Posted by: Kristen W | December 6, 2011

Growth of Speech

Deb Roy: The Birth of a Word is an interesting video about the growth of speech as a baby ages, but at about the 13min mark they start applying the same experiment/concept to social media. At about the 14min mark they show this web of sorts that connects something someone says with an actual piece of content. The entire video is definitely interesting and thought provoking.

Not to mention, the video [on that page] is easy to understand and not filled with tech-speak that only someone in that field would understand.


(The video is about 20minutes, but it’s worth watching the entire thing).

Posted by: Kristen W | November 20, 2011

Kelly Reading on Screen Literacy

Blog Post: Kelly argues we are shifting from “people of the book” to “people of the screen” in this article. What are some of the key results (in school, learning, life, art etc). of this change to becoming people of the screen with “screen fluency” that he discusses? What other consequences and implications of this change have you seen or do you think might be emerging in school and society? (about 300 words)

For as long as I can remember, there has been a screen for me to look at. The television and computer were always there when I was a child. But at the time I spent more time outside than I did in front of the television or on the computer; that all changed when my family moved when I was going into the fifth grade. At that point, I spent more time in front of the television—watching reruns of Highlander on Spike TV instead of doing my homework—and hours on the computer.

Now, as a college student, I definitely spend much more time looking at the screen. In three of my classes this semester, I use my computer. In two of those three classes, I also stare at the screen for the projector where powerpoints are shown. The projector is also used in the third class, just not to the extent as those two other classes.

But to bring up some of the other examples that Kelly used, I also tend to use the self-checkout lines at stores whenever I can use them. I would rather not wait in line unless I absolutely have too, especially since sometimes the lanes for the checkout line kind feel like they’re closing in on me. But another reason I prefer the self-checkout is because it’s easier to see where I’m paying the most money and where the money is coming off from coupons and the store’s rewards card. When it’s on a screen a bit further away it’s kind of difficult to make sure that everything is as it should be, especially since some of the cashiers scan items really fast so it’s difficult to check everything.

There are some things about being part of a “screen society” that are a bit annoying. I’ve noticed that my writing has gotten a lot worse and it takes me longer to write something in a notebook than it did a few years ago. Back when I was in high school and didn’t have the option of lugging my laptop around with me, I would be able to keep up with taking notes in my notebook or writing out three full pages of a story in a notebook in fifty minutes. Now, however, I can only fill two pages in an hour fifteen minutes and I can’t keep up with one of my psych professors when she’s going through the days notes. I’m seriously halfway through the slide when she’s ready to switch to the next one so in order to compensate, I started to bring my laptop to class so I could type the notes and I tend to finish typing the notes before she’s halfway through the slide. But that only makes me more dependent on my laptop.

Another consequence of all of this screen-based technology is that children aren’t outside playing in the backyard. I was always outside when I was kid and now I hardly ever see anyone outside. I’ve even heard arguments between parents and their kids where the kids want to play video games and the parents want them to play outside.

But there are also advantages to the screen, like being able to type out slides for a class or a presentation instead of having to put time into creating a poster or writing everything out on the board during class. There’s also the fact that the screen makes information more readily available; instead of having to spend hours in the library pouring through pages of a book just to find one tiny bit of information, you can just Google it and the information you need shows right up.


Posted by: Kristen W | October 30, 2011

Digital Native or Digital Immigrant…Which One Are You?

Blog post due at 9:00am: Writing a blog post reflecting on Prensky’s article. Consider questions such as: In what ways are you a digital native and/or immigrant? What did you find most interesting about plasticity, malleability, and the observations about learning and brains (in Part II)?

I think I’m a bit of both, a little bit of a Digital Native and a Digital Immigrant. I might have grown up with a computer in my house and I know how to use it as well as other technologies. But at the same time there are some technologies out there that I don’t know how to use because they are new to me. I never had a game system growing up (except for the original Gameboy that belonged to my dad) and I rarely had a chance to use the ones my friends owned because we were always playing outside. I didn’t have my own game system until I was in high school and even then I rarely used it…my dad actually used it way more than I did and understood it way more than I did. Even now that we have a Wii, I haven’t used it once. I’m too busy reading my paperback books or ebooks or watching Asian dramas (granted, that also involves reading because it’s subtitled so I understand them). I understand how to use computers and most of the technologies that have come out since I was born without really having to learn them. I’m not an expert by any means, but I grew up with a computer and I know how to use it because I’ve grown up with it.

