I’m a communications student. Specifically in video production, but a large aspect of the degree program is studying the cultural relevancy and impact of medias in society, specifically American or western society. I’m no expert by any means, but I think I’ve got enough of a handle to encourage debate, and provide an alternate view. Most of my viewpoint has been cultivated by my class-load over the past year and a specific book; “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” by Robert W. McChesney.

There is an underlying thought, or vibe online. A philosophy of thought that is percolating within the online world of the connected. Everyone has this little voice in the back of their head telling them that being online is making things better. That being an active “web-guy” is a contribution to culture and society; the thought that being online is good for everyone.

This can be vague at times and specific examples of activity can certainly refute it, but we’re not discussing the exceptions, but the overall trend. We’re talking about how online use and the perpetual bombardment of media related stimulation on a day to day basis has become so pervasive and overwhelming online users are forced to devote most of their online experience to collecting and processing all this data. This complex statement is boiled down to easy examples. Like someone that spends more than an hour reading news articles online. Yes, they’re very informed, but more time is devoted to reading, than discussion, debate, and action.

It is impossible to maintain a healthy democratic process by only being informed. The information must be coupled with both understanding, and action. Comprehension is pretty easy to get over. That’s developing a comfortable level of knowledge and creating a familiarity with the subject that allows one to talk about it. Following the news on a day to day basis is precisely thus. But this is also a minimum, the lowest level of the bar. Everyone should be making it a personal priority to be well educated in what their local, regional, and federal governments do and believe. Education on the issues creates transparency, transparency helps to prevent and regulate hidden agendas. I know it’s a self-defining system, but it also makes sense. The more people know about the less they can be deceived on.

This isn’t a conspiratorial act either. There is no hidden attempt to keep people distracted and out of the democratic process. Instead it has been a natural evolution of events and practices that has led us here. Even the “hidden” agendas aren’t necessarily done for some evil plan to dominate the globe, but stems from a much more subtle and simple issue. Those in power are used to a system where citizenry doesn’t press the issues. When no one cares about what’s going on, what motivation is there for pubic officials to keep the public updated, they don’t care anyway.

And here is the failure of major media. For a quick and unnecessary overview, we have six or seven major companies that essentially control all aspects of media from creation to long term distribution. It’s a vertical oligopoly. I’ve read class literature that has people advocating for less deregulation of media when there was still over fifty major media companies in the United States, that data is pulled from articles written in the 80s, not some distant past, but recently. It was considered unusual for a company to own the production studio, broadcast company, and after market distribution system (VHS & DVD sales, or rental stores like Blockbuster). All of these were considered distinct and separate industries. It was rare for the Broadcast company to make the shows that they air, no in-house television production is the norm. An enormous amount of consolidation has happened since 1996, the year of deregulation.

This deregulation has created some unique environments that have generated debate within industry communities. On one hand there has been a tidal wave of content that has washed over America. TV shows, movies, news, and online products have seen a huge rise in variety, availability, cross integration, and quality of content. The result of a capitalistic system of demand and efficiency placed on entertainment has created a near renaissance of quality and quantity. But on the other hand. Human beings have a physiological limit on the amount of data the brain can absorb. It’s called attention and concentration. We’re hard wired to give aspects of out environment greater attention at the expense of others. No other point of human history has one had so much potential data and information to access. My teacher liked to mention that one can read more words in a Sunday issue of the NYT than colonialists saw in their entire lives. Put that on a lifetime comparison of media access, and the two aren’t even comparable.

This, culture, of overabundance is the direct result of a major machine that is making money by pumping out entertainment and distractions. I’m not trying to go Luddite on these facets. Distraction is good, and huge resources can streamline and allow for specific visions to come about. As a film and TV fan I personally get, and for the most part dig that major companies have been able to deliver better programing today than any other time before. I’ll take a new season of “The Office” over “Patty Duke” any day of the week. But there is too much of a good thing. A fully commercialized system without regulation has no idea, nor cares, when too much stuff is being made, nor does it get bothered when entry for new companies into the industry becomes impossible.

