By Masudul Biswas
Media access is not a simple issue. That is why we discussed a lot about digital divide in this class. Media access does not merely refer to the availability of a communication technology. The articles and books, we have so far read in this class, have also considered psychological and social factors that can affect media access. Our different reading materials suggest that providing computers and Internet service to a community is not a means of addressing digital divide. We should not forget the issue of “cultural capital.” We need to see whether people can serve their purposes with the Internet. We need to ensure whether people have adequate skills to operate the Internet. We also need to consider cognitive abilities of the Internet users as media access also refers to content access. That is why I like this interpretation of Leah A. Lievrouw: “it [media access] is the act of employing ICTs to obtain or retrieve information, or to communicate with others, in personally meaningful ways” (Bucy & Newhagen, 2004, p.275).
This coursework has broadened my knowledge about media access. The issue of digital divide is not anything straightforward. It has more than one dimension – technological, economical, social and psychological. Personal factors, such as literacy and technical competence, and situational factors, such as community norms and beliefs, are important in determining media access. These factors help us to analyze how competently and effectively people can use the Internet. The Internet has appeared with the potential of democratizing communication through its interactivity feature. Without required skills and abilities and without the support of the community and cultural norms, it may not be possible for every community to take the opportunity the Internet offers. It is good to find that scholars also applied qualitative research methods to investigate the issue of media access or digital divide. Thus the scholars help us to know how the factor like “cultural habitus” discourages Hispanic teens from using computers. But the scholars often struggle to connect traditional media theories to explain the use of the Internet and the nature of the Internet users. It is may be due to the reason that the Internet is interactive and allows two-way communication with speed unlike the other forms of mass media. Moreover, the convergence of different media platforms in this age of digital media has also changed the media landscape.
The title of the course is “Media Systems: Policy and Technology.” Media systems are different in different social systems. Policies adopted by the industry or the government affect the applications of technologies. Thus media system, policy and the use of technology are inseparable. Media policy, in case of the diffusion of Internet, needs to consider the level of education, socio-cultural backgrounds and cognitive and economic capabilities of the target groups, as the Internet offers empowering potentials. The Internet-based media can create a public sphere, and also can promote alternative media discourse. This technology allows people to network, and makes people both creators and consumers of content. Thus access to the Internet demands more as it can help us to achieve a participatory democracy. Traditional social gaps like income, education and cultural capital influence the Internet use, and that is why we still talk about digital divide. These traditional factors also influence the industry’s policy. Henry Jenkins in his book on convergence culture argues that the industry is targeting the kids of affluent and middle-class families as they use the Internet more. Kathryn Montgomery also argues that the digital media marketing target the youth who are the prime users of the Internet. Jenkins also argues that everybody using the Internet is not creating online content. Still the creation of content lies in the hand of the few who are privileged and also in advantageous position than many other Internet users.
It is clear that non-economic factors are also equally important when we analyze the issue of media access. I think this was the thrust of our coursework. We still have media access problem. Our reading suggests that the Internet rather helps the corporate in their business. The Internet creates new avenues for doing business and develops new marketing tools to reach their target consumers instantly and with more convenience. On the other hand, we also see the trend of online activisms targeted toward political and social changes. Again, not everybody can utilize the potentials of the Internet as it relies on cognitive abilities, educational level, economic status and cultural capital. Thus everybody cannot participate online in the same way. My question is whether it is possible for everybody to utilize the potentials of the Internet in the same manner? It is more like a utopian idea. But I realize from the coursework that the success of the effective use of Internet depends on the diffusion strategy of this technology. In that case, the diffusion strategies and policies on ICTs must consider socio-cultural and psychological factors along with economic considerations. #
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
New media and youth
Masudul Biswas
Kathryn C. Montgomery has examined the impact of changing media landscape on the nature of childhood and adolescence. She has identified the contradictory roles of the Internet in children’s lives. Young people, the members of the digital generation, are the active creators of digital culture. On the other hand, they are the passive targets of digital marketing. The Internet can also be "a dark and dangerous underworld where predators and pornographers lie in waiting" (p. 211). The law formulated for protecting children from online predators has also limitations. Technological solutions like software and filters do not always work effectively to control inappropriate content for the children. In reality legal and technological solutions, designed to protect children from inappropriate content and digital marketing, have shifted more responsibility to the parents and created a scope for exploring newer marketing strategies for the marketers.
