I went to Cape
Cod a couple of weekends ago and while it was fun to hang out with
Tyler, Stacie, and Alex, I got shot down a lot over that weekend. There were a
myriad of topics, including the Sat. night conversation at the restaurant that
was a good wake-up call for me. But, I wasn't wrong in the other discussions we
had.
I don't usually voice my opinion unless I think I'm well
grounded (personality flaw perhaps, humility is the better way to look at it),
meaning I've read or studied the topic.
Below are a couple of takeaways from Benkler's The
Wealth of Networks, which I'm currently trying to finish, that prove
my points more eloquently than I did over the weekend in Cape Cod. Just because
I couldn't fully explain my point or argument all the way to this level of detail
doesn't mean that scholarly experts like Professor
Benkler haven't done their homework on the subjects of the mass media
and the internet:
-----
1) Whether you agree with its effects, the premise here is
true and critically important to understanding the future and as importantly,
why the internet does fundamentally change certain economic patterns that we’ve
become accustomed to over the last 50 years.
Book pg. 4 / PDF pg. 16
“First, non-proprietary strategies have always been more
important in information production than they were in the production of steel
or automobiles…Education, arts and sciences, political debate, and theological
disputation have always been much more importantly infused with nonmarket
motivations and actors than, say, the automobile industry. As the material
barrier that ultimately nonetheless drove much of our information environment
to be funneled through the proprietary, market-based strategies is removed,
these basic nonmarket, nonproprietary, motivations and organizational forms should in principle become even more important to the
information production system.”
2) Internet trumps TV because it’s a conversation, not
one-way mode of communication and it strengthens the weak bonds that are never
sustained in the real world
Book pg. 15/ PDF pg. 27 (emphasis added)
“A substantial body of empirical literature suggests,
however, that we are in fact using the Internet largely at the expense
of television, and that this exchange is a good one from the perspective of
social ties. We use the Internet to keep in touch with family and
intimate friends, both geographically proximate and distant. To the
extent we do see a shift in social ties, it is because, in addition to
strengthening our strong bonds, we are also increasing the range and diversity
of weaker connections…we have become more adept at filling some of
the same emotional and context-generating functions that have traditionally
been associated with the importance of community with a network of overlapping
social ties that are limited in duration or intensity.”
3) Mass Media doesn’t reflect or serve what the masses
really want; it gives you just enough generic content to maintain the minimal
interest level so that you keep on the television
Book pg. 165-166 / PDF pg. 178-179 (emphasis added)
Mass-mediated outlets serve the tastes of the majority,
expressed in some combination of cash payment and attention to advertising.
Baker in Media,
Markets, and Democracy shows why, however, that mass-media
markets do not reflect the preferences of their audiences very well.
“Advertiser-supported media tend to program
lowest-common-denominator programs, intended to “capture the eyeballs” of the
largest possible number of viewers. These media do not seek
to identify what viewers intensely want to watch, but tend to clear programs that are tolerable enough to viewers so
that they do not switch off their television.”
“Small increases in the number of outlets continue to serve
large clusters of low-intensity preferences—that is, what people find
acceptable. A new channel that is added will more often try to take a bite out
of a large pie represented by some lowest-common-denominator audience segment
than to try to serve a new niche market. Only after a relatively high threshold
number of outlets are reached do advertiser-supported media have sufficient
reason to try to capture much smaller and higher-intensity preference
clusters—what people are really interested in.”
-----
Taken together, my main point is that Alex was wrong in his
assertions about the mainstream media and about the social value of the internet.
I value your opinion, I really do (as evidenced by the homework that you
assigned me), but you're wrong when it comes to these two topics.
9/3/06 UPDTAE: I forgot to include my Flickr photos from the Cape Cod trip.
