In the previous post, the blogster argued that fragmentation in the media (or rather fragmentation of information) also includes fragmentation within the same outlets and that it is neither new nor a result of the internet.
It* pointed out that the matter is complex. Today, we'll follow up to look at the meaning of "choice" and argue that smart use of social media can achieve a well balanced diet of information.
A lot of effort goes into extracting information from data,
into exploiting the information in all walks of life, and into preventing some of
this information from being disseminated.
As consumers of information, humans are finicky, easily distracted and, at the same time, not easily persuaded to give up core beliefs. We not only believe unproven claims, we have spent tremendous amounts of energy and wealth on promoting myths. And we have killed millions of humans because they don't share our myths.
Against that backdrop, a debate about the exact number of television channels we should have, about the exact number of "propaganda accounts" on social media, or about the reliability of any given news outlet looks slightly less critical than we are called on to believe.
Choice
Does the sheer number of media outlets or channels have any significance beyond the easy claim of "bewildering"?
Some media researchers and most media professionals and politicians say, of course it does. They tend to cite the availability of "extreme views", the rate of hate speech, and fragmented audiences.
Sure, if your job is to keep track of the plethora of outlets, your life gets more difficult when that number explodes. The same is true when your job is to reach as many people as you can with minimal effort, to win elections, or to sell stuff or services.
For media consumers, the situation is different. Unless you are unemployed, retired or otherwise have lots of spare time, you make your picks and mostly stick with them for the three to six hours a day available for media consumption.
It is natural to be confused by a vast selection of media outlets.
But the same is true for the supermarket cereal isle.
With the exception of NPR listeners or viewers, a vast array of cereals or a bursting freezer section is often regarded as showing how great capitalism is.
But the bursting airwaves or fat cables cause a different reaction.
Why?
Because you don't gorge on cereals continuously for six hours a day?
Because cereals, unlike propaganda, do not make you elect a dictator or turn you into a homicidal maniac?
Well, it was argued in a homicide trial that excessive sugar may have aggravated a chemical imbalance in a defendant's brain.
Despite a steep rise in the number and variety of media outlets, murder rates have been down in the US and Europe.
Polarization of opinion has been up, many polls and studies claim. But civil unrest has not (yet?) been the result. The U.S. saw murderous times with only three TV networks.
Can we exclude that the world of the media only appears to be more confusing and worrying these days because more opinions and emotions are visible?
Choice by itself means nothing: media reported almost half of users in the US downloaded zero (0) apps in the past month.
Real choice
Out of those 50 cereals, some 45 are likely owned by two or so companies. Germany's 100+ public broadcasting channels are owned by just a few "public" entities. Only six corporations control 90% of the U.S. media.
So, we are bickering about 10% of the U.S. media?
Not really. The current soul searching in some American outlets regarding their possible role in the rise of Donal Trump is going to be temporary. But you invariably find worries about fragmentation of information/news mentioned in relation to foreign media, "unfriendly" ones to be exact. A prominent one, less so today, was Al Jeezera. Russian RT is the current main villain.
Quality vs. Mush
Quality has nothing to do with choice. Fifty flavors of garbage, pardon me, cereals, is still garbage. 300 TV channels does not mean you have more quality than with 3 channels. All it means is that someone is paying enough money to keep the 300 on air. Whether that is through commercials, pledge drives or a tax that is called a fee (like in Europe), is irrelevant from a business perspective.
As a matter of fact, in a German report on the media, the blogster read that the professional media analysts of the German government share the wide spread public sentiment that the mainstream media often present the same mush.
Hardly any mention of books and documentaries
Books and documentaries tend not to figure prominently in the daily worries of the media watchers, despite the role of books and documentaries in "defragmenting" the complex world.
Social media
Even when they are not explicitly called out, much of the fragmentation narrative really is about social media.
There are even figures you can use to substantiate the claim. For Twitter alone, one of several such sites, not to mention Facebook and various large Chinese or Russian sites: 500 million tweets a day, a half-life of 4 minutes (or so) for each tweet.
Again, if your job is in the media, if your job is keeping an eye on the competition or to find dangerous extremists, you would be crazy if you didn't feel overwhelmed.
You cannot "follow" thousands of people or have millions of "friends" without any assistance. Even with the help of software and humans, forget about it.
An average number of Twitter followers of 208 is already more manageable.
If you want - big if - you can collect news and other information in a targeted manner impossible to achieve twenty years ago. You can subscribe to major newspapers from all over the world for nothing. You can get challenging views delivered to your screen.
And learn within the mental and emotional constraints that make you who you are. If you overcome some, great. And if not?
Who the fuck cares.
Don't ask me how big my budget for papers and magazines was before the internet.
* The blogster likes the world gender neutral.
No comments:
Post a Comment