I think Prensky is correct when he said that “students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors”. This is because of the internet and because of technology; to use something else Prensky said: We speak in an entirely new language.

One sentence that really stood was out was: “Digital Immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can’t” (3). This is how I do my homework. Right now, while writing this, I’m watching “Once Upon a Time” and at 9pm I’ll be watching “The Walking Dead” while I finish this post and start studying for Tuesday’s Abnormal Psych test. I get so distracted when it’s quiet in my room; I always need noise. Needless to say, a quiet learning environment isn’t very good for me… which is probably why I tend to avoid the library when it comes to doing homework there.

Prensky as the right idea when he says that educators need to teach both the legacy and the future content in the language of the Digital Natives (4). I don’t think I necessarily agree with using computer games to teach though. I can understand how it worked with CAD, but I don’t understand how it could work with things like Communication Studies or Psychology. But, to be honest, I’d rather watch Schindler’s List instead of role-playing the holocaust. How can you role-play the Holocaust anyway?

As to the whole plasticity and malleability thing and what I find interesting…apparently our brains reorganize themselves constantly throughout our lifetime (which is neuroplasticity); it’s sort of interesting I guess, because it just never really occurred to me. The most interesting part of malleability is that people who grow up in different cultures, think about different things, and think in different ways. That the environment a person grows up in determines many of their thought processes. This one is interesting, but it’s something I already knew.

Really, this entire article pretty much talked about things I already knew or had an idea about.




Posted by: Kristen W | October 23, 2011

The Keen reading…

Blog Post (due by 9:00am): Blog about the Keen reading, considering questions such as: What is Keen’s main argument? What are some connections and contradictions between Keen and similar writers like Lessig and Jenkins? What connections can you make between rhetoric and this reading? [minimum 300 words]

In the first chapter “the great seduction” of Keen’s book, he argues that Web 2.0 is something that should never have happened; that the idea of it and the fact of it makes him sick and unwilling to participate in the creation of this new media. Keen believes Web 2.0/New media is “threatening the very future of our cultural institutions” and he goes on to say that things such as journalists, editors, musicians, moviemakers, and other are being replaced by amateurs. (15-16) But that’s not true at all. In fact, the inexperienced were already taking over those jobs before Web 2.0. Anytime there’s a new graduating class from a university (or college) there was someone new, someone inexperienced, there to take over a job from someone with more experience. Keen believes that the “the real consequence of the Web 2.0 revolution is less culture, less reliable news, and a chaos of useless information.” (16)

Keen is being very negative and isn’t at all positive when it comes to Web 2.0 unlike all the other authors we’ve looked at; it’s almost as if Keen believes that the public can’t be trusted with Web 2.0 because we’ll abuse it and use it in ways that it shouldn’t be used. This ties in to the Lessig reading because Keen also completely ridicules remixing. One such passage is on page 17 where he says:

This undermining of truth is threatening the quality of civil discourse, encouraging plagiarism and intellectual property theft, and stifling creativity. …all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content from anonymous sources, hijacking our time and playing to our gullibility.

Keen goes even further and calls people who cut and paste content kleptomaniacs. In that paragraph he doesn’t even mention those who quote the cut and pasted content; he just essentially calls all people who quote content from somewhere else kleptomaniacs.

Posted by: Kristen W | October 18, 2011

Types of Privacy

Blog Post (due by 9:00am): Explain, in your own words, the 4 types of privacy Vaidhyanathan identifies and try to think of examples of each from your own life. The last few paragraphs try to answer “what can we do about this?” What do you think about these proposals? Can you add others?  [300 words minimum]


The four types of privacy Vaidhyanathan identifies are person to peer, person to firm, person to state, and person to public.

