The article “Media Lullabies: The Reinvention of the World Wide Web,” takes a look at how convergence theory affects different ways to access media. The article makes the case that the Internet should be looked at in different terms from the conventional TV and radio models. “By continuing to use the models of past media as our measuring sticks we continue to develop the new media of the Web within the standards and ideas of these past media,” (Hilf 1998.) This proves to be hard for many consumers because they are accustomed using traditional mediums and want to treat the Internet in the same way that they would treat TV. “I often hear people who get disappointed by the Web's inaptitude to reach the threshold, speed, and professionalism of film, radio, and television. At a recent Web community event in San Francisco, a member of the audience asked one of the panelists about the bandwidth problems currently existing on the Internet," When will it be like TV?” (Hilf 1998.) The way that we think about the Internet will not evolve if we continue to think that we can access the Internet like TV. The Internet provides more access to print and allows for access to information through viewing and listening. “This will be a true realization of the non-linear origins of the hyperlink: one piece of data may link to ten others below and ten to the side and ten above but all relative in some way (chronologically, thematically, financially, etc.) to the other data - think of a map of a distributed network where nodes connect web-like to other nodes within the network,” (Hilf 1998). These nodes are similar to a TV network; however the Internet is a more multi-fasted way to access information. The Internet is set up in a network of information through affiliation where pages are portals which provide access to much more information. The Internet has evolved from parent model but is different from traditional mediums because it is unique in its accessibility.
I understood the concepts from this article, but what I don’t feel that I know enough about, is what the model of the Internet looks like. I am having a hard time picturing what the author is talking about; how the Internet model looks versus a model like TV.
I have not previously been introduced to models about the Internet so I am learning new concepts. The article “Media Lullabies: The Reinvention of the World Wide Web,” touches on a lot of different mediums and I am now exploring these models further and causing me to think about how we use mediums.
I can relate to the article because I found out some interesting information about what the different codes for the Internet mean and how they came about. I do website updates and learn how to make our website function at work. Despite being able to work on our web page I don’t have any formal training or understanding about the reason behind how things are organized or the reasoning behind certain codes online.
Questions to discuss in class:
1) Would you have any additional ideas to ad to the article? Such as the affect of Google to the internet and how it functions?
2) Can a web browser/organizer of information have a significant affect to how people set up website and create access to things?
3) Is it really possible for the Internet to be more like TV and is this even a good question to ask, because isn’t the Internet organized and accessed drastically different from TV?
Chapter one of “Convergence Culture” looks at how people use different mediums to delve further into one media. For example, the TV show “Survivor” became very popular and people had to know in-side details about the show prior to finding out through watching each episode. “Online forums offer an opportunity for participants to share their knowledge and opinions. In this chapter I hope to bring to the readers inside the spoiling community to learn more about how it works and how it impacts the reception of a popular television series,” (Jenkins 2006.) Before the internet the idea of spoiling did not exist in the same way or at all. If it did, it was through print media. The idea of spoiling online is effective because the Internet provides access to a many people in a variety of locations that could not be access as quickly and easily prior to the Internet. “Collective intelligence refers to this ability of virtual communities to leverage the combined expertise of their members. What we cannot know or do on our own, we may now be able to do collectively,” (Jenkins 2006.) This may never have taken place without the internet. It would have been much harder to get people to work collectively, communicating through print and TV. This access to people and collective knowledge is so new that people are not always prepared for its side effects, which is unique to the medium. “The question was whether, within a knowledge community, one has the right to not know – or more precisely, whether each community member should be able to set the terms of how much they want to know and when they want to know it,”(Jenkins 2006.) The article points out that, when using a new access to the media, it is important to be prepared for the consequences. Using the example in the book consumers find out more then they may have wanted to know about the show “Survivor” by accessing the Internet. If consumer don’t want to have everything “spoiled,” it might be better to use a medium with more regulation and slower access speed. This may be best achieve by accessing media and participating in the collective intelligence that is more of a one way communication process such as TV and radio (for the most part).
1) Would TV and print mediums have a different affect on “spoiling”? How? Would their affect still include collective intelligence (working together for the information)?
2) Do you think that the internet has influenced different mediums to increase reports on “spoiling” information – such as “Entertainment Tonight” etc.
3) Is “spoiling” as effective or as wide spread on shows like “Entertainment Tonight” as it is on the Internet? Technically, you can choose to look up this information online or find the information in print, with more control then flipping the channel and hearing and seeing the spoiling information on TV.
I have never really engaged in “spoiling” searches for TV shows etc. The “spoiling” information itself and the detail that the author paid the “Survivor” show did not really interest me. What I found interesting was the idea of collective intelligence – people putting together clues over space and time was interesting. I still have not narrowed in on a paper topic – but I did get a new idea from this reading. What are the implications of collective intelligence for solving cold cases or crimes that no one is working on? Could collective intelligence lead someone helping to see something in a different way and solve crimes in their community or someone else’s? This could just be a crazy idea – but who knows, someone might be able to work with someone else across the country and put forward new thinking and ideas.
I found it difficult to get through the narration about the “Survivor” show details. It was hard to pick out some of the important information from the narration about the show and I am not really sure what all of the details that had to do with collective intelligence. It could have been just me, but I feel like I might have missed some key concepts in the narration because I was trying so hard to piece together a logical path about the “Survivor” story itself. I think that the more time on about digital convergence would have been helpful. Other examples, those in the margin, did help illustrate a little more about collective intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment