the cloudDoes media convergence democratise ‘the

message’, or does it further consolidate it in the hands of the corporate elite?

December 2010

‘I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by

everyone all the time’ Google CEO

(Schmidt cited in Taylor 2010).

What is ‘media convergence’?

Lee Fordham

Hughes (2000:37) quote sums up the media’s ambitions for convergence ten years ago and it needs examining. This essay will seek to find whether or not small elites do indeed own & control all media outlets and content; or whether cultural, technological and media con-vergence has made it possible for citizen journalists around the world to comment and par-ticipate, whenever, wherever, and on whatever platforms they wish to, thereby enhancing and democratising the media profoundly. Furthermore the essay will go deeper to try and assess the real extent of media convergence within the wider technological and cultural con-vergence debates. It will also question, what it means to be immersed in media and the real price consumers may pay for the privilege.

In this ‘profound’ and ‘pro-longed’ era of media change we are continually experienc-ing, there needs to be a fresh approach to how we look at the media. The media industries are certainly not any longer mutually exclusive bodies, but increasingly flow seemingly with one another. It is no longer possible to look at media indus-tries without looking at how

they relate to the consumer; and it is not possible to look at these media audience commu-nities that exist without look-ing at them within the wider contexts of media, technologi-cal and cultural convergence (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:6).

Firstly, the essay will attempt to define a working definition of media convergence and what it means to both the concentra-tion of media ownership and the consumers of the media. Then it will look at how chang-ing, emerging and integrated technologies are changing the shape of the media industry, and how users consume and connect with it. Once a basis of media convergence has been formed, within the wider issues of technological convergence, the essay will then look at what these changes mean for me-dia ownership and what they mean in terms of democracy. Finally, the essay will seek to address briefly, some of the wider issues that exist within this debate, such as internet access, freedom of speech and media affects.

introduction

‘The strategic ambition of most of these players is to create vertically integrated businesses that con-trol the gateways across TV, phone and wireless networks, offering customers a single bill, a single brand and a single EPG’ (Hughes 2000:37).

working definition

Technological convergence is the tendency for different technological systems to evolve towards performing similar tasks

(Wikipedia 2010).

Media convergence has taken place because technological advancements have occurred, allowing the media to con-verge, and thus it is appropri-ate to first define technological convergence. The above defi-nition is taken from Wikipedia; the author is unknown. The definition may have changed or evolved on Wikipedia count-less times, but on the 28th November 2010 this was the definition. By the time this es-say is marked, the definition may have changed such is the nature of media convergence. But I will use the definition because it epitomises what is happening all around us – tech-nological, cultural and media convergence.

Jenkins (2001:93; 2004 cited in Suarez-Orozco & Qin Hilliard 2004:114-116) uses the ‘pro-liferation of channels and the increasingly ubiquitous nature’ of computing and communica-tions to describe the era we’re entering where the media will be everywhere and will be used to engage in and enhance our relationships. He argues that it is because of these technologi-cal advancements that such media convergence can occur.

Media convergence is es-sentially the understanding, broadly, that the media is eve-rywhere; a vast ongoing flow

of communications occurring across multimedia platforms; the intersections of media tech-nologies, audiences, participa-tion and content. Such con-vergence has made it possible for audiences to go almost anywhere they wish in order to fulfil their entertainment needs and desires (Jenkins 2001:93; Jenkins 2004 cited in Suarez-Orozco & Qin Hilliard 2004:114-116; Jenkins 2008:2).

However sophisticated media appliances become, convergence occurs within the brains of the individu-al consumer and through our social interactions with

each other (Jenkins 2008:3).”

“

The question that therefore needs addressing is, media convergence for whom? We are living through a moment in history of increased flows of communications across media platforms; with the ability to access new realms of informa-tion; and the opportunity to publish and participate in this information society of intercon-nected people, processes and applications (Jenkins 2008:2; Hassan 2008:1). But are these dramatic changes immers-ing us in the hands of a small group of elites, who can control everything we see, hear and

think? Or are we more demo-cratically involved in a partici-patory culture of content crea-tion and discussion, countering any media mogul’s attempts to control content?

