Readings for 9/1/11: An Introduction to Media Convergence and Knowledge Communities

Source:

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Excerpts:

Introduction: ““Worship at the Altar of Convergence”: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change”

Chapter One: “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”

Overview & Key Points:

            In the introduction, Jenkins (2006) introduces the idea of convergence as the flow of content across multiple media platforms, cooperation between media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences. He then proceeds to explain different aspects of what convergence is, what it isn’t, how this ties in with culture, and what he we cover in the book. Central to the introduction, Jenkins points out several instances where balance is hard to find. A lot lies in the middle with convergence. For example, people disagree whether media is too controlled or not controlled enough, or whether it is corporate driven or consumer driven. While some things are diverging (specialized equipments/technologies), other things are converging (media platforms). And then there is the balance of old media and new media; the continuing use of newspapers and television alongside the relatively newer Internet and Web forums.

            In chapter one, Jenkins uses the case study of Survivor and its online spoiling forums to explain knowledge communities. Jenkins quotes P. Lévy, “No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity” (Jenkins, 2006, p.27). This ties knowledge communities into his idea of collective intelligence. If we can’t know everything alone, surely we can know it together. These knowledge communities can work together to seek out new information for the common good and exchange knowledge mutually through discussion, negotiation, and development. However, not everyone comes to a community for the same reason. Overall, the chapter talks about how the traditional assumptions of expertise are breaking down thanks to this more open-ended communication in cyberspace. Jenkins (2006) describes knowledge communities as “central to the process of grassroots convergence” (p. 57).

Synthesis & Reflection:

            A point that I found particularly interesting and was drawn to due to my public relations background was how the advertising industry has been forced to reconsider consumer’s relations to brands. In chapter one, Jenkins discusses the use of message boards as marketing research and the economic value of fan participation. Companies monitor them to get an inside look at the audience and see what would be helpful with marketing. The Web and other various points of contact have become opportunities to promote series and sponsors. Producers have a love-hate relationship with knowledge communities such as the Survivor one. There is a desire to build a community around programs because it is a great corporate strategy to ensure viewer engagement with brands and franchises (Jenkins, 2006). However, at the same time these consumers do not share the same goals and interests with the producers so conflict occurs. 

            Throughout the reading, some of the other points that Jenkins brings up prompted me to think further and ask questions. Here are some of the topics I found particularly intriguing and believe could lead to further discussion:

In the introduction, Jenkins mentions the growing media concentration. How do we keep big outlets from monopolizing the media? Has convergence made it even easier for the media to be controlled by big outlets rather than by people? Has it just expanded the power of big media or has it given us new ways of expression? Do we even care if big outlets control everything?

What is the impact of convergence on culture? Political factors? Popular culture? Economics? How has and how will convergence affect the balance of power? More specifically through cultural shifts in political, economic, social, legal, technological, and other factors?

Jenkins (2006) says “…convergence refers to a process, not an endpoint” (p. 16). Will the phenomenon of convergence ever end? Ever? And how will we know? Will we grow bored of the process? When will we be satisfied – as consumers, producers, creators, etc.? If there is no end, what goals are we really working toward? There has to be something in mind as we go along with this process.

In the introduction, Jenkins (2006) asks “How much participation is too much?” when it comes to convergence (p. 20). When does it become interference? When is it too little and the power becomes too controlled? This ties in directly with the Survivor situation of chapter one.

Continuing with the idea from above, Jenkins discusses how spoilers would hack into resources and track down information on the personal lives of potential Survivor candidates. When it comes to the act of spoiling, where is the line drawn? How far is too far? When does the process that contributes to spoiling become invasion of privacy or stalking? Is this too intrusive or obsessive? On the same token, how much spoiling is too much? When does spoiling become ruining?

How do misconceptions and the introduction of untrue or misleading information play a role in knowledge communities and collective intelligence?

How do knowledge communities play a role in politics and democracy? In the United States? In international relations? How do they contribute to solving civic and social problems?

What is the scale of these knowledge communities? Image a knowledge community containing the whole world, where everyone mutually exchanged knowledge to attempt to benefit the common good. Is this utopia that Lévy mentions possible? Probably not considering the exterior motivations people have to lie and cheat to get ahead. However, how far can we go with them on a scale? Whole towns? Cities, states, countries? Fields of study?

At first when I consider all of this time that the people in these knowledge communities spend on the computer, I think that they must have no life. But in reflecting back on this rash assumption I realize that this IS their life. So I question how these knowledge communities and other areas of collective intelligence are changing relationships and interpersonal communication in our society? There is obviously less face-to-face interaction, as things are increasingly computer mediated. But what is next? How far will this go?