I find the phrase “new media” to be somewhat misleading in terms of what one would assume it means based on a common understanding of the English language. But what is “new media?” Lievrouw outlines what defines “new media” in the Introduction to Alternative and Activist New Media, but I find the definition she provides to be somewhat confusing in terms of the logistics of “new media” versus the meaning of “new media.” Can something be classified as “new media” if it heavily draws from old and established techniques and mediums but is outside the scope of mass media and is revolutionary in how it conveys a message or idea? Originally I thought that this was what Lievrouw was arguing for, but I am now not sure. Can something be “new media” if it does not actually create a new form of media but instead a new school of thought or type of dialogue?
Medialectic 