Montgomery observes that the explosion of new media is taking place at a time when the society has not resolved many issues related to old media. Indecency has remained a common concern in both forms of media. New media applications have raised another concern about access to personal information. Young people become acculturated and socialized through the Internet. Business groups and marketing research organizations use the Internet to collect personal information of children and youth so that they can use the stored information for a future marketing campaign. But such a practice made parents and child- and policy-advocacy groups concerned. Their concerns led to the passage of the first law protecting children’s privacy on the Internet. But Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has not appeared as a "perfect regulatory solution" in the complex and rapidly changing context of digital media. Newer platforms like podcasting onto iPods and iPhone applications and the emergence of social-networking websites, irrespective of age groups, have intensified the concerns about the pervasive influence of digital marketing.
If policymakers introduce a law to serve the consumers in one way, the marketers and media industry will look for other ways around the law for their marketing goals. That is why laws cannot regulate the operation and the use of the Internet in the same way they do in case of television channels. Montgomery refers to a quote of one industry executive where he said that they do not have any problem to try new things and the formulation process of any new law gives them enough time to change their marketing strategy. Major companies find new ways of reaching the younger audience. They are now targeting social networking sites MySpace.com, Facebook.com, Xanga.com. The News Corporation’s purchase of MySpace has sent us a signal about further consolidation in the online industry, as advertisers continue to seek out the youth market. Marketers also move toward newer media platforms, such as podcasting.
Policymakers try to make any situation easier for the marketers and industry leaders. New filtering software and blocking technologies had sprung up amid the debate over Internet indecency. But they have not appeared as effective solution to the problem. It gives me an impression that some software companies have done business utilizing a public concern. Interestingly, these blocking and filtering technologies have not received enough publicity. Neither the broadcasters nor the manufacturers did much to educate the public about V-chip or the ratings at the beginning. V-chip was a "well-kept secret" for many years. It seems that regulatory organizations and the government are not serious about the implementation of technologies and laws for creating family-friendly or child-friendly Internet. Policymakers and regulating agencies only repsond to any outcry against any indecent programming on a television channel. They are not constantly monitoring the industry.
There are obviously positive sides of digital media. Public-education campaigns have adopted digital marketing strategy to change health and social behaviors among youth. Young people also use the Internet as a political tool. For example, web-based activisms mobilized young voters in the 2004 presidential election. It is also true that not all youth are engaging in the same way. Some may not see themselves as part of the digital generation as digital divide exists.
Montgomery’s work is invaluable in its coverage of the complex conflicts around the responsible use of digital media among marketers, media industry leaders, advocates, and the government. Legal provisions have brought a change in the marketing strategy of industry leaders, but have not changed corporate’s market goals toward young population. But I want to stay optimistic when I find that legal provisions like COPPA and activisms of different citizen groups have curtailed some of the data-collection practices and personalized communication. Digital technologies facilitate youth’s political participation online. Talented young people are also creating content and positively contributing to digital culture. Thus it is better to conclude with this comment of Montgomery, "It [the Internet] is an immense public sphere . . . but it is also a sophisticated marketing machine" (p. 211).
#
Kathryn C. Montgomery has examined the impact of changing media landscape on the nature of childhood and adolescence. She has identified the contradictory roles of the Internet in children’s lives. Young people, the members of the digital generation, are the active creators of digital culture. On the other hand, they are the passive targets of digital marketing. The Internet can also be "a dark and dangerous underworld where predators and pornographers lie in waiting" (p. 211). The law formulated for protecting children from online predators has also limitations. Technological solutions like software and filters do not always work effectively to control inappropriate content for the children. In reality legal and technological solutions, designed to protect children from inappropriate content and digital marketing, have shifted more responsibility to the parents and created a scope for exploring newer marketing strategies for the marketers.
