The Corporatization of Communication
| Publication year | 2007 |
| Citation | Vol. 30 No. 04 |
Our first speaker is the founder and the Executive Director of the Center for Digital Democracy. He has also founded a number of other non-profits regarding media policy. He has also worked on a project on open access and the future of the Internet. His new book is called
If you look back at what we have in the United States, it is the failure of the media policy process (and the media industry as a whole) to effectively develop the kind of civil society sphere that would promote, ensure, and engage the public with meaningful civic participation. When you look back, you will see that we do not have a system of diverse media ownership; indeed, we have a system where women and people of color own hardly any of the major outlets. There are increasingly fewer owners of the major outlets of newspapers, broadcast stations, and cable systems and their programming channels. You will witness, as the digital era progresses, further increased consolidation with our media. A key reason for all this consolidation, and the disregard of what a robust and public-spirited press and electronic media should provide us, is the very corrupt nature of media politics in Washington D.C. (as well as state capitols and city halls). We are facing a very critical transition period as the so-called old media merges with the "always-on, always-connected" world of interactive media. We need to look at what is ahead for us if we want to better protect the public interest.
Key principles for a media of openness, diversity, and access that should help create a media system that really fulfills a vision of democracy can be fostered, but it can only be accomplished, in my opinion, by addressing what is about to happen; not, sadly, what was lost years ago when the Communications Act was enacted in 1934.(fn2)
All of the things people are talking about in terms of the dot-com revolution during the 1990s-such as the long-awaited emergence of interactive broadband communications-are here. The infrastructure to deliver broadband content to PCs, mobile devices, and digital TV sets is here. But we have lost an important safeguard for broadband-what's now called "network neutrality" (and what used to be known as "open access"). The structure that evolved for the internet from the days of dial-up access was that the network was a neutral party-the phone wire couldn't determine or shape what content you used. Before AOL merged with Time Warner in 2000-in part to get access to its cable TV-based broadband pipeline-it was the leading corporate campaigner for open access. Once it merged with the cable giant Time Warner, however, AOL abandoned its call for a national policy designed to keep the broadband internet from under the control of powerful network gatekeepers. That's because AOL was now owned by one of the key gatekeepers-Time Warner owned the second largest cable television distribution platform (and its high-speed internet service, Road Runner).
All major media mergers have implications for the public interest, including democratic expression. Mergers involving the future of our media raise even more important concerns. Like other large cable and telephone companies, AOL Time Warner wanted to operate a digital distribution platform where its content received favorable treatment such as faster connection speeds, better processing power, and greater visibility than competitors (think about the fate of the start-up or not-for-profit digital content service under such a regime). Therefore, mergers need to be fought in order to impose safeguards and some form of pubic accountability. That's what a number of groups, including my own Center for Digital Democracy, were able to do. Professor Lawrence Lessig played a key role in helping us convince the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] that merger rules for AOL Time Warner were necessary to ensure some greater access for competitive internet service providers and content makers.
This was an attempt to sort of look ahead at what was coming overall in the United States' digital content and distribution sphere. These are global trends, of course, but I do want to focus on the U.S. We will need to face, I believe, a converged, consolidated, and hyper-commercialized media environment. There are now greater threats to civil discourse, political speech, and access to the news and information in civil society than I think there have ever been before. I called my book
When we talk about the media system, you need to look at three spheres or three platforms that will determine public consciousness via the interactive flow of broadband communications: the personal computer (PC), the cell phone or mobile device, and interactive TV (or internet protocol TV). TV will be interactive. It will be personalized. It will be much more powerful and a very important medium to think about.
The media industries-advertisers, marketers, technology companies, and the major content companies (such as Time Warner and Google)-are all working together and have perfected a system designed to deliver very powerful interactive content wherever you go. A ubiquitous digital media environment will be here with the "always-on, always-connected" qualities we have discussed. Accompanying this system is an incredibly sophisticated marketing engine designed to collect data about each and every one of us to profile each and every one of us. This is so advertising and messages from powerful brands can be delivered to us, enveloping us in a system designed to promote their interests (for sales and influence over our market and, eventually, political choices). As we speak, this "interactive advertising ecosystem," as they term it, will follow you through thousands of web sites as you go through cyberspace, whether in front of a PC or via interactive television. This system is pervasive. It is under the radar screen.
And why is it happening? Because the principal ideology governing this system, I'm sad to report, is strictly to make profits. It is motivated in part by the largest advertisers who spend $400 billion globally. Yahoo! did a very interesting study in 2005 which looks at global youth.(fn3) It is very revealing because it documents the trends I have discussed regarding digital media consumption and how marketers can take advantage of it. Yahoo! and others are afraid that the eyeballs of younger people, here and abroad, have left television. And the advertisers want to make sure that they have a system which can reach and influence young people, who are the emblematic and "with it" users of the new technologies. It does not matter where the youth are. The advertisers are able to engage youth via social networks, instant messaging, and broadband entertainment.
All this marketing is not just about concerns over a direct sale of products and services. It was very interesting having this conversation this morning because their marketing has fundamentally changed. This is something concerned advocates need to be better informed about. The new approach to marketing is based on what is called "personalization." If you do a Google search for "Engagement and Advertising Research Foundation," you will see that advertisers in this country and globally are engaged in multiple initiatives to make sure they can reach us in very profound and distinctive ways. Advertisers are now engaged in neuropsychological research through what is known as the MI4 initiative (run by the Advertising Research Foundation).(fn4) Marketers are funding viral marketing and stealth marketing research. It is a whole new array of techniques to promote what I've termed "brandwashing." And, if advertisers are doing it now, you can be sure politicians and others will follow, but that's the dominant vision. One-to-one marketing,
Now, we have the new media...
To continue reading
Request your trial