In the second part of this article, we will explore how the economic system affects the media we “consume.” Inspired by The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a poem composed by Gil Scott-Heron in 1970, this article lays out the limits of mainstream media (and social media) to empower the broad masses of people to participate in a democratic society. In the final section, we will show how to take action today to make a change for the better.
This article has two parts.
- For Part 1: follow the link.
- For Part 2: continue reading.
- Mainstream media (and social) media follow the rules of the system: they seek to grow their profits, increase shareholder value and protect the interests of their investors.
- For the majority, participating via social media to advocate for a political cause or change in society is like standing on a digital soapbox.
- Ownership matters and we should strive to support
I want to take some action! What are some things I can do? For a start, go to the bottom of the article to learn more.
To learn more, please continue reading Part 2 of the article.
if the economy focuses on growth, business focuses on profits
There cannot be a premise on infinite growth on a finite planet. Our current economic model and incessant focus on growth is like tumor cells for a human body. As long as there is food, cancer cells will produce even more tumor cells. Either has to give. Either the body will fight off the cancer and tumor cells or the cancer will consume the human.
The issue we as a society face is that we celebrate the biggest and the richest as the most successful ones. Basically, the companies and enterprises that are emblematic of the type of growth-focused economy and society that we live in.
Just like other businesses, media is also a business industry. The mainstream media and the economy are focused too much on growth, rather than development. Professor Edward D. Hess from the Darden Business School at the University of Virginia produced a class on entrepreneurship called “Grow to Greatness” on the popular Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platform, Coursera.
In the course, Professor Edward D. Hess dispels several myths (based on principles observed in nature) of the “American mindset” on how to run a business that is difficult to dispel from the mainstream. For example, bigger does not always mean better.
He highlights the importance of focusing on the (human and problem-solving) objectives of starting a business. Some entrepreneurs are best suited for smaller businesses and others for larger ones. He gave the example of a tiger. In its size, the tiger is the perfect predator, but if he grew in size (like an elephant), he would not be the “perfect predator.”
The aim should not be just on growing revenues, profits, number of employees, offices, or in media, the number of articles, shares, likes and so forth. We need to account for our overall well-being, such as our physical, emotional, psychological ones when growing and developing a business. This is not a call that all companies should be small. Inevitably, some will be small, other medium, yet few will be veritable giants. This is a call to rethink how we measure the performance and success of businesses and our economy.
Fortunately, not every human, not every businessperson is interested in infinite growth. Just like our “giants,” we also need to celebrate the small businesses and hear their stories too. In fact, most businesses are small. Most challenges that people face daily are the same for people, regardless of how deep their pockets are.
The pandemic has taken our growth out of the economic equation, and we immediately fell into a recession. It shows how vulnerable our economies are to growth. Politicians and economists discuss the return to the new normal, meaning when the growth is back or exceeds its pre-pandemic track. The holy metric for mainstream economists is the GDP (Gross Domestic Product).
As a society, we need to understand and question the merits of infinite growth. This focus on growth affects how we operate businesses (workplaces). Our workplaces become areas of stress once we do not achieve these growth targets, regardless of the cause of the failure. It also dictates the research and development projects we focus on as society, not always in the best interests of our overall well-being.
In the world of media, where most of us get information about others and the world, the temptation to fall prey to technologies that exploit human attention is too great to resist. I refer to these tactics as “black holes.”
Technology and its attention sucking “black holes”
If during Gil Scott-Heron’s time, TV was the biggest media, now social media is one of the largest and most dominant media outlets that occupy the leisure and non-leisure time of its “consumers.”
When we base our economy on infinite growth in a finite planet, social media companies logically would develop features to reflect that in their apps. Social media, the current mainstream, boasts features such as “infinite scroll,” “related content” and others to ensure users’ continuous engagement and addiction to their platforms; a black hole sucking attention.
