Sources
Steve Kastenbaum ( Wed October 26, 2011) eBook lending: Libraries go digital. CNN living, Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/living/digital-libraries/index.html

They employed the features of the social media to design the context and it has some bit of everything. This context will aid learning among the young, especially the cartoon-like features.

I explored some blogs. Among them are two for educational purposes and one religious. I looked at a blog called Education Next (http://educationnext.org//). It is a journal for opinion and research. Another blog is This Week in Education (www.scholasticadminstrator.typepad/thisweekineducation). Here students give updates about their readings for the previous week. It has a link for teachers, parents, kids and administrators. One religious blog I looked at is the blog for the Catholic Bishop of Dallas (http://bishopfarrell.blogspot.com). The bishop as the chief shepherd of his diocese uses this blog to communicate and to teach his faithful.

In most of these blogs I observed that people comment on issues that are particularly interested to them. There are a lot of postings that go without a single comment which shows that there is selective interest on the topics posted.
I explored wikis such as Sugar River HOSA (http://sugarriverhosa.wetpaint.com/). This wiki is specially made for grades 10-12, a high school course, two college courses and a licensing program. It is for Health Occupations Student Association. Students get information on events that are related to the local health. It contains students’ homework and schedules of activities.
Another Wiki is the Microbiowiki (http://microbiowiki.wetpaint.com). It is a wiki site for students, teachers, and those interested in learning about the human anatomy, mainly for undergraduates, but high school students may participate.
Using blogs and wikis for instructional purpose are beneficial for a lot of reasons. Few of these benefits include:
1. Blogs can be student-centered offering the learner the opportunity to get involved beyond a discussion forum.
2. One needs little or no technical background to make updates to blog, as Duffy and Bruns (2006) calls it the “novice’s web authoring tool.”
3. Contents can easily be filtered by entries and information shared can be retrieved easily in the future.
4. Wikis are capable of offering the summary of one’s contribution and progress so far which is important for one’s assessment.
5. Wikis offer opportunity for students to share their knowledge and make updates where necessary when something that is hitherto not known is learnt.

The drawbacks I see in blogs and wikis are the fact that extra care has to be made in postings within blogs. Long and boring postings are mostly not read in entirety. Research has shown that most people gloss through online reading when it is poorly organized or too long (Sri & Panayiotis,2001). In addition, younger people in most cases don’t visit blogs. They prefer the social networks (Dankasa, 2010). So some interesting features that include visual presentation and pictures may invite them to the blogs.

References

Dankasa, J. (2010). New Media as tools for Evangelization: Towards Developing Effective Communication Strategy in the Catholic Church. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. St. Cloud State University, Minnesota.

Duffy, P. D., & Bruns, A. (2006). The Use of Blogs, Wikis and RSS in Education: A Conversation of Possibilities. In Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006, 26 Sep. 2006, Brisbane.

Sri H. K., & Panayiotis Z. Reading Online or on Paper: Which is Faster? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.12.2890&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Williams, J. B., & Jacobs, J. S., (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), pp. 232-247.

Introduction

The ambiguity that results from the standard that should be used to determine what makes one medium more interactive than the other has brought about varying definitions of the concept of interactivity. Two fundamental dimensions of interactivity have led to these variations. One dimension is that held by Bretz (cited in Kiousis, 2002) who sees interactivity as related to an interdependence of messages. On the other hand, Steuer (1992) sees interactivity as more technologically determined. The former stresses message content, while the latter emphasizes technological structure (Kiousis, 2002). On this background, this review of literature will attempt to seek out the conceptual definition of Interactivity based on the aforementioned two dimensions. However, since interactivity is generally associated with new communication technologies (DeFleur and Ball-Rokeah, 1989), this review will also offer how interactivity is measured or operationalised in the context of the internet and World Wide Web.

What is the Concept of Interactivity?

