User Experience and the Message-Channel-Source Theories

Today in the world of new media, user experience is more worthy than the medium is. Like I considered twitter a more reliable source than Facebook, if I saw a news on the both mediums, I personally prefer twitter because it is my experience that leads me to prefer twitter over Facebook. Although the news on both is same and credible, I will prefer Twitter.

Not only user experience matters, sometimes the medium also required. For example, in twitter the medium is the message of urgency. The logistics of twitter are unique. Users are only allowed to use 140 characters and the medium requires captivating messages in order to draw attention to readers. As a medium of communication, Twitter is meant to captivate and tap into our short-term attention spans. It is targeting those individuals who are too busy to read an entire article, blog or the newspaper. Readers are given small bits of information with the option to click on a link to read further. Many people are constantly on the move and need the information quick and simple.

Another example of LinkedIn, LinkedIn as a medium is used for business related purposes. For example, promoting a cocktail party would certainly not be marketed using LinkedIn as a medium to reach your audience. It is does not matter what we say over LinkedIn as marketers, it is that we are using LinkedIn to reach a specific audience. On LinkedIn, the medium is the message of professionalism.

Other example, Websites are another medium most commonly used by marketers to reach their audience. Marketers use a company’s website to promote products/services and connect them with the needs of their customers. Again, it is not the website content that matters, but the medium of the website itself. Unlike Twitter and LinkedIn, there are no restrictions on the length of content. Websites can also represent any level of professionalism. Regardless of what content is used on a website, the websites themselves – along with blogs – are used as interactive web pages of a company, allowing the visitors to take a guided tour of what a company represents and provides. On websites, the medium is the message of presenting the details of your company to your audience.

Many marketers may interpret McLuhan’s the medium is the message argument to state that the message is irrelevant altogether; this is ultimately not the case. What marketers should take from McLuhan’s theory is that the medium they use is the message they are sending to their customers. Knowing that Twitter will convey a different message than Linkedin and that both will convey a different message than a website is ultimately what McLuhan was reasoning. As a marketer, know your audience and research the best medium or media in order to reach them. After all, whatever medium you choose will be the message.

Apart from Medium is the message, who’s saying it is more important. For example, I watch Shahzeb Khanzada Show and Shahzeb khanzada acts as an opinion leader to me. If shahzeb would say anything I would believe his words, despite of which medium he uses. 

There is another theory which tells that message is everything, but I disagree with this theory not always the message matters, it’s the medium. Most people prefer medium over message. For example, for some people Geo TV credibility is high for them than ARY. If both channels air news of a blast, people would believe news that air by GEO, no matter the news (message) is accurate by both mediums.

In the end it’s only the person’s own perception that matters. No matter what medium, message person sees. 

Ending Escalation of Conflict Through Media

Most of the stories that media covered are contributing to conflict escalation. Sometimes this is desirable; escalation of conflict is the best way for lower-power groups to gain power to effectively advocate for themselves. But often, escalation gets out of control, and leads to increasing polarization, violence, and costs to all sides.

Media coverage also de-escalates a conflict. There are ways that media can be used to de-escalate conflicts and make them more constructive. Media can help to clarify important issues and promote public understanding of the conflict. It can also highlight the terrible costs associated with war and violence and help people to recognize that they are on a disastrous course. In addition, mass media communication about possibilities for conflict resolution, including documentaries about successful resolution efforts, might prove highly valuable. In general, these sorts of peace media strategies can help to balance out the voices of extremists.

The media can promote positive relationships between groups, particularly in conflicts over national, ethnic, religious identity. The media can lessen polarization between groups in the following ways:

Showing the other in a similar light like Iraqi news media did, they emphasizes news about how both Shia and Sunni suffer from violence and that helps in building a bridge of common empathy.

Depicting people with the same types of problems; for example, an HBO documentary featured Palestinian and Israeli mothers who share the same grief, both losing children to violence victimized by the conflict.

Sharing similar interests and positions; for example, a TV show known as ‘Heroes from Rwanda’ featured stories about people who saved members of the opposite ethnic group from the killings, while often risking their own lives.

Condemning violence For example, the Republicans and the Unionists in Omagh, Northern Ireland jointly renounced violent attacks in all newspapers and media in August 1998.

Seeing the common ground between one’s own group and another group of people builds empathy. Such thinking leads toward depolarizing and normalizing relations between the groups in conflict.

Effective use of the media to prevent conflict and build peace requires a careful study of the lessons of social marketing to prepare for effective use of the media.

Rewriting Article 19

Pakistan got its first constitution, nine years after independence, on March 23, 1956. This constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of expression under Article 8. The freedom of press was not mentioned here. This constitution was based on the Government of India Act of 1935 and was abrogated by the military regime of Field Marshal Ayub Khan in 1958.

The new constitution, promulgated in 1962, guaranteed the right to freedom of expression under Article 6, but it too failed to provide for the right to freedom of press. The constitution of 1962 was soon abrogated by the military regime of General Yahya Khan and after his regime fell, the democratically elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto set about formulating yet another constitution for Pakistan — a task which was completed in 1973. It was a ‘consensus Constitution’ — all parties concerned seemed satisfied. The Constitution of 1973 guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and it also guaranteed the right to freedom of press.

Article 19 of The Constitution of Pakistan: Freedom of speech, etc.

“Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, [commission of] or incitement to an offence.”

If I have to re-write article 19, I would write it by knowing the circumstances that we are living in age of new media. The original Article 19 is not implementing on new media, we can say it’s a flaw in it and there must be some amendment.

Re-Writing Article 19: Freedom of Speech

All citizen of Pakistan shall be free to express opinions and ideas on any platform without being punished for doing so. There shall be freedom of press, in which they can write and published their opinions. There is a reasonable restrictions imposed by the Islamic laws in the interest of glory of Islam, which is implemented only on Muslims that any Muslim found or guilty in the act of blaspheming Islam will be taken as an offence.

Explanation:

Citizens may speak their mind, put their ideas or opinions in writing, get published, post them over the Internet, or express as they feel in any manner possible, this includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, ideas or opinions in any form which may be available.  Glory of Islam is only implemented on Muslim by the Islamic laws that any Muslim found or guilty in the act of blaspheming Islam shall be taken as a crime.