The majority of the current online media we use for news information are based on the act of ‘’repurposing’’. This means that a property from another medium is reused. Considering this, we should take Marshall McLuhan’s (1994) argument on how the analogue version is remediated into its digital counterpart into account. McLuhan states that content of any medium is always in another medium. The electronic (remediated) version of a newspaper accounts for its accuracy by implying that it is the same as the information found in the analogue version. Implying equal levels of quality and accuracy of the content as the reader would find when confronted with the original version. The only thing that distorts the interpretation of the text has to do with specific aspects of the online technology, used to access the content (i.e. algorithms, sharing and the interface.) In this way the added (visual) content of the digital media challenges the quality of the information provided by the more conventional ones. Since the newer media reframe the controlled space, they create new institutionalized gestures, that acknowledge the trustworthiness of these self-same media.
Media continually seek to improve themselves and in this process they inevitably implement skills and techniques, obtained from each other as well as from their predecessors. The theory I am using in this paper comes from the book remediation written by Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin(2000). Their theory ascertains how comparable interface designs improve themselves throughout the remediation process. The ultimate goal is a so-called transparent design in which the logic of immediacy means that the interface causes the medium to disappear, and leaves the user with a state in which he/she is not aware of the confronting medium but instead has an immediate relationship with the content.
The transparent interface therefore feels more natural. In contradiction to immediacy stands hypermediacy which acknowledges and makes visible the act of remediated representation. In the case of hypermediation the user of the interface is aware of the technology in which the content is placed and in so perceives the content with different pre-emptive behaviour (Bolter and Grusin, 2000). The interface in the case of immediacy is multisensory designed and therefore it is graphically making suggestions to culturally familiar objects. In making such references it creates a more complex system that uses an iconic, most likely cult-valued form of representation, in which the user interacts with the content. But in the case of “hypermediacy” the user is repeatedly brought back into contact with the using interface, compared to interfaces that are repurposed this experience can feel contradicting and unauthentic. An example is a PDF that is connected to the internet. The PDF, just like this blog ,can make use of hyperlinks and when the PDF is perceived as immediate the user is unaware of these possibilities because the text is perceived just as in print. In the hypermediated situation the user makes use of the links and other techniques to extend their reading experience. In the case of this blog, the text that you are reading is an hypermediated version of its analogue predecessor. This concept will be further explained in chapter two, in which I will discuss how the hypermediacy experience has created different online protocols.