5 Technology Revelations

“Top Five Media and Technology Revelations”

“He said, facing toward her feet, ‘Her mother and I didn’t want to get her a feed at all. I did not have one. Neither did her mother. I said none for my family.
‘Then one day, when her mother had left, and I needed work, I was at a job interview. I was an excellent candidate. Two men were interviewing me. Talking about this and that. Then they were silent, just looking at me. I grew uncomfortable. They began looking at each other, and doing what I might call smirking.
‘I realized that they had chatted me, and that I had not responded. They found this funny. Risible. That a man would not have a feed. So they were chatting about me in my presence. Teasing me when I could not heat. Free to assess me as they would, right in front of me.
‘I did not get the job.
‘It was thus that I realized that my daughter would need the feed. She had to live in the world…”

- Feed, page 288


1.) Transformation of the Traditional Mass Media Institutions.

“Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it…[Our Ministry of Culture] does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical, and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to amuse ourselves (Postman, 141).” In Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” the author discusses the impact of entertainment television on American sociopolitical comprehension. Television programs, advertisements, and political campaigns have been slowly adapting to the overwhelming desire people have for information and this is leading to a lack of understanding and analysis that is necessary for a functioning society. The media have become so overwhelmingly carefully with their controlled flood of information that Americans are loosing the ability to concentrate and comprehend abstract thought. What we see on the surface is becoming the basis of our understanding and this “information packaged as entertainment” is impacting our ability to make informed decisions; having consequences that reverberate not only in our daily lives, but in our democracy as well. Perhaps the Internet will provide an increased sense of dimension and context that will help subvert the media from presenting information merely as entertainment.
As we have seen in the past decade or so, the Internet is assimilating with every aspect of our daily lives. People spend almost as much time (if not moar) on the Internet as they do watching television and media outlets have been quick to incorporate these trends into their programming. “Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets…[This spares readers] the ‘less efficient’ method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles (Carr).”
It is not out of desire, however, that traditional media evolve; it is out of necessity. “The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations… Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules (Carr).” When you consider the viral nature of the web it becomes easy to see why traditional media have had to adapt to changes in the way people gather and interpret information. People can now actively participate in a dialogue with millions of others to critique the “consensus culture” mass media prescribes. “Broadcasting provides the common culture, and the Web offers more localized channels for responding to that culture (Jenkins, 211).” This diversifies the monologue traditional media had once preached to a disenfranchised public because it allows everyday people to voice their opinions, gain the support of others, and create a dialogue that introduces counter- perspective to the media’s prescribed public perception.
Modern political campaigns have also been forced to integrate the Internet as a major part of their election strategy because people are beginning to expect, nay demand, the increased dimension the web can place on information- dimension traditional media could never achieve. “The new media operate within different principles than the broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication (Jenkins, 208).” This is contributing to an increase in political transparency that is tearing down many of the perceived barriers people once thought prevented them from meaningful political action which many believe is reinvigorating the populace to become active members of a functioning democracy.
This is one of the most startling revelations I have had over the course of the semester because my classmates and I are witness to an evolution of traditional media as a consequence of the Internet. This is a relatively recent technology that is revolutionizing the entire world and as people who for a time lived in a world without Google, YouTube, and Facebook, we will be able to watch/participate/interact as new and old media collide and form a whole new media infrastructure. Hopefully, it will be to the betterment not only to our political democracy but also to society as a whole.

This is a video explaining the role the Web played on the U.S. Presidential Primaries in 2008 and how recent nominees have revolutionized “campaigning, mobilizing, and mud slinging” in the age of the Internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_TsRjiunY

2.) The Shift in the Publics Role as Members of an American Democracy.

