WHAT'S UP WITH MEDIA TECHNOLOGY CONVERGENCE?

The New York Times recently ran an article, What Convergence? TV's Hesitant March to the NET, about how we aren't going to see the Internet on television screens any time soon. This boils my blood. Ok, I'm probably one of the few who is chomping at the bit to get the Internet on the fabulous flat screen TV we have in our family room. Since we purchased and installed the TV sometime last year I have been dismayed over the fact that although the TV is great with high definition (HD) content, anything produced prior to HD is blurry and low quality at best. Albeit it's large and we can see the TV from a great distance, but three fourths of all content is not HD, so the quality is mediocre. Ok so I'm getting used to this fact. The public has been sold on how great the TV's are, but we also have to purchase other media devices, all which don't work together. And according to the New York Times article, spokespeople from SONY and Sharp basically think people don't care to get the Internet on their televisions. I'm pretty sure that people would like to be able to multi-task, and search the Internet to gain a multitude of media at the same time as watching the broadcast programming.

The TV manufacturers don't want to deal with all the problems that come with the concept. According to the New York Times article, mainly viruses. These companies have made money from the multiple devices that we have in our homes. If we have one large screen at home that does it all, that will begin to cut out the need for multiple devices like stereos, movie download devices, DVD players, etc all which will cut down profit. But, that seems like short term thinking. With media the opportunity for innovation and profit is wide open. So what's the problem? According to Convergence Culture, Where Old and New Media Collide, by MIT Professor, Henry Jenkins, "Delivery technologies become obsolete and get replaced; media, on the other hand, evolve. Recorded sound is the medium. CDs, MP3 files and 8-track cassettes are delivery technologies."

Media is a cultural production and a business. Every type of media whether we see it on a hand-held device, a PC or on a large screen television will continue to evolve. As Jenkins explains, "The perpetual tangle of cords that stands between me and my "home entertainment" center reflects the degree of incompatibility and dysfunction that exist between the media technologies...The old idea of convergence was that all devices would converge into one central device that did everything for you (a la the universal remote). What we are now seeing is the hardware diverging while the content converges."

Media content is growing and can be found everywhere. In window displays, digital billboards on the Turnpike, digital displays in elevators, at the grocery store and in train stations. We are watching a redefining of culture that is shifting all around, us every day. We are inside and outside of it, whether we are producing or consuming it. Media never stops converging, regardless of the devices available to incorporate the media we want to produce and consume. While the device manufacturers and technology companies try to sort it all out, consumers will continue to seek and use the media they want and work-around the devices. Anyway, a few months ago we were at a friend's house who had a device that allowed Internet browsing on a flat screen TV. I was very disappointed to realize that the text was so tiny it was impossible to read unless you were a foot away from the screen. Images were great, text not so great. I generally sit about 9 to 14 feet away from the TV. Oh well. I'm fine with my large computer screen.

Virginia Tech, Killer's 'Media Manifesto' Broadcasted

I am absolutely flabbergasted—although I know I shouldn't be—that NBC is broadcasting to the world the words, video and images of a killer. When I watched the broadcast last night, the first thing that came to mind were very brief broadcasts I've seen of Al-Qaeda members when they've captured people. We only see about 10 seconds of that. Why does this merit who knows how long of discussion and critique? Ok...ok..I know free speech, but we're talking about a dead person who killed 32 people on a idyllic college campus in the US. I could see NBC broadcasting a few photographs (like the mail package) and quoting some of his words, but to show his video—YouTube style? I think it's a very bad idea.

Why should we be educating the masses on what it's like to get inside the mind of a 'madman'? Why do we need to see and hear those images? It only perpetrates more violence. Enough already. In the age of developing content for the Internet we need not encourage more violent acts to show up for viewing to teach our youth about 'how-to' become a killer.

In my opinion, by broadcasting the words and images of a killer under the auspices of 'understanding' we give the power back to the violator and minimize the stories of the people (victims) most affected by this horrible turn of events. This violent student killer's (I don't even want to memorialize his name) story takes away the power of the victim's stories and sensationalizes the problem, making him appear as a hero-villain. Not a good message. Instead, we need to hear many more of the victim's stories which offer a powerful, pertinent learning lesson and understanding of violent experiences.

And, if we are going to try to start a reality-TV-style discussion about the Virginia Tech shooting, why don't we take a lead from last week's 'big story' with Imus and the Rutgers Women's Basketball team and at least get the discussion going about the right issues. Isn't this more about how easy it is to get guns in this country? Is a high school or college campus more sacred than our communities? Since Columbine, some high schools have constructed expensive metal detectors to retrieve the guns and violent tools that kids carry with them. Taking them away does nothing. They can get them again down-the-block at the local pawn shop and 'big boxes'.

I can only hope that enough people are incensed by this terrible tragedy to do something more than what we have become accustomed to seeing at these times-- symbols, candles, grave markers, letters, flowers and memorabilia posted to fences. I recognize these are healing devices. But we need to get beyond that. If we really want to support and heal the large numbers of people left behind in the wake of violence on campuses and in our communities, then we need to confront the real problem.

Guns and ammunition.

We need to do something to stop the easy access to these resources. The discussion this nation has about the Virginia Tech massacre needs to begin to focus on easy access to guns and ammunition. That would make all this nonsense we see in the media more palatable-hopeful-promising. Acting on what's really important to deal with these types of problems. Confront them. Solve Them. Otherwise we will continue this terrible cycle of violence, death and grieving, but never get to the most important level. Fixing it. That's a message that requires local, state national and global attention. Even if an entire economy revolves around it. We owe it to ourselves, our friends, our family and we owe it to humanity.