I thought that an interesting part of the article was on page 213. Jenkins talks about the difference between a push media, where messages are viewed by the public whether they like them or not and pull medium, which serves those with active interest about seeking out information. Are television and the internet a push media and pull medium respectively, or can they be both? I realize more people seek out information on the internet, but they're are so many pop up ads, links etc. Can television incorporate and a push media and pull medium?
On page 207, what does Jenkins mean when he says that "in some senses, this whole book has been about 'serious fun'?
On page 212, he talks about the "one box idea" and that the combination of corporations and advertisers will erode the democratic online ethic. When and how will we know this has happened?
Is photoshop really that big of a threat to media? If so, why?
On page 226 Jenkins discusses blogging. It is clear today that in our society blogging is a huge type of social media that many participate in, whether it be their own or someone else's. Stating on page 227, "Just as brand communities become focal points for criticisms of companies that they feel have violated their trust, these online communities provide means for their participants to express their distrust of the news media and their discontent with politics as usual." What other things are blogs used for? Why do people feel that blogging is a good way to express thoughts or feelings? Do blogs affect people's opinions? Such as voting, do people base what they see on blogs on the ways in which they chose to vote?
Chapter Six: On pages 219-220, Jenkins introduces the idea of media (specifically blogging) playing an important role in transforming governance. How does media encourage unbiased elections? Adversely, how could the media's influence on presidential elections be problematic? How does the importance of media in government contribute to the continuation of dominant ideologies, and how does it challenge them? What does this relatively recent development say about media audiences in general?
On page 230, Jenkins mentions Moveon.org as a media outlet that promotes citizen interaction. I feel like in the most recent elections, we've seen a big difference in campaign techniques and the exposure of candidate's personal information. What role do you think the media plays in downplaying some candidate's history (like the Clinton sex scandal, as mentioned on pg. 230) and drawing more media attention to former President Bush's faulty leadership skills (pg. 230)? How does this "collective intelligence" trivialize the election process?
I feel like a major argument that Chapter sic presented is that many people are getting governmental news from gossip blogs and entertainment media rather than news media (pg. 235). In some ways, I think this could be detrimental to choosing a suitable candidate for a governmental position. Would you change your opinion, or your vote, based on something you read on a blog? What about something you watched on CNN or Fox?
Conclusion: Do you think it is possible for a news or media conglomerate to be completely objective? Do bloggers, independent journalists, and web users have an easier or harder time trying to remain objective (pg. 252)?
On page 255 Jenkins addresses media convergence and the idea of personalized media. Furthermore, Jenkins asserts that personalized media allows us "to consume only content we find personally meaningful," (255). As a media audience and consumer, do you seek ought information that challenges your own thoughts and ideas, or do you only participate in media that affirms your opinions? How does this relate to the idea of a passive audience?
On page 267, Jenkins writes, "Fans reject the idea of a definitive version produced, authorized, and regulated by some media conglomerate. Instead, fans envision a world where all of us can participate in the creation and circulation of cultural myths." What does the cultural and intellectual importance of sites like Wikipedia (mentioned on page 265) say about modern media audiences? How does this challenge media conglomerates, myths, and dominant ideologies? How do these media texts act as democratic communities in which audiences- the ones with all the control- must act ethically and collectively to publish the most accurate information? What does this say about education, or the lack of education?
1. The section on Alphaville and the voting controversy struck me as particularly interesting. On page 240, Jenkins says that Electronic Arts has to be consulted if there is a move to shape or augment policy in the game. I immediately thought of powerful organizations that remain behind the scenes of presidential elections in real life. Wall Street firms loom large because of their financial clout, and the National Association of Manufacturers is a powerful force that lobbies for certain things to pass or not pass. It seems like if there is going to be any change in policy, congress and the president have to answer to groups like this. In fact, you often hear about politicians being "in the pocket" of big business. Are there any other political phenomena in the game that parody real life?
