of this connection, when we try to confront the disjunction between two
kinds of interaction – face-to-face and disembodied – can also lead to Net
flaming (see Dery, 1994; Springer, 2000).
In the modern era, the trends towards increased densities in, and
increased use of, telephonic and Internet-based forms of communication
are an outcome of the fact that the ‘virtual community’ of broadcast
extends the sphere of recognition, but excludes interactivity as an ingre-
dient of such a community. One of the most instructive signs of the inad-
equacy of broadcast in this regard can be found in recent changes to its
genre. On television, it is no surprise that it is precisely since the avail-
ability of the Internet that ‘reality’ TV has became an established genre,
still clinging to the last remnants of simulacra, the semblance of undirected,
authentic, spontaneous and intimate personality, which other genres so
comprehensively lack in the context of network. Changes to how we are
able to control the viewing of television with digital video are also an
example of new kinds of expectations about media brought about by the
increased availability and normalization of interactive technology.
A recent advertisement for DVD in Australia boasted the virtues of
being able to view films as you have never been able to before. DVD
‘puts you in the director’s chair’. It allows you to ‘get behind the scene’
and pass through that wall which separates the producers and consumers
of media, meaning, in some removed, imaginary sense, that we are
able to ‘interact’ with the producers by being able to direct proceedings as
they are.
But by far the most visible indication of the way in which individu-
als seek to overcome exclusion from interactivity in a public domain is in
the extraordinary production of personal websites. Net enthusiasts of all
kinds see the Net as a way of gaining visibility in a world where they are
otherwise rendered as anonymous consumers. It provides an extended
‘mediaplace’ in the world which they don’t otherwise have. A typical
page conveys a level of intimacy via pictures and personal life which can’t
be achieved in institutional life, such as where you work or where you
study. It seems appropriate to put your photo on the Web because others
rarely appreciate you in the context you would prefer them to see you in.
People from your working institutional life seldom appreciate who you
are – the fact that you might be a good sportsperson, or a fine cook. To the
extent that personal web-page authors believe they have a visibility com-
parable with broadcast on the WWW, they can deliver themselves from a
feeling of anonymity.
However, the experienceof visibility is inevitably limited by the very
architecture of Internet communication. As Schultz (2000) points out:Bulletin boards and Internet discussion groups can balance the power and
biases of traditional mass media and play an important role in controlling
and criticizing journalism as well as in establishing mobilizing types of
communication .... As Friedland ... has suggested, the Internet gives people100 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-04.qxd 2/15/2005 1:00 PM Page 100