy on those sites (Neidig, 2018; Shaban, Timberg, & Stanley-Becker, 2018; Vengattil, 2018). Other examples include political entities monitoring web space to control strategic narratives, such as China's limits on what its citizens can access and learn about online (Song & Chang, 2017; Wei, 2014), and activist examples promoting strategic narratives that counter narratives from local political regimes, as occurred during the Arab Spring uprisings of 2010-2013 (Meraz & Papacharissi, 2013; Lengel & Newsom, 2014).
A number of arguments have arisen in regard to CMC, especially as it is compared to more traditional forms of communication interaction. As we discussed in the last unit of this module, some argue that texting and other digital communication forms are ruining face-to-face communication skills among digital natives, others argue that new forms of socialization and communication are emerging that supplement, rather than replace, face-to-face communication processes. In 2001 Prensky focused on teenagers or digital natives, those who grew up using digital technologies as a normal part of communication processes, and how social media, texting and other digital communication forms impact their face-to-face communication styles (Palfrey & Gasser, 2016; Prensky, 2001). Along with the idea of digital natives, Prensky also identified digital immigrants, those who came into digital usage later in life (Prensky, 2001).
Scholars do not agree on the concept of digital natives. Even Prensky (2010) revised his theory into digital wisdom.
A Networked Society
Building on early CMC arguments, Jan van Dijk (1991) argues that as people increasingly incorporate digital technologies into how and where we socialize and organize we are turning into a network society. Similarly, Manuel Castells (1996) also argues that networks are the core of our social behaviors, and contemporary network society is built around digital social networks that mimic early forms of social networks.
For both scholars, the network society incorporates media and entertainment, interpersonal communication, relationships, and cultural communication forms which, as humans, we now use to collectively construct our realities. Van Dijk (1991) explains:
At the individual level the use of networks has come to dominate our lives. Counting the time spent on broadcast networks, telephony and the Internet we can add between five and seven hours of leisure time a day on average in a developed society. Not to mention the hours spent at work or at school. Observing social networking by individuals, we could add several hours spent in all kinds of social network in sites (SNS), chat-boxes, email conversations, texting, instant messaging and blogging. So, individualization and smaller households packed with technology to make us more independent from others, have not made us less social human beings. (p. 2)
Individuals integrate into social networks and become interactive in those networks. The networks each have specified digital codes and behavior standards, reflective of Jenkins' (2004) narrative architecture. Integration itself acts as a type of media convergence process, highlighting how social identities are spread out among media as messages (Jensen, 2010).
Digital Communication Skills
Media literacy is a complex concept, and as mediated communication technologies continue to shift and evolve, media literacy will maintain its complexity. There are a number of digital communication skill sets that are necessary in order for a consumer to be digitally literate. These skills include basic computer literacy, web literacy, forensic data analysis and fact-checking skills, cybersecurity skills, social literacy, access to and understanding of media platforms, and critical thinking. There is not a stable definition of digital media literacy. One defintion of digital literacy explains it as a “range of complex and densely interwoven communicative forms that are digitally mediated, as well as the mechanical and navigational competence that is a prerequisite to working on a screen” (Merchant, 2007, p. 119). However, digital media literacy is not just about understanding the forms and function of digital media, it's being aware of and applying critical thinking skills to identifying the misinformation and dangers available online.
Communication and media scholars focus digital media literacy on the basics of media literacy. This includes being able to think about what the producer gets out of a message, what bias is present, accuracy of a message, how messages are encoded and if audiences may decode them differently, and who has access to the message in both production and consumption processes.
Digital communication skills that are required to safely and accurately navigate digital media continue to evolve as information technologies evolve. Growing concerns include not only information bias, but online scams, malicious software, identity theft, and online predators including sexual predators (Dodel & Mesch, 2018; Dubois & Blank, 2018; Livingstone, et. al., 2017). Cyber threats and cybersecurity are growing areas of focus, and the skills required to navigate these areas are not only highly valued economically, but also politically and socially. Both production and consumption of digital media require literacy skills (Davis, Smith, & Wellman, 2018).
A large percentage of internet users are impacted by online victimization (Levi, 2017). Incidents of identity theft, phishing, malware, and fraud are compounded by online harassment, non-consensual pornography and "revenge porn", and cyberstalking (Fuller, 2017; Patella-Rey, 2018; Short, Guppy, Hart, & Barnes, 2017). The primary skills needed to avoid problems like these are maintenance of your digital footprint as discussed in the Branding Module.
