In the afterword, the text talks about how Youtube was created to allow everyone to participate. I understand that there is some regulation on what can be posted, but don't you think that there should be some more filters on what people can post?
On page 290, the text talks about how Youtube doesn't necessarily ensure diversity. How can this be said, when the site is open to everyone's participation? If someone feels like their viewpoint is not being shown, there isn't anyone stopping them from contributing.
On page 275 Jenkins talks about YouTube. Stating," Talking about YouTube content as spreadable also enables us to talk about the importance of distribution in the creation of value and that reshaping of meaning within YouTube culture." What is YouTube culture such as what makes up YouTube culture? What is this meaning that is being reshaped? What do you think the value is of YouTube? How does it play a role in our everyday lives and give us a sense of personal value?
On page 275, Jenkins discusses YouTube and the idea of "spreadable media." Can we think of any examples of this phenomenon (other than YouTube)? How, if at all, does it effect the convergence of media and culture? Do you agree with Bohrman's idea that new media is "immature" (277)? In regard to political candidates, do you think YouTube and other participation media sites are effective in gaining support of their campaign? Why or why not?
On page 289 Jenkins argues that comedy shows like "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" act as more than just comedy; instead, they "foster civic literacy." Do you think this is true? Is news media in jeopardy, or is it problematic that many young people get their news from entertainment media and parodies?
Jenkins says that YouTube "has emerged as a key site for the production and distribution of grassroots media...in the disruption in the operations of commercial mass media brought about by the emergence of new forms of participatory culture." (p274) This statement bothers me, because it makes no reference to the digital divide. His optimistic view includes people who have the ability to participate, but doesn't mention those who don't. I think this is especially troubling because the chapter is about politics. In theory, the internet, and specifically YouTube were a platform for regular people in regard to the upcoming election, but it also widens the gap between those who have and those who don't. For me, the question was less about whether the snowman video was too funny too mocking for political debate and more about who has the ability to participate in this way in the first place.
In the final few pages of the afterword, Jenkins talks about the racist, sexist, and xenophobic humor of the internet in relation to those running for office. For me, this goes back to what was mentioned above. If the internet is truly not a place of equal participation and access, it isn't a big surprise that these representations are so prevalent. While Jenkins attempts to reel us back in and warn against being too optimistic, I think his chapter (and book, for that matter) speak for themselves. I just didn't feel like his statement that "Too often, we have celebrated those alternative voices...without considering which ones remain trapped outside." was sufficient. What are his plans for changing these problems?
In the afterword, the text talks about how Youtube was created to allow everyone to participate. I understand that there is some regulation on what can be posted, but don't you think that there should be some more filters on what people can post?
ReplyDeleteOn page 290, the text talks about how Youtube doesn't necessarily ensure diversity. How can this be said, when the site is open to everyone's participation? If someone feels like their viewpoint is not being shown, there isn't anyone stopping them from contributing.
On page 275 Jenkins talks about YouTube. Stating," Talking about YouTube content as spreadable also enables us to talk about the importance of distribution in the creation of value and that reshaping of meaning within YouTube culture."
ReplyDeleteWhat is YouTube culture such as what makes up YouTube culture? What is this meaning that is being reshaped? What do you think the value is of YouTube? How does it play a role in our everyday lives and give us a sense of personal value?
On page 275, Jenkins discusses YouTube and the idea of "spreadable media." Can we think of any examples of this phenomenon (other than YouTube)? How, if at all, does it effect the convergence of media and culture? Do you agree with Bohrman's idea that new media is "immature" (277)? In regard to political candidates, do you think YouTube and other participation media sites are effective in gaining support of their campaign? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteOn page 289 Jenkins argues that comedy shows like "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" act as more than just comedy; instead, they "foster civic literacy." Do you think this is true? Is news media in jeopardy, or is it problematic that many young people get their news from entertainment media and parodies?
Jenkins says that YouTube "has emerged as a key site for the production and distribution of grassroots media...in the disruption in the operations of commercial mass media brought about by the emergence of new forms of participatory culture." (p274) This statement bothers me, because it makes no reference to the digital divide. His optimistic view includes people who have the ability to participate, but doesn't mention those who don't. I think this is especially troubling because the chapter is about politics. In theory, the internet, and specifically YouTube were a platform for regular people in regard to the upcoming election, but it also widens the gap between those who have and those who don't. For me, the question was less about whether the snowman video was too funny too mocking for political debate and more about who has the ability to participate in this way in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn the final few pages of the afterword, Jenkins talks about the racist, sexist, and xenophobic humor of the internet in relation to those running for office. For me, this goes back to what was mentioned above. If the internet is truly not a place of equal participation and access, it isn't a big surprise that these representations are so prevalent. While Jenkins attempts to reel us back in and warn against being too optimistic, I think his chapter (and book, for that matter) speak for themselves. I just didn't feel like his statement that "Too often, we have celebrated those alternative voices...without considering which ones remain trapped outside." was sufficient. What are his plans for changing these problems?