  1. Person to peer. I.e. telling a friend of parent what you want them to hear, not necessarily what they want to hear; controlling what you tell them and don’t tell them. This could be telling a person the truth, part of the truth, or a lie. I tell my parents less than I tell my friends. My parents get the Sparknotes version (which might be sprinkled with a bit of a lie or two), while my friends get the entire novel…
  2. Person to firm. This type of privacy deals with your interaction with businesses. Like when you get asked for your email address so you can get store coupons or the like. This also applies to getting a store credit card or rewards card; though, the consumer is hardly ever told the details about the card unless you ask them about it. The same goes with them asking for your email; I’ve been asked for my email without them even giving me an explanation for why they want my email. Most of the time I just end up saying, “I’ve already given it,” even though I probably haven’t.
  3. Person to state. I think this is probably the most important and the type that garners the most concern. One only has to think of the Patriot Act to understand this one. I remember an article from a few years ago where it talked about how the government can access your library records (i.e. get the records that tell them what media you’ve taken out of the library). There’s also the Census, where they don’t get a lot of information, but they get enough to know more about you than you probably want them too.
  4. Person to public. There is where a person makes information available to a large group of people whether you know these people or not.  The greatest example is social networking sites, but for me it would probably also be the forum I’m a part of. We have this “General Chit Chat Thread” that is nearing its 7440th post. I’m sure I’ve revealed way too much about myself since it was first started in June 2009; the same with my LJ account, though the journal is friend’s locked…so only that limited number of people I trust can see it. Also, cyber-bulling is a large part of this; I remember back in 2008 there were these two major Korean stars who committed suicide. Ahn Jae-hwan killed himself first and not long after his friend Choi Jin-shil killed herself after netizens accused her of lending money to Ahn Jae-hwan which led to his death. This is what rumors can do a person and rumors aren’t necessarily truth.

I think that there definitely need to be stronger privacy laws and that Vaidhyanathan is on to something when he said “we all must develop social norms that punish bullies who expose private people to ridicule and public humiliation”.  When people expose something about a person online, it’s almost like trying a person in the court of public opinion. They could ruin a person’s perception of themselves and of their friends and family. Bullies should be held accountable so that something like what happened with Choi Jin-shil—and thousands of other people who commit suicide because of bullying—doesn’t continue to happen.

I also agree that stronger laws to protect the people who don’t have the time to manage their online profiles. One could always argue that the only way to do this is to not create something if you don’t have the time to manage it, but even so they should still have protection. I should be able to keep in touch with family and friends halfway across the world (or in the town where I grew up and no longer live) without having to worry that my private information is going to land in the hands of someone who will use it against me.

Posted by: Kristen W | October 16, 2011

Privacy on Facebook

Blog post  (due by 9:00am): Review the Privacy section of Facebook. What surprised you? What concerns do you have after reading this (be specific)? What sentences/parts don’t you understand? If you have a FB account, did you change or check any settings as a result of reading this? [~300 words]

I wasn’t necessarily surprised by the things I was reading in the privacy section because I’ve read articles on yahoo about facebook privacy/settings, so there really wasn’t anything in there that I hadn’t already read elsewhere and been surprised about already. By the time I read the privacy section fully, these things weren’t really surprising anymore, but there were definitely several things that concern me. Like the section where it says that they receive data from the pictures you upload on the site; data like where the picture was taken, what time it was taken, etc. If I wanted people to know these things, then I would make a comment that included that information or it would have been the name of the file.  Another thing that concerns me is that people can information about you public, like they can post something that concerns you and it’s public because their page is public. I also am concerned that when facebook receives information about you from other sites, it keeps that information for 180 before incorporating it with other people’s information—so your identifying information disappears at that point. I don’t like that they keep it for 180 days before your name and other personal information is destroyed.

This privacy statement isn’t written the way I thought it would be (i.e. written in legal speak) so it wasn’t hard to understand at all. That’s not to say that I understand everything. One thing I definitely don’t under is this whole Graph API thing, where you can access information that you’re giving out and where other people can access information about you.

My settings on facebook are already really strict. Most everything is set to “friends” so only my friends can see what I post. I don’t think anyone who isn’t a friend of mine can see my wall or all my information. They can only really see my name, hometown, networks, and the polls I answered. That’s all and that’s all it will ever be.

Posted by: Kristen W | October 11, 2011

Lessig: Chapter Four Reflection

Blog Post: Reflect on our first reading from Lessig. What did you find the most interesting and surprising about Ch. 4? Discuss a few connections you see between our readings on rhetoric and Lessig. What questions do you have now?

What did you find most interesting/surprising?

Right off the bat, I was drawn into this chapter just by the first chapter about how one of Lessig’s closest friends in college was a good writer and managed good grades in all his English writing classes, but not the non-writing based classes. It’s sort of nice knowing that I’m not the only person who manages to do bad in the non-writing based classes, granted I do kind of bad (according the grades I’ve gotten from some professors but not all) at writing detailed researched papers where it’s more analysis than fact which seems to differ from Ben.