Online impression management (Goffman, 1959) is a key means of ensuring you control as much of your digital experience as possible. However, impression management skills cannot be only focused on building your own positive identity online; you must also make sure you use the critical thinking skills associated with digital media literacy to avoid becoming a victim.
References
Baruh, L., & Popescu, M. (2017). Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management. New media & society, 19(4), 579-596.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture vol. I: The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Davis, J. L., Smith, J. A., & Wellman, B. (2018). CITAMS as a transfield: introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication, and Society, 21(5), 643-646.
de Zuniga, H. G., Correa, T., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Selective exposure to cable news and immigration in the U.S.: The relationship between Fox News, CNN, and attitudes toward Mexican immigrants. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 597-615. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732138
DiGrazia, K. (2017). Cyber insurance, data security, and Blockchain in the wake of the Equifax breach. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 13(2), 255-277.
Dodel, M., & Mesch, G. (2018). Inequality in digital skills and the adoption of online safety behaviors. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 712-728.
Dubois, E. & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745.
Fuller, P. B. (2017). Mosaic Theory and Cyberharassment: Using Privacy Principles to Clarify the Law of Digital Harms and Free Speech. Communication Law and Policy, 22(3), 309-350.
Gray, K. L. (2012). Intersecting oppressions and online communities: Examining the experiences of women of color in Xbox Live. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 411-428.
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2015). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 4(1). DOI:10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1130-1161.
Hamilton, D. (2018). Can a reset of digital literacy standards improve nursing practice?. British Journal of Nursing, 27(13), 768-768.
Hashemi, M. R., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and critical thinking: An experimental study in an EFL context. System, 40(1), 37-47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.009
Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Everett, M. K. (2013). The effects of anonymity on self-disclosure in blogs: An application of the online disinhibition effect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 283-302.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
Jenkins, H. (2004). Game design as narrative architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as a story, performance, and game (pp. 118-130). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, K. B. (2010). Media convergence: The three degrees of network, mass and interpersonal communication. New York: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication theory, 14(1), 27-50.
Lengel, L. & Newsom, V. (2014). Mutable selves and digital reflexivities: Social media for social change in the Middle East and North Africa. Symbolic Interaction and New Social Media: Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 43. 85-119.
Leonardi, P. M. (2003). Problematizing" new media": Culturally based perceptions of cell phones, computers, and the Internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(2), 160-179.
Levi, M. (2017). Assessing the trends, scale and nature of economic cybercrimes: Overview and issues. Crime, Law and Social Change, 67(1), 3–20.
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82-105.
Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Meadows, D. (2003). Digital storytelling: Research-based practice in new media. Visual Communication, 2(2), 189-193.
Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on# Egypt. The international journal of press/politics, 18(2), 138-166.
Mesch, G. S., & Beker, G. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online?. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 570-592.
Merchant, Guy. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118-128.
Neubaum, G., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). What do we fear? Expected sanctions for expressing minority opinions in offline and online communication. Communication Research, 45(2), 139-164.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2016). Born digital: How children grow up in a digital age, (Revised edition). New York: Basic Books.
Patella-Rey, P.J. (2018). Beyond privacy: Bodily integrity as an alternative framework for understanding non-consensual pornography. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 786-791.
Pew Research Center. (2014a). Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise, and everyday life. Pew Research Center U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...erican-public/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). From new media to communication. Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science, 16, 110-134.
Savin-Baden, M. (2015). Rethinking Learning in an Age of Digital Fluency: Is being digitally tethered a new learning nexus?. Routledge.
Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential connections in organizational identification research. Communication Studies, 58(2), 123-138.
Selznick, L.F., & LaMacchia, C. (2017). Cybersecurity liability: How technically savvy can we expect small business owners to be. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 13(2), 217-253.
Shaban, H., Timberg, C., & Stanley-Becker, I. (2018, August 6). YouTube, Apple, Facebook and Spotify escalate enforcement against Alex Jones. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.10991db74bab
Short, E., Guppy, A., Hart, J. A., & Barnes, J. (2015). The impact of cyberstalking. Studies in Media and Communication, 3(2), 23-37.
Song, Y., & Chang, T. K. (2017). Managing impressions online: Microblogs and the state media’s adaptation of online logics in China. Journalism, 18(8), 1064-1081.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication research, 19(1), 52-90.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication research, 21(4), 460-487.
Wei, R. (2014). Texting, tweeting, and talking: Effects of smartphone use on engagement in civic discourse in China. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 3-19.