Capitalism’s focus on incessant growth does not allow our minds to rest. Even when we rest, we need to think of our rest as a “commercialized” activity. We need to consume. They orient the language towards more buying, selling, consumption.
There is limited discussion about enlightenment, empowerment, or simply relaxing and enjoying. A “free” walk in the park is a “lost economic opportunity” to increase the growth rate of some individual entrepreneurs or business and thus contribute to the overall GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the economy.
Although there is no such thing as “free lunch” and each of us needs at least some money to get by and satisfy our necessities, there is a point after which each added dollar does not add additional value. This is the law of diminishing returns. Collectively, as a society, we need to consider taxing those dollars that are causing diminishing returns at higher rates to ensure the more fair distribution of our resources.
Mainstream Media is turning into a reality and entertainment business
With the introduction of the infinite scroll and the “news feed” social media is using its ever-improving algorithms to serve content that resonates with the user. The infinite scroll was designed to addict people to their platforms.
To spicy up the addiction, content matters. Infinite-scrolls combined with click-bait content aimed at grabbing and keeping attention does not really make up for praise-worthy endeavor. Some developers express regrets to have worked on addicting features on major social media platforms.
The content resonates with the impulses of breaking news, just sending signals and appealing to emotions, but not really educating or empowering the readers for what matters. It is content that elicits a knee-jerk reaction without understanding the underlying causes of the social or economic problems.
Rolf Dobelli, a writer, has written an elucidating article on improving mental well-being by cutting out news (those focused on “breaking news”) from the daily consumption. Even though he spent years reading newspapers and watching the news (“consuming”), he felt like he grasped nothing.
His brain was filled with information, but no understanding of the underlying issues. This is a big problem in democratic societies, because adept and charismatic politicians exploit this tactic to manipulate people and even convince them of facts that are contrary to the truth.
For example, a popular US politician, Newt Gingrich has stated in an interview with the CNN in 2016 that “people feel more threatened” to discredit statistical and factual evidence that violent crimes have been in decline in the United States for over two decades.1 (2016, August 29). The Absurdity of Newt Gingrich’s “Feelings Over Facts.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2o0mAdRUpo
Regardless of political convictions, we need to argue and debate with facts. Feelings matter, but feelings can be stirred up with propaganda and can distort the truth. We need to have a debate on solid footing. Unfortunately, feelings appeal more to people and it is feelings, not facts and statistics, that win people’s hearts and change of mind over.
It is feelings that content makers appeal to when producing and/or promoting content; often losing sight of what is valuable and meaningful, while focusing on what is entertaining.
News stories such as Melania Trump, the First Layd, pushing away US President Donald Trump’s hand receives more attention than a substantive debate about health care in a country that considers itself as “the greatest country in the world” and has over 13 million uninsured people.2 Inc, G. (2019, January 23). U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to Four-Year High. Gallup.Com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/246134/uninsured-rate-rises-four-year-high.aspx
Being one of the most developed industrial country without affordable and universal healthcare is not praise-worthy. The United States is great for many things, but it is worthy to note where it falls short. In my view it is not for lack of money, skills or talent, but for lack of will. This is what I believe is one of the most frustrating things. I believe that many of the uninsured feel the same way.
The media should focus on making discussions about core issues, such as healthcare more engaging. With all the green rooms and simulation technologies, with its armies of top developers, the mainstream media has not kept conversations about key issues engaging. I am not saying that all we should talk about is actual issues such as health-care, but the media spends too little time creating and sharing engaging content that empowers people.
The media should give voice to those disempowered. This is what responsible and human-centered journalism is about.
Just like people are increasingly becoming aware about healthier eating choices and there are countries and states that consider taxing soda, I believe that mind-numbing (or “junk” content) should also be taxed at higher rates than content that serves to do public service.
Entertainment is important , but the balance is skewed towards attention grabbing “innovations” such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and others, while discussions about alternative are considered taboo.