When discussing conver-gence, Jenkins (2004 cited in Suarez-Orozco & Qin Hilliard 2004:116-117) outlines two approaches, corporate conver-gence and grassroots conver-gence. The first is concerned with the growing concentra-tion of media ownership in the hands of a diminishing number of elites, each with their own vested interest, in insuring media content flows across different platforms and national boundaries. Grassroots conver-gence refers to the increasingly central role of the audience in the process of ‘production, distribution and reception of the media content’.

What must be examined is a question of who benefits from such media convergence. Do the creators and owners of the technology and the plat-forms continue to hold on to their dominant control that has always historically existed? Or has this new age of participa-tion culture allowed people to contribute to ‘the message’ and hold the media to account in the most democratic system we have ever had?

The creation of knowledge has moved from the one way distribution of information from experts; to active, user gener-ated, citizen journalism, in the ‘telepresence’ & ubiquitous computing environment that we are currently living through (Hassan 2008:vii-xiii; Newman 2010:5; Bracken & Skalski 2010:2-7; Lilleker & Jack-son 2010:69-73; Lister et al. 2009:231).

Media convergence has to be understood within the tech-nological context within which it operates (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:5). In the last 20 years, in technological terms, we have moved very rapidly, and such developments are continuously reshaping society and how we see ourselves within it. We’ve moved further than simply the internet or mobile technolo-gies; to an age where new and social media, cloud computing, multi tasking and application integration can all merge onto a single platform.

One of the most significant changes has been the move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.

changing technology

Advancement and innova-tion in technology have al-lowed such changes to take place, but there are two other collaborative forces pushing and pulling that make these developments possible. On the one hand you need huge amounts of investment in the technologies to make them possible, and on the other, people must engage for there to be any value in developing the technology. Essentially, for media convergence to have occurred, there must be ben-efits for both the ‘corporate’ (to invest) and the ‘grassroots’ (to engage) (Jenkins 2004 cited in Suarez-Orozco & Qin Hilliard 2004:116-117).

hands of the corporate eliteThe definition of media compa-nies has changed. A shift has occurred where ownership is no longer defined by ‘exclu-sive ownership of content or distribution assets’, but has transformed to a space where consumers can ‘search, re-search, share and configure their media experience’. Es-sentially, media companies can be defined, not by what content they produce and distribute, but increasingly how they allow users to participate, contribute and navigate around the huge continuum of content (Econo-mist 2006).

Google, IBM, Apple and Micro-soft make up the top four most valuable brands in the world. Google’s brand is worth in ac-cess of $114bn, over double the value of the fifth and sixth biggest brands in the world (Coca-Cola and McDonalds) (Whitney 2010). All of the top four companies operate within the technology sector build-ing the platforms which have allowed media convergence to occur. It is also worth noting the growing value and influence of

Facebook (founded in 2004), with over 500 million members worldwide; it is likely that within a few years Facebook will also find itself in this list of the world biggest brands. Having con-verged photo sharing (Flickr), micro blogging (Twitter), instant messaging (MSN messenger), it now plans to take on Gmail, Yahoo! Mail and MSN Hotmail in the email market and shows signs of adding cloud comput-ing document sharing in the future (Warman 2010).

There are three reasons of interest for highlighting the world’s biggest brands. Firstly to note the growing importance that technological companies play in society. Technology no longer simply enhances our media experience, but it is completely essential and im-mersed into every element of society.

Secondly is to note the chang-ing nature of society. It has been noted by Hassan (2008) that technology is reshaping society and Google, a company that didn’t exist until 1996, are now the world’s biggest brand (and as noted above, Face-book didn’t exist until 2004). This valuation of Google not only shows a change, but it shows the growing importance we place on information and the ability to be able to access information anywhere at any time. Moreover, Google ‘hap-pens to be a media company run by technological people’.

Google is thus the most valu-able media company in the world, worth over half as large again of Time Warner, the larg-est ‘traditional’ media company. And yet Google doesn’t create any of what was previously the backbone of ‘traditional media’; content (Economist 2006).

