Still thinking this week about "Media Science". Found this on the website for Rochester Institute of Technology to describe what was their print courses. Now expanded in a blog post from 2012.
Changing the name of the School of Print Media to the School of Media Sciences will more accurately reflect the integration of arts and sciences as they relate to the use of integrated cross-media communications. RIT is adapting and aiding in the transformation of traditional print-centric operations into successful cross-functional solutions of future.
The School of Media Sciences’ mission is to innovate, transform and connect people, processes and systems that are essential to growth and success in the graphic communications industry.
But what makes this a science? Meanwhile I am a bit behind with the Bruno Latour course on Scientific Humanities but I will try to come back to it with "cross media" as a focus. I think it might be more of a controversy than a technology. The technology already exists, pretty much.
Meanwhile in today's Guardian Emily Bell writes about stats and online publishing. She claims that somehow cats falling off a sofa should not be valued in the same way as some other news items just because people are interested. My guess is that newspapers always sold advertising at different rates depending on serious content and soforth. But what strikes me is that what she describes could be a science. The stats are there, just needs a model of what the readers are doing.