Blog 1

The article “The Cultural Paradox of the Global Village” looks at how individuals use television and the internet. The two media are similar in their graphics, video and text capabilities, but differ in their applications and structure. The TV is confined in a frame work, a structure that exists outside of the self. “Television's centripetal force made the world more comprehensible and palpable, as outside reality streamed into our homes” (Frederman 2003). Individuals watch TV to connect with the outside world. The internet, Frederman argues, can become like an extension of the self. The internet has less defined space and can easily blur boundaries of watching or interacting with a media and interactions that take place in real life. “In contrast, the implosive effects of the internet generate a centrifugal socio-physical force, moving us away from the axis of rotation that centers on our body as we launch into cyberspace. The effect is disorienting and disruptive in a manner that is unique in civilization. Like the supernova of an exploding star, society is imploded and we, as individuals are flung out into a new, discarnate experience” (Frederman 2003).

Frederman makes the connections between TV brining the outside world into an individual’s environment, while in contrast the internet brings the individual into the internet or outside space. In contract is not possible to have a two way interaction through TV alone. Through the internet, however, people can communicate as they would in the outside world, weather they are playing video games, IMing each other or connecting through Facebook. The internet is now so ingrained in our culture that even if you choose not to use it, it still affects you and the culture you live in. “We have eyelids, but we have no "earlids." We cannot shut out acoustic space, or the space of relationships and connections that are all around us. This suggests that we cannot shut out the effects of the Internet on our culture and society, even if we choose not to use the Internet directly.”

In fact the internet is becoming an integral part to society and how we function, because we use the internet for work, recreation or to get things done. “Our identity has, for many years, existed quite independent of our physical incarnation in government, financial and other institutional databases. We are not real to the bank or other authorities unless we can produce something that links our physical self to our "real identity" in their database. We have many versions of this digital identity - or digiSelf, as I like to call it - spread among many databases, each with its unique characteristics, and inferred behaviors. Each one is more real to the institution - and ironically, to the people in that institution - than our physical self, what we consider to be our real self.” The idea of the “digiSelf” is very interesting and an entire article could explore this topic alone. Just the idea of what the future will look like as we all move away from the physical self and more towards the “digiSelf.” The questions explored in the end of the article are very interesting. How do you reconcile the “digiSelf” and the world as it currently is? What will the future look like; will there always be a physical and “digiSelf” or will the physical world cease to exist in most ways? Do you as a physical being have less affect on the world then you as a cyber being?

The introduction to “Convergence Culture” touched on two major themes: the convergence of media and how we access media. Discussion around question; what drives accelerated media technology? Is it driven by demand from consumers or by corporate entities? What are the implications for these rapid developments? Do we as consumers demand the merging of media entities like movies and video games? Or is the convergence another way for corporations to blanket the consumers with products that will appeal to a broader audience. This is just like the discussion about which came first – the chicken or the egg, yet in reality a little of both occur. “Convergence, as we can see, is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer driven process,” (Jenkins 2006). Both corporations and consumers drive convergences of media as well as furthering technology to make media more malleable.

Consumers not only utilize new media but they come to expect their voices to be heard in the development of new technology to access media. “The promises of this new media environment raise expectations of a freer flow of ideas and content. Inspired by these ideals, consumers are fighting for the right to participate more fully in their culture” (Jenkins 2006). It seems ironic that consumers are able to push for advanced technology with features they want because of the media conglomerate structure. With such large monopolies on media and technology it is interesting that such big corporations can adjust to consumers needs. “Convergence requires media companies to rethink old assumptions about what it means to consume media, assumptions that shape both programming and marketing decisions” (Jenkins 2006). I understand the money makes the world go round and that consumers are the ones with a certain level of power because they are doing the buying, however I don’t usually think of big companies being so nimble and able to quickly adjust to consumer needs.

A corporation makes new and exciting technology and then suddenly consumers cannot live without it. What is hard to figure out for corporations is: what is the next cutting edge and will the technology catch on? “As they undergo this transition, the media companies are not behaving in a monolithic fashion; often, different divisions of the same company are pursuing radically different strategies, reflecting their uncertainty about how to proceed. On the one hand, convergence represents an expanded opportunity for media conglomerates, since content that succeeds in one sector can spread across other platforms” (Jenkins 2006). A complete miss though might mean an even bigger loss for a company because competition and expectations from consumers are so high.

A final thought, relating “The Cultural Paradox of the Global Village” and the introduction of “Convergence Culture” is what Jenkins points out in this one sentence, “Each time they move a viewer from television to the internet, say, there is a risks that the consumer may not return (Jenkins 2006). I wonder, is this really a risk – because I think it will happen. Isn’t this reality? I would think that as we are trying to simplify everything and have all media flow through a single “black box” that a company would try to get there first. Coming out with the technology and creating a significant need in the consumer seems like a safe bet to me, but why has it not already happened. We have the capabilities to do this now – so why isn’t the single black box more popular? Is it that companies make more money by selling multiple lines of TVs, computers, dvd players etc.?

In addition to this question I wonder – is it realistic to think that there should be some censorship for youth with all kinds of media being so available on their cell phones etc.? Is there really a way to regulate what they can access and should laws be passed or should these restrictions be left completely up to parents? The example that was referenced in the book about teenagers being able to capture soft-core porn on their cell phones – in reality there is no way to stop them from capturing these images on their phones but can this activity be considered illegal if it is found? Should it be considered illegal in the case of minors?

Both readings have helped me to start thinking about what I can do for a final project because they have exposed to new concepts that have me asking questions. The concepts that we have explored through these readings are interesting – I just need to figure out what topic I am interested in so that I can apply, if appropriate. I think the more specific I get the easier it will be for me explore a topic in-depth.

What I would like to understand better is page 14. in “Convergence Culture,” “Delivery systems are simply technology , media are also cultural systems.” Can’t technology also be cultural – the examples used, also in the introduction were examples about 8-Track etc. Aren’t these also cultural?