| By Graham - Apr 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Jeff Chester makes a good point about the post-Imus discussion over diversity of ownership in media, namely that we ought to be concerned about the online media as well:
If we are to ensure that the new media landscape in the U.S. doesn’t repeat the same market models and homogeneous control we have with broadcasting, cable, and satellite, action is required—now. Powerful media behaviors are being developed that connect young people to the “always-on, always connected” online world. We must make sure that the public interest—especially diversity of ownership—is a fundamental part of this system.
This question of ownership, however, may miss the mark. The internet by nature is open to anyone, and most of the content online is user-generated. If Chester's other efforts to oppose an inequitable internet infrastructure succeed, this shouldn't change. But user-generated content is only as "diverse" (some of the worst English usage in the progressive movement) as the users are.
And users in the United States are disproportionately likely to be white. Seventy-two percent of white adults use the internet, versus 58 percent of black adults, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. (Pew has a category for English-speaking Hispanics, of whom 69 percent use the internet, but there is no figure for Hispanics over all or other groups.) It's not exactly a new idea, but this is the digital divide. Chester's focus on ownership is a useful point, but the user base is the root of the problem.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Younger people from all backgrounds are online increasingly. The digital divide is a serious issue. But, I suggest, the always-on online world is rapidly extending its reach.
What I didn't mention and what I'm hoping to learn more about is a second layer of the digital divide: the web use divide. More privileged people tend to benefit more from their use of the internet. Eszter Hargittai had done very interesting work in this area. Link
What kind of 'proactive intervention' do you have in mind? This sounds suspiciously like limiting my options.
I live near a public library and I have access to the internet.
Nobody is limiting my options.
""When all the editors, producers, and creators of media content are of the same race and gender, content will obviously suffer from a lack of innovation.""
Oh really? Diversity is fun, but I like how you toss the word "obviously" in there as a lazy way of trying not to actually justify your point.
To give an easy example: Video games (a form of media content) are overwhelmingly created not only by white males, but by white males from very similar backgrounds and interests. And yet, plenty of innovation.
And let's not forget the kinds of diversity that can be far more powerful, depending on the case, than race and gender -- socioeconomic diversity and ideological diversity.
You can argue that diversity is a good, and I'll agree with you. But you don't need to make silly claims you can't back up to try and support the point.
""But don't worry, no one is advocating anything authoritarian -- the only option that Jeff Chester wants limited is the ability of the big media organizations to control more of the market.""
Uh, that *is* authoritarian, to a degree. If a megaconglomerate like Viacom doesn't make what I want to watch, I won't be paying them any money.
We live in an era of media consolidation, and yet I would argue that the media today is more responsible to the will of the people than ever before.
But really, it's clear you're not very interested in that - you're interested in media being responsive to the will of the people who *agree with you*. Good try at dressing it up in the language of the public interest, though.
Unless you had a deeper point that was not included in that comment?
Unless you had a deeper point that was not included in that comment? ""
I thought I made this clear with the 'access to the internet and the public library' comment, but apparently I wasn't clear enough so here's my thought more explicitly: It's simply impossible to 'corner the information market' in the modern age -- so impossible that I'd be incredibly hard-pressed to think of *any* scenario where I'd say modern media consolidation would fall under the realm of anti-trust.
Anti-trust laws exist to protect against what is essentially a market failure. By definition, technology has rendered the media market essentially failure-proof.
And now we come to net neutrality, and the blocking of "objectionable" sites by ISPs, and all the other steps that can still conceivably be taken to limit free exchange online. You could easily get to a point within twenty or so years when, say, AOL Time Warner is managing internet access, television, radio, phone service...I mean, they're doing all of those to some degree already. Imagine if three or four companies come to control, say, 90% of internet accounts--do you really not think that's a possibility?
Regardless, the fact remains that we're not talking about all technologies, but a specific type of technology--radio--that doesn't work without using publically owned and governmentally regulated airwaves. You're comparing a technology that requires a set receiver unit in a fixed location with specific access abilities during operating hours (the library computer with internet access--and, incidentally, with blocks on certain sites and restrictions on usage) with a technology that requires a receiver that's so inexpensive it comes standard in every car in America and can be accessed virtually anywhere by anybody at any time.
So, putting aside the public library's limited hours, site visitation restrictions, lack of privacy and fixed location, you still have the supply end to deal with. Your argument, therefore, seems to rest on an as-yet unrealized net neutrality, and the (I feel) unsubstantiated belief that media conglomerates like AOL Time Warner can't get their acts together enough to reach a point where a handful of companies control the lion's share of media in any given area.
Are you sure this is a racial divide, or perhaps simply a socioeconomic divide that then reflects the income disparities between races on average?
Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thing yet.
What percentage of kids currently age 19-21 who haven't completed high school go online?
If there's a generational shift underway, this will tell us where things are headed.
Underlying assumption here: Kids who are going online today won't stop going online when they grow up to be non-highschool-graduates, and it's adults who have never gone online that are skewing the numbers.
"THE INTERNET SOLVES EVERYTHING. ...and something about libraries."
The problem with this argument is that the internet is nowhere near universal -- penetration hovers at about 70%, and has huge divides that split on racial, socioeconomic, and geographical lines. Libraries are the same -- while internet access at public libraries is almost universal, 75% of all libraries have fewer than 12 computers and about half of all libraries have problems keeping with demand for bandwith. The systems are also proprietary and not universally operable, which has a chilling effect on effective use (for instance, how do you watch streaming video on a library computer?).
More importantly -- and getting back to the point of graham's post -- the internet is increasingly being controlled by the same media conglomerates that are prevalent in the older broadcasting forms. What independent media source exists on the internet? blogs? Sorry, but they get 95% of their information from newspapers. Thank god for newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban; without it, Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch would own all sources of information on the internet.
"Diversity doesn't matter, look at my XBOX360."
Ah video games, the paragon of diversity! Seriously, what game in recent years hasn't been a) a first person shooter or b) madden? We're beginning to see real diversity in the video game market nowadays -- the wii, anyone? -- but I would argue that it is the result of ownership diversity. I would also add that the gaming industry has historically benefitted when it has catered to a diverse audience (case in point, the success of the girl-oriented nintendogs). To do so would require, in my mind, a more diverse workforce.
To the general point about diversity; yes, I think that a diverse workforce leads to better products. It makes broadcasters more responsive to their audience -- as I documented in my post about the Don Imus affair, it was the existence of black vice presidents and program directors, a new development over the last decade, that caused Don Imus' firing. When people attempt culture specific broadcasting without consultation from said culture, it becomes a mockery of itself -- one only has to look at the history of BET and Telemundo, both now owned by media conglomerates, for the worst case scenario. We have a market that creates women-specific content, youth-specific content, rural-specific content, but fails miserably at minority-specific content. Maybe if we can foster effective media for these groups, we can create a platform for these communities to share their voices and even redress their own problems.
"Media regulation is what dictators would do. You hate democracy."
I think JR covered this well -- anti-trust regulations aren't authoritarian, but actually serve to bolster competition in the market. If you have a problem with the existence of the FCC, we can talk about that, but most people studying the media agree that government regulation is the only thing stopping a breakdown of the American media. I'd point you to Edwin Baker's "Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters" for a more exhaustive text on the subject: he basically argues that a complex democracy requires diverse media ownership, in order to create a diversity of content with competition as a check against inaccuacy.
"Ad hominem attacks."
If you want to debate about real issues and/or my ulterior motives, I recommend starting up another post to do so.