2. One of the problems I thought of with the whole Vote Naked section was the idea of making it easier to vote. I understand that this metaphor can be read in more than one way, but the gist was that political participation should be made easier and, as Jenkins says, not something you need to make into a huge production. On page 245, he asks, "How do we break through the sense of distance... many Americans feel toward the political process?" I thought of computerized voting making it easier, even though those machines were rife with errors and, according to the documentary Hacking Democracy, were proven to be easy to manipulate and "hack". Do you think that if people could vote online, in their bed, it would lead to a host of problems like the absence of a paper trail?
Conclusion:
1. I said this before in class, but I got anti-government impressions again while reading this section. Jenkins leans on the libertarian side with his citing of Warren Ellis, the creator of Global Frequency. On 261, Global Frequency is described as a piece of fiction that has "us saving ourselves", and was devised after the 9/11 attacks. This sounded either anarchical or libertarian because it moves government control and regulation out of the way. Indeed, Jenkins' main thesis tends to highlight this mentality: an anti-bureaucratic, collective, non-hierarchical society. Yet at the same time he promotes the anti-government idea, he protects companies. On page 268, he says that "the power of participation comes not from destroying commercial culture, but from... amending it... [and] adding greater diversity of perspective." Did anyone else pick up on this? Bureaucratic government is bad, while new technologies that cost money are good?
2. On page 268, Jenkins says that "the freedom of the press came to rest with those who could afford to buy printing presses... [while] the emergence of new media technologies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media." This sounds great and all, but isn't this just another example of the hegemonic ideology co-opting and incorporating? Jenkins leaves capitalism alone. Capitalism may be set back a little bit with people being able to read fan fiction and learn about copyrighted material for free for instance, but at the same time, we have to buy DVD players, pay for monthly internet, buy computers and handheld devices. Capitalism flourishes in this sense. What I mean by co-optation is that the hegemonic ideology realized that people were no longer satisfied with the owners of the means of production perpetuating the one-to-many media paradigm. So it simply switched into being something more subtle: the varied media forms we have today. The owners still exist, they just grant consumers a little bit more freedom. Jenkins wants us to leave commercial culture alone (p. 268), but would we have to overturn it in order to stop hegemony?
I thought it was interesting to read about the 2004 Campaign that Howard Dean ran and how the campaign focused on the internet to spread news about the candidate and also how the Dean campaign focused on the small donations from a lot of different people through the internet. I thought that this may have been a prelude to the Campaign that Barack Obama ran in 2008. Certainly the Obama campaign learned a few things from the Dean Campaign in 2004.
Is the blogosphere a truly reliable form of information today? I'm sure everyone can agree that the blogosphere both has its advantages and disadvantages. I wonder if there will be a time where the blogosphere will take over as the major form of media consumption.
Conclusion --
I would agree with the previous commenter's post that this chapter had a critical look at the government. I got the impression that the things that are new in today's age are good and thus will change the world. While the past is a bad thing and we must learn from all of our mistakes.
Collective intelligence is definitely a healthy and functioning thing for our society today. But does the world of Wikipedia mean to collective intelligence? Is collective intelligence always strictly a good and positive thing? Or can collective intelligence at times be practiced too much and thus be a bad thing?
@Dugan -- re: conclusion question 2 and impact of "leaving commercial culture alone". Part of the idea behind hegemony theory is that you can't really overturn hegemony. Unlike ideology, it describes a state of constant negotiation and struggle. In contrast, ideology could (in theory) be overturned via revolution. So it is not so much that Jenkins wants to be an apologist for capitalism but that he may believe it is not going anywhere and that there are other, more effective ways to fight for a more just and equal society. Still, it is definitely worth questioning whether he takes this too far and ultimately apologizes for, or even ultimately supports/endorses the efforts of the commercial media industries.