Montgomery observes that the explosion of new media is taking place at a time when the society has not resolved many issues related to old media. Indecency has remained a common concern in both forms of media. New media applications have raised another concern about access to personal information. Young people become acculturated and socialized through the Internet. Business groups and marketing research organizations use the Internet to collect personal information of children and youth so that they can use the stored information for a future marketing campaign. But such a practice made parents and child- and policy-advocacy groups concerned. Their concerns led to the passage of the first law protecting children’s privacy on the Internet. But Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has not appeared as a "perfect regulatory solution" in the complex and rapidly changing context of digital media. Newer platforms like podcasting onto iPods and iPhone applications and the emergence of social-networking websites, irrespective of age groups, have intensified the concerns about the pervasive influence of digital marketing.
If policymakers introduce a law to serve the consumers in one way, the marketers and media industry will look for other ways around the law for their marketing goals. That is why laws cannot regulate the operation and the use of the Internet in the same way they do in case of television channels. Montgomery refers to a quote of one industry executive where he said that they do not have any problem to try new things and the formulation process of any new law gives them enough time to change their marketing strategy. Major companies find new ways of reaching the younger audience. They are now targeting social networking sites MySpace.com, Facebook.com, Xanga.com. The News Corporation’s purchase of MySpace has sent us a signal about further consolidation in the online industry, as advertisers continue to seek out the youth market. Marketers also move toward newer media platforms, such as podcasting.
Policymakers try to make any situation easier for the marketers and industry leaders. New filtering software and blocking technologies had sprung up amid the debate over Internet indecency. But they have not appeared as effective solution to the problem. It gives me an impression that some software companies have done business utilizing a public concern. Interestingly, these blocking and filtering technologies have not received enough publicity. Neither the broadcasters nor the manufacturers did much to educate the public about V-chip or the ratings at the beginning. V-chip was a "well-kept secret" for many years. It seems that regulatory organizations and the government are not serious about the implementation of technologies and laws for creating family-friendly or child-friendly Internet. Policymakers and regulating agencies only repsond to any outcry against any indecent programming on a television channel. They are not constantly monitoring the industry.
There are obviously positive sides of digital media. Public-education campaigns have adopted digital marketing strategy to change health and social behaviors among youth. Young people also use the Internet as a political tool. For example, web-based activisms mobilized young voters in the 2004 presidential election. It is also true that not all youth are engaging in the same way. Some may not see themselves as part of the digital generation as digital divide exists.
Montgomery’s work is invaluable in its coverage of the complex conflicts around the responsible use of digital media among marketers, media industry leaders, advocates, and the government. Legal provisions have brought a change in the marketing strategy of industry leaders, but have not changed corporate’s market goals toward young population. But I want to stay optimistic when I find that legal provisions like COPPA and activisms of different citizen groups have curtailed some of the data-collection practices and personalized communication. Digital technologies facilitate youth’s political participation online. Talented young people are also creating content and positively contributing to digital culture. Thus it is better to conclude with this comment of Montgomery, "It [the Internet] is an immense public sphere . . . but it is also a sophisticated marketing machine" (p. 211).
#
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Regulating the Internet, Privacy and Copyright: Free Culture
Masudul Biswas
Lawrence Lessig has identified the disconnections between digital culture and the law in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Throughout the book, Lessig has defended “free culture” as "a balance between anarchy and control” (p. xvi). He recognizes that a “free culture” is a culture with property and it is a culture where artists get paid. A culture that does not have property and does not give recognitions to artists is “anarchy” to him. He compares free culture with free market. A “feudal” nature of a property can misuse the practice of free market, and "extremism in the property rights” can discourage free culture. He supports the copyright law for recognizing the works of artists, but not for protecting a business interest that eventually promotes “permission culture” for accessing the Internet content. That is why he takes a position in between “anarchy” and “control.” By taking this position, he supports the need of a law to protect rights of the innovators or creators in a way that will not seize the public domain from the ordinary users. He argues that regulatory measures sometimes elevate the “permission culture” at a level where permission is not granted to the critical.
