on Convergence

in light of this post; i felt the need to make the following "refutation"

"I’m not sure you give enough credit to Visual Media–Television to be precise.
News Tickers on TV; as also the ability it provides–to hear someone, to see someone discussing a breaking story is a whole lot more informative than reading developments in terms of viewer “Satisfaction”.

The first role of Media is to inform. While One might read about an incident on the internet, it often becomes first nature to
(a) read up further / scan news reports on the Internet, and then
(b) check the coverage it is receiving on Television.

Once you go to check on the Television though, it’s a 70-30 chance (or higher) that you’re going to stick to the Television set for the next few hours before you return to check your internet sources, or use internet sources as ancillary. Considering the issues of
(a) present internet speeds and
(b) available credible video content, and
(c) access to that content online, and
(d) access to other outlets of information away from “Computers” and the traditional Web;
the internet is not quite there yet.

One other form of Media you might want to consider is the Cellphone–in the form of GPRS and EDGE services (for web/video streams); it forms the proverbial joker in the pack.

As for “Transmedia” itself, I still prefer to use the vague-er term “Media Convergence” which is I believe is better reflective and provides an already acceptable (but still not outdated or anywhere near being so) grounding in the concept of technology and media access systems as compared to the term “Transmedia”.

“Transmedia”, as “Web 2.0″ seem high on gimmick and low on content. The changes happenning on the internet and other streams of Media technology are a natural progression of data distribution rather than revolutionary; and neither warrants a new name yet."

next up: Convergence and Culture

Advertisements

About this entry