A closed system of capitalism is a transgression of the concept.

In two major fields of media the systems are functioning to provide more for a person to look at and read, than a person can handle. The cultured system of monolithic media for bombardment of a viewing/listening/reading audience, and the free and open repository of all human data that is the internet creates a situation where all a savvy person can do to keep abreast is to stay “switched on” all the time. Thus making one a receptor to all that can be drawn in.

This creates a failure of action. Action being any form of behavior that contributes to the overall decision making process of the nation. Active citizenship is a trait that is taught to children and young adults as an ideal. It’s where we’re all supposed to be. But we are not. General awareness for what is going on in the world is on the rise. But this awareness is not coupled with direct responses. People still find that contacting a representative does little, that public offices are sacred and to be respected. That ideological belief, and political competition for influence is healthy. We have become passengers of our own nation.

OUR NATION, this concept too easily becomes taken for granted, or used as a weapon of partisanship. When it becomes accepted and assumed that one will always be reading about the decisions and actions of others, it too easily slides into being assumed that it’s not anyone’s place to interject or get involved. No conspiracy, we’ve just turned into the proverbial couch potato, but we’re not watching TV, we’re watching our national policy process. A government of the people and for the people cannot subsist when the people think that government is too complicated to be involved with.

To back up these claims I argue that voter participation has not seen dramatic improvements that could be correlated to the rise of internet communications. The education levels of the average American haven’t improved either with the increase of media and internet usage. The open-source philosophies of full and unrestricted access and training for online use, is still struggling to make an impact on the political process. For all the bloggers and five dollar donations they still haven’t created a long lasting or meaningful impact on an election. If Howard Dean had won the Democratic nomination in 2004, maybe there’d be a case. What has happened instead is a great surge in content commentary found online. Vanity publishing, and personal opinions (founded and unfounded) have swarmed all over the webspaces. And still this has translated into minimal impact in creating a new “Digital Democracy”.

I also posit, that without a vocal desire for such a democratic and relevant forum either online or over our pubic airwaves (TV news is just another product) we will never have one. I also argue that as a society and culture we are currently unaware that such a thing must take place. It is seductive to believe that because anyone can place content online, that we actually have created a free, relevant, and open forum. Instead we have created a great playground for self-indulgence.

Think about PBS. Its a public system for television, and the airwaves are classified as a natural resource. It didn’t stem naturally, it was a political movement and fight. Where is the online equivalent of public TV? PBS has been ranked as the most trusted department within US government for the past five years, by popular opinion, and is recognized for maintaining and fostering political discourse, education, and honest discussion of hot issues. There is Public radio as well; for literature, the Library of Congress. What is out there for the internet? Do we need a publicly protected aspect? What would that mean?

The possibility of creating a similar organization online carries the great potential of nurturing the type of centralized, honest, credible, and active forum environment necessary that the online world can create an impact. And it isn’t all just about making a “Public Online Service” but advocating for an actual and recognized community of civic affairs. The online community has yet to move beyond the cosmetic role of observation, and runs the great risk of never doing so in the future.

Thus is the great seduction of content.

When an online arena for civic issues develops, the progression from relevant discussion to action becomes so much easier. Being informed is easy, taking that information into a national arena for conversation is also easy. Arguing within a global forum displays full understanding of a point, and it displays passion for an issue. When one becomes impassioned, action is a necessity, not an option. And thus is active citizenship.

It’s not a magic plan. It’s not a fast fix, but it’s a logical transition from one step to the next. Information spurs debate, debate proves someone cares, when someone cares they act. It’s not about altruism on issues. The world won’t be magically fixed. It won’t usher in an era enlightened American policy either. Instead it creates a way for all Americans to directly communicate about issues. This is something we don’t have. And if we continue this progression of passively collecting information about the world around us, we slip further and further away from self-governance and closer to a ritualized representative class with little or no need for a relationship with the civilian masses. This is something to warn about, and advocate against.

We all must do our part.

~C

(x-posted)