Thirdly, and most importantly, is to question what this all means to the ownership of the media. What does this changing defi-nition of what it means to be a media company and these rapid technological changes mean to the small number of elites? If ownership is no longer defined by media moguls con-trolling their empires of content and distribution, then what is it defined by?

Whilst we must acknowledge that traditional media mediums such as newspapers, radio and television still play a hugely important role in the media, we must also recognize that these mediums are in decline. Every-one involved in these industries is desperately trying to convert their brand into a more user active one, where the audience are able to interact and partici-pate. This is not to say that the media have totally fragmented, large organisations have lost

all control of communications and that the global market has completely opened up, be-cause it simply hasn’t; it has just changed (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:8).

If we are to accept that the suc-cessful media companies will be those that offer ‘a personal-ised media experience with a social context for participation’, then the new owners of the media will be those who offer this service best; companies such as Google and Facebook. In that sense, Schmidt (Google CEO) and Zuckemburg (Fa-cebook founder and CEO) will only continue to play a more important role in the media and an even greater role in shaping the future of the media and me-dia convergence, through their monopolies controlling how people find content and where people join in the participation game (Economist 2006).

Google (Bing, Yahoo!, and more recently social network-ing sites) may democratise the media by allowing us access to a much wider breadth of infor-mation than ever previously im-agined, but the question must be asked; at what cost? When we make custom searches on Google, or one of its partner

companies such as YouTube; when we engage in other Google services such as Gmail, Google contacts, Goog-le Maps, Google Buzz, Google Calendar, Google Crome, Google Docs, Google Blogs, pictures, alias’; all the time, drip by drip of information, Google can collect into a database to build up a profile of us as indi-viduals and en masse (Blake-man 2010:26-48).

Such information that we con-tinuously provide to search engines is then turned into massive revenues through the production of ads and more interestingly to this debate, the much more subtle presenta-tion of information we receive when we make these searches. The democratising element of Google is the millions of content results (created by anyone) it presents to us, if we are willing to search through them. The question of owner-ship of such media conver-gence comes to the fore when we consider the way in which those results are presented to us. It is not random by any means, but constructed on very

carefully considered sets of criteria based on the informa-tion they know about users as individuals, users as a group, tagging and advertising.

Such media companies seek to extend their reach by merg-ing, co-opting, converging and synergizing their brands and intellectual properties across all of these channels. In some ways, this has concentrated the power of traditional gate-keepers and agenda setters (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:7).

Whilst this new media has been shown to be incorporated within the systems of power, and slotting into established flows of persuasion, Curran (2002:55) has also acknowl-edged, as early as 2002, that new media has ‘sometimes’ allowed a bypassing of estab-lished mediating agencies. It is then appropriate, to con-sider how these changes to the media have potentially made it more democratised for the consumer.

Every year it’ll [the inter-net] get better. It’s the most empowering tool we’ve

ever createdChairman, Microsoft Corp.(Gates 2004 cited in Gross-

man 2004).

a democratised message

“

”

Traditionally, a classic model of the media has existed, where the media owners homog-enized culture through their ‘dominance over the means of production and distribution of media content’. Within this model, the individuals are seen as ‘consumers’ rather than the producers or participants within culture (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:6).

Whilst there is this debate whereby the ownership of the media has fallen into an even smaller group of elites, there is also an opposing school of thought that argues that me-dia convergence is not only democratising, but becoming more and more participatory than ever imagined. The de-mocratization of the media is demonstrated by the broaden-ing of it, which has allowed individuals and ‘grassroot com-munities’ to access, present, listen to and engage with a multitude of other perspectives (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:6)

This emerging argument sug-gests that the classic model is no longer appropriate and a new model has evolved where new media technologies and ‘participation culture’ have led

Information freedom is es-sential if you’re really going

to live a dignified life. Founder Yeman Portal

(al-Saqaf 2010 cited in Kro-toski 2010).