In my discussion, I have mainly highlighted two issues - the gap between digital culture and the law, and Creative Commons model for reforming the existing copyright law. Lessig argues for a reform in the existing copyright law and refers to the initiative of Creative Commons in liberating the increasingly controlled environment of the Internet.
Lessig has pointed out the increasing disconnection between law and digital culture. Digital technologies coupled with the Internet can develop more vibrant market for building a participatory culture. But the law has no concern for that. Lessig is not against the copyright law. But he is against the irrational and excessive use of the law. He mentions that the Congress extended the copyright terms to 95 years under the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Corporate-controlled media have found the democratic potentials of the Internet challenging for their profit-making business. Lessig says that “big media” have pushed the lawmakers to enact laws to serve their business interests in the name of protecting “commercial creativity.” “Extremism in the property rights” has the power to thwart the flow of critical thoughts from citizens. Lessig comments, “There has never been a time in our history when more of our ‘culture’ was as ‘owned’ as it is now” (p.12). Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti expressed his concern about the “piracy” of movies online. Lessig also sees that the law should take action against those who are involved with piracy, which is a “wrong” practice. But he cautions that the law should restrict itself to a certain extent so that it cannot impose more control over the Internet content in addition to curbing piracy. Lessig is also critical of the discriminatory legal system in which a teen faces a damage of $150,000 for downloading a single song without permission while he faces a maximum fine of one thousand dollars if he steals a compact disc from a record store. The government is trying to control the Internet radio by putting additional financial burden, which includes paying recording artists for every webcast of a song. On the other hand, a terrestrial radio is not bound to make from such payments. It is another example of protecting business interest in the name of copyright law. Again, the law ignores the potentials of digital technology.
Attempts are on to liberate the Internet public domain from the grip of “big media.” One is Creative Commons, housed at Stanford University, which gives creators more freedom in managing and sharing their digital works. Lessig says that the goal of Creative Commons is not to compete with the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights. Creators can choose license options from Creative Commons. They can choose a license that permits any use, “so long as attribution is given,” or only for noncommercial use. This type of licensing helps to build a “layer of content" by allowing others to build more content on an issue or a topic (p.283). This is how Lessig has put forward the notion of a “responsible copyright law.” By doing this, Creative Commons can help rebuilding a public domain. Creative Common’s licensing policy is something different than the “All Rights Reserved” or “No Rights Reserved” extremes, but it carries “CC” mark. It is an example of copyright that allows certain freedoms to the users. There are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license because they want to maintain the notion of “Some Rights Reserved.” As Lessig argues, the aim is not to fight the “All Rights Reserved,” but to complement them.
Lessig has also called for shortening and simplifying the copyright law. He proposes three important formalities. They are: “marking copyrighted work, registering copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright” (p.288). He suggested keeping the last two steps out of the government’s control. He argues, copyright should not come into play in case of personal use, but only when someone wants to use a copy for making a profit. The book Free Culture is available free online. Anybody can read the book online free. Anybody can critique the book and develop content around the theme advanced by Lessig. But the users have no permission to use the book for commercial or profit-making purposes. This is very much in line with the practice of Creative Commons.
Lessig has made an apprehension. The law is shaping in the way that may create an environment where all use of the Internet content will require permission. That is why Lessig stands for the middle ground “Some Rights Reserved,” neither “All Rights Reserved” nor “No Rights Reserved.” He concludes that the law should not extend its wing to everywhere; rather, it should focus on certain areas of a culture and with good purpose.