In defense of mainstream media and social media startups, they just follow the rules of the game. The system incentives and awards profit-maximizing behaviors. Therefore, we need to rethink our performance metrics and reimagine the ownership structure of businesses.
Whose interests do being “televised” and social media-zed serve?
To understand the interests, we need to understand the ownership of media companies. The media and entertainment industry is big and growing. There is plenty of interest to have a piece of this large and ever-growing pie.
In the United States, the media and entertainment industry in 2020 was valued at about $720 billion, almost as much as the military budget $730 billion.3U.S. entertainment and media industry 2011-2020. (n.d.). Statista. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/237769/value-of-the-us-entertainment-and-media-market/ To put it in relative terms, the United States spends more on military than the next 10 countries combined.4Ranking: Military spending by country 2019. (n.d.). Statista. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
Part of the rise of the overall rise in the media industry can be attributed to the rise of social media. Some hailed the rise of social media and saw it as a force of spreading and deepening our democracies.5 Ritu_Sharma, ContributorCEO, & Nonprofits, S. M. for. (500, 12:21). Social Media as a Formidable Force for Change. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/power-of-social-media-dem_b_6103222
Social media can help give voice to the disenfranchised. As a tool, social media can help grow social movements. For example, social media helped galvanize and organize supporters during the Arab Spring in 2011.6Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (n.d.). Social Media and the Arab Spring. 23. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1940161212471716 It was not social media that generated the support for these movements. The people were frustrated poor governance across the Arab countries and social media helped them organize.
But we need to know the limits of social media. Even though they can mobilize people quickly, the sustainability and impact of these movements can be limited.7Malchik, A. (2019, May 6). The Problem With Social-Media Protests. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/in-person-protests-stronger-online-activism-a-walking-life/578905/
However, as explained above, social media had no intention to strengthen democracy. The underlying driver for social media startup companies is the same for all traditional companies, creating value for their shareholders. Each employee in the company needs to ensure the company’s profitability, either by producing goods and services that add surplus value or by creating an enabling environment to create surpluses.
Yes, some social media startups may start off with solving (and actually can solve problems for people and businesses), but afterwards the choices the business makes are heavily influenced by the metrics that businesses need to achieve, such as growth and profits.
For most, social media posting is like standing on a soapbox
When it comes to social media (owned by a minority), we are given the illusion of participation. I can make a post “public.” The entire world can see it! Most of us know that our posts are mostly seen by our people who follow us, but there is this hope that our “post” will become “viral.” If we pick the right keywords, maybe, we will achieve some “internet fame.”
The challenge is that, for movements organized by people, there is no consensus that can easily be built on social media. There are many visions and conflicting ways of measuring success, and each person is “empowered” to share his or her own view. If the movement becomes a protest on the streets, then it can take a life on its own. But protests wear out.8Naím, M. (2014, April 7). Why Street Protests Don’t Work. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/why-street-protests-dont-work/360264/
Most people have limited free and vacation time. Either people will go to protest or work overtime to pay for their bills or children’s education. Either they will be obedient workers, or they will risk losing a job by building a movement around a cause they care. As shown in the graph below, from the first part of this article, the average person in the US has limited time to protest (see free time in red). Protesting is unpaid, voluntary activity.
Therefore, the ideas can be easily co-opted.
It is hard for hundreds, thousands or even millions of volunteers to compete against paid employees. Governments and media companies with their smaller numbers can often (not all the time) outmaneuver the people.
Paid employees in the government and media follow the instructions they receive and “do their job.” Media companies pay their employees to perpetuate ideas that serve the interests of their shareholders and customers. People who take part in protests volunteer their time, and if they get angry or disagree with some protestors, they can just stop showing up. However, for paid employees working in some state agency or media companies, getting angry at the employer may cause personal frustration and losing employment at worst.
Employees are paid full time for their work and efforts. Employers monopolize the intellectual capacities of their employees. If we consider that the attention is a form of a resource (just like energy) that diminishes over the course of the day, then employers (on average) are tapping into the best thoughts of their employees.