Rafaeli & Sadweeks (1997) defined interactivity from the point of view of interpersonal communication. For them, interactivity is “the extent to which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages.” DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989) argue in the same way that “interactivity generally refers to the processes of communication that take on some of the characteristics of interpersonal communication”. Their point is that interactivity is not a characteristic of the medium, it is a process-related construct about communication. In the light of this definition, researchers such as Walther & Burgoon (1992) tried to evaluate the interactivity of Internet communication by how closely it simulates face-to-face communication. Against this background, Ha & James (1998) contended that such “conception ignores the characteristics of computer-mediated communication which allows asynchronous communication.” In this vein, Ha & James (1998) define interactivity as “the extent to which the communicator and the audience respond to, or are willing to facilitate, each other’s communication needs” ( cited in Hoy and Lwin, 2007). This definition is based on the characteristics that typically separate the Internet from other media, and Hoy and Lwin (2007) link it to the marketers-consumers concept. They hold that such interactivity holds marketers accountable for knowing and facilitating the consumer’s market needs.

Steur (1992) defines interactivity through a mechanical perspective as “the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real time.” Auger (2005) sees interactivity as the “amount and quality of two-way communication between two parties, namely a customer and a commercial organization.” This definition is basically centered towards the performance of commercial websites. Auger (2005) concluded that the level of interactivity of a site is positively associated with overall performance as against the sophistication of design which is not related to that performance construct.

Looking at interactivity from a business point of view especially in advertising, Robb et al. (1997) see it as a combination of rich content, active intelligence, and collaborative communications to create a compelling consumer experience. Ha & James (1998) argue that these perspectives of looking at interactivity will introduce subjectivity in the interpretations of the nature of interactivity because of individuals’ different perception of richness, engagement, fantasy or relationship with previous messages. Ha & James (1998) still argue against the restrictive assumption alluded to interactivity that “reciprocal, two-way communication is a common desire of both the communicator and audience.” Their contention was based on the definition of interactivity as “the degree to which participants in a communication process can exchange roles and have control over their mutual discourse” (Ha & James 1998).

Dalgano (2001) defines interactivity as that which primarily refers to human-computer interaction rather than human-human interaction. Dalgarno (2001) linked this concept to the highly interactive learning resources which facilitate a high degree of interaction between the learner and the resources. As a result, Dalgarno (2001) did not see web-based learning resources which incorporate computer-mediated communication tools as been highly interactive learning resource. This is because web-based learning resources can allow a great deal of interaction between people, but do not necessarily facilitate interaction between the learner and the resources. The concept of interactivity used here tries to present the point that there are different degrees of interactivity depending on the type of technology used. Rafaeli (1988) declared that “interactivity is an expression of the extent that in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions.” In a similar vein, Williams et al. (1988) stated that interactivity is ‘the degree to which participants in a communication process have control over, and can exchange roles in, their mutual discourse’. Here, we see a shift away from an emphasis on channels and more towards the interconnected relationships among exchanged messages (also referred to as third-order dependency).

Kiousis (2002) however, gave a more consolidated definition of interactivity by bringing together other definitions. Kiousis presented interactivity as “the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency).” With regard to human users, Kiousis (2002) added, interactivity will additionally refer to user’s ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence.”

How is Interactivity Operationalised?

McMillan (2002) sees interactivity in terms of user control. She identifies three forms of interactivity: user-to-system, user-to-user and user-to-document. User-to-system occurs when there is an interaction between individuals and computers, user-to-user takes place between users and often referred to as computer-mediated communication, while users-to-document occurs when “users modify site texts, or when real-time feedback collected from receivers is used by the source to modify the message” (cited in Endres & Warnick, 2004). Seeing interactivity in the form of user control, Steuer (1992) holds it to be “the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real-time.” This view is technologically based, and interactivity here is measured by the speed, range, and mapping capabilities of a medium, where the user possesses ultimate control. According to Steuer (1992), an increase in any one of these factors raises the level of interactivity for a given medium. Kiousis (2002) argues that the notion presented by Steuer (1992) delimits interactivity as a property of technology itself which consist of speed, mapping, and range. That although speed and range seem consistent with basic views of interactivity, mapping is probably more topic specific for computer software. Jensen (1998) has a similar technologically-driven definition of interactivity as “a measure of a media’s potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated communication” However, For Kiousis, (2002) this definition pays less attention to other prominent aspects of interactivity conceptions, such as third-order dependency. Kiousis believes that a system that permits third-order dependency among participants is said to be interactive.

