Robert W. McChesney says that the American media system is “spinning out of control,” and by this he means in part that only a few corporations control almost all media. From books to internet content to newspapers to TV and radio, corporations like Time-Warner control a lot of what we see, read, and thus, think. Even reading or viewing material that is meant to be entertaining, such as movies or popular novels, can in my opinion be skewed by the company producing it. These companies, such as Viacomm and Fox, show us what they think is important: we view the entertainment and read the news that they pick and thus end up thinking about the issues they want. The freepress.net chart lends credence to this theory by pointing out just how much certain companies control our media access and what we see and thus, think.
I believe that while it is certainly true that the media is being taken over by a small number of companies, this is not as unremittingly bad as McChesney seems to think. In the age on the internet, especially Web 2.0 (the social media model of web networking and internet presence) , the user or consumer does have some control over what people consume. For example, if my blog becomes popular enough that many read it, it might get picked up by a feed aggregator or a larger blog read by even more people. If that happens, I might manage to cultivate a following who are interested in what I have to say. At that point, simply by writing, I have the ability to influence what people think and in fact to be the media they see and read. Thus, it may be true that several companies control too much media, but they certainly do not control nearly all of it, as I can demonstrate by having my own blog. If people choose to read it, that cannot be controlled by a large corporation--there are simply too many people like me and too many outlets for our expression for that to happen.
Video blogs can add up to the minute content as well as working to promote viewer interest in themselves or other content. As this political blog example shows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Cn7Et3Suo)
, video blogs, even on possibly divisive topics, have a place on the internet even in this day of media controlled by only a few corporations. As long as that remains the case, I feel McChesney is overreacting. It is actually easier to start a blog than ever before. Early on, when the internet first became popular, AOL (which later merged with Time-Warner) controlled the internet market because it was easy to use, making the vast internet easy to understand for the average consumer, who was brand new to this new and daunting technology. AOL slowly but surely--and then, increasingly quickly--lost its market share as people began to become more conversant with the internet and how it works. Now, more and more people understand the internet and using it to express oneself is easier than ever before. Services like Tumblr and Blogger will give you a blog for free, and professional-quality software is easily and readily available to edit and format it. With such powerful tools available even to elementary schoolers, a whole new generation is growing up entirely able to use the internet. The important thing about this is that they can and will use it for their own ends.
Works Cited
McChesney, Robert W. "Making Media Democratic." Boston Review (Summer, 1998).
"The Big Six." Free Press. Online. Accessed 13 July, 2009 athttp://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Social Networking by Internet- Future of Lameness?
There is no question that social networking is all the rage today. In the history of human civilization, never before have people been able to communicate with one another with such speed or over such long distances. While the inventors of the telegraph and the phone may beg to differ with the uniqueness of the internet’s speed and ease of communication, they are a century too late. The sheer wealth of information and networking capabilities of the internet put it in a class of communication all by itself. Currently, social networking sites are allowing people of common (and uncommon) interests to get together and share ideas and pictures, plan meetings, and learn more about each other and the world with very little risk. The advancements of social networking have caused a wide variety of responses, from those that feel something like Facebook is a gift from heaven, to others that feel the origin of the social networking site comes from somewhere with a little more fire. Regardless of one’s personal opinion of social networking sites, they are immensely popular and are currently influencing the population in a variety of ways. And, while many experts claim that this is only a reflection of things to come and social networking will continue to proliferate with proper marketing and its ability to socialize those that lack social abilities, the more likely fate for social networking is not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Charlene Li makes a bold claim in her blog, “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air,” though her claim that social networking will become an integral part of human existence only makes sense to someone posting a blog on a website promoting a book that she wrote the wishes to “harness the power of social technologies like blogs, social networks, and YouTube” (Li). Though her claim about the continued growth of social networking has all the momentum in the world behind it at this moment, there is little to suggest “that in the future, social networks will be like air. They will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be. And also, without that social context in our connected lives, we won’t really feel like we are truly living and alive, just as without sufficient air, we won’t really be able to breathe deeply” (Li). This claim is almost ridiculous, especially to anyone that has lived life with and without social networking websites. Of course, to a young teenager, they have never even known life without the internet, so social networking is almost like air, just like the hula hoop, the Slinky, or Pokémon infiltrated every part of culture in their time, young and old. However, like all fads, social networking is mainly comprised of nonsensical advertising, games, and other unnecessary bells and whistles that can never truly make up for the fact that relationships fostered online are generally less intimate and more alienated than those conducted in person.
