New media and youth

Masudul Biswas


Kathryn C. Montgomery has examined the impact of changing media landscape on the nature of childhood and adolescence. She has identified the contradictory roles of the Internet in children’s lives. Young people, the members of the digital generation, are the active creators of digital culture. On the other hand, they are the passive targets of digital marketing. The Internet can also be "a dark and dangerous underworld where predators and pornographers lie in waiting" (p. 211). The law formulated for protecting children from online predators has also limitations. Technological solutions like software and filters do not always work effectively to control inappropriate content for the children. In reality legal and technological solutions, designed to protect children from inappropriate content and digital marketing, have shifted more responsibility to the parents and created a scope for exploring newer marketing strategies for the marketers.

Montgomery observes that the explosion of new media is taking place at a time when the society has not resolved many issues related to old media. Indecency has remained a common concern in both forms of media. New media applications have raised another concern about access to personal information. Young people become acculturated and socialized through the Internet. Business groups and marketing research organizations use the Internet to collect personal information of children and youth so that they can use the stored information for a future marketing campaign. But such a practice made parents and child- and policy-advocacy groups concerned. Their concerns led to the passage of the first law protecting children’s privacy on the Internet. But Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has not appeared as a "perfect regulatory solution" in the complex and rapidly changing context of digital media. Newer platforms like podcasting onto iPods and iPhone applications and the emergence of social-networking websites, irrespective of age groups, have intensified the concerns about the pervasive influence of digital marketing.

If policymakers introduce a law to serve the consumers in one way, the marketers and media industry will look for other ways around the law for their marketing goals. That is why laws cannot regulate the operation and the use of the Internet in the same way they do in case of television channels. Montgomery refers to a quote of one industry executive where he said that they do not have any problem to try new things and the formulation process of any new law gives them enough time to change their marketing strategy. Major companies find new ways of reaching the younger audience. They are now targeting social networking sites MySpace.com, Facebook.com, Xanga.com. The News Corporation’s purchase of MySpace has sent us a signal about further consolidation in the online industry, as advertisers continue to seek out the youth market. Marketers also move toward newer media platforms, such as podcasting.

Policymakers try to make any situation easier for the marketers and industry leaders. New filtering software and blocking technologies had sprung up amid the debate over Internet indecency. But they have not appeared as effective solution to the problem. It gives me an impression that some software companies have done business utilizing a public concern. Interestingly, these blocking and filtering technologies have not received enough publicity. Neither the broadcasters nor the manufacturers did much to educate the public about V-chip or the ratings at the beginning. V-chip was a "well-kept secret" for many years. It seems that regulatory organizations and the government are not serious about the implementation of technologies and laws for creating family-friendly or child-friendly Internet. Policymakers and regulating agencies only repsond to any outcry against any indecent programming on a television channel. They are not constantly monitoring the industry.

There are obviously positive sides of digital media. Public-education campaigns have adopted digital marketing strategy to change health and social behaviors among youth. Young people also use the Internet as a political tool. For example, web-based activisms mobilized young voters in the 2004 presidential election. It is also true that not all youth are engaging in the same way. Some may not see themselves as part of the digital generation as digital divide exists.


Montgomery’s work is invaluable in its coverage of the complex conflicts around the responsible use of digital media among marketers, media industry leaders, advocates, and the government. Legal provisions have brought a change in the marketing strategy of industry leaders, but have not changed corporate’s market goals toward young population. But I want to stay optimistic when I find that legal provisions like COPPA and activisms of different citizen groups have curtailed some of the data-collection practices and personalized communication. Digital technologies facilitate youth’s political participation online. Talented young people are also creating content and positively contributing to digital culture. Thus it is better to conclude with this comment of Montgomery, "It [the Internet] is an immense public sphere . . . but it is also a sophisticated marketing machine" (p. 211).

#