Kennedy (2004) sees interactivity as involving the relationship of two entities: the user and the instructional source. This measure is based on attribution to educational multimedia. Kennedy (2004) opines that educational multimedia programs on their own cannot be interactive; they only have the potential to be so. As such for interactivity to be measured, the user is required to release this potential by establishing the dynamic relationship. While on the other hand, there should be effective design of instructional events or task which is important to student learning.

Physical actions of the user and the purposes for which the user acts are used to measure interactivity. This user interface is based on three types of interactivity: linear interactivity, which allows the user to move forward and backward in a program, update interactivity, where users respond to predetermined problems such as questions and tasks, and thirdly, construct interactivity, which requires users to manipulate elements of the interface to achieve goals (Sims, !997). Those who define interactivity in close relation to the user include Leary (1990) who sees interactivity as the capacity for a system to mimic interpersonal communication, while Newhagen et al. (1995) and Wu (1999) describe interactivity as a “possible perception of individual users” (as cited in Kiousis, 2002).

Ha & James (1998) hold that for a site to be considered really interactive it should allow for the following:
1. Playfulness
2. Choice
3. Connectedness
4. Information collection
5. Reciprocal communication
These, they believe, will accommodate individual differences in communication needs because some audience may want only low levels of communication with the freedom to navigate within websites and the fun of selecting different options without direct contact from the company. While on the other hand, some audience will want immediate assistance from a company, such as information on technical support to solve an immediate problem.

Ghose and Dou (1998) hold that a commercial website can be interactive when there is the availability of electronic feedback mechanism, the ability to order products or services online and the availability of other searchable features. This lies on the fact that for Internet-based ecommerce interactivity should come primarily from its potential to have a favorable short-term and long term effects on consumer behavior (Schlosser, 2000). It should be able to make consumers more attentive to information while online (Berthon, Pitt, and Watson, 1999). Auger (2005) argues that interactive sites particularly commercial websites should have the potential to more effectively satisfy customers and convert visitors into buyers. This should bring about a response between the communicator and the audience in their attempt to facilitate each other’s communication needs (Ha & James, 1998).

In operationalizing interactivity, Guay (1995) divided interactivity into three types: navigational, functional, and adaptive. Navigational involves the user simply clicking on hyperlinks to be taken to the next page. In functional the user and the computer work together to achieve a certain goal. Adaptive, according to Guay, is the highest level of interactivity because it gives users the ability to augment or alter the page, such as posting a message to a bulletin board (cited in Mabrito, 2001). Rivera (2001) views interactivity as a characteristic of the individual rather than the medium. This is because it is the person who chooses to interact (cited in Hoy & Lwin, 2007).

Heeter (1998) presented six dimensions by which interactivity can be determined. These are:
1. Selectivity, which is the amount and variety of users choices
2. The effort that is needed for any user of the media system to exert in accessing information
3. Responsiveness, which is based on conversationality that tells how a medium is responsive to the user
4. Information use monitoring that shows how well information selection can be monitored across an entire population of users
5. The degree of how users can add information easily
6. It should facilitate interpersonal communication coming through either by allowing users to respond to messages at their convenience (asynchronous) or allowing for concurrent participation (synchronous) (cited in Cheng & Chen, 2008)

Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) give the following measures for interactivity: immediacy of response, non-sequential or non-linear access to information, adaptability, and feedback, sufficient number of user options, bi-directional communication channels and interruptability which is the length of time required for any giving sequence before allowing further input.

Downes and McMillan (2000) provide a five-dimensional definition of what should be the standard for determining interactivity. These comprised:
(1) Direction of communication;
(2) Timing flexibility;
(3) Sense of place;
(4) Level of control;
(5) Responsiveness and the perceived purpose of communication.
This measure seems to basically focus on computer-mediated communication.

Timing flexibility as given by Downes & McMillan (2000) could be operationalized as whether the system would allow participants to communicate in real time and/or in delayed fashion. A system allowing for both would rate higher than one only providing one option. Also Range as proposed by Steuer (1992) could be computed as the number of actions that the system offers to the user (Kiousis, 2002).