Jenkins argues that this new convergence culture (particularly blogging and internet communications) is “spoiling” the American government. The author gives Abu Ghraib and the Iraq coffin controversies (215). How is this reference similar to his Survivor chapter? It doesn’t seem as corresponding as Jenkins would like to assume. The government is far more concerned about the use of Facebook, Myspace, blogs by its own employees than they are by those wishing to “spoil” the government.
In other words, it is more of an issue of how media convergence has so permeated our culture that the government fears the casual and often innocent use of new technologies by the new generation of employees (Abu Ghraib-digital camera by a soldier, Army and Air Force deciding against having an official facebook page due to comments by their own service members, Iraq/Afghan military blogs closely monitored by the Pentagon.) Should Jenkins be arguing that media convergence has infiltrated the U.S. government as opposed to his view that there are outside forces wishing to “spoil” the government? I think the idea of infiltration is more compelling, because it points to the fact that as new generations begin to take government positions, they bring with them a very different view of their private and public/work lives which poses a threat to the "stone wall" the government has built against the public.
On page 258 Jenkins says, "Having a sense of what a more ideal society looks like gives one a yardstick for determining what we must do to achieve our goals." I like that he says this because I think that we all have a sense of what an ideal society looks like but not the full thing. I guess my question would be what would you consider an ideal society? Has Jenkins brought up throughout the texts things that you would consider to be part of an ideal society? Jenkins talks about how he offered case studies throughout the book, how do these case studies help to understand an ideal society? Can these case studies help us to achieve our goals?
On page 281, Jenkins talks about the use of animations and dramatizations in both political advertisements approved by candidates themselves and in videos created by average citizens, such as the Snowman, created by the Hamel brothers of Minneapolis. Why is it okay for presidential candidates to use animation, but then have them look down on the public for using it and not showing respect?
On page 285, there is talk about distinguishing YouTube videos that are made by fans, average citizens, activist organizations or comedy groups. Should there be a way of categorizing these videos or is it better to have these different forms of participation mixed together?
I thought that an interesting part of the article was on page 213. Jenkins talks about the difference between a push media, where messages are viewed by the public whether they like them or not and pull medium, which serves those with active interest about seeking out information. Are television and the internet a push media and pull medium respectively, or can they be both? I realize more people seek out information on the internet, but they're are so many pop up ads, links etc. Can television incorporate and a push media and pull medium?
ReplyDeleteOn page 207, what does Jenkins mean when he says that "in some senses, this whole book has been about 'serious fun'?
ReplyDeleteOn page 212, he talks about the "one box idea" and that the combination of corporations and advertisers will erode the democratic online ethic. When and how will we know this has happened?
Is photoshop really that big of a threat to media? If so, why?
On page 226 Jenkins discusses blogging. It is clear today that in our society blogging is a huge type of social media that many participate in, whether it be their own or someone else's. Stating on page 227, "Just as brand communities become focal points for criticisms of companies that they feel have violated their trust, these online communities provide means for their participants to express their distrust of the news media and their discontent with politics as usual."
ReplyDeleteWhat other things are blogs used for? Why do people feel that blogging is a good way to express thoughts or feelings? Do blogs affect people's opinions? Such as voting, do people base what they see on blogs on the ways in which they chose to vote?
Chapter Six:
ReplyDeleteOn pages 219-220, Jenkins introduces the idea of media (specifically blogging) playing an important role in transforming governance. How does media encourage unbiased elections? Adversely, how could the media's influence on presidential elections be problematic? How does the importance of media in government contribute to the continuation of dominant ideologies, and how does it challenge them? What does this relatively recent development say about media audiences in general?
On page 230, Jenkins mentions Moveon.org as a media outlet that promotes citizen interaction. I feel like in the most recent elections, we've seen a big difference in campaign techniques and the exposure of candidate's personal information. What role do you think the media plays in downplaying some candidate's history (like the Clinton sex scandal, as mentioned on pg. 230) and drawing more media attention to former President Bush's faulty leadership skills (pg. 230)? How does this "collective intelligence" trivialize the election process?