Lawrence Lessig has identified the disconnections between digital culture and the law in Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Throughout the book, Lessig has defended “free culture” as "a balance between anarchy and control” (p. xvi). He recognizes that a “free culture” is a culture with property and it is a culture where artists get paid. A culture that does not have property and does not give recognitions to artists is “anarchy” to him. He compares free culture with free market. A “feudal” nature of a property can misuse the practice of free market, and "extremism in the property rights” can discourage free culture. He supports the copyright law for recognizing the works of artists, but not for protecting a business interest that eventually promotes “permission culture” for accessing the Internet content. That is why he takes a position in between “anarchy” and “control.” By taking this position, he supports the need of a law to protect rights of the innovators or creators in a way that will not seize the public domain from the ordinary users. He argues that regulatory measures sometimes elevate the “permission culture” at a level where permission is not granted to the critical.
In my discussion, I have mainly highlighted two issues - the gap between digital culture and the law, and Creative Commons model for reforming the existing copyright law. Lessig argues for a reform in the existing copyright law and refers to the initiative of Creative Commons in liberating the increasingly controlled environment of the Internet.
Lessig has pointed out the increasing disconnection between law and digital culture. Digital technologies coupled with the Internet can develop more vibrant market for building a participatory culture. But the law has no concern for that. Lessig is not against the copyright law. But he is against the irrational and excessive use of the law. He mentions that the Congress extended the copyright terms to 95 years under the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Corporate-controlled media have found the democratic potentials of the Internet challenging for their profit-making business. Lessig says that “big media” have pushed the lawmakers to enact laws to serve their business interests in the name of protecting “commercial creativity.” “Extremism in the property rights” has the power to thwart the flow of critical thoughts from citizens. Lessig comments, “There has never been a time in our history when more of our ‘culture’ was as ‘owned’ as it is now” (p.12). Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti expressed his concern about the “piracy” of movies online. Lessig also sees that the law should take action against those who are involved with piracy, which is a “wrong” practice. But he cautions that the law should restrict itself to a certain extent so that it cannot impose more control over the Internet content in addition to curbing piracy. Lessig is also critical of the discriminatory legal system in which a teen faces a damage of $150,000 for downloading a single song without permission while he faces a maximum fine of one thousand dollars if he steals a compact disc from a record store. The government is trying to control the Internet radio by putting additional financial burden, which includes paying recording artists for every webcast of a song. On the other hand, a terrestrial radio is not bound to make from such payments. It is another example of protecting business interest in the name of copyright law. Again, the law ignores the potentials of digital technology.
Attempts are on to liberate the Internet public domain from the grip of “big media.” One is Creative Commons, housed at Stanford University, which gives creators more freedom in managing and sharing their digital works. Lessig says that the goal of Creative Commons is not to compete with the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights. Creators can choose license options from Creative Commons. They can choose a license that permits any use, “so long as attribution is given,” or only for noncommercial use. This type of licensing helps to build a “layer of content" by allowing others to build more content on an issue or a topic (p.283). This is how Lessig has put forward the notion of a “responsible copyright law.” By doing this, Creative Commons can help rebuilding a public domain. Creative Common’s licensing policy is something different than the “All Rights Reserved” or “No Rights Reserved” extremes, but it carries “CC” mark. It is an example of copyright that allows certain freedoms to the users. There are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license because they want to maintain the notion of “Some Rights Reserved.” As Lessig argues, the aim is not to fight the “All Rights Reserved,” but to complement them.
Lessig has also called for shortening and simplifying the copyright law. He proposes three important formalities. They are: “marking copyrighted work, registering copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright” (p.288). He suggested keeping the last two steps out of the government’s control. He argues, copyright should not come into play in case of personal use, but only when someone wants to use a copy for making a profit. The book Free Culture is available free online. Anybody can read the book online free. Anybody can critique the book and develop content around the theme advanced by Lessig. But the users have no permission to use the book for commercial or profit-making purposes. This is very much in line with the practice of Creative Commons.
