A Quote by Matt Mullenweg

Whenever there's a new form of media, we always think it's going to replace the old thing, and it never does. We still have radio, however long after TV was introduced.
The internet creates more of an appetite for media - it doesn't replace physical books, radio or TV.
A new medium is never an addition to an old one, nor does it leave the old one in peace. It never ceases to oppress the older media until it finds new shapes and positions for them.
I think that you will see different types of content emerging, just the same as new media generates new content in the physical world. TV created new content, but it didn't mean that radio disappeared.
I'm not sure when the New Media will replace the Old Media, but it will be sooner than later.
Things are both getting better and getting worse. The madness is accelerating but an acceleration of the new consciousness is also coming in. However, this latter development is less apparent when you listen to the media. The media still mostly reflects what is happening in the sphere of the old consciousness.
If the first plan which you adopt does not work successfully, replace it with a new plan; if this new plan fails to work, replace it in turn with still another, and so on, until you find a plan which does work. Right here is the point at which the majority of men meet with failure, because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those which fail.
Any time a new technology is introduced, like when TV was first invented, everybody was like, "Radio's dead."
I was looking at the Trump hits on me, I have to confess, all of which made me laugh. And I thought, you know, he never goes after guys` looks. He only does the looks thing with women. And then I found this one. "Lawrence will soon be off TV, bad ratings, he has a face made for radio." So, he has gone after, at least one guy, on looks.
New media's not very old, hence the word new, so we don't know a lot of things about new media and by the time you've taught it it's probably out of date. I think it's much more beneficial to have an experiential lesson versus a classroom lesson in new media.
It's odd, because 'Mad Men' was the first long-form TV thing I ever did. I'd done loads of independent movies, but after that, it was 'TV actor.' You go, 'When did that happen? Everything else has been erased?'
When I'm working, I'm going to avoid all media. No newspapers, no magazines, no movies, no radio, no TV. I'm just going to do creative work.
I was like, 'I'm only going to do musical theater for the rest of my life. I'm never going to do TV.' And whenever I'd get auditions for TV, I'd be like, 'Okay, whatever. I've got a lisp, so they're not going to take me.' And then I started doing this, and I guess it was my sister that got me into the acting thing.
I think TV is a medium where you can be entertained, you can be informed, you can relax and you can escape whenever you want. There's no other media, exception for fictional books, where you can do that. But additional to books you also have the picture, it's not only the text and that's the reason why, in terms of getting to the heart of the people, getting to the emotions of people, TV is the ideal media to get them. There is no other media who can do that.
New media companies look remarkably like the old ones they aspire to replace: male, pale, and privileged.
In the field of higher ed, many have asked whether (or when) digital education will replace on-campus education. I wonder the opposite. Cinema never replaced theatre. TV didn't replace radio. I wonder how different digital education will be from classrooms, and where it will lead us.
After being on the court for six hours, being on TV is very glamorous and fun for me. But tennis is always going to be my priority. It's not going to be this thing when all of a sudden TV will get in the way of that.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!