I feel like a major argument that Chapter sic presented is that many people are getting governmental news from gossip blogs and entertainment media rather than news media (pg. 235). In some ways, I think this could be detrimental to choosing a suitable candidate for a governmental position. Would you change your opinion, or your vote, based on something you read on a blog? What about something you watched on CNN or Fox?
Conclusion:
Do you think it is possible for a news or media conglomerate to be completely objective? Do bloggers, independent journalists, and web users have an easier or harder time trying to remain objective (pg. 252)?
On page 255 Jenkins addresses media convergence and the idea of personalized media. Furthermore, Jenkins asserts that personalized media allows us "to consume only content we find personally meaningful," (255). As a media audience and consumer, do you seek ought information that challenges your own thoughts and ideas, or do you only participate in media that affirms your opinions? How does this relate to the idea of a passive audience?
On page 267, Jenkins writes, "Fans reject the idea of a definitive version produced, authorized, and regulated by some media conglomerate. Instead, fans envision a world where all of us can participate in the creation and circulation of cultural myths." What does the cultural and intellectual importance of sites like Wikipedia (mentioned on page 265) say about modern media audiences? How does this challenge media conglomerates, myths, and dominant ideologies? How do these media texts act as democratic communities in which audiences- the ones with all the control- must act ethically and collectively to publish the most accurate information? What does this say about education, or the lack of education?
1. The section on Alphaville and the voting controversy struck me as particularly interesting. On page 240, Jenkins says that Electronic Arts has to be consulted if there is a move to shape or augment policy in the game. I immediately thought of powerful organizations that remain behind the scenes of presidential elections in real life. Wall Street firms loom large because of their financial clout, and the National Association of Manufacturers is a powerful force that lobbies for certain things to pass or not pass. It seems like if there is going to be any change in policy, congress and the president have to answer to groups like this. In fact, you often hear about politicians being "in the pocket" of big business. Are there any other political phenomena in the game that parody real life?
ReplyDelete2. One of the problems I thought of with the whole Vote Naked section was the idea of making it easier to vote. I understand that this metaphor can be read in more than one way, but the gist was that political participation should be made easier and, as Jenkins says, not something you need to make into a huge production. On page 245, he asks, "How do we break through the sense of distance... many Americans feel toward the political process?" I thought of computerized voting making it easier, even though those machines were rife with errors and, according to the documentary Hacking Democracy, were proven to be easy to manipulate and "hack". Do you think that if people could vote online, in their bed, it would lead to a host of problems like the absence of a paper trail?
Conclusion:
1. I said this before in class, but I got anti-government impressions again while reading this section. Jenkins leans on the libertarian side with his citing of Warren Ellis, the creator of Global Frequency. On 261, Global Frequency is described as a piece of fiction that has "us saving ourselves", and was devised after the 9/11 attacks. This sounded either anarchical or libertarian because it moves government control and regulation out of the way. Indeed, Jenkins' main thesis tends to highlight this mentality: an anti-bureaucratic, collective, non-hierarchical society. Yet at the same time he promotes the anti-government idea, he protects companies. On page 268, he says that "the power of participation comes not from destroying commercial culture, but from... amending it... [and] adding greater diversity of perspective." Did anyone else pick up on this? Bureaucratic government is bad, while new technologies that cost money are good?
2. On page 268, Jenkins says that "the freedom of the press came to rest with those who could afford to buy printing presses... [while] the emergence of new media technologies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media." This sounds great and all, but isn't this just another example of the hegemonic ideology co-opting and incorporating? Jenkins leaves capitalism alone. Capitalism may be set back a little bit with people being able to read fan fiction and learn about copyrighted material for free for instance, but at the same time, we have to buy DVD players, pay for monthly internet, buy computers and handheld devices. Capitalism flourishes in this sense. What I mean by co-optation is that the hegemonic ideology realized that people were no longer satisfied with the owners of the means of production perpetuating the one-to-many media paradigm. So it simply switched into being something more subtle: the varied media forms we have today. The owners still exist, they just grant consumers a little bit more freedom. Jenkins wants us to leave commercial culture alone (p. 268), but would we have to overturn it in order to stop hegemony?