Lessig has made an apprehension. The law is shaping in the way that may create an environment where all use of the Internet content will require permission. That is why Lessig stands for the middle ground “Some Rights Reserved,” neither “All Rights Reserved” nor “No Rights Reserved.” He concludes that the law should not extend its wing to everywhere; rather, it should focus on certain areas of a culture and with good purpose.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Convergence Culture
Masudul Biswas
Convergence culture draws a territory “where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (p.260). This is an appropriate summary by Henry Jenkins about Convergence Culture: Where the Old Media and New Media Collide, and we assume three dimensions of convergence culture from this statement. Media convergence has given industry leaders opportunities to place content in multiple channels for increasing revenue and expanding markets. At the same time, consumers visualize a public sphere, free of controls, in a decentralized media environment. Another observation is that media industry leaders and consumers sometimes reinforce each other, while sometimes they are in conflicts. That is why Jenkins focuses on three key terms - convergence, collective intelligence and participation, and he explores “enabling forms of participation and collaboration” in convergence culture throughout the book.
I like the ideas of “affective economics” and “collective intelligence” that have potentials to bind together participation and business goals, and serve the interests of both media industry leaders and consumers. Efforts of several network channels to utilize convergence technology and to engage consumers in content creation and gatekeeping processes are also encouraging. Thus convergence considers “both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed” (p.16). New media technologies have enabled the consumers to store, interpret and re-circulate media content. At the same time, media industry witnesses an “alarming concentration” of the ownership of mainstream commercial media. That is why Jenkins argues that convergence is “both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer reception and creation” (p. 18).
Jenkins draws from Pierre Lévy's theory of collective intelligence. The theory looks into what happens when customers become so tightly networked with one another. He explains Survivor spoilers through the logic of collective intelligence. It shows how highly-engaged viewers were able to predict the outcome of the show by collaborating in online discussion groups. He argues that collective intelligence communities can also advance products or serious causes in the way they have done through popular culture. Convergence culture can promote not only popular culture but also public culture to make democracy more participatory. That is why many also see “collective intelligence” as an alternative source of media power. But Jenkins has not highlighted the disparity in participation among collective intelligence. All consumers are not participating equally. A small number of tool makers still supply a larger number of content creators, who create content on a larger number of web sites. Participation through collective intelligence still demands a very large base of ordinary consumers.
Reality television programs Survivor and American Idol have applied “affective economics,” a marketing technique that can appeal to consumers emotionally. Under this marketing technique, television networks fund programs largely through “high-value” sponsorships in which product brands are deeply integrated into the programming. Jenkins argues that this type of programming creates more viewer participation and brand "expression." This is how media convergence culture finds an increased collaboration between content providers and sponsors. Another goal of “affective economy” is to fuel gossip. The discussion of common experiences allows consumers to participate with media actively and personally. Through such process, the consumption community can also hold the sponsoring corporations accountable. In this case, the author refers to AT&T's sponsorship of American Idol. When AT&T was failing to handle the volume of voting calls from the viewers, the failure impacted both the network and the sponsor.
The BBC has opened up television content to encourage participation. The network has digitized large segments of its archive and made them available via web in streaming format. Alternative television channel Current’s path has led the web into the broadcasting industry. The stated goal of the cable news network (Current) was to ensure active participation of young people as citizen journalists. This can allow the viewers not only to consume programming but also to participate in its production, gatekeeping and distribution processes. When many are skeptical about the influence of political economy on the stated vision of Current, the web services are making it easier for amateur media makers like “participatoryculture.org” or “ourmedia.org” to gain visibility via the web without depending on corporate sponsorship.
New converged media have potentials to promote participatory culture that contrasts with the “passive media spectatorship” of old media. Media producers and consumers may have separate roles in the environment of convergence. But they see them as participants who interact with each other. Equal participation in such interaction is still a far cry. Individuals within corporate media exert more control than the consumers. Even at the level of consumers, all are not participating equally. As convergence culture is still shaping, Jenkins’ arguments have remained in the middle of the road; and, it is clear in his statement, “Some fear that media is out of control, others say that it is too controlled. Some see a world without gatekeepers, others a world where gatekeepers have unprecedented power. Again, the truth lies somewhere in between” (p. 18).
