Butch aka Travis

I am putting a bit in my Media Contexts assignment about Convergence, the only problem is getting a clear definition. I know what it is, its just a matter of putting it into words. So i consulted the net…

Google defines convergence as:

“A contraction of a vector field; the opposite of divergence. Convergence in a horizontal wind field indicates that more air is entering a given area than is leaving at that level.”

Now that doesnt sound right.

Freedictionary defines convergence as:

Mathematics. The property or manner of approaching a limit, such as a point, line, function, or value

uh, No…

Dictionary.com defines convergence as:

“The act, condition, quality, or fact of converging.”

I hate definitions like that

Googlism defines convergence as:

convergence is the future and the future is now =thehill

riiiiight

I checked a diary ive had since year 6 and it did not even have the word convergence in it!

I asked my Girlfriend and she gave a pretty good answer, : When different forms of technology come together to make one technology.

For me, that is almost as close as could be said, but ill try my own definiton, so here we go:

Convergence is the word to describe the coming together of formerly separate forms of media. If a medium is convergent then that means that it is able to support different forms of media on a common platform.

So hows that, any problems with that?

I watched a movie on the weekend, it was okay, it was put together well enough but the story…. it got political. I have a problem with this. Once you get political you isolate a massive percentage of your audience: the ones who don’t agree with your point of view, believe me, some people DON’T agree with your point of view.

I’m not overly political, but I have my beliefs, and I hate it when its assumed I share the same point of view as others. As Rachelle said last week, it is good to aim to please a select audience defined by religion, sex, beliefs etc. but a high end Australian or American film ain’t exactly an underground sub- cultural film.

Its great that we live in a culture where we can air our views, but it works both ways, we also live in a culture where those with opposing views are allowed to hold theirs just as much as anyone else, despite what they believe in.

I enjoy a film when I’m not told what to think or believe, but to rather make up my own. Take for instance Michael Moore. I really like Michael Moore’s “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine”. However his Fahrenheit 9/11 just got out of hand. I don’t think either way on this whole situation, I’m more or less neutral, but Moore’s depiction of Bush in that is false, and that’s the problem I have. He talks about how Bush uses propaganda, however he uses it against Bush from start to finish. To each is own, he can believe what ever the hell he wants, but I just wish he had done it properly. eg.

Speaking to a throng of reporters, President Bush remarks, “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive.” These three phrases alone seem to many incontrovertible evidence that Bush, insincere about the threat of al Qaeda, merely mouths boilerplate that looks robust in the morning papers. It makes for great sneering. Now, as it turns out, President Bush was talking not about al Qaeda, but Hamas, which had suicide-bombed in Israel hours before. But don’t expect the movie to mention such a detail, for here Bush looks silly, and this is the great purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11.

This quote taken from here

What weakens his case when he shows up on the side of John Kerry campaigning for votes, then I do have to ask, what is his real agenda?

As I said, I don’t look either way on this, but ridiculing Bush or Howard or Blair is like shooting fish in a barrel, its been done so often that nothing is surprising anymore.

What I am getting at is that the art of telling a fair story is becoming endangered. It feels like I am constantly being told what to believe or how to feel. I have resolved myself never to tell an audience they way it is, but rather to let them make up their own minds. Imp sure people would enjoy themselves alot more, than having to sit through another heavy ‘expose’ on Terrorism or the like.

BTW, did you know that over 80% of people think the news is a viable source of information? Ill speak about it in anothe rpost