We are in the midst of a “Digital Revolution.” Television, radio, movies, telephones, PDA’s, interpersonal communication of all forms, classrooms, bedrooms, and yes, even bathrooms are becoming incorporated into a digital realm. The web has become an almost mandatory facet of our daily lives and has allowed for a sort of collective intelligence to form. If we have an idea we can post it on a blog, receive comments, imbed media, and link to other discussions that contribute to a sort of global dialogue between those with Internet access that helps us better understand the world. This dialogue has revolutionized the way we interpret information and has given us the opportunity to delve more deeply into more subjects than was ever possible before the Internets emergence. One of the most significant contributions the Web has made is to the public’s role as members of our democracy and it is the subject of my second revelation.
When people talk about a “Digital Revolution” and its impact on American politics what they are talking about is a, “shift in the public’s role in the political process, bringing realm of political discourse closer to the everyday life experiences of citizens (Jenkins, 208).” With the tools provided by the Internet people are now able to gather information about candidates, debate policy differences, and even monitor up to the minute polling data downloaded directly to their Blackberry. The “Digital Revolution” has had its impact on many aspect of modern life in America but I think most significant is its impact on democracy. What we are seeing is a destabilization of the political groundwork that laid the foundation of our democracy for so many years. Where once the broadcast media exercised almost complete control over what was considered to be “public” opinion, now everyday Americans without network support can garner supporters, promote ideals, and contribute to a political dialogue that shapes our modern political process. “What [we] are talking about is changing the ways people think about community and power so that they are able to mobilize collective intelligence to transform governance (Jenkins, 208).” Individuals who once felt ostracized by pop-politics for having opposing positions on political issues now have a myriad of channels to voice their opposition and introduce counter perspective in what was once a very shallow pool of opinion controlled by broadcast media.
One of the most important impacts the “Digital Revolution” has had on American politics is in the Blogosphere. This is a digital realm where everyday Americans with Internet access can voice their opinions about anything and everything and publish it on the Web for all to see. But the Blogosphere’s true worth comes in its ability to foster discussion, namely political, which is able to curtail mass media’s stranglehold on public opinion and influence politics in a meaningful way. “Blogging may on one level be facilitating the flow of ideas across the media landscape; on other levels, [Bloggers] are ensuring an ever more divisive political debate (Jenkins, 216).” Bloggers are even able to take democracy a step further by encouraging the formation of coalitions and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) designed to promote their ideals and organize political action such as the February 2003 “Virtual March on Washington.” This is the logic behind what Henry Jenkins calls convergence politics: “the effort to use grassroots media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize.”
Because the Internet is a narrowcast media that is “peer-to-peer” rather than “one-to-many,” Bloggers are able to create a sort of community classroom in which policy is debated and plans for political action are formed. Like any classroom there will be a lot of blabber-mouthing and incoherent gibberish, but in a few small pockets there will be meaningful discussion taking place where people of varying positions are deliberating policy issues and forming coalitions designed for action. In this arena they are able to pose opinions, support or refute them with data, and ask the all-important question to their peers “What do you think?” This is something that cannot be achieved with traditional media’s monologue to America and it is the reason why one-to-many communication is so detrimental. Counter perspective is essential to any functioning democracy and the Blogosphere provides a avenue for people to voice their opinions and act upon them.
As mainstream journalism becomes increasingly unreliable and tainted by the concerns of private interest groups, “being driven by ideological agendas rather than professional standards, burying stories that run counter to their economic interests, and trivializing politics in their focus on power struggle and horse races,” Bloggers introduce a counter perspective that is increasing the democratizing potential of the Internet and putting an emphasis on the publics role in a functioning democracy (Jenkins, 216).

This Daily Show episode hosts guest Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and explains Blogging to viewers and its importance as a meaningful information medium in the wake of the “Digital Revolution.”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=212819


3.) Just How Much Traditional Media Continue to Manipulate the Way Americans See the World.

My third revelation came to me upon a reassessment of Alisa Millers TED talk from week four in which she discusses why the U.S. media focuses almost entirely on America despite living in an increasingly interconnected world. In the U.S. some 79% of news coverage in February of 2007 was within our borders while abroad important international events such as the IPCC’s confirmation of man’s impact on global warming received one tenth the coverage of Anna Nicole’s death by drug overdose. “The combines coverage of Russia, China, and India by U.S. newscasters reached just 1% (Miller).” And the Web doesn’t do much better. “The Internet does not facilitate widespread participation in politics, nor does it raise the level of political dialogue. The Internet leads to more information clutter; it becomes necessary for any message to get louder. Much of the political information, therefore, will inevitably become distorted, shrill, and simplistic (Noam).” While there are an infinite amount of resources for international information on the Internet, the top news sites covered the same stories as the major networks and the other news they do cover is often too simplistic to justify its importance. As Miller points out however, the amount of Americans who seek out international news regularly grew from 37 to 52% in the past 20 years so why aren’t news organizations covering a broader scope of information?
The short answer to this question might be that it’s cheaper to focus on news at home than it is to maintain an office abroad (foreign news bureaus have been eliminated by 1/2) but I think the answer is a little more endemic of the American consumer. The American consumer is not just a consumer of product he is also a consumer of information. In some ways the two are different but in others they are in fact one in the same. We are consumers of information even as we consume product and often times the products we consume tell of the character of the individual. Taken as a whole, the sum of our consumer activities can reflect our character as a nation and therefore the commercial market is a significant factor in how we consume information. Neil Postman explains-