The first thing that really sounded interesting was part of the whole introduction section on the chapter, where Lessig introduced citations to the chapter; the following quote is what interested me the most:

Writing, in the traditional sense of words placed on paper, is the ultimate form of democratic creativity, where, again, “democratic” doesn’t mean people vote, but instead means that everyone within a society has access to the means to write. …. We understand quoting is an essential part of that writing. It would be impossible to construct and support that practice if permission were required every time a quote was made. The freedom to quote, and to build upon, the words of others is taken for granted by everyone who writes. (52-3)

People have a freedom to write and because of that freedom, people have a right to quote other works and people. But the freedoms are limited because “Whether justified or not, the norms governing these forms of expression are far more restrictive than the norms governing text. They admit none of the freedoms that any writer takes for granted when writing a college essay….” (54) By “these forms” they’re talking about music; that music copyrights are more restrictive than the copyrights of a book.

I also found his discussion of trolls interesting; he wrote more about how people react to trolls than what trolls are and he actually gave space to this, not just a few sentences. I found one passage really easy to relate too:

I find it insanely difficult to read these comments. Not because they’re bad or mistaken, but mainly because I have very thin skin. There’s a direct correlation between what I read and pain in my gut. Even unfair and mistaken criticism cuts me in ways that are just silly. If I read a bad comment before bed, I don’t sleep. If I trip upon one when I’m trying to write, I can be distracted for hours. I fantasize about creating an alter ego who responds on my behalf. (65)

As a forum moderator and a participant in several other forums, I’ve run into trolls more than once. People who won’t pay attention to the rules and who argue (and don’t listen) when you enforce rules or you argue back. Usually I’m very good at holding onto my temper; I rarely actually lose it. Trolls make it impossible sometimes for me to hold onto my temper, though I can be too nice sometimes and not forceful enough to get the point (or rule) across. Oh well. Not to mention, I don’t like criticism when it has to do with my writing, but I live with it and I try to improve though sometimes I wonder if the person was reading the same thing I wrote or whether it was something else…

The statistics about reading at the end of page 68 and the top of page 69, that people between the ages of 15 to 19 read for “an average of 0.1 hour (7 minutes)” and spent “1.0 hour playing games or using computer for leisure time”, totally shocked me. I don’t feel like that’s real; I know I spend much more than 7 minutes reading even when I’m spending more than 1.0 hour on the computer. But I guess I can see how it is that way for other people.


Connections with other readings?

In Jenkins, it talks about how the circulation of media content depends heavily on a consumers active participation. In Lessig, you have people tagging their blog posts and people using those same tags in their own blog posts. Not only that, but there’s also the Technorati, mentioned in Lessig, which counts the sites who link back to an entry. “The company then publishes up- to- the- minute rankings and link reports, so you can post a blog entry and, minutes later, begin watching everyone who links back to that entry.” (61) Not only are they able to track the people who link to their websites, but they are also able to comment on other blogs. This is all part of consumers actively participating in the circulation of media content. Almost everything Lessig talked about seemed to tie in with this “circulation of media content” and the fact that consumers actively participate by quoting articles and websites in research papers or in their blogs. All of this is also discussed in the “interactivity” definition in the “Digital Rhetoric” article: “This feature not only allows for but also often demands an active two-way exchange…” (Gurak, Antonijevic 500)


Posted by: Kristen W | October 4, 2011

How has technology changed the way I write?

Blog Post Prompt: Picking up on the “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” article, write a short “writing to learn” reflection about an example of a way that some form of technology has changed the way you read or write (or both!) Try to be specific about the changes you’ve noticed about your habits, learning etc. both positive and negative.

How has technology changed the way I write?

I can’t remember the way I wrote before technology came into my life because it has always been there. However, I can say that for the majority of my life I shared a computer with my parents and my older sister (and all the students in my schools that used the computer labs and media center/library). That changed when I got my laptop at the end of my senior year of high school. Before that I usually only used the computer for schoolwork and watching Asian dramas and writing the occasional fiction piece, so I was writing everything by hand. Now, I tend to type 90% and hand write the other 10%. It used to be the other way around.

While I wrote/typed fiction pieces on the family computer, I used to write most of my pieces out in a notebook (I had several for this purpose). Now, I just have several different sub-folders in my documents folder that is dedicated to my fiction writing and subfolders dedicated to school, holidays, recipes, etc. Before having my own laptop, my section of the documents folder on the family laptop was a mess; I didn’t have any subfolders.

