Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Internet for America
As I reflect on the blinding speed of technological proliferation in the past decade, I am reminded of my fifth grade teacher asking the students with personal computers at home to raise their hands. Barely ten hands shot up in the room of over twenty-five. If she were to address the class today, she would have instead asked “how many computers?”, or “how often do you check your Gmail account a day?” Increasingly, the internet has not only entered our daily lives, but it has profoundly shaped our lives, especially for the young.
How have the giants of the corporate media industry, such as Viacom and News Corporation, coped with the emergence of this new medium? Do they feel threatened by the internet’s democratic elements, or excited by new opportunities for growth and profits? Robert McChesney, in his 2004 book The Problem of the Media, contextualizes the Internet Age as simply the most recent in a series of technological epochs. Whether it be the telegraph, the radio, or television, each new medium unleashed a new forum for democratic expression, and all of them were quietly conquered by greedy media corporations with the help of strong support from Washington. Considering such an abysmal track record, will the Internet prove to be the exception that breaks the mold? McChesney maintains unqualified skepticism. With time and lobbying, McChesney argues, the Internet will eventually assimilate the classic mores of mainstream media: uninspiring, low-quality news coverage, hyper-commercialism, and a penchant for the sleazy.
Just as in the early days of radio, starting a website or blog is cheap and easy for most Americans. You’re all reading my blog, and I didn’t pay a cent for it either! Unlike radio broadcasting, the sheer volume of distinct websites is limitless. Monopolization of the Internet is not even a coherent possibility. So why should I fear a corporate takeover of the Internet while the gates to access remain wide open?
The answer is that the Internet cannot erase the challenges of generating an economically viable alternative media outlet. I can start a blog to comment on already existing media, but I cannot create my own news source for public consumption. A true democracy requires informed debate on matters of concern to the republic. Yet as long as news coverage continues to be a costly endeavor, the media giants can still direct the contours of political debate with the way it covers stories and their choice of stories to cover. The relevant quip is “Media can’t tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about.”
One solution suggested by economist Dean Baker is the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which allows citizens to divert $100 of their taxes to any nonprofit media outlet. The policy would weaken the corporate stranglehold on media content and invite antagonistic viewpoints in news for the first time in generations
As I reflect on the blinding speed of technological proliferation in the past decade, I am reminded of my fifth grade teacher asking the students with personal computers at home to raise their hands. Barely ten hands shot up in the room of over twenty-five. If she were to address the class today, she would have instead asked “how many computers?”, or “how often do you check your Gmail account a day?” Increasingly, the internet has not only entered our daily lives, but it has profoundly shaped our lives, especially for the young.
How have the giants of the corporate media industry, such as Viacom and News Corporation, coped with the emergence of this new medium? Do they feel threatened by the internet’s democratic elements, or excited by new opportunities for growth and profits? Robert McChesney, in his 2004 book The Problem of the Media, contextualizes the Internet Age as simply the most recent in a series of technological epochs. Whether it be the telegraph, the radio, or television, each new medium unleashed a new forum for democratic expression, and all of them were quietly conquered by greedy media corporations with the help of strong support from Washington. Considering such an abysmal track record, will the Internet prove to be the exception that breaks the mold? McChesney maintains unqualified skepticism. With time and lobbying, McChesney argues, the Internet will eventually assimilate the classic mores of mainstream media: uninspiring, low-quality news coverage, hyper-commercialism, and a penchant for the sleazy.
Just as in the early days of radio, starting a website or blog is cheap and easy for most Americans. You’re all reading my blog, and I didn’t pay a cent for it either! Unlike radio broadcasting, the sheer volume of distinct websites is limitless. Monopolization of the Internet is not even a coherent possibility. So why should I fear a corporate takeover of the Internet while the gates to access remain wide open?
The answer is that the Internet cannot erase the challenges of generating an economically viable alternative media outlet. I can start a blog to comment on already existing media, but I cannot create my own news source for public consumption. A true democracy requires informed debate on matters of concern to the republic. Yet as long as news coverage continues to be a costly endeavor, the media giants can still direct the contours of political debate with the way it covers stories and their choice of stories to cover. The relevant quip is “Media can’t tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about.”
One solution suggested by economist Dean Baker is the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which allows citizens to divert $100 of their taxes to any nonprofit media outlet. The policy would weaken the corporate stranglehold on media content and invite antagonistic viewpoints in news for the first time in generations
# posted by Jonathan Noble @ 3:14 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Or Public Broadcasting that's generously funded and truly free of corporate and government pressure. . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home
