This post is due by Tuesday, April 8 @ midnight for full credit.
Email late posts to rob.williamsATmadriver.com for partial credit.
Read our MEDIA@SOCIETY book, assigned chapter above.
In a SINGLE blog post below, provide for the chapter:
1. A single sentence, IYOW, that captures the chapter's THESIS (main argument).
2. THREE specific pieces of supporting documentation - ideas, concepts, stats, data - to bolster your thesis for the chapter. (Use 2 - 3 sentences for each.)
3. A single PERSONAL story of 3-4 sentences that connects the chapter directly with your own personal media experiences.
4. A SINGLE specific question you have after reading and blogging on the chapter.
Game on,
Dr. W
thesis: The relationship between technology and people as well as the heightening of convergence within our society has greatly affect human interaction and daily life in both a negative and positive way.
ReplyDelete1. My main concern with convergence is the fact that, “these rapid technological advances pose a major challenge to cable TV and other more traditional media” (Media in Society, 261). There is something comforting and beautiful about a printed newspaper, but our convergence induced society now mostly relies on websites to read the news, economically disrupting print companies.
2. As always, money is a large concern. “Even as that information trade continues, though, a key economic issue for our times is whether the cost of getting on the Internet or buying cable and DBS packages will undermine equal access to information” (Media in Society, 268). This quote makes me think about FEED and how Violet’s father was hesitant to buy Violet a feed 1) because of how destructive it is and 2) because they were not so wealthy. However, when he was in the business world he realized how much more of an upper hand his colleagues had because of the feed. In our society, if people cannot physically afford or have access to computers and the internet and our society becomes incredibly web oriented, then children may be less likely to learn, develop, and have access to critical information.
3. In a positive way; however, convergence has allowed “individuals, through social networking or by creating their own Web sites, now lead and encourage conversations about everything from movies, dating, or politics to the best colleges, worst bands, or least favorite pizza places” (Media in Society, 272). This new ability to interact does open doors that broaden horizons in a way. The danger here however is recognizing that one on one human interaction is still critical and that digital conversation is not the only form of interaction.
personal story: I feel as though when I do not have my iPhone with me at all times I start to have anxiety. I used my phone considerably less than most of the people I know my age, but at times when I’m home and I realize that my parents never have their phones with them or check them unless they hear them go off that there is a large generation gap. I start to wonder whether this society that we have created that develops anxiety when away from their “tracking device” will ever regress back into the ways that my parents view their tracking devices.
question: Why is our society rather oblivious to the fact that technology consumes us and our use of it is more absent minded than conscious?
The age of media convergence has transformed the United States from a production-oriented nation to a consumption-driven nation, which has made our lives more connected and informed but also has caused harm both as citizens and as consumers.
ReplyDelete“Although convergence offers the promise to citizens of wide choice and flexible control over how we use and access media, another definition of media convergence describes a particular business model that is favored by corporate interests” (p.255).
The age of media convergence enables individuals to watch, read, and listen to things specific to their own curiosities. There is thousands of TV stations rather than three, and chances are that your cable company is also the same as your phone and Internet Company. That is a plus of media convergence, everything under one umbrella, but that is not for our convenience it is for corporate profit.
“The biggest threat to the Internet’s democratic potential may well be its increasing commercialization… While the spread of the Internet greatly increases its democratic possibilities, it also tempts commercial interests gain even more control over it, intensifying problems for agencies that are trying to regulate it” (p. 272).
“Commercialization is the process or cycle of introducing a new product or production method into the market. The actual launch of a new product is the final stage of new product development and the one where the most money will have to be spent for advertising, sales promotion, and other marketing efforts” Commercialization. Every media conglomerate wants to gain more control over the Internet and the media and by doing that they are influencing how we think more towards how they want us to think. However, the democratic possibilities are astronomical because through the Internet we can get books, newspapers, magazines, radio shows, TV shows, etc. by a click of a button.
“…Cable television had begun altering the media landscape by redefining the concept of narrowcasting—moving away from the mass audience by providing specialized programming for diverse and fragmented groups. This development slowly cut into traditional TV “broad”-casting coveted and large prime-time audience” (p. 259).
Instead of having three channels and having to broadcast to a wide variety of viewers, in today’s society each channel is specifically directed toward one demographic. For example, when watching Disney Channel, only toy commercials, kids’ food commercials, and things pertained to children are shown. This is no coincidence, it is the media corporations’ job to figure out the demographic and show things that are specific to our needs. But does this hurt society more?
