You are probably questioning  what is meant by this title. Developing on what is said in that statement, the new error of digital media and the wide range of technology we have today, you can argue has some way caused the loss of communication verbally. What makes me say this?

Social media has reached an epidemic proportion where it is used across the world by a variety of age groups. And with the development of technology we have today, social media can be accessible In many ways. For instance through our phones, laptops, iPad’s, computers etc.  And the success of social media has brought most people to rely on that or replace it with verbal communication. For instance how many of your parents have said that you spend too much time on our phones, laptops or spend too much time on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and all other types of social media? I’ve seen that we can be physically present with people, for instance family or friends but not always verbally present due to spending time on our phones interacting with others. So would you agree that verbal communication  has been effected with digital media?

Quoting Albert Einstein, he argues that it has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity, with this what other disadvantage would you say technology has among us?



Netflix is a very well-known website that people tune into to watch movies and programme that are available on this website. There is  a phrase that is used amongst young people, which is ‘netflix and chill’. This is also used as subliminal message which I am sure you know about and if not search and you will find out.

However I am not here to talk about Netflix. There are various websites similar to this. One of them is a site called ‘MUBI, which is described that ‘a subscription to  MUBI is a passport to the world of cinema’.  Around 200 countries around the world have access to this website, and if you pay the fee of £3 you’ll be entitled to movies suggested by film experts everyday, where you a given a month to watch them. This is available on many devices such as; PC, Mac, Android, Sony BRAVIA, iPad/iPhone, Playstation, and Samsung Smart TV in  the United Kingdom. However a huge advantage to this website is that gives you a free trial for a month. An advantage of copyright with this website, is that it guarantees it’s viewers good quality movies rather than taking the risk of using an illegal movie that may not be in good quality, plus the subscription fee is a reasonable price.

In addition copyright is essential because as less people are becoming more active online the enjoyment of film should still be paid for as  buying DVDS to watch movies are becoming less common, which could cause film industries to loose money resulting in not having enough funds to create more good movies. What do you think?

Do we have control of online visabilty?

We can all agree that being on social media includes sharing information with others right? This has shown to be done in different ways with different types of social media. For instance with Instagram, mainly pictures are put up of captured moments that individuals like to share with their followers. Instagram allows us to caption our photos which is a way of giving out more information, from either saying where the photo was taken, who else is in the picture (tagging them) , using song lyrics or phrases that represent the picture, you as an individual and how you are feeling .

On the other hand we have Facebook and on most people profile you have a section where you can describe who you are, where you can mention the school you  go/went to , what country you live in, what you are studying, email address, phone number etc. Then you can also post statuses to share with your following friends on what exactly is on your mind. I have seen statuses where individuals have exploited their own family issues that is currently going on, or young mothers expressing the stress they are going through with their kids.

The question I ask is, do we have control on our online visibility? From my perspective I would say we do, as we get to choose who we allow to share our information with by making our  Instagram or Facebook account private or public. Even with Facebook, when it comes to the pictures or statuses we post, we have the option of choosing who we allow to see it whether they are our friends on Facebook or not.


The first online community that came into mind was Snap chat. Which I think is a perfect example of the newest form of social network, that is taken over. Especially amongst most teenagers nowadays, you can arguably say that snap chat is used more than Instagram and Facebook. IPhone was the first to create a sense of community with IPhone users, where you are able  to reveal your day-to-day lives, allowing us as non-celebrities to have our own form of a reality show on Snap chat. This created a community of trust to want to expose things we do in our every day lives.

One question that raises is, how do we benefit as participants of the Snapchat community? Well quoting David Amerland , he says that ‘social media is addictive, precisely because it gives us something which the real world lacks; it gives us immediacy, direction and value as an individual’.  Another benefit is forming and building relationships though sharing your reality with others and being able to communicate with them too. However the question I have for you is whether there are disadvantages to being a participant to the Snapchat community and if there are what are they?





X Factor is a singing competition, shown on ITV. It started with three judges but now has four, and the judges chosen  usually change every year. There are  four stages to the competition which are: the auditions, the boot camp, judges houses then the live shows. This has been running every year since 2004.  Recently X factor has introduced something new that involves their audience, using cultural convergence  to  influence  their viewing figures up, keeping their audience engaged in the show and most importantly, rather than just sitting in front of the television it makes us feel as if we are part of the programme. So how have they done this? Well through their own X Factor App that they have created, which is available on Android Apps  and Apple store it allows the audience that are watching the show from home, to be a fifth judge. Being the fifth judge contains rating each contestants performance where you have the choice to choose whether it was amazing, good, ok, not good or terrible. Additionally the app also allows gamers to predict whether the  judges would like or not like the contestants and to also vote for the contestant you would want to keep In the competition. The question I raise now is, without audience participation  in these type of shows especially when it comes to voting, would talent shows be as big as they are? If not what makes these shows popular?

  The X Factor UK- screenshot



Henry Jenkins says ‘we are entering an era where media will be everywhere, and we will use all kinds of media in relation to one another’. In addition to that John VPavlik says media convergence is the coming together of computing, telecommunication and media In a digital environment.  Both these statements correspond to the famous reality stars of the Kardashian family.

The Kardashians’ careers spiralled off from a reality show called ‘keeping up with the Kardashians’ which helped create their fame. However not only do they have their reality show, they now also have their own games and  individual apps that they upload videos of themselves on, from doing make up tutorials to talking about different social topics. From this you can argue that the family use   technological, economic and cultural convergence when it comes to using the different platforms of digital media. Such as being on various types of social media and having their own apps to  keep themselves relevant. Or expanding their name as a brand to bring more money in, and  allowing the audience to become the ‘user’ when It comes to their games. The question I leave for  you guys to answer is that would the Kardshian’s be as famous, relevant and rich if it wasn’t for the combination of both old and the new media?



Google provides many resources for us, that once we search a specific thing it gives a variety of results, relating to what was searched. This can be used to our advantage to feed our knowledge in specific areas. However, some could argue that the utilisation of google bleeds us dry of privacy. For instance you can search an individuals name and google will present results that relate to the person. Like providing links to any social network accounts, their address, images, criminal records etc. In addition googles give us the ability to locate addresses by also  providing footage of the street it lies in. The access that google can give out on private information has some contribution to the rates of stalking in the UK. With this link it presents statistics of stalking in the UK and states that over 1.2 billion women and 900,00 men are stalked  every year, according to the British Crime Survey. Furthermore in this link it mentions that from the findings of the 2005 university study, one way of  stalker gaining information on their prey is through the internet.  So the question rises, should there be a limit to the access google gives us?