#
Convergence culture draws a territory “where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (p.260). This is an appropriate summary by Henry Jenkins about Convergence Culture: Where the Old Media and New Media Collide, and we assume three dimensions of convergence culture from this statement. Media convergence has given industry leaders opportunities to place content in multiple channels for increasing revenue and expanding markets. At the same time, consumers visualize a public sphere, free of controls, in a decentralized media environment. Another observation is that media industry leaders and consumers sometimes reinforce each other, while sometimes they are in conflicts. That is why Jenkins focuses on three key terms - convergence, collective intelligence and participation, and he explores “enabling forms of participation and collaboration” in convergence culture throughout the book.
I like the ideas of “affective economics” and “collective intelligence” that have potentials to bind together participation and business goals, and serve the interests of both media industry leaders and consumers. Efforts of several network channels to utilize convergence technology and to engage consumers in content creation and gatekeeping processes are also encouraging. Thus convergence considers “both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed” (p.16). New media technologies have enabled the consumers to store, interpret and re-circulate media content. At the same time, media industry witnesses an “alarming concentration” of the ownership of mainstream commercial media. That is why Jenkins argues that convergence is “both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer reception and creation” (p. 18).
Jenkins draws from Pierre Lévy's theory of collective intelligence. The theory looks into what happens when customers become so tightly networked with one another. He explains Survivor spoilers through the logic of collective intelligence. It shows how highly-engaged viewers were able to predict the outcome of the show by collaborating in online discussion groups. He argues that collective intelligence communities can also advance products or serious causes in the way they have done through popular culture. Convergence culture can promote not only popular culture but also public culture to make democracy more participatory. That is why many also see “collective intelligence” as an alternative source of media power. But Jenkins has not highlighted the disparity in participation among collective intelligence. All consumers are not participating equally. A small number of tool makers still supply a larger number of content creators, who create content on a larger number of web sites. Participation through collective intelligence still demands a very large base of ordinary consumers.
Reality television programs Survivor and American Idol have applied “affective economics,” a marketing technique that can appeal to consumers emotionally. Under this marketing technique, television networks fund programs largely through “high-value” sponsorships in which product brands are deeply integrated into the programming. Jenkins argues that this type of programming creates more viewer participation and brand "expression." This is how media convergence culture finds an increased collaboration between content providers and sponsors. Another goal of “affective economy” is to fuel gossip. The discussion of common experiences allows consumers to participate with media actively and personally. Through such process, the consumption community can also hold the sponsoring corporations accountable. In this case, the author refers to AT&T's sponsorship of American Idol. When AT&T was failing to handle the volume of voting calls from the viewers, the failure impacted both the network and the sponsor.
The BBC has opened up television content to encourage participation. The network has digitized large segments of its archive and made them available via web in streaming format. Alternative television channel Current’s path has led the web into the broadcasting industry. The stated goal of the cable news network (Current) was to ensure active participation of young people as citizen journalists. This can allow the viewers not only to consume programming but also to participate in its production, gatekeeping and distribution processes. When many are skeptical about the influence of political economy on the stated vision of Current, the web services are making it easier for amateur media makers like “participatoryculture.org” or “ourmedia.org” to gain visibility via the web without depending on corporate sponsorship.
New converged media have potentials to promote participatory culture that contrasts with the “passive media spectatorship” of old media. Media producers and consumers may have separate roles in the environment of convergence. But they see them as participants who interact with each other. Equal participation in such interaction is still a far cry. Individuals within corporate media exert more control than the consumers. Even at the level of consumers, all are not participating equally. As convergence culture is still shaping, Jenkins’ arguments have remained in the middle of the road; and, it is clear in his statement, “Some fear that media is out of control, others say that it is too controlled. Some see a world without gatekeepers, others a world where gatekeepers have unprecedented power. Again, the truth lies somewhere in between” (p. 18).
#