“”

to ‘hybrid media ecology’. This model suggests that all sectors within society interact with each other in increasingly complex ways. Groups and individuals, outside of the traditional media ownership sphere, have new levels of power and responsi-bility to produce and distribute content. Social media has made it possible for produc-tion and consumption to occur simultaneously and thus there is a move from ‘personalized media’ to ‘socialised media’ (Jenkins 2008:3; Jenkins & Deuze 2008:6; Beckler 2006:397).

Consumers are asserting their own control through the use of mobile and technological inno-vations well beyond the expec-tations of the corporate media organisations. The ownership and power of television, news-papers and dot.com websites have already been considered. However, Jenkins & Deuze (2008:8-9) highlight that the us-ers are participating by creating their own content and sharing it on networks such as Flickr, YouTube or MySpace, or to be more contemporary, campaigns through Facebook and Twitter. And users are not only using these tools to take an alterna-tive view to the media, they are using it for political, economi-cal, social and environmental activism such as the vandalism of posters in the UK General Election (MyDavidCameron 2010); or the free speech avo-cation of the ‘#IAmSpartacus’ Twitter campaign (BBC 2010); or the WikiLeaks revealing gov-ernmental private correspond-ence (PAUK 2010); to name but a few.

Such is the level of participa-tion by the ‘People Formally Known As The Audience’ (Rosen cited in Jenkins & Deuze 2008:9), showing that their content is not only getting online hits, but is being noticed and gradually referenced by mainstream media as Jenkins & Deuze (2008:9) suggest. More recently, such content is now making the news, with viewer footage constantly used on daily news; and to take it one step further media produc-ers are using footage uploaded by ‘The Audience’ to work col-laboratively on multi-platform practises with the audience (ibid. p9).

It is therefore also possible to show, that users do have ac-cess to generate and distribute content, which can be viewed by anyone, anywhere and at any time, such is the nature of media convergence. Building on the examples used, there is also evidence to show, that some of this user created con-tent does have a following by

huge numbers of people, and ‘following’ itself (on mediums such as Twitter) is becoming a growing method to bypass the traditional control of the traditionally mainstream me-dia. Moreover, individuals can create groups for activism that can have profound impacts well beyond the realms of the me-dia, such as in politics, society and culture. Furthermore, it is noted, that media owners are beginning to realise to survive in this new media industry, they need to start engaging with, and including this active audi-ence into their production and distribution of content.

Throughout the essay, media convergence has been con-sidered within the context of technological convergence and whether or not it democratises ‘the message’ or whether it simply puts the media further within the hands of an elite group of media owners. De-pending on the standpoint you take, likely shapes whether you think media convergence has been democratising or not, but before concluding, it is nec-essary to consider four other elements that should be briefly mentioned in this debate.

Firstly, within media conver-gence, not all participants are created equal (Jenkins 2008:3). Anyone can publish anything, but they have to have the technological knowhow, networks, tagging capabilities, finance and status for people to find and listen to the mes-sage. Undoubtedly media and private corporations have best access and some individuals have better abilities than others to participate. It must also be considered that when talking about media convergence and participation, we are largely talking about it from a Western perspective and we must note, much of Africa still have less than 5% of the their respective populations with access to the internet (BBC 2010).

thus the less regulated the media are, the more democrat-ic; but we must consider the appropriateness of complete freedom when coupled with complete anonymity.

Finally, it would be flawed to write about the effects of media convergence, without at least considering media effects. It is well known and researched that different people are af-fected differently by the media. It’s not possible to look in great detail at media effects, but it would be wrong to assume that the media exist within a vacuum and affects everyone in the same way regardless of any other external aggregators. We must consider the fact that new media, new technologies and convergences affect differ-ent people, in different parts of the world, differently. A growing number of people are able to and will interact and participate in the media, but there is also still a large section of the popu-lation who can’t or don’t wish to and thus, the media owner-ship of content potentially has a much greater impact on those groups. But the impact is com-pletely dependent on a huge variety of other factors outside of the media too.