In our media-dependent society, I cannot help but relate it back to Feed. Yes we do not have chips in our heads, but we do have our phones constantly glued to our hip and I know for me if I forget my phone I feel disconnected from the world. However, the more I think about it, the word I used was ‘world’ but the world is one presented in front of us. The world of the concrete; friends, family, nature but our phones have become a part of our world and I realized that our world of concrete is being outsourced by the world of reality, which needs to be reversed in my opinion.
Is the decentralization of the media hurt our society by dividing us more as a nation and blinding us from seeing different angles of stories, arguments etc.?
(1) Technological innovation has led to convergence in traditional mediums to more socially acceptable, modern mediums, such as the Internet.
ReplyDelete(2) This chapter goes into detail about the history of media in American society and how they have all led to the digital age we live in today, "The dot-and-dash symbols of Morse code telegraphy foreshadowed the one-and-zero binary code combinations of digital communication in our own time" (253). Because we as Americans have evolved into a people glued to our smart phones and computers, it's only natural that the media follows suit and converges with the Internet. However, this convergence has negative effects on diversity of opinion, "So rather than each radio station, TV station, newspaper, and online news site all generating diverse and independent stories about an issue vital to a community or city, a converged media company can now use fewer employees to generate multiple versions of the same story" (255). Not only is there a lack of diversity with this convergence, but now certain corporations are starting to take more control than ever by utilizing the Internet. Google is the perfect example of a "well-loved innovator to a corporate icon" (263). The multi-billion dollar corporation received almost 5 billion searches a day in 2012 (263). "On this trajectory, the pioneering search engine has achieved a status that has surpassed McDonald's, Walmart, and, of course, Microsoft" (263).
(3) This whole chapter reminded me so much of Feed and how people seem to be just giving up and just going with the status quo set by our own media industry. Convergence in digital media has shown the vicious cycle of a relationship we as citizens have with the conglomerates who feed us with things that serve their own interests. In Feed, there was one corporation that owned everything - including the government. It seems that this is the way we are headed without any checks and balances to regulate conglomeration.
(4) Conglomeration is a problem. Is there any way to regulate companies from monopolizing the media? How can we help diversify our opinions and become better, media-literate people?
1. 21st century technology has altered how U.S. citizens interact with each other and their environment while promoting a consumerist culture.
ReplyDelete2. “…fewer stories generated under [convergence] means less citizen choice when it comes to news coverage.” (p. 255)
As discussed in previous chapters, convergence of media corporations leads to a narrowing of available public information. This means the general public is, overall, less informed of what is happening around them, whether it be local or across the globe. With globalization becoming an ever-growing issue, it is crucial that news media deliver a wide variety of relevant and accurate information so we may interact appropriately with the world around us.
“The internet has blurred the boundary between point-to-point communication (like the telephone) and mass communication (like television).” (p. 261)
The web allows us to Facebook message our next-door neighbor while simultaneously Facetiming a new friend across the Atlantic. Skyping allows users to see the face of the one they’re speaking to, but does that count as face-to-face when they’re an ocean away? Even when we write on a friend’s Facebook wall, others can still see and comment on it, eliminating a true one-to-one interaction.
“We live in a world where a ten-year-old can simultaneously watch a TV episode recorded on TiVo and read The Hunger Games; where a twenty-year-old can make sense of a nineteenth century poem while wearing a twenty-first-century iPod playing downloaded music that was released that day.” (p. 273)
We have the ability to multitask using various forms of technology: we can listen to music while texting friends, and watch TV while checking email. But how much is too much? Will we ever be able to stop and focus on just one task for longer than a few moments?
3. Technology provides innumerable means to communicate with one’s friends. Someone I know gave up both their phone and Facebook for Lent, as she realized it was absorbing huge amounts of time she could be spending with friends or doing homework. For the first two weeks or so, it was extremely difficult getting in contact with her, as I had to rely on her school email, friends, and the whiteboard on her door. Eventually I learned her schedule well enough to know when she would be around.
4. Is it possible to effectively multitask with multiple forms of media (i.e. a book and TV show)?
The development of technology has posed to be a resource for the population of the U.S. but it has been seen as a potential burden with an equal amount of negative impacts on society.