Chapter 6 --
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to read about the 2004 Campaign that Howard Dean ran and how the campaign focused on the internet to spread news about the candidate and also how the Dean campaign focused on the small donations from a lot of different people through the internet. I thought that this may have been a prelude to the Campaign that Barack Obama ran in 2008. Certainly the Obama campaign learned a few things from the Dean Campaign in 2004.
Is the blogosphere a truly reliable form of information today? I'm sure everyone can agree that the blogosphere both has its advantages and disadvantages. I wonder if there will be a time where the blogosphere will take over as the major form of media consumption.
Conclusion --
I would agree with the previous commenter's post that this chapter had a critical look at the government. I got the impression that the things that are new in today's age are good and thus will change the world. While the past is a bad thing and we must learn from all of our mistakes.
Collective intelligence is definitely a healthy and functioning thing for our society today. But does the world of Wikipedia mean to collective intelligence? Is collective intelligence always strictly a good and positive thing? Or can collective intelligence at times be practiced too much and thus be a bad thing?
@Dugan -- re: conclusion question 2 and impact of "leaving commercial culture alone". Part of the idea behind hegemony theory is that you can't really overturn hegemony. Unlike ideology, it describes a state of constant negotiation and struggle. In contrast, ideology could (in theory) be overturned via revolution. So it is not so much that Jenkins wants to be an apologist for capitalism but that he may believe it is not going anywhere and that there are other, more effective ways to fight for a more just and equal society. Still, it is definitely worth questioning whether he takes this too far and ultimately apologizes for, or even ultimately supports/endorses the efforts of the commercial media industries.
ReplyDeleteFrom John Monroe:
ReplyDeleteJenkins argues that this new convergence culture (particularly blogging and internet communications) is “spoiling” the American government. The author gives Abu Ghraib and the Iraq coffin controversies (215). How is this reference similar to his Survivor chapter? It doesn’t seem as corresponding as Jenkins would like to assume. The government is far more concerned about the use of Facebook, Myspace, blogs by its own employees than they are by those wishing to “spoil” the government.
In other words, it is more of an issue of how media convergence has so permeated our culture that the government fears the casual and often innocent use of new technologies by the new generation of employees (Abu Ghraib-digital camera by a soldier, Army and Air Force deciding against having an official facebook page due to comments by their own service members, Iraq/Afghan military blogs closely monitored by the Pentagon.) Should Jenkins be arguing that media convergence has infiltrated the U.S. government as opposed to his view that there are outside forces wishing to “spoil” the government? I think the idea of infiltration is more compelling, because it points to the fact that as new generations begin to take government positions, they bring with them a very different view of their private and public/work lives which poses a threat to the "stone wall" the government has built against the public.
On page 258 Jenkins says, "Having a sense of what a more ideal society looks like gives one a yardstick for determining what we must do to achieve our goals."
ReplyDeleteI like that he says this because I think that we all have a sense of what an ideal society looks like but not the full thing. I guess my question would be what would you consider an ideal society? Has Jenkins brought up throughout the texts things that you would consider to be part of an ideal society? Jenkins talks about how he offered case studies throughout the book, how do these case studies help to understand an ideal society? Can these case studies help us to achieve our goals?
On page 281, Jenkins talks about the use of animations and dramatizations in both political advertisements approved by candidates themselves and in videos created by average citizens, such as the Snowman, created by the Hamel brothers of Minneapolis. Why is it okay for presidential candidates to use animation, but then have them look down on the public for using it and not showing respect?
ReplyDeleteOn page 285, there is talk about distinguishing YouTube videos that are made by fans, average citizens, activist organizations or comedy groups. Should there be a way of categorizing these videos or is it better to have these different forms of participation mixed together?