Summary response 1

 

     In Convergence Culture the author Henry Jenkins seeks to define and explain a growing phenomenon that spurs “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want” (2). Jenkins describes the polarizing issues that emerge as a result of booming technology, one of which is the need to control and mediate content that can get overwhelming or offensive. Jenkins begs the question of what makes a utopia: free content or a positive presentation of information. He emphasizes that consumers are flooded with media, and that increases the need for industries to reach their audience in creative and compelling ways. One technique corporations employ is “empowering readers not only to submit their own stories but to work collectively to determine the relative value of each submission” (240). Incorporating a rating system gives the people benefiting from the content a glimpse into the tastes and preferences of their audience. Working with peers facilitates collective learning which may, in turn, create a collective intelligence that surpasses the abilities of any contributor working independently. This pool of knowledge spans from the microcosm of television shows like Survivor to political campaigns and elections. Jenkins points out the evaluative component of collective learning that enables people to comment and criticize based on the credentials of the author and the information presented. Convergence culture has elements of economic, social, cultural and technological value which necessitates that individuals and corporations understand and harness new media.

      The argument Jenkins presents that I struggle most to choose a position on is that “the strength and weakness of a collective intelligence is that it is disorderly, undisciplined, and unruly" (Jenkins 53). Tension emerges because I believe in freedom of speech, but hesitate to defend that position to absurdity; at the same time I abide by the standard of presenting information in a civil way. What would make this issue easier is if people that use offensive language to convey their position understood that a delicate stance is more palatable and persuasive, and used that knowledge to their advantage. I am also disappointed in what many consumers find valuable, and wonder how mainstream (television, radio, CNN) content will be affected by the industry's awareness of the population's preferences and tastes. I believe that, to an extent, this information has already been applied to enhance and edit the content we receive. It would be idealistic to think that a wealth of websites could provide a clear image of what's happening, but I do sincerely believe in the benefit of high numbers. I am, therefore, highly skeptical of the evaluation of political candidates, because of the personal attachment many viewers feel to a party. Their affiliation skews their perspective and causes the facts to be diluted amongst opinion. An example Jenkins cites was Howard Dean's campaign, which I followed quite diligently. I felt rather disheartened to see his career ravaged by absurd commentary. Misinformation about Obama's religions and racial background became common, accepted 'knowledge.' Herein lies the problem with free content, people choose to follow poor examples of collective intelligence. An unselective or naive audience falls prey to manipulation, but becoming informed is more accessible than ever before. As a member of the generation aging alongside the boom of internet I feel grateful for the opportunity to enrich myself with beliefs and knowledge that would be limited without the assistance of free content, despite the consequences.