#kbp206

When sifting through the widespread debates and information regarding contemporary communication practices utilised through new media technologies, one question becomes abundantly clear as being in dire need of answering; do individuals, contemporaneous technology and the contexts within which they are engaged impose enhancement or impoverishment upon the communication process?

  To properly answer this question, and gain a better understanding of the constantly and rapidly evolving landscape on new age information technology communication, one must delve into and gain understanding of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). CMC, essentially the antithesis of ‘face to face’ communication, relies upon a whole different set of codes, conventions and practices when compared to other more conventional and traditional methods of communication. There is general agreement in the literature (Baym, 2010; Crystal, 2006) that CMC is hindered by a lack of key components of traditional face-to-face communication such as; gestures, body language, facial expressions and tone. Therefore, for CMC to be considered an enhancement on the communication process then this communicatory channel must have suitable substitutes for conveying the various meanings that body language and gestures for example do. This is something that new information technology has accomplished.

  This conclusion then poses a newer question. From a traditionalist perspective, it is clear that when comparing and contrasting CMC with face-to-face communication that, CMC lacks some many of the qualities traditional communication offers. Therefore, one must ask is it fair and reasonable to compare the two communication methods?  Is CMC closer to written speech than spoken speech? The literature generally adopts this view (Crystal, 2006) however; it lacks the structure and formality of traditional written speech. Again one must ask; does this necessarily hinder the communication process? Let’s explore this further.

  The answer is no. CMC offers communicators the opportunity for instantaneous, global pathways of communication unlike written or face-to-face traditional communications methods. This offers a whole new platform and context for communication, for example facilitating the individual conversing with the organisation in a public space that can be held to the scrutiny of a public forum (Baron, 2008). This now leads one to the conclusion that CMC is a separate spectrum of communication that cannot be fairly, reasonably or conclusively compared and then ranked against traditional forms of communication.

  To summarise, CMC has reared its head in contemporary society, changing the ways in which individuals and groups communicate. Whilst this communication type may lack the rhythm and synchronisation of traditional methods, CMC is breaking down barriers and changing the landscape of the modern world. Essentially, CMC is too unique to be able to be compared to traditional methods as its validity and effectiveness can only be grasped in each specific context. Therefore, one must conclude that CMC is not a worse or better way of communicating but rather a different way, for different purposes with different conventions attached.

  References

  Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press.

  Crystal, David, (2006). Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak. In Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.