Those who view interactivity from a computer science/design viewpoint hold that it is gradually shifting to become more user-based. In demonstrating this, Naimark (1990) tries to differentiate between realness and interactivity. The former refers to the competency of technology to blur the boundaries between physical and mediated reality. While the latter refers to the aptitude of users to modify, interact, and respond to media which, in turn, transform the mediated environment being experienced.

Evaluation and Conclusion

From the review of literatures, interactivity has proved to be a difficult concept to define in a unified fashion. The varying definitions that exist come as a result of the ever improving capacity of new technologies that are on their own difficult to conceptualize. People define interactivity based on their experience of a medium. This account for why marketers and advertisers define interactivity based on their own interest. The same can be said of those in either educational field or those in the area of information technology. As users of particular medium experience interactivity they give it a definition based on that experience. In effect, the measure of interactivity seems to determine its conceptual definition for particular class of users. There is a need for a blending of all the different definitions of interactivity so as to have a concise framework of the term.

Although the general concept of interactivity is understood, it still remains unclear if new media scholars can work out a basic measure below which a medium can be termed as not meeting the standard of interactivity. The dominant feature of the measurement of interactivity found in the literature is the ability of the user to have control over the medium. Other features notwithstanding, user control from the collection of literatures seems to be the one term that is agreed by most scholars and experts in new media to be a strong measure for interactivity. On the other hand, sophistication of design that does not allow the proper navigation of the user is not seen as encouraging interactivity. There is a tendency that as more and more new media facilities evolve the present measure of interactivity as it is will be out-dated. Hence, as far as this area of interest is concerned, interactivity is going to be an ever fresh concept to define in the future. This call for new media scholars to be more involved in continuous research to expand knowledge on this concept.

References
Auger, P. (2005). The Impact of Interactivity and Design Sophistication in the Performance of Commercial Websites. Journal of Small Busssiness Management. 43, 2, 119.

Berthon, P., L. Pitt, and R. T. Watson (1996). Marketing Communication and the World Wide Web. Business Horizons, 39, 24-32.

Borsook, T. K., & Higginbotham, W. N. (1991). Interactivity: What is it and what can it do for Computer-based Instruction? Educational Technology, 31(5), 11-17.

Cheng, K. & Chen, Y. (2008). Student-Instructor Communication: An Interactive Teaching Material in Support of Student Learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 1, 24.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Technologies Supporting Highly Interactive Learning Resources on the Web: An Analysis. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 153.

Endres, D., &Warnick, B. (2004). Text –Based Interactivity in Candidate Campaign Websites: A Case Study from the 2002 Elections. Journal of Communications, 68, 3, 322.

Ghose, S., and W. Dou (1998). Interactive Functions and Their Impacts on the Appeal of Internet Presence Sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 8, 29-43.

Guay, T. (1995). Web Publishing Paradigms. [Online]. Available: http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/[sim]guay/paradigm/Paradigm.html.

Ha, L. & James, L. E. (1998). Interactivity Re-examined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Bussiness Websites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, .42, 4, 457.

Hoy, G. M. & Lwin, M. O. (2007). Disclosures Exposed: Banner Ad Disclosure Adherence to FTC Guidance in the Top 100 U.S. Websites. Journal of Consumers Affairs, 41, 2, 285.

Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting Cognition in Multimedia Interactivity Research. Journal of Interactive Learning Resource, 15, 1, P.43.

Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a Concept Explication. New Media and Society, 4,3 355. Available Online:

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/3/355

Mabrito, M. (2001). Facilitating Interactivity in an Online Business Writing Course. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 3,81.

McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents and Systems, in Lievrouw, L & Livingstone, S. (eds.). The Handbook of New Media. Thousand Oakes, CA: sage, pp 163-182.

Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997, June 15). Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, [online], 2 (4), 17 pages. Available: http://www.207.201.161.120/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.

Robb, J.M., McCarthy, J.C. & Sheridan III, H.D. (1997, February 1). Intelligent Interactivity. The Forrester Report [online], 1 (12), 18 pages. Available: http://204.179.229/fish/reports/fish9702it.asp?Uname=LHA.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Discussion of Innovations, 4th ed. NY: Free Press

Schlosser, A. (2000). Harnessing the Power of Interactivity: Implications for Consumer Behavior in Online Environments. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 79.

Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73-93.

Walther, J.B. & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational Communication in Computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.

