Publication details
Convergence or Divergence? Between the Two Styles of Media Consumption
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2010 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | Do we live in a radically new media environment where old practices of mass media consumption are going to be definitely replaced by new, interactive media experience? The optimistic proponents of new media are prophesying the brave new world of active media consumption since late 1980s and the discourses of user-controlled and user-co-produced contents shape the field of new media studies very powerfully. This paper confronts the theoretical optimism – represented here by Henry Jenkins’ work on convergence culture – with the latest empirical data collected and interpreted by my two of my students, Nela Studýnková and Martin Čepička. When putting their conclusion into the wider context, we can ask questions that partly undermine the optimism about new media consumption. Henry Jenkins insightfully announced a shift in media consumption – shift to culture where contents are spread and shared over various media, from traditional mass media to a wide range of digital media. However, from data collected by Studýnková and Čepička there appear two different types of audiences, two types of consumption, two different ways of control over mediated contents – the one based on practices of convergence culture as depicted by Jenkins; the other is based on strict division of use of media channels where particular channels are strictly used for particular activity and where where not only work and leisure, but even specific types of media consumption (such as consuming news, movies and TV shows, music) are separated. The questions we have to ask are: Can we really speak about prevailing convergence culture, or should we regulate the optimism by more realistic approach? Are the convergence / divergence modes of consumption strictly separated on the line of generation and social status, as it appears, or are we just focused to narrowly? And, finally, is the normative approach – the on that prefers the “good activity” – really adequate? Or does the “digital-centrism” make us blind in some ways? |