There are also those that claim social networking can help severely socially inept people become more social. According to political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s theory on the spiral of silence claims that social networking sites can help eliminate the fear that often keeps people from interacting, bringing people “the characteristics of empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific audiences” that help them become less socially withdrawn (“Spiral of silence”). However, conversely, social networking sites can also encourage people without such problems to become more socially withdrawn, substituting social networking online for personal interaction. Even when people are doing things in real life, they will take the time to Twitter about it, updating their status on Facebook in the process, and robbing the people around them and themselves of the benefits of personal interactions. Couple this with the fact that social networking is more of a fad than anything else, as evidenced by its evolution from small niche forums to the largely-dismissed-as-fad-and-then-used-as-marketing-tool Myspace to the now top-of-the-heap Facebook. While they may make changes that appeal to a wider audience, most people do get bored with what social networking has to offer, and will eventually “become less exclusive, less interesting, more overwhelming, and ultimately more annoying” (Schwartz). An example of this is the following video clip from YouTube, which reflects the frivolity of Facebook games and applications, as well as the growing anti-Facebook sentiment among people that use it, as well as other social networking sites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVA047JAQsk
I think that as soon as social networking becomes inevitably less profitable for the companies that sponsor it, people will eventually start to use them only as what they really are: a novelty. Social networking online will never be as crucial as air, or even face-to-face interaction. There may be elements of social networking in websites of the future, but there is little to suggest that humans will continue to use it once the novelty and profitability wears off. Social networking is nothing more than an ingenuous marketing scheme, whether for the sponsors advertising on it, or the people that advertise themselves and their lives to the World Wide Web. I think that in the end, it seems that social networking will become less like the essential air that we breathe and more like that toy we kind of liked as a child but gave to our little sister when we outgrew it.
Works Cited:
Li, Charlene. “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air.” 6 Mar
2008. 6 Apr 2009. Groundswell.
Schwartz, Peter. “Facebook's Face Plant: The Poverty of Social Networks and the Death
of Web 2.0.” The Huffington Post. 9 Dec 2008. 6 Apr 2009..
“Spiral of silence.” Wikipedia. 5 Apr 2009. 6 Apr 2009.
Charlene Li makes a bold claim in her blog, “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air,” though her claim that social networking will become an integral part of human existence only makes sense to someone posting a blog on a website promoting a book that she wrote the wishes to “harness the power of social technologies like blogs, social networks, and YouTube” (Li). Though her claim about the continued growth of social networking has all the momentum in the world behind it at this moment, there is little to suggest “that in the future, social networks will be like air. They will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be. And also, without that social context in our connected lives, we won’t really feel like we are truly living and alive, just as without sufficient air, we won’t really be able to breathe deeply” (Li). This claim is almost ridiculous, especially to anyone that has lived life with and without social networking websites. Of course, to a young teenager, they have never even known life without the internet, so social networking is almost like air, just like the hula hoop, the Slinky, or Pokémon infiltrated every part of culture in their time, young and old. However, like all fads, social networking is mainly comprised of nonsensical advertising, games, and other unnecessary bells and whistles that can never truly make up for the fact that relationships fostered online are generally less intimate and more alienated than those conducted in person.
There are also those that claim social networking can help severely socially inept people become more social. According to political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s theory on the spiral of silence claims that social networking sites can help eliminate the fear that often keeps people from interacting, bringing people “the characteristics of empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific audiences” that help them become less socially withdrawn (“Spiral of silence”). However, conversely, social networking sites can also encourage people without such problems to become more socially withdrawn, substituting social networking online for personal interaction. Even when people are doing things in real life, they will take the time to Twitter about it, updating their status on Facebook in the process, and robbing the people around them and themselves of the benefits of personal interactions. Couple this with the fact that social networking is more of a fad than anything else, as evidenced by its evolution from small niche forums to the largely-dismissed-as-fad-and-then-used-as-marketing-tool Myspace to the now top-of-the-heap Facebook. While they may make changes that appeal to a wider audience, most people do get bored with what social networking has to offer, and will eventually “become less exclusive, less interesting, more overwhelming, and ultimately more annoying” (Schwartz). An example of this is the following video clip from YouTube, which reflects the frivolity of Facebook games and applications, as well as the growing anti-Facebook sentiment among people that use it, as well as other social networking sites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVA047JAQsk
I think that as soon as social networking becomes inevitably less profitable for the companies that sponsor it, people will eventually start to use them only as what they really are: a novelty. Social networking online will never be as crucial as air, or even face-to-face interaction. There may be elements of social networking in websites of the future, but there is little to suggest that humans will continue to use it once the novelty and profitability wears off. Social networking is nothing more than an ingenuous marketing scheme, whether for the sponsors advertising on it, or the people that advertise themselves and their lives to the World Wide Web. I think that in the end, it seems that social networking will become less like the essential air that we breathe and more like that toy we kind of liked as a child but gave to our little sister when we outgrew it.
Works Cited:
Li, Charlene. “The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air.” 6 Mar
2008. 6 Apr 2009. Groundswell.
Schwartz, Peter. “Facebook's Face Plant: The Poverty of Social Networks and the Death
of Web 2.0.” The Huffington Post. 9 Dec 2008. 6 Apr 2009.
“Spiral of silence.” Wikipedia. 5 Apr 2009. 6 Apr 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