The New Media
The Wikipedia free encyclopedia describes the “New Media” as “a term meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or network information and communication technologies in the later part of the 20th century…often characterized of being manipulable, networkable, dense, compressible and impartiable.” In the new media traditional means of communication such as television, radio and newspapers are converged into one. Internet is the word used to describe the convergence point. Through the Internet one can watch TV, listen to radio and read news. The user can download and upload pictures and video. Media convergence has brought about the advent of digital television and online publication which can be readily available to millions of users at the same time, as opposed to the older media and the new media are very interactive. Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard (2001), quoting McManus (1994), said of the new media: “We are shifting from content geared to mass audiences to content tailored for groups or individuals…from one way to interactive media.” With a computer or even a cell phone one can access the internet, television, radio, cable and publications; make telephone calls; carry out marketing; perform banking transactions; and do a host of other things. It is amazing that today television and radio are described as traditional means of communication. Very many years ago when I was learning social studies in the elementary school, methods that were described as traditional means of communication were the talking drums, town criers and other means that are now almost, if not completely extinct. But now with the new media, television, radio and newspapers are described as the “old news.”

The new media have also brought about the evolution of “cyber families.” You have Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, chat rooms, Blogs and the like, which are also called social media where people share information with messages for targeted audiences. This is known as “cyberspace,” a term coined by William Gibson; it is a metaphorical space where electronic communication takes place (Severin W. & Tankard J., 2001). One interesting aspect of Cyber communication is that it has no geographical limit. Messages posted in Nigeria can be accessed globally. Russell W. Neuman opines that the new media “will alter the meaning of geographic distance, allow for a huge increase in the volume of communication, provide the possibility of increasing the speed of communication, provide opportunities for interactive communication and allow forms of communication that were previously separate to overlap and interconnect” (Newman as cited in Croteau & Hoynes 2003). Latest statistics have shown that out of the estimated world population of over 6.6 trillion, over 1.5 trillion were users of the Internet by the end of December 2008. This showed about 305.5% Internet usage growth from 2000-2008 (www.internetworldstats.com). Caincross (1998) describes the impact of the new media (media convergence) in globalization as a “death of distance.” The new media have blurred the gap between interpersonal communication and mass communication, and between public and private communication. It is gradually breaking down the dominance of the media conglomerates and news is becoming more competitive. The new media give more unlimited access to users and audience, unlike the mainstream media, which are mostly guided by their corporations that are victims of media consolidation. The corporations set down policies and rules, pick and choose what news is to be publicized and be sure it is not harmful to the commercial interests of the conglomerates. Religion in this kind of policy has limited access and may not be adequately transmitted. This is where the new media can be utilized.

The Catholic Church and the Effects of the New Media
Religion is one delicate issue that many people and nations tend not to pick up in news stories. In the United States for instance, the continuous stress on the separation of the state and religion has made religion take the back seat in the media. Religious issues are arguably those least transmitted in the media. When religion is stressed much in the media then it has to be when there is a religious scandal or controversy by or among those in the religious circle. When sometimes religion is spoken about in the media it is often misinterpreted or taught wrongly. The misreporting in the media is as a result of insufficient knowledge, negligence and deliberate jettisoning of religion and the fundamentals of the church.

Fr. John Flynn, in an article on ‘Misreporting Religion’ featured in the December 21, 2008 zenit.org, pointed out some examples of flaws in media reporting of religion. In an article in the December 15 issue of the American Newsweek Magazine, written by Lisa Miller on same-sex marriage, she argued that we cannot take the Bible as a reliable source on what marriage should be like, and also that neither the Bible nor Jesus explicitly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. On December 15, 2008, the reader’s editor of the U.K’s Guardian newspaper had to admit that they had confused Mary’s Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth of Jesus in a published story on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. What is distressing about it is that the same newspaper had to publish corrections on this same topic seven times in ten years. When Webster Cook, a student at the University of Central Florida, smuggled a consecrated host out of a mass, a reporter of the Fox News, on July 7, 2008, while reporting this news, misstated that the host is believed by Catholics to “symbolize” the body of Christ. Instead the Catholic Church does not believe the Eucharist to be a mere “symbol” but the “true” Body of Christ. Fox News was corrected! But when it came to present the corrected version it made further error by saying that the host becomes the Body of Christ when it is “blessed” instead of “consecrated.” Michael J. Parker, Director of Communications, Oblate School of Theology, pointed out how the New York Times in its front page during Pope John Paul II’s lying-in-state referred to his pastoral staff as a “Crow’s ear” rather than “Crosier.” There are many such mistakes arising as a result of most secular journalists’ lack of knowledge of the subject.