“Indeed, we may go this far: The television commercial is not at all about the character of products to be consumed. It is about the character of the consumers of products. Images of movie stars and famous athletes, of serene lakes and macho fishing trips, of elegant dinners and romantic interludes, of happy families packing their station wagons for a picnic in the country—these tell everything about the fears, fancies, and dreams of those who might buy them. What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product bit what is wrong about the buyer. And so, the balance of business expenditures shifts from product research to market research. The television commercial has oriented business away from making products of value and towards making consumers feel valuable…the consumer is a patient assured by psycho-dramas.”

-Postman, page 128

What Postman is arguing here is that Americans are becoming increasingly susceptible to a two-dimensional interpretation of information. As we continue to allow the commercial mainstream media to manipulate the way we see the world we are limiting our ability to concentrate and articulate complex information. When we see the For Motor Company publishing commercials showcasing their new line of F150 super duties that can stop a military cargo plane we are subject to a clever misdirection of consumer interest that puts our focus on the big plane and the truck that’s stopping it rather than the logical comprehension of owning a truck in this kind of economy. But the issue here isn’t the misdirection, it’s the impact it has on our interpretation of information.
Because we are so inundated with this type of two-dimensional information presentation by the mass media, it becomes natural for us to take things at face value. Perhaps you are a construction worker or an engineer that is on the fence about purchasing a truck, Postman argues that if Ford Motor Company can accurately manipulate you into feeling valuable as a consumer of Ford product, either by absurd tests of largely useless features or maybe guilt imposed by the failing American auto industry, it can bypass more important pieces of information such as gas mileage, after purchase support, and power train warranty that seem like logical informative factors to base your decision.
The issue is that the shallow interpretation of information promoted by the commercial media has ramifications in every aspect of American life. “Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged [by the mass media] (Carr). Political, International, and local news is taking its cues from consumer advertisements, both on television and on the web, by restricting the sort of in depth analysis that is needed for such important issues. Primetime network news organization use this kind of mentality to routinely reduce the world into one big story at a time while political candidates use it to skirt the public record and appeal to voters on a strictly personal basis. "By bringing politicians close to us, the American mass media appeal to our natural cockiness about judging character. In doing so, the media also establish a model of politics that emphasizes politicians over politics and psychology over economics (Hart, 68)." This is what Hart calls “personality politics” and it has a serious impact on our nation’s ability to function as a democracy because we are effectively incapable of making complex decisions based on relevant information (such as a candidates qualifications).
Hopefully the “convergence culture” alluded to by Jenkins will set in motion a restructuring of how information is presented- in one phase information s broadcasted to millions and in the second people are given access to accompanying information that allows them to make their own judgments.

This is the Alisa Miller TED Talk in which she explains some important statistics concerning the grip mass media has on information. It is significant because she graphically illustrates how much network news organizations focus on the U.S. even as we push towards a truly interconnected world.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html

This is another provocative video with some great analysis of Mass Media’s detrimental influence on today’s society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv4_YMl9k0w-

4.) America’s Growing Addiction to Information.

“[The] explosion of information technology, when combined with an unusual confluence of dramatic — and ongoing — news events, has led many people to conclude that they have given their lives over to a news obsession (Williams).”
The fourth revelation I have made this semester is the sheer addiction to information spreading like wild fire across America. It seems that in a post 9/11 world anyone and everyone is concerned about the next “Big News” to hit the airwaves only now we needn’t rely on television to feed our addiction to information; we can simply power up our PDA, laptop, or cell phone. As Alex Williams, contributor to the New York Times, points out, “For many Americans, the hunger for information is reminiscent of those harried, harrowing months after Sept. 11, 2001. But seven years ago, there was no iPhone, no Twitter, and no YouTube.” We are now capable of getting information whenever and wherever we want to feed our information impulses and this, like any addiction, has its downfall.
“Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy…That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle (Carr). Carr’s experiences are not at all an isolated event. The Internet has flooded so our minds with pop-ups, spam, and instant messaging that we are beginning to think like a computer. Like Johnny Five from the hit 80’s movies “Short Circuit” we are on a never-ending quest for input. But the Internet, while widening the channel in which we locate data, has also limited us in the amount of extrapolation and insight we devote to it. Why form your own theories on ethnocentric interclass racism when you can read a Harvard professors masters dissertation on the subject- or even better link to an open source online encyclopedia and get bulleted outline? In a post 9/11 world it seems information is being used as a currency for people to feel a sense of comfort in a world that is largely unpredictable. “In times when people think their fate is tied to enormous events that are out of their hands, stockpiling information can give some people a sense of control, social scientists said (Williams).”
But if this sense of control is a fallacy created by the broadcast news media’s two-dimensional presentation of information, then perhaps this revelation is more startling than it appears. For if we continue to allow traditional forms of media to manipulate our interpretation of information we will be no more informed on anything which will make us incapable of making the important informed decisions that are essential to a functioning democracy.

