In this reading of Convergence Culture, Jenkins recaps the conclusions of his case studies and underscores the major issues facing convergence culture as time moves forward. He summarizes the meaning of this culture, "a paradigm shift–a move from medium-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels, toward the increased interdependence of communications systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture" (254). According to Jenkins, economic motivations are the primary driving force behind this transition, not attempts to empower consumers. Nonetheless, consumers and the public as a whole do, in fact, have potential for greater clout but, as Jenkins asks, "the question is whether [they are] ready to push for greater participation or willing to settle for the same old relations to mass media" (254).
Primed and ready, "digital natives" who have grown up with habitual access to participatory media technologies possess the prerequisite literacy skills to have their voices heard. Constant interaction with media coupled with highly personalized services has made these media-actives thoroughly involved in their media choices. Jenkins describes YouTube as one outlet of expression for this age, a shared platform for individual and collective expression where diverse groups collide and collaborate learning from each other's practices (258). YouTube naturally lends itself to promoting "serious fun," entertainment that involves political issues, because of its ubiquity and enormous, encompassing audience (284). Content like parody videos of politicians can go far and wide on YouTube, reaching the eyes and ears of a crowd that would never gather together in reality. Jenkins outlines the role of Internet parodies as "springboards for larger conversations," with some videos walking the line between amusement and activism. He discusses news comedy shows, including The Daily Show and Colbert Report, that foster a kind of civic literacy. Jenkins is not overly optimistic, however, and touches on the disadvantages of democracy in digital media. While some engage in dialogue to round out their viewpoints, others exploit the spreadability of digital media to amplify messages of partisanship, inequality, and prejudice. Jenkins' final nugget of wisdom is that democracy is not an inevitable outcome of technological change, as pundits like to believe with every major innovation, but something "we need to fight to achieve with every tool at our disposal" (294).
I am a poor role model when it comes to civic engagement. I get a couple newsletters from advocacy groups and I will occasionally sign a petition (via the Internet) for certain issues. I've even donated to causes a couple of times (kudos to PayPal). To be frank, though, it would probably be more accurate to say that I can't be any less political. I feel guilty, because I know that our digital literacy equips us as capable agents for connecting with others, raising awareness for issues, and eliciting change. I think this realm of convergence culture has not matured yet: a lot of people still do not view their media activities as vehicles for political involvement. As we discussed in class, the overload of information out there can frustrate us to the point of surrender; I can't help but take a break from the daily tsunami of data heading my way. This is where programs like The Daily Show, Jenkins describes, prove to be practical: Jon Stewart's satire keeps me laughing, forces me to think beyond just believing what I see, and gets me genuinely interested in learning more about current events. But, I'm still not politically involved. How can we stay afloat of the information onslaught, satisfy our love of entertainment and fulfill our civic responsibility to have a voice in our democracy?
I am not trying to downplay the power of new media to spread a message. I came across the story of Zach Weiner, a cartoonist, and his mix up with the National Organization for Marriage. I've copied parts of his post, but here is a link to view it in its entirety. I think this is a perfect demonstration of how the fluid nature of digital information can result in cross-dialogue between different groups. Jenkins would probably approve of Zach's statement that "this generation fights in a new way, but we fight just as hard."
N.O.M. N.O.M. N.O.M.
Around 9 this morning I got messaged by a few twitter followers that a group called National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had posted a comic of mine. This was the comic, which was in no way conceived of or related to gay rights issues. NOM is a group whose major function is lobbying against gay marriage. They were made notorious for this video.
I messaged my brother/webguru Marty Weiner, who sprung into action. He worked on figuring out how to change the image without affecting the SMBC main page while I worked on finding an image. I settled on a rainbow flag and a quote. At first, I considered using a Harvey Milk quote, but I decided to go with someone I could only assume NOM favors: Mr. Thomas Jefferson.
Pretty cool, eh?
And, since I’m already on my soap box, I want to add: There seems to be this idea out there that action through the Internet has no important effect. Even people I really respect, like Jon Stewart, promote this idea. Well, today, I probably got a message of equality to over 100,000 people, among them members of the other side. This generation fights in a new way, but we fight just as hard.
This blog post from Zach Weiner is really interesting when you look at it through the lens of Jenkins' convergence culture. Weiner mentions that his comic was not originally intended to address gay rights issues, yet through the virtual information highway N.O.M. was able to gain access to his work and use it to promote their ideas.
ReplyDeleteTo me this appears to be an example of the type of knowledge sharing that can occur in knowledge communities. We are able to see two different entities come together through the internet and exchange information. In this case, Weiner's artwork and creative talent/ knowledge aiding N.O.M. and N.O.M educating Weiner on their mission for equality.
The internet can be used for many multiple things. When you read the paper, watch TV, or listen to the radio, you want to be entertained or informed. The internet makes it possible to actually do something and participate and actually do the entertaining or informing. The divide between entertainment and activism is slowly closing however to this is tricky. I guess everyone can become an activist but then who would we need to inform? The internet is a place where a person can surf the web after a hard days work or ignite a political movement. This new emergence of activism online seems to be part of the tension that Jenkins describes.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you hold are a user of the internet yet are not fully contributing to political and social discourse. This is the difficult thing about the internet. I oftentimes see myself in the same light, and our massive amount of information shoots out at us like water from a firehydrant, and our attempts to drink from it leave us paralyzed. The first step may be to harness a critical perception of the virtual space so that we feel more equipped to contribute.
ReplyDeleteI think your situation is a good example of the limits of convergence culture. Sure, it's possible for the masses to potentially influence the political world around them, but ultimately it comes down to the will of the individual. If nobody chooses to participate, then nothing can be resolved.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you remain uninvolved in a time when there are several new tools available to the activist shows that these new communities don't appeal to everyone. I find myself in a similar situation as your own: I do follow politics, and remain at least tacitly interested in enacting public policy, but I don't follow blogs, I don't Tweet, I hardly use Facebook (and never for political purposes). I receive my news from "old media" outlets and generally ignore the Internet and social media when it comes to politics.
On the other hand, I am very political in the sense that I know what's generally going on. I guess my point is that it's entirely possible to remain political without participating in social media communities or using "new media." The social media revolution hasn't completely replaced the world of magazines, newspapers and TV just yet.
You say you might sign a petition via the internet or donate to a noble cause thanks to Paypal, but, given those two things, you already participate more in politics than some of my friends. That is partly the point of the internet. Or, at least, that is what it has become for our generation. Just because we are not out at rallies or petitioning on the footsteps of the capitol does not mean that we are not politically aware. We at least have the ability to be with the click of a mouse. That is a very powerful concept to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie, the internet gives us new ways to engage our community. The points of entry for participation is now seemingly endless. It's a matter of becoming literate in this medium to be truly successful. Take Kiva.org, for example. They allow pretty much anyone to become a micro-lender to entrepreneurs in poverty-stricken areas, with millions of lenders and borrowers participating. This is a humanitarian cause unachievable without the internet, and it is just one example of the countless modes and new forms of civic engament made possible by the internet.
ReplyDelete