In most parts of the world today there is a rising “religio-phobia” in the media owing to religion’s delicate nature. Recently in the U.S. a group of people were pleading the court to grant an injunction prohibiting the use of “so help me God” by the president of the nation during his swearing-in ceremony. For them the use of “God” tends to promote religion and since they do not believe in God they feel use of God’s name excludes them as citizens, which they claim is contrary to the religious freedom the U.S constitution upholds. In addition to this, some groups of individuals are clamouring for same-sex marriage, which they feel not legalising is denying them part of their human rights, a choice of sexual orientation. In Nigeria similar misinterpretations are present and in addition, religion in the media is treated according to geographical background. A region dominated by a certain religion seems to promote mostly that particular religion in the media to the detriment of the other. A lot of claims are made by people against the fundamental dictates of religion worldwide to the extent that issues about religion are becoming very delicate to be treated by the media in order not to hurt anyone. This is gradually leading to a dearth of news on religion.

With all these issues where does the Catholic Church stand in its mission of evangelization? The church has the duty to promote the gospel of Christ. It is a mission given to her by Christ himself and the church cannot but execute this call to mission. But the question is how does the church effectively carry out this mission in a world full of anger and detestation for God? It is a fact that our Sunday homilies are not enough to fulfill our evangelizing task. In most parts of the world today the majority of Christians and Catholics are not regular attendants at even the Sunday worship. How do we get our message to resonate with such people? How do we meet them in their homes and in the places they go? How do we confront the issue of our faithful being constantly misled by false teachings and misguided information? The media are part of the solution! But considering how the mainstream media outlets treat the issue of religion with a lot of disdain, it is absolutely clear that they can no longer be the effective means of communication that the church needs for evangelization today. We must develop a way of using the media to achieve our goal, and this must be done with a greater degree of independence from the mainstream media.

I must state here that the evangelicals have gone steps ahead of the Catholic Church in the use of the media to communicate their message. Considering the structure and size of the church, it will be a big set-back not utilize efficiently this means of communication. The new media have presented to us a new method of communication that could be utilized quite independently of the mainstream media. With the creation of the World Wide Web (WWW) a lot of things can be done through the Internet. Archbishop Claudio Celli, the president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, affirmed that the Church does not succumb to fascination with new technologies, but neither does it fear using them to promote peace, love and the encounter with God. He alluded that these changes that are bringing about new culture of communication are urging Church communicators to include those who are left behind in this acceleration, and to collaborate among themselves forming links with those who are at the service of the same high objective to put the Lord Jesus Christ in the heart of the information society (Zenit.org, Dec. 12, 2008).

The Catholic Church in the developed countries should be seen utilizing the many technological advances they possess to preach the faith. The websites should not be left to the dominance of the marketers alone. Statistics indicate that 64.1% of Americans are Internet users (internetworldstats.com). It is estimated that 82% of U.S. teens ages 12-17 and 43.5% of children ages 3-11 will use the Internet on a monthly basis in 2009; and one out of three U.S. Internet users, that is more than 70 million consumers, also access the Internet through a mobile device. In the United Kingdom it is estimated that 1.3 million U.K. residents have come online since 2007 and a similar number will access the web for the first time between 2008 and 2009 (www.marketresearch.com).

Even for those of us in less technologically advanced countries like Nigeria, the Catholic Church can still utilize the technology available for disseminating the truth of our faith. Dioceses can develop TV and radio programs. We have professional Catholics in the mass media; the Bishops of Nigeria can join hands to develop a TV or radio network through which the Catholic faith can be transmitted. Let the different dioceses develop their websites to allow interactivity. Where the state media cannot allow transmission of our faith because of religious bias, the Internet can be utilized and people can blog on our sites and be sure to have answers to their questions. The church must continue to push for a more technologically advanced Nigeria, because the benefits to our faith outweigh the cost.