Secondly, we must look at the regulation of the internet. Within Western democracies, liberal ideologies and the ‘Blue Ribbon Campaign’ have pre-vented much censorship and there is largely great freedom. However, if we take the ‘Great Firewall’ of China as an ex-ample, there is still control of access to external sites and much control over the internal sites. When talking of the de-mocratizing elements of media convergence, we can include it within countries that take a liberal approach to the media. Or, we can use China as an example of how media owners (largely the state) have control over content of the media, in the traditional sense of what it means to be a media company (Lister et al 2009:171; Wikipe-dia 2010).

Thirdly, there is a moral de-bate. Is it appropriate for such freedom of content to exist and are the regulations of internet freedom clear? Once again, there is a very broad debate on this topic, on the one hand there is the view that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and that should continue online; and on the other there are those who highlight the consequences of free speech and question whether we should be able to publish lies, child pornography, hate speech or even the highly topical recent American gov-ernment secrets released by WikiLeaks (PAUK 2010). Add-ed to this, it is acknowledged that due to the speed of media convergence, it is difficult for communications law to keep up with the technology. Freedom of speech makes up the basis of liberal democracies, an

other considerations

To conclude, as (Lister et al. 2009:231) puts it, ‘there is a teleological dynamic; there is no end point in sight’. We are living through periods of continuous improvements and upgrades where the concept of stabilisation ceases to exist. ‘Change is unavoidable, and suffering comes to those who resist it’ (Prothero 2010:48). This may be a bit dramatic, but the effect that media conver-gence has on ownership of the media and audiences or partici-pants will continue to change in unpredictable ways.

Moreover, whilst there have been debates that new and social media will replace tradi-tional media altogether, we can see through some of the ex-amples used, that the two are actually interacting in increas-ingly complex ways (Jenkins 2008:6). This essay has been cautious not to assume that traditional media has disap-peared, because it hasn’t, and examples such as the UK Gen-eral Election 2010 television

conclusiondebates are evidence of how the two types of media can in-teract together (live chat, inter-active reaction worms, tweets, etc). The audience have, in some ways become co-crea-tors (Jenkins & Deuze 2008:7).

However, the media industry has changed. The definition of what it means to be a media company has been discussed and, not to disregard media empires such as Newscorp and media moguls such as Mur-doch; but ownership is increas-ingly defined not by ownership of content, but by ownership of the mediums that allow users to ‘search, research, share and configure their media experi-ence’ (Economist 2006), or as Hughes (2000) puts it in the opening quote ‘ownership of the gateways’.

The gatekeepers are likely to continue to change from the power of Murdoch’s empires, to the power of the social net-works, search engines, tagging and personalisation of content; the power of the empires of Schmidt and Zuckemburg and the power of those who can in-novate and adapt with the fast paced changing technology and media industry that we live within.

In terms of a ‘democratizing message’, ‘although the inter-net is controlled, when com-pared with traditional media, it better reflects reality’ (Han cited in Krotoski 2010). This quote by the most successful blogger in China (one of the most successful bloggers in the world) neatly sums up how me-dia convergence has changed things for ‘The Audience’. Of course, if the audience can

participate, listen and debate; if they can collaborate and cre-ate, then media convergence has led to a ‘democratized message’.

But, we must be aware of all those other considerations raised before we leap to any conclusive decision. The media industry is changing; media ownership is moving; technolo-gy is rapidly advancing; and the consumer is learning to par-ticipate. But in some parts of the world there is less than 5% access to the internet; in China censorship continues; media owners such as Google can control (albeit far more subtly) what we see; and communica-tions regulation must eventually catch up with reality; and that will change everything, again.

The complexity of the owner-ship and democracy debate may best be summed up with a final quote which we are yet to see the outcome of:

[WikiLeaks] have been the subject of the cyber attacks, they’ve been the subject of censorship around the world and they need to pro-tect themselves, and this [more damaging material] is I think what they believe to be a thermonuclear de-

vice effectively in the electronic age...

Julian Assange’s lawyer(Stephens 2010).

“

”

references

Beckler, Y. (2006) ‘The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Free-dom’, Yale University Press, London.

Curran, J. (2002) ‘The Media and Power’, Routledge, London.

