In the sixth chapter, Jenkins makes begins to move out of working only in what we would normally call “pop culture” to talk about the way media convergence can lead to larger discussions of political concepts. Jenkins begins by outlining the first moments where new media truly began to inflect on the political process during the elections in 2004. While we used to consider the disruption of normative systems, such as television media or the election process, as a sort of “jamming,” Jenkins seems to nudge us toward the possibility that these two sides have undergone some semblance of convergence in themselves, as the process of disruption is really just part of the political process itself. This gets back to the discussion about how there is less of a media revolution going on as much as there is a recursive cultural cycle.
On the one hand, media convergence seems to be beneficial to the political process. On multiple occasions Jenkins points to communities and programs which might, at first glance, distract the viewer from the heart of political issues. In particular, Jenkins highlights the Alphaville community within the Sims Online game. In this community crime ran rampant until they decided to create a political system of their own, complete with elections. In the course of these elections, Jenkins suggests, the players engaged themselves in a similar process as the simultaneous elections in 2004. And while the game environment ended up effectively handling their voting snafus, the U.S. government was greatly criticized for the recount of 2004.
Those playing in games said that the game inspired them to try new political activities in the real world, and Jenkins even uses a few examples of communities that took their expertise out of the game world and put it to use trying to fix the budget or find terrorists. In the end, however, Jenkins acknowledges the ability of game communities to stand as only temporary environments, as people can log in and log out at any time they please in addition to the fact that the community might be intensely populated for only a short period of time before the users move to a new environment.
The Daily Show And Democracy
In another development of media convergence, Jenkins highlights The Daily Show and its ability to draw in citizens in a different way than traditional news media. Considering famous studies from the Pew Center, there is strong evidence supporting those watching The Daily Show as some of the best informed citizens. Jenkins attributes this knowledge to the way the show often presents key problems or issues with the current political candidates and news media. When people watch The Daily Show they’re getting an admittedly biased source instead of a subtle one. Jenkins also relates the chapter in other ways to comedy, as the title of the chapter refers to the ability of people with simple graphics software to the ability of ordinary citizens to create jokes and artifacts that play with the media fabric. It was interesting that this chapter (and other chapters as well) gave humorous texts such a positive viewpoint, when quick analysis of parody or humor is often relegated to a surface level comprehension.
Jenkins also touches on the problem of a fragmenting population of ideas on the internet. This is to say that, when people log on to the internet, they can easily find people that share their beliefs. This is, in part, a good thing, since it allows communities to form more easily and for those communities to establish power and identity. However, this convergence might also keep users from becoming involved with multiple perspectives on the internet, so that diverging perspectives start to seem more and more alien and grotesque. The chapter ends on a few notes discussing the many ways a system of consensus might help our culture and our politics if it existed (and indeed in many ways it already exists) on the internet.
Conclusions: The Critical Utopian v. the Critical Pessimist
To end the chapter Jenkins starts to make broader claims about the possibilities for media convergence, and displays his own arguments in conjunction with the opposing viewpoints on the power of participatory culture and media convergence. Jenkins describes a number of “critical pessimists” who are wary of new media as a way to empower consumers or to nudge us towards a more democratic use of media. These other scholars point to the ways that corporate interests always eventually take control of media outlets, and that it is unclear exactly how participatory media enables users. Still more scholars contend that our interactions with traditional broadcast media have shaped our interactions with media in ways which we will then apply to new media, and that changing the media does not necessarily change the way we interact with it. To this Jenkins labels himself a “critical utopian” in his belief in media convergence. Jenkins ends on an interesting note: we aren’t going to escape social media. And as long as we aren’t going to “…opt out of media altogether and live in the woods, eating acorns and lizards and reading only books published on recycled paper by small alternative presses…” then we must accept the consequences of media convergence, and look for the elements that can be utilized for the sake of a democratic future.
Questions:
In what ways does our previous discussion of parody v. fan fiction relate to Jenkin's discussion of The Daily Show?
Considering the place of photoshop on the internet, has photoshop become a tool of the tech-savy as opposed to the every man? How many people need to take advantage of the technology in order for it to become democratized? Or is it simply the relatively low economic access point that makes the difference?
In what ways do photoshop, podcasting, and Youtube videos constitute different elements of media convergence?
Photos @:
No comments:
Post a Comment