Our convergence debate sparked deeper thought, making seemingly easy questions slip into a whole new bank of fog.
1. Which traditional media are bound to disappear or transform due to convergence? Why?
2. Will convergence make London an even more multicultural and creative city?
3. Will convergence make the Creative and Cultural Industries more diverse or will it encourage segregation?
After the debate I feel that some of my preconceived notions of what media convergence is have definitely changed or broadened. The two video clips we watched in class that spewed out the facts or rather numbers of people who are on social networks and the like blew me away. For example that more video content was uploaded to YouTube in the last 2 months than if all of the big cable networks had been airing new content everyday all day since 1948. Also that traditional media outlets have been steadily losing business, as we become a more online culture. A lot of these facts I suppose I already knew but it is very different when you see the actual figures. It leads me to believe that traditional media are doomed and are sure to go extinct or will be forced to transform to fit consumer needs and wants.
My first reaction to the first question in the debate was that newspapers and magazines, CD players, radios and the like will be obsolete in 20 years, but after hearing what some of the other students said, like how some people just prefer the sound quality of a CD or a book/ magazine in their hands, I had to re-evaluate my opinion. I had to consider my grandma, who loves to read and can’t wait to get her monthly subscription to Scientific American, one of the most genius people I know, and yet she will not let us buy her a computer so we can stay in contact with her. She refuses to try a kindle no matter how great and easy we tell her it is. Likewise my dad who is quite technologically minded is not very savvy. He has a laptop, a iPod, and cell phone, he knows how to text and Skype. Yet still doesn’t really know how to easily search on Google, or download pictures or other media, he still reads a newspaper every morning and prefers to hold a book or magazine in his hand. Despite the fact that he actually knows about a kindle or the “internet”. It is people like my dad and my grams that like certain traditions or consistencies in their daily lives that will keep traditional media alive. It is also people who like to flip through a beautiful coffee table book or us students who get exhausted eyes from reading, typing, searching and watching TV on our computers all day and thus need a “break” and therefore pick up a book from instead.
As such I believe that traditional media will not go extinct as I first thought before the debate, not until all of our grandparents and parents are gone and my generation is the older demographic. Not until they come out with new easier on the eyes technology (maybe the new ipad is the answer) will traditional media disappear. I do think that it will have to transform and have options for it’s consumers like we are already seeing, in newspapers and magazines and music industries having a online and “real” version of them selves.
In answer to the second question will convergence make London an even more creative and multicultural city; my answer again was challenged by what I heard in the debate. Originally I thought, convergence will definitely make the city a more creative place but no, it will not make it a more multicultural city. Convergence definitely allows artists to get their art, music, etc out into the world. Instead of having to solely rely on getting a record label to be heard, an up and coming musician can upload some tunes on his or her social network of choice and get feedback, a following, and maybe even “noticed” by a record label. The same goes for an artist or actor so I feel convergence is a great thing for promoting creativity.
However I feel that convergence is a bad thing for multiculturalism, it encourages people to stay home because they no longer need to go out in the world to shop, see movies, learn about a different place or culture. One can type in India and learn all kinds of things about the culture while sitting in their pajamas in bed. While this can pique a persons interest or desire to travel, in turn leading to them getting out and seeing a Indian festival or market or movie or restaurant.
However I feel that, more often than not it makes a person feel like OK, well now I don’t have to go do any of that hands on investigating or experiencing. Other people in the debate would strongly disagree with me saying that online learning can lead to more understanding and tolerance. I don’t disagree with them I think they are right but learning isn’t experiencing. One doesn’t truly learn about a people or culture until they immerse themselves in the culture, hear people’s stories, music, taste their food, in some kind of "real" context. It is the same as saying we can know what holocaust survivors went through by reading a textbook, yes it is informative but until you go to the sites and speak to actual people one does not really “get it” and even then it is not the same as actually experiencing something like that first hand.
I feel that by actually experiencing a bit of a new culture in London (for instance), one is more likely to feel engaged and want to learn more about it, maybe even travel to the place. So once again I feel convergence can be helpful as a tool to learning more about another culture, but cannot beat first hand experience, so therefore I do not think that it will encourage multiculturalism all by it’s self.
I think the last question is connected to the previous one but is much trickier. My first reaction is to say that it will not make media and cultural industries more diverse. But this answer was totally put into question in my mind by the debate, when one person said that it does encourage diversity because as the work place become more online people won’t have to “go to work” instead they will have work come to them. Not being seen by your employer could encourage the idea of people being hired because of their skills not because of the way they look or don’t look. This may be a naive idea, but I like it, I think we are still a long ways from not having to go to work.
At the same time perhaps this would be a bad thing and create segregation because by not having to leave our homes we are not forced to interact with people on the street, tube, café, work place that we wouldn’t usually interact with. It would allow us to stick to socializing with or family and chosen friends, it wouldn’t encourage new friendships or acquaintanceship's.
So once again I am stuck on the fence post, I think media convergence could all too easily create segregation. Like in the movie Surrogates, hiding in our homes is not really living and besides then you aren’t learning anything. Maybe that coworker with all the brilliant or horrid ideas is not who you think he is, maybe it is someone of a different culture that you had know idea was so interesting because you assumed it was a white male not a black/yellow/brown/green/young/old female….
No comments:
Post a Comment