Feldman, T. (1997) ‘An Introduction to Digital Media’, Routledge, London.

Hassan, R. (2008) ‘The Information Society’, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Jenkins, H. (2008) ‘Convergence Culture - When old and new media collide’, New York University Press, New York.

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., Kelly,K. (2009) ‘New Media: A Critical Introduction (Second Edition)’, Routledge, London.

Suarez-Orozco, M,M. & Qin-Hilliard, B, D. (2004) ‘Globalization - Culture and Education in the New Millennium’, University of California Press, London.

books

journals

Blakeman, K. (2010) ‘What Search Engines Know about You’, Onlinemag.net, October 2010.

Harrison, A. (2010) ‘Media Players Square up in Battle for Best Positions in Convergence’, Market-ing Weekly, 9/7/2010.

Hughes, J. (2000) ‘The global marketplace: making sense of the future’, e-britannia: the communi-cations revolution, 5/6/2000, pp. 23-67.

Jenkins, H. (2001) ‘Convergence? I diverge.’, Technology Review, June 2001.

Jenkins, H. & Deuze, M. (2008) ‘Convergence Culture’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Febuary 2008, Vol. 14, Issue 1, pp5-12.

Lilleeker, G, D. & Jackson, A, N. (2010) ‘Towards a more participatory style of campaigning: The Impact of Web 2.0 on the UK General Election’, Policy & Internet, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Article 4.

Newman, N. (2010) ‘#Ukelection2010, mainstream media and the role of the internet: how social and digital affected the business of politics and journalism’, Working Paper, July 2010.

Prothero,S. (2010) ‘Fear of Trembling Before the iPad’, Publishers Weekly, 5/10/2010, Vol.257 Is-sue 19, p48.

BBC. (2001) ‘Bert in the frame with Bin Laden’, BBC NEWS Online, [online], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1594600.stm

BBC. (2010) ‘Yahoo Mail gets first major revamp in five years’, BBC NEWS Online, [online], Avail-able at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11624822

BBC. (2010) ‘Twitter Angry over bomb Tweeter’, BBC NEWS Online, [online], Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182

BBC. (2010) ‘Broadband world: Connecting Africa’, BBC NEWS Online, [online], Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11864350

BBC. (2010) ‘Transcript of Mark Stephens interview’, BBC NEWS Online, [online], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9258262.stm

Economist. (2006) ‘The gazillion-dollar question: So what is a media company?’, The Economist Online, [online], Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/6794282?story_id=6794282

Grossman, L. (2004) ‘10 Questions for Bill Gates’, TIME Online, [online], Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993537,00.html

Krotoski, A. (2010) ‘The internet’s cyber radicals: heroes of the web changing the world’, Guardian Online, [online], Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/28/internet-radicals-world-wide-web

PAUK. (2010) ‘Cameron ‘faces leaks embarrassment’’, Press Association, [online], Available at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gykUcmnM_ht3P8DUtLYMaAHfoN2Q?docId=N0317491290940696610A

Taylor, J. (2010) ‘Google Chief: My Fears for Generation Facebook’, The Independent, 18/08/2010.

Warman, M. (2010) ‘Facebook’s ‘Gmail killer’’, Telegraph Online, [online], Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8128935/Facebooks-Gmail-killer.html

Whitney, L. (2010) ‘Google, IBM, Apple - world’s most valuable brands’, Cnet News Online, [on-line], Available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20003629-92.html

news articles

websitesMyDavidCameron. (2010) ‘Airbrushed for change’, [online], Available at: http://mydavidcameron.com/

Ostrow, A. (2010) ‘How Much Are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Worth?’, [online], Available at: http://mashable.com/2010/03/04/facebook-twitter-valuations/

Wikipedia. (2010) ‘Bert is Evil’, [online], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_is_Evil

Wikipedia. (2010) ‘The Blue Ribbon Campaign for free speech on the internet’, [online], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ribbon_Online_Free_Speech_Campaign

Lee Fordham10124865SOC3508

Virtual SocietiesModule leader: Mel Joyner

13 December 2010

Word Count: 3653