The article was quite descriptive of the converged media’s out there now, so there was not really a great deal to disagree with!
The only things I could disagree with is that it seemed to generalise people a lot, say for example that for people who didnt like the concept of converged media, it was because it would effect business's? But surely that is not the case for everyone who doesnt like the concept of converged media.
It also made a comment about how enabling consumers to become apart of the production, i.e. produsers, is the best thing ever sort of thing - but thats not how everyones going to feel? People who dont care about technology/media are not going to be interested or think its particularly great that they can contribute or spend all day online etc - they're going to think the most "powerful force of our time" is something else!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, there does seem to be a tendency for commentators to assume everyone's 'time rich' doesn't there?
Maybe this is the real digital divide here? not age, but time? All the over 30s I know who are up for 'convergence' are paid to use the technology in some way. I cewrtainly wouldn't be at the (moderate) level of 'native-ness' If I wasn't paid to be.
There's also the issue of number and frequency of necessary 'social grooming' acts. Adults don't have them much outside of the family, and they're infrequent between distant relatives. Kids however have loads and they need regular 'grooming' (although it seems adults and kids have a core handful of 'groomables')
Yes, I think that time is essential to these sort of assumptions. It's not only time and if they have it to use with technology etc, it is also how they wish to spend their spare time!
My sister for example, would never use a computer in her spare time, or any other technology (other than her TV!) yet I spend a lot of time on the computer.
Post a Comment