ReplyDeletePositively, convergence extends our depths of technology, creating more opportunities for improvements, and developments in your personal life. Convergence allows us to connect via “social networking or by creating their own websites.” We are able to interact with people all over the world, as well as share our opinions with anybody.
Our luxuries of convergence may seem to be positively affecting us but we see that this “…particular business model…” seems to be “…favored by corporate interests” (p.255). So when we think it is more efficient for our technology packages to be combined under one business, it is actually just a move to profit from our laziness.
Convergence takes away the progress of what used to be common assets in the family home such as cable television. The taking away of more “traditional media” such as newspapers can be good to decrease the amount of paper used, but can also be detrimental to printing companies affecting our economy (p.261).
With the rapid improvement in technology, you see new inventions advertised by the bulk. The next new thing seems to be a weekly occurrence. I will watch TV and there will be a commercial for Honda, “the next new thing is here.” My show comes on and then another commercial reveals a Samsung promotion for a phone “the next new phone is here.” We get it, new is better, right?
How come new technology is the only way to provide profit for corporations?
This chapter argues that technological developments have given rise to the convergence of media platforms, which affects US consumers in both positive and negative ways.
ReplyDeleteEverything is connected when we use technology. “We put on headphones to block out street noise and the rumble of traffic. We call a state or federal agency to ban those exasperating telemarketers from interrupting our favorite TV show” (252). Our whole lives are marked by the use of technology, from the very small to the massive. Convergence is described as “the simple merging of older and newer forms along an information highway” (254). But it is much broader, and has been occurring for decades before the rise of the Internet. Everything experiences convergence; the spoken word has begun to be documented in a faster, permanent way through e-mail and twitter. Print newspapers reinvent themselves online and allow access for the masses. While it seems that with the latest technologies everyone can have access to everything, often that is not the case. “If the information highway becomes a vital communications link in the 21st century, who will be able to ride?” (264). A lot of people who cannot afford the cable bill or a desktop computer are left out of the experiences of the modern world.
I see convergence in everything. There’s this great photo of a bunch of technologies, such as phones, tape players, video recorders, audio recorders, cameras, computers, etc. under the caption “15 years ago” or some number. Under the photo, there is another one with just one iPhone, and it says “now.” I think it’s pretty powerful to see what has happened over the course of a decade and a half.
How can media be accessible to everyone in the world?
The advancement of technology coupled with a longing for the past creates a paradoxical obstacle for consumers to consider with convergence.
ReplyDeleteInnovations in media typically arrive in four phases. “First is a development in which inventors and technicians try to solve a particular problem, such as making pictures move, transmitting voices across space without wires, or sending mail electronically.” (255) After, an entrepreneurial phase ensues in which the marketability of the product is determined, which group of consumers would make the most use out of the product? Then the mass medium stage, “entrepreneurial managers figure out how to market the new technology as an appealing product.” (256) The fourth stage is the convergence, in which older forms of media are converged into digital platforms. This convergence begs questions of equality and if the population has the ability to access these technologies and therefore, more democracy.
“The Internet embodies convergence, and three innovations in particular make the Internet a distinct medium.” (261) The Internet is interactive, it has the ability to be accessed on many different platforms and screens. Last, it allows people to “create and distribute their own messages, authorizing users to become significant producers rather than just passive consumers of media content.” (261) The Internet serves as a new world of communication. And companies are quick to adapt and profit from this media revolution.
As technology increases a more distinct line between groups who can/ can’t afford it becomes apparent. “The digital divide refers to the growing contrast between information haves or digital highway users who can afford to acquire multiple media services, and information have nots, or users who may not be able to afford cable, a computer, and the monthly bills for service connections, much less the many options now available to more affluent citizens.” (268) This development withholds interaction, communication and democracy from the lower classes that cannot afford innovative technology.
After I lost my IPhone I definitely felt a disconnect from some friends, I was and still am harder to get a hold of without my phone, but now people have new ways of reaching me. I’m also happy I know I can survive the 21st century, without a “tracking device.”
Will the digital divide ever disappear?
1.) In chapter ten the book discusses how the American public can be affected by the new medium of news outlets.