Above all, we must encourage our Catholic faithful to develop interest in the use of the Internet and encourage them to use it effectively. In Africa internet and Broadband markets are very much untapped. Though there is a remarkable growth in Internet uptake, its market penetration is very low due to the lack of reliable phone line networks, according to market research.com. African population was estimated to be about 955,206,348 at the end of 2008, and 53,136,930 of the African population were Internet users at the end of 2008. Africa now makes 5.4% of the total Internet users in the world. In Nigeria, Internet users made up 7.5% of the country’s population as at March 2008. That is about 10,000,000 Nigerians were Internet users in 2008 (www.internetworldstats.com). The numbers show some growth but much still remains untapped!

Suggestions
With the kind of growth we see in the usage of the Internet, it is certain that the new media are taking over the mainstream trend of communication. This has even led to addiction by many to the Internet, which is a negative side effect that must be moderated. This only shows an indication that the Catholic Church as a religious institution has to develop a method of reaching out to the faithful using the new media. In effect, the Church has to be a teacher and a moderator in the cyber world. Pope Benedict XVI is very loud and clear on this. He stated, “New technologies have an extraordinary potential, if used to favour understanding and human solidarity. These technologies are a real gift for humanity; therefore we have to make sure the advantages they offer are put to the service of all peoples and communities.” In his speech to the directors and staff of the Vatican Television Centre on December 18, 2008, the Pontiff said he wants “the life of the church to be present in audio, text and video on the Internet.” It is not surprising then that the Holy Father is now in ‘You Tube’ (visit YouTube.com/Vatican). The CNN News calls it ‘PopeTube.’

The new media today are a major tool used for propaganda, to make and to mar, and the church cannot but make use of it to propagate the faith, to make strong the faith of our faithful and to mar the false teachings that come from detractors. The first apostles, St. Paul and his companions, used all the available means of communication of their time to transmit what we have today as the word of God. They travelled long distances, wrote letters and sent different kinds of correspondences far and near to teach, to preach and to convert. Today with the growth of technology we do not need to travel far to pass our messages; a message posted in the Internet could be accessed within seconds all over the world. This is a goal that no amount should be too much for us to achieve. We must invest heavily in proclaiming the gospel through the new media.

As a form of conclusion I offer the following opinion and suggestions:
First, the church should establish more international media channels that would explain the doctrine, teach the faith and inculcate religious morals to our people in a more detailed manner. Particular churches should attempt replicating the same for their nations, and dioceses should sponsor Catholic TV and radio programs in their territories.
Second, dioceses should develop and upgrade their websites to improve more interactivity. I applaud the efforts of most Catholic dioceses and organizations that have created websites. However, the contents of these websites must exceed mere contact addresses, names of parishes and personnel with a few write-ups. Let the sites be interactive. Let us have live-chats where faithful can log in and ask questions regarding their faith and belief with a church expert on theology and doctrine. These kinds of interactive live-chats are found in most websites of advertisers and marketers. We can utilize this means for our faith formation.

Third, with the way Catholic doctrines are misinterpreted by the media, the Catholic media practitioners must be more functional in using alternative media in transmitting and defending the faith. Teams of media experts should always read and analyse books written against the fundamental teachings of the church and should in turn write counter-books explaining the truth in more details. They should also monitor some of the wrong transmissions and misinterpretation of doctrines presented by the media and try correcting them using our channels or alternative media.

Fourth, as part of media interaction, dioceses should organize telephone call-in programs on TV and radio, promote and encourage the idea of our faithful sending emails to diocesan-provided addresses with questions, and be sure to get responses from designated church officials.

Fifth, we should encourage having more Catholic i-reporters whose duties would be to provide information through the Internet and serve as public relations agents. This should go with the creation of Catholic cyber-families to encourage faith-sharing communities through the internet. Facebook, YouTube, MySpace and the like are used as meeting points of socializing for people, and our Catholic Cyber-family site can be used as a meeting point for the exchange of religious knowledge, sound Catholic doctrine and faith sharing.

In Nigeria these may appear at first sight as unachievable goals because of our technological backwardness, but we would get there. And getting there means experimenting with what is available.