CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

The interactive audience has become its very own power source! Jenkins discusses the increased capabilities of the fan as options of Web 2.0 have steadily enhanced. For example, Jenkins specifies what a large soap opera fandom can do with online collaboration; “a large group of fans can do what even the most committed single fan cannot: accumulate, retain, and continually recirculate unprecedented amounts of relevant information…[Net list] participants collaboratively provide all with resources to get more story from the material, enhancing many members’ soap readings and pleasures” (139).

The increased “power” of the fandom appears most obvious to me when Jenkins discusses the efforts by media producers to regain control over their productions and information. There is an obvious power-shift if the media producers are working to “re-gain” instead of maintain their control. Jenkins writes, “for many media producers, who still operate within the old logic of the commodity culture, fandom represents the potential loss of control over their intellectual property” (146). We saw examples of just how far the media giants would go in the lengths they took to prosecute people for using Napster and other “piracy” sites.

This issue over control highlights an example Jenkins provides regarding the authors’ participation in the online fan community. Jenkins references the producer for Babylon 5, referred to online as JMS, who participated daily in the online fan chatter regarding the upcoming release of his television series. Jenkins details how JMS even participated in “flaming” on these sites all in order to generate more buzz about the show. It also shows how the acknowledgement of the audience and their particular needs can serve to benefit the producer should they take the time to recognize the most important outlets for their fan base. I thought this example highlighted not only the power of the interactive audience but also the critical role for audience evaluation.

Jenkins also discusses “pop cosmopolitanism,” a term I had never heard prior to this reading despite having experienced similar situations to the introductory narrative about the young woman grocery clerk. I applaud those who “embrace cultural differences, seeking to escape the gravitational pull of their local communities in order to enter a broader sphere of cultural experience” (Jenkins, 155), but I also wonder how imbedded you truly become within a new culture simply by experiencing their pop culture media. I worry that because for example, the “golden arches” have become so globalized (I’m shuddering to think about how that represents our country!) that there are more pop cosmopolitans who feel culturally savvy in American culture but may be far from an actual American cultural experience.

I think the new generation, whether they realize it or not, is in a uniquely powerful position (tying back to the power Jenkins references in his discussion of interactive audiences) in that with this global circulation of media they have become the central focus of many marketing strategies. Jenkins points out how easily a “teen’s website can become the center of an international controversy” (154) as an example of their potentially unknowing critical role in these developments.

I’ll wrap up my discussion on Jenkins by proudly stating that I am one of the MORE then 375,000 users of blogger.com. Although I’m not fostering any political awareness and I am certainly not providing any useful links to external resources, I am making my small mark on the world of Web 2.0. At the very least my experience with this genre has opened my eyes to just how important these publishers can be and I anticipate that we will see even more of their grassroots spreading of “cultural diversity.” (Jenkins, 180).

I believe Hardey’s article is incredibly in tune with what the metropolitan population is currently (and has been) experiencing for a number of years. The electronic connections being made online that serve as “resources providing new ways of seeing, experiencing and understanding the city” (Hardey, 868) are tremendously important not only for visitors to a city but more so, I would argue, for those who reside in the city. When I moved to Washington, DC it was so funny to hear the suggestions from my parents on how to meet people – go to church, volunteer, go to the bar – they had no idea what sort of intricate web of communication was maintained online for all sorts of groups within the city. Whether it was a kickball league that played on the Mall or a group of people who simply enjoyed eating at a particular diner on Sunday mornings, there were never-ending options of connections to be made with other residents of the city. These connections also opened doors to all different types of experiences within the city that one might not otherwise have ever known existed. Web 2.0 is most certainly “inherently social” and thank goodness for that!

I won’t spend too much time on Fagerjord’s article since we talked about it at length in 702. I think the argument it makes regarding the need for additional theories developed around new, developing media techniques is something that absolutely must be addressed (if it hasn’t already since the publication of this article). I imagine that this type of issue – having to keep up with the ever changing technology - will forever plague the area of new media. But as long as scholars are acknowledging that we have to do our best to keep up with all of the changes, we can make it work. What did Dr. Miller suggest? Referencing all of our future articles as “histories?”