ReplyDelete2.) The most important idea of this chapter seems to be the idea of media convergence. I say this because before the World Wide Web news outlets were not able to reach people on twitter, Facebook or any other social medium. “As the millennium turned, the merging of the electronic and digital era fostered a whole new direction in mass media.” (254) The next section that I personally found interesting was the development stage, “in which inventors and technicians try to solve a particular problem, such as making pictures move, transmitting voices across space without wires or sending mail electronically.” (255) Obviously, they have made this happen because we can find news outlets on our feeds with moving pictures on instagram, photos all over twitter and everything in between on Facebook. When the World Wide Web changed how easy it was to access many different groups of people, cable had a very similar approach. Narrowcasting, “moving away from the mass audience by providing specialized programming for diverse and fragmented groups.” (259) They no longer wanted to reach out to everyone but cut up their segments to reach certain groups or demographics of people.
3.) Well my roommate is one of those kids who lives off of his phone and his twitter newsfeed. He claims that he doesn’t tweet very often but rather uses it for a news source. The thing that is cool about twitter is you can personalize to the information that you want/ need. When I had one I followed mostly musicians so I was updated whenever a new album and or single was released. My roommate uses it more for sports so he always knows who got traded, who won the big game and who was number one on Sport Centers not top ten.
4.) When does social media become a problem?
The rise of new technologies has both negatively and positively affected us as consumers and as citizens.
ReplyDeleteOne way new technologies hurt us as citizens is that it takes us away from the real life. Technology, particularly cell phones, disengages you from person-to-person interaction. “We might criticize the way some people sit glued to their screens, losing themselves in a video game or checking their call phones during in-person conversation” (251). Communication is an important skill for people to have and technology gives us the ability to hide from it.
“New electronic and digital technologies, particularly cable television and the Internet, have developed so quickly that traditional business and political leaders in communication have face challenges to their control over information” (254). The fast development and spread of the use of technologies has loosened the grasp that industries have on the control of what information is exposed to the people. Without this control, a news story is spread throughout the world and many times, there are several ways the story is told or broadcasted.
In order for these new technologies to have any effects on us as consumers and as citizens, we have to be open to using the media. “To navigate the Web, directory services like Yahoo! or search engines like Google help us find out way around; they rely on people to review and catalogue Web sites” (262). Overall, we, as people, rely on the Web and websites just as much as the web relies on us to use it.
In chapter 10, Campbell discusses that a reporter or producer creates “three or four versions of the same story for carious media outlets” (255). I agree with Campbell because when a story is released to the public, there are many versions that we hear about that one story. Each reporter tries to spice up their news story to get the most views and therefore, earn the most money. However, it is concerning how fast media can spread information because all the variations of that one story get blurred together which commonly leads to people spreading rumors.
How does a new technology become popular, especially, worldwide?
New technologies have helped and harmed our lives in different ways and our new media impact many aspects of the world we live in, sometimes leading to a paradoxical relationship between technology and democracy.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, “electronic communication forms such as television and radio are being reimagined in the form of YouTube clips and video blogs…” creating a faster and simpler way for people all around the world to share things with each other (254). However, while there is a benefit of this convergence of old and new forms of media, allowing citizens a range of choices and “flexible control over how we use and access media…” it is also favored by corporations that wish to converge various media under one large company (255). Downsizing can lead to fewer reporters, editors, and stories, which is harmful for the consumer. New media and the Internet have also led to a digital divide, which is the “growing contrast between information ‘haves’… and information ‘have nots,’ or users who may not be able to afford cable, a computer, and the monthly bills for service connections (268). So new technologies are helpful and great resources for those who have them, but it just leaves the people who cannot afford them further in the dust, hurting them in a social way where they cannot participate in discussions and giving them less of a chance to share their opinion. However, “today nearly all public libraries in the United States off Internet access…” and this has helped close some of the digital divide for low-income citizens (268).
When I was younger, I remember having Netscape, a dial-up Internet provider, and my mom only paying about $10 a month for Internet access. Yes it was slow, and sitting at my computer listening to the sound of the Internet connecting through the phone line made me impatient, but compared to the monthly Internet bill today, it was ridiculously cheap. It seems crazy that in 2014, when Wi-Fi exists and technology is more improved and new iPhone models are available every year, the price of Internet access has only gone up. However, compared to ten years ago, there are only two main Internet providers today: Verizon and Comcast. Perhaps the great decrease in competition from other corporations has led to this drastic increase in price.
Are open websites like Wikipedia that “lack journalistic filters” harmful for citizens, even though they are very rarely found to have false information?
Powerful reflections here, colleagues.
ReplyDeleteConvergence, narrowcasting, social networks - oh my!
Dr. Rob