This video showcases many of the detrimental effects of an information addiction not only in the political sphere but it the way our minds are becoming literally hardwired to the Web. I found the relationships it made with negative aspects of playing video games, impacts an information addiction have on school or work, and information based relationships provocative to say the least. This video exemplifies why I call it an information addiction in every sense of the word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related-

5.) The Growing Threat Information is Posing on Democracy Itself.

As alluded to in the conclusion of my previous revelation- our growing addiction to information has serious potential consequences if the information we digest is manipulated by the commercial mass media. My fifth and final revelation this semester is the threat our information addiction, which resulted from the “Digital Revolution,” is posing on Americans as consumers and as members of a democracy.
“Mainstream mass media and commercial websites…systematically prioritize certain types of sites and information at the expense of others, leading to a narrowing of the Internet’s value as a means by which to give voice to alternative perspectives and increase the communicative aspect that constitute the public sphere (Longford, Graham, and Patten).” Both the Net and broadcast media are in large part commercial entities designed specifically to get consumers to purchase product. Sites like Myspace and Facebook, which started innocently enough eventually succumbed to the pressures of commercial interests. According to Yahoo News, Myspace sold to News Corp for more than a half a billion dollars simply because advertisers wanted to capture the visitors attention and direct them to their products and services and if advertisers are willing to pay that much for page views, what’s to stop them from manipulated information int heir favor?
Google, Yahoo, and Ask are all commercial search engines and they, as Longford etc. suggest, systematically prioritize what information gets sent to the top of your search results, in effect burying what you were looking for under a pile of commercial interests. Broadcast news media do the same thing with the stories they cover by focusing on stories that are favorable to their commercial sponsors and we have become so inundated that we take everything at face value. We take little to no time extrapolating information and this is causing us to complacent with two-dimensional data, which has monumental negative affects on our ability to function as a democracy. Counter perspective is essential to any democracy and at least on broadcast media they have to appeal to a wide range of consumers. On the Internet people are free to limit every aspect of what information they come across. “The ability of Internet users to personalize and constrict the flow of information using browser settings, listservs, customized web portals, and RSS news feeds—may actually promote the very sort of ‘cyberbalkanization’ that is detrimental to the public sphere (Longford, Graham, Patten).”
The Internets capacity for “hyper-atomization” allows close-minded people to avoid entirely any alternative perspective that might contradict their opinions. This lack of information makes these people completely subject to their beliefs and unfit for democratic participation. And while the Internet has significant democratic potential, because it is still subject to the information manipulation of commercial interest everyday people are becoming no more fit for democratic participation than they once were. As Longford etc. puts it, “Reluctance of our governments and political parties to enhance the Internet as anything more than a supplement to existing [commercial] practices has mean that, while the Internet has change the practice of [gathering political information], democracy has not been deepened…The corporate colonization of the Internet and out lack of willingness to treat the Internet as a public good has hampered the Internet’s potential to facilitate the sort of democratic transformation of the public sphere that could deepen…democracy.”
This is potentially my biggest revelation: that information itself might threaten our very democracy and we might live in an age of misinformation.

In an excellent speech conducted by Bill Moyers on media reform he states: “In his magisterial book Media Monopoly Ben Bagdikien wrote, ‘The result of the of relatively narrow corporate ideologies has been the creation of widely established political and economic illusions with little visible contradictions in the media to which the majority of the people is exclusively exposed.’ In other words, what we need to know to make democracy work for all Americans is compromised by media institutions deeply embedded in the power structures of society.” This opening quote exemplifies exactly what I am talking about in the previous revelation. I only hope that the entire class will watch all three of these thought provoking and excellent videos on the threat mass media poses on democracy itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related