Therefore, it is difficult for someone who volunteers their limited leisure time for a societal cause to compete with someone whose part of their full-time job is to report or stifle a protest.
Without mass audiences and support, it is impossible to effectuate change. Those who control the creation of ideas and their dissemination hold power.
The revolution of the people, let us call them the “working class” (let’s see how much stigma these two words attract) will fail as long as the visions of their revolutions live within their own heads. As long as there are no shared standards (or indicators) how to measure the success of the achievement of a common vision, no revolution will succeed.
To have some chance at success, we need to support membership based media and journalism. We need to support media and journalism that is owned by the workers and the users.
Rather than have large, corporate monopolies, I believe that we should have a federation of news companies across the world that are funded by their individual readers (not corporate advertising).
How many times have you watched a channel and then the report said: “Sorry we have to go,” “We have to make time for ads” or “Let’s take a commercial break.” The mainstream media is too quick to skip to the next breaking news. The mainstream media is uncomfortable with asking the important and tough questions around interests and ownership.
Just like there are global organizations and associations to further business interests, there should be peoples’ organizations that advance peoples’ interests.
The Correspondent (I personally patronize them) is one such journal. This blog, also aspires to provide such service. If we want informed journalism and media, it needs to be from the people, for the people and by the people. We need to pay and own the media information we use (not “consume”). I understand that advertising is an important element and an important industry in business, but we need to rethink how we do it.
Some people may say that social media can help democratize access to information. However, it’s important to know who owns social media? Who finances it? Whose interests does it serve? Do access to digital technologies and social media enable the disenfranchised to revolutionize the world in their interest?
Without people funded social media accounts designed to serve and promote the well-being of all people, social media will not be the tool for the people’s revolutionary transformation.
We need to understand that ownership matters.
Ownership matters for democratic participation
Media is driven by supply and demand. What gets televised is what matters to viewers. Aunt Jemmima changed its racist branding because now it’s when the polls show that the support has shifted.9Business, J. V., CNN. (n.d.). The Aunt Jemima brand, acknowledging its racist past, will be retired. CNN. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/business/aunt-jemima-logo-change/index.html Media responds to popular swings. Tipping point. Aunt Jemmima is as much opportunistic marketing as it is an attempt to rectify historic wrongs. But the time when it was chosen to do so, rings to me more of opportunistic marketing, than genuine reflection about the racial connotations of its marketing. As some say, better late than never.
In the words of Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, the mainstream media works to “manufacture consent.” It is not to empower.
Empowered media and empowered journalism means member-funded and/or worker-owned and directed media and journalist companies.
It matters who and how pays for journalism. It matters who owns the companies. If we want to get our attention back, we need to fund the journalism we believe in and that serves our interests.
This blog is ad free. It’s user supported because it aims to serve its users. To ensure democratic access, these blog posts will be provided for free, while some additional features that provide conveniences to users will be offered to the paying members.
Fortunately, there are examples of media companies and organizations that are member-funded and/or are run as worker cooperatives (see definition of a worker cooperative) such as:
- The Ferret from Scotland is a registered cooperative (English)
- El Tiempo Argentino, a worker cooperative from Argentina (Spanish)
- De Correspondent is a member-funded journalism platform (Dutch)
Action Steps I can take
- SUPPORT member-funded journalism and blogs such as this one (or alternatives include, De Correspondent (Dutch), El Tiempo Argentino (Spanish) or The Ferret (English). For a comprehensive list of member funded websites, please visit The Membership Puzzle Project.
- USE AND SUPPORT mobile and computer applications that are Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for entertainment. For Android users check out F-Droid and for iOS check out AltSotre.
- DISCONNECT from mobile and TV devices and set some time aside for thinking. Leave your phone at home and take a walk in a park.
Want more articles such as this? Become a member
If you like the article and would like to see more, please support the work we do.