Unfortunately, while I’m organized with my folders and files, I’m much less organized now when it comes to schoolwork than I was pre-laptop, though I can’t say  that my assignments themselves are well organized. I procrastinate so much, moreso on my personal writing than schoolwork, thankfully. I have a novel I’m researching/planning and I’ve been stalled for about two months now on both the research and planning end, not for lack of ideas, just lack of motivation. I was planning to start writing at the beginning of September, but I still have six character profiles to finish.

There’s this one part in the “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” article that stuck out to me was:

The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.

Having my own laptop though has made the research so much easier, especially since the few times I ventured into the library to find information, they haven’t had anything (or if they did, it was difficult to find and I gave up). I have a folder in my favorites dedicated just to the novel and there’s almost a hundred links in said folder.  Not to mention, the internet has made it so much easier to find templates for character profiles and it’s helped me find articles on describing facial features and body types (i.e. giving me the terms to do so). Apparently, the words “bulky” and “plump” are overused. Who knew?

Granted, the internet (and I guess by extension my laptop) has also caused me to lose some of my grammar. I cringe just thinking about that. Anyway, I haven’t yet sunk into using chat speak in my writing, unless we’re talking twitter or texting. Except for lol, and sometimes brb, I refuse to use chatspeak when writing in a forum or in a blog post.

With my laptop and internet things have definitely gotten so much easier for me: easy access to research for my fiction and for classes, Asian dramas (especially since the TV station I used to watch them on was shut down), ways to stay in touch with friends and family, books, etc.

While some things have gotten easier, the bad points would definitely be procrastination and the slight decline in my grammar. I’ve been to known to give up studying for a test because there’s something much more interesting to do on the computer; thankfully I have yet to fail a test, but it’s only a matter of time. Procrastination also means lack of sleep, especially when I decide to watch a drama or read a new ebook. Which, by the way, I bought Laura Griffin’s newest book in paperback at the beginning of September and have yet to even reach page 100.  This is all because of the hundreds of ebooks on my laptop right now. I don’t know how this happened. A few months ago I was still curling up with a paperback and now I’m neglecting them. Hopefully this whatever-it-is reverts back to normal because as much as I love the easy access that ebooks give, I still like having a paperback in hand.

Too bad we can’t go back in time to the days when I was playing Oregon Trail on the elementary school computers and reading ten Nancy Drew books in a week. Those were definitely the days… before the internet intruded in my life and I had my own laptop.

Posted by: Kristen W | October 3, 2011

Trying to define new media…

Prompt: Drawing on Gane & Beer Ch.1, Bernal, and the  “Digital Rhetoric” article, write your working definition of “new media.” Use both your own words, select quotes, and short examples to make your definition great [~300 words]

A slightly generic definition of new media would be to say that it is the digital delivery of information in different mediums such as a photograph, video, blog post, etc. on the web and through different devices.

But new media is a little more complicated than that. New media provides a place for this information to be stored like an iPod (or any MP3 player) for music or a Kindle (or any eReader) for books. “Digital technologies provide new rhetorical forums, where speaker and audience come together without regard for physical distance.” (Gurak, Antonijevic 502) In this “new” media is different than “old” media. Old media being paperback and hardcover books, cassettes, video tapes, etc. That’s not to say that hardcover and paperback books are a thing of the past the same way that cassettes and video tapes are. They are still around, but ebooks are gaining ground especially when it comes to saving money. Ebooks are on average incredibly cheaper than buying a hardcover book; though not always cheaper than buying a paperback. Cassettes and video tapes are just obsolete.

With new media, there is both a giving of information and a receiving of information. Sometimes it is blatant like a post in a forum or blog that garners comments and creates discussion. Other times, like what Bernal talks about, “users give up data in exchange for access to services, for convenience, and for lower prices.” (1) A person gives data through clicking on links, through search terms, through what you buy on websites, through basically everything you do on the internet; interaction between a human and a computer. Websites like Amazon use this data for personal recommendations. Other websites, like Facebook, use this data so that the ads you see when on the site reflect your interests. However, something like this brings along privacy concerns that aren’t there with the so-called old media. One such instance was laid out in the Bernal reading, about how Facebook created this Beacon system that they intended to be a covert system; there was going to be an opt-out feature, but Facebook wasn’t going to tell people about this, so you could only opt-out if you found it. (9)

