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.

ARE POSITIVE NEWS STORIES POSSIBLE?

Recently the Romanian Senate unanimously voted in favor of a law that would require fifty percent of the news reported by media outlets in that country to distribute “happy news.” One senator, from the opposition Social Democrat Party (PSD), argued newscasts show too much of the "dark side of life". The Romanian's National Council for Audiovisual Broadcasting is to validate the law - under which it will have the responsibility to decide what constitutes good or bad news. But the Council swiftly criticized the law. "News is news, it is neither positive nor negative, it simply reflects reality," said the Council's president, Rasvan Popescu.

Good news is a good idea. All you have to do is watch mass media news at night to witness that there's about a minute and half of positive news reported. Why do we have inspirational speakers who constantly tell us that if we believe and stay positive then good things will happen to us? Then there's the old adage about "looking on the positive side of life". Well that's no easy feat when the media is so negative.

I recognize media conglomerates have to make money, but what's so wrong about good old inspirational stories? There's a ton of them around. Stories that make us laugh and feel good about being human. If big media isn't going to tell them, even a quarter of the time, maybe there should be a law to ensure that daily we see good things about good people.

Perhaps it's just not possible. Humans have been drawn to hype and negative news as far back as the Socrates and Salem Witchcraft trials. Today we are lucky to have many news sources to gather our news from. We owe it to ourselves to verify whether the information we get is accurate, and to accept listening and reading different opinions and sources than the tried-and-true that we habitually listen to in agreement. And with the advent of the Internet it’s never been easier.

If a magazine can offer Pitt-Jolie 10-15 million dollars for photos of their twins, then we know what the majority of the people ultimately want. Who's to say that if the media were forced to report fifty percent of the time on positive things that anyone would even watch or care? I still think there’s something to be said about “good things”—and not just tips from Martha Stewart. Positive stories are out there—we just have to search for them. Hopefully in the age of Youtube we might just see those good stories begin to develop when all the silly pet and baby tricks have trended downward.

PARODY THIS!

Ok, I couldn't pass this one up. My very last post was about an engaging artist exhibit that parodied the media's depiction of the democratic candidates Obama and Clinton. Now that Obama has come out as the candidate for the Democratic party, we have a fresh new media parody with the New Yorker magazine cover. But unfortunately for the smart and witty New Yorker magazine, even the Obama campaign is denouncing the cover as "tasteless" and "offensive" and of course McCain is on the same bandwagon. There's been so much outrage about this cover in the past 2 days and it just seems ridiculous. But then again we have to be sensitive about the US constituency. That's the problem with satire, it's risky and can be high-brow and people just won't get it. Messages have to be "watered down" and even the candidates who do get it, prefer to act like it's an outrage. What happened to clear communication and talking about a subject. Like parody and satire are a solid asset of our democracy. Perhaps the outrage is that we can't seem to criticize or poke fun at anything in the political and corporate arenas anymore. Funny thing is that The New Yorker knows what they're doing. They had to know this would cause a fuss. They've been known to work with companies to take over many advertising pages and integrate them into the look, feel and image of the magazine. I think there's more than meets THE EYE here.

VOGUE COVER: LeBron and Gisele

You know I caught the discussion about this on the Today Show and was very intrigued. First I couldn’t believe that the mass media picked up on the story, although they did so because bloggers got so heavily into it. Ann Curry was excellent as she asked Nancy Giles (from CBS morning show who I really like) what do African American people see in this picture that white people don’t see? Nancy Giles said that blacks are always depicted in the media as aggressive, threatening and as primal beings. Advertising guru Danny Deutsch saw nothing wrong with the cover at all.

Actually they showed other Annie Lebowitz shots for the cover and I too think that they should have used one where LeBron and Gisele were both in movement, it was a great shot, but maybe the editors at Vogue thought it was too Sports Illustrated. I think this does help to perpetuate the stereotypes that Giles referred to and may purposefully be provocative. I’m sure LeBron got paid well for the shoot, plus that type of promotion boosts other career opportunities for him. So it’s easy to see why he would be positive about the cover shot. I personally think they made Gisele look like a weak figure, even a bit odd—twisted and her footing doesn’t appear well balanced. It looks like the only reason she’s standing upright is because LeBron is holding her up, yet that point of view wasn’t discussed on the Today Show.

Perhaps Vogue wanted some extra promotion for the magazine cover? 

Here's the full story