There’s also the aspect of anonymity in new media, particularly concerning the internet. You can have as many identities on the web as you want; different screen names and different personas depending on the website. What proof do you have that the person you’re talking to on a discussion board/forum is actually who they say they are? There are dangers that the web “could develop into something malign: twisting the mutually beneficial…producing a fractured web and manipulating and controlling those who use it.” (Bernal, 1). Not only does anonymity provide for different personas on the web, but it also provides a way for social norms to be violated: being a troll in a forum (i.e. posting inflammatory or off-topic messages) or flaming a person because their believes differ from yours. New media provides a place for people to break social norms and to put aside their manners without anyone, like their parents or teachers, coming down on them because of that anonymity. If you don’t personally know who the person is, there’s no way of punishing them.

There are so many different aspects of new media that there is no true concise definition of it; not even mine. Trying to define new media, without spending dozens of pages on it, is like trying to define why people, not a specific individual, break the law.

Posted by: Kristen W | September 27, 2011

Jenkins’ Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence”

Blog post prompt: Reflect on our first reading from Jenkins.


1. What did you find the most interesting and surprising about this chapter?

One of the most interesting pieces of this reading was the information about collective intelligence. “Consumption has become a collective process; none of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our skills.” (pg 4)

Another part I found interesting and that I could totally relate to is the little story, one pages four and five, that was given about wanting to buy a cell phone and how he didn’t want a video camera, a still camera, web access, a MP3 player, or game system, etc. That’s what my laptop is for and what my digital camera and iPod are for. My phone is for texting people and making calls. I don’t need a data plan regardless of how much other people want them; I don’t want them. I’d rather lug around an eReader, my iPod, camera, laptop, and cell phone.

I also thought it was interesting how in the past when new media companies talked about convergence they were of the idea that old media would be fully absorbed by emerging technologies. Thankfully, I don’t think that’s true, especially as a bookworm. I’m perfectly fine with reading books on my laptop or on an eReader, but I also need paperback books. One day I am going to have a room in my house that is my library; that can’t happen if all I have is ebooks.

The most surprising part was on page 13: “Yet, history teaches us that old media never die—and they don’t even necessarily fade away. What dies are simply the tools we use to access media content….These are what media scholars call delivery technologies. …. Delivery technologies become obsolete and get replaced; media, on the other hand, evolve.”  I’ve never really thought of it that way so it was surprising to think about it this way; that the tool disappears but the media is still there. It’s so simple, but it’s just weird that I never thought of it in such a concise way.


2. Discuss a few connections you see between our readings on rhetoric and Jenkins.

On page 13 of the Jenkins reading there is a definition of media that is split into two levels: the first being that “a medium is a technology that enables communication”. This relates to what is said on page 11 of our textbook: “Fourth, there is the medium, the means of transmitting information between sender and receiver. The medium may be a speech, a radio wave, a film, a book, an em-mail, and so on.” The part from the textbook is from a four element process of communication while the part from the Jenkins reading is a model of media, but they have to do with each other. To send messages from the sender to the receiver, a medium is required so it enables communication by giving people modes of communication.

There’s also this line on page 15 of the reading: “Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres, and audiences.” I don’t know about anyone else, but that line reminds me of persuasion, which according to our textbook is the “act of convincing someone of something”(Keith, Lundberg 4) and persuasive speaking is “a way of speaking that seeks to cause a change in the audience.”(27) Convergence is essentially causing a change in all of those things. To go even further our textbook talks about how “a change in understanding precedes a change in action. For example, you’ll change your favorite brand when you change your mind about the quality of the goods.” (27). Convergence can alter a person’s opinion about a specific piece of technology, like how an iPod is better than a walkman; just the idea of a new way to listen to music will have you try this new thing. To me, convergence is a sort of persuasion.


3. What questions do you have now?

I don’t understand the whole divergence vs. convergence discussion that was on page 10 and 11. What is the difference between divergence and convergence as it relates to new media?

On page 17 there’s this line: “When people take media into their own hands, the results can be wonderfully creative; they can also be bad news for all involved.” I wonder what can be bad about people taking media into their own hands other than the examples given in the reading. I guess I just want to know whether it’s truly a good thing that people can take media into their own hands or whether it should be regulated so that the average person can’t.


Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.