Features » April 21, 2005

Too Much Media

By Pat Aufderheide

Our media environment is very noisy, abundant, even polluted. Columbia journalism professor Todd Gitlin calls it “media unlimited.” while writer David Shenk calls it “data smog.”

We have never had more stuff to hear, see, scan, play, select, view. We’ve never had more channels, and we’re about to get so many more—check your cell phone for updates, and plug in that iPod.

The problem of having too much media is where to start when we think about media reform. Our own efforts to control our selections, combined with the efforts of large corporations to channel our choices, pose new challenges for people who know that democratic action depends on trustworthy communication.

Big media corporations—let’s just call them Big Media—like to assure the American public that we have all the information we need, and all the voice we want. And so we don’t need any regulations that put limits on Big Media.

And actually, I’m sure it’s true that I could find the information I need—if I knew I needed it, and knew where to get it. I’m pretty sure that I can figure out how to make an audio file and upload it, too. But that is not the same thing as having useful communication. For that, I need reliable and consistent information, and I need other people who share that information. That shared information helps people see themselves as members of the public, meet other members of the public and act as the public. Public communication makes democratic process possible.

Outside the high gates of Big Media—where reality shows, sports, “Desperate Housewives” and Budweiser commercials add up to our shared culture—there is all of Little Media. And Little Media—our blogs, our podcasts, our Web sites, our DVDs, our e-mail lists—is an uncharted territory full of confusing and contradictory information.

Unless we have friends, we can’t make our way through it, and some of our friends are busy e-mailing us bogus petitions to save NPR. (If your well-intentioned, alarmed, book group buddy emails you a petition urging you to save the NEA, PBS, NPR or “Sesame Street,” just send her to www.snopes.com for an urban legend check.)

Big Media makes us cynical and Little Media makes us run for shelter.

This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services such as OneWorld, low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly-invisible feature of today’s media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public—a group of people who can talk productively with people who don’t share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power.

All of them are little miracles. All of them were created by people who believe that democracy cannot afford purely profit-driven media. All of them suffer financial crises, a hostile policy environment, founder burnout, and the disappointment of producers and audiences who wanted so very much more.

In a “Too Much Media” environment, public media could be our public parks. Big Media filter our choices through branding. They also filter them through manipulation of our access (like our cable provider) and of our content (like our cable TV menu or a browser that redirects us). Little Media funnel our choices through trust networks, some of which really aren’t trustworthy, especially for learning about people we don’t agree with. Between the two, we are buffeted by profit, partisanship and passions.

Public media can speak to us as members of the public, and introduce us to others. Sometimes they even do.

Look at what happened when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson’s “The Murder of Emmett Till” on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR’s courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network’s Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers.

The disappointment progressives often voice about public media is earned. “Antiques Roadshow” doesn’t make this nation a better democracy. “Car Talk” is not for people who take the bus. Public radio did side with corporate radio against low-power radio advocates. The sector is full of small, embattled actors who often are busiest fighting with each other.

Yet the public media sector is still a very important resource for a noisy and polluted information environment. It’s worth investing in our local public media projects, and demanding the best. For instance, many of our public TV stations are not airing programs they could. Ask them if they’re carrying “Independent Lens,” a highly-diverse social documentary series, at an hour most people could see it. It’s worth starting new ones—like the public access cable channel in Philadelphia. It’s worth finding out how public-minded projects in a community can work with local public media. We need media services and content dedicated to the challenge of forming—not just informing—a public.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Am I alone in thinking that an overload of media is part of what causes ADD/ADHD.  How early are we all put in front of the television and how quickly do we become accustomed to its fast cadence of soundbite wisdom, constantly changing camera angles, and 30 second commercial spots.  To clarify, I don’t think it is an actual disorder.  I think it is a by product of our fast paced society. A society that sells you two often conflicting ideas:  sit still, pay attention, do your work, stay in line; as well as look at this, and this, and this, buy this, consume, consume.  I actually think if you can’t claim some sort of ADD symptom in this world than there might be something wrong with you (which is why the drug companies are making a killing).  Because unless you can constantly shift your attention from one thing to another, you will have a hard time staying afloat in this sea of information.  The downside is you are less at ease when taken out of this environment, more comfortable in the turbulent ocean than on seren shores. The author brings up a good point.

  Posted by Disseminator on Apr 21, 2005 at 8:41 AM

  “The problem of having too much media is where to start when we think about media reform.”

  I guess I have a real problem understanding how there could be “too much media”.  Doesn’t the First Amendment to the Constitution sort of make that an impossibility?  Likewise how do you “reform” it?  Sounds like code speak for shutting off voices you don’t want to hear.

  Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 10:32 AM

  Choices are not “pollution”. Choices are the essence of freedom. It can be a burden to make a complex choice but the only alternative is letting someone else make the choice for you. Public radio/television are the mutant offspring of a great idea (the CPB,created by congress)and the corporate weasels that manipulate the content through economic support and congressional inteference. If you think anything about public radio is courageous, you really need to seek a new media source.

  Posted by Rayhorn on Apr 21, 2005 at 5:11 PM

  I wouldn’t say there’s too much media.However,there is too much propaganda.Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and much of this media overload might disappear.Also,hold TV news to the accuracy standards that print media is required to follow,or have them display disclaimers that the program is strictly opinion,not fact.That,of course,would probably decimate Fox News.Then again,pro-wrestling describes itself as entertainment and people still think it’s real,so maybe a Fox Opinion Channel might still flourish.Besides,most right-wingers can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion anyway.

  In the mean time,if it’s crap TV,turn it off.Having been a Nielsen viewer,albeit for a week,I realized that the networks do pay attention to what we watch.So do corporate sponsors. 

  The First Amendment doesn’t neccessarily suffer because of regulation.It does suffer when one political view can drown out the other.i’ve noticed Campesino’s sudden distress that the right may not keep it’s near stranglehold on the news.Funny how the right only complains about losing freedom of speech when it voice could face competition.

  Posted by wwoods on Apr 22, 2005 at 7:52 AM

  “Media Reform”, it is a buzz phrase for censorship.  The progressive left tries ever so carefully to walk along the edge of a razor blade in their desire to silence the voice of dissent while at the same time flying the banner of free speech.

  Conservatives for decades lived with a liberal press and accepted the fact our message would not be justly delivered to the majority of Americans.  Before talk radio, Fox News and the internet we didn’t need reform because the only source for news and information came from a press marching in lockstep with the liberal agenda.  It wouldn’t matter to the progressive left if just one company owned all the media as long as it progresses their so-called intelligent point of view.  Wouldn’t it be great if Michael Moore owned all the MSM.  Can’t you just imagine the screams if the government funded a line-up of conservative programming similar to PBS and NPR?

  Free speech doesn’t mean it is always free, a point that drives progressives crazy.  If you run a press, television network or radio station it requires money to make it work.  If a show has a really big audience, advertisers pay really big money, like The Rush Limbaugh Show.  If you have a really small audience like Air America, advertisers pay little or pass.  Try and get this… big audience = big money (evil to you), small audience = small money (not fair to you).  Most Evil Businesses tend to choose the most profitable path.  This to you is both stupid and evil. 

  It’s real easy at the Evil Networks.  When a TV show fails to generate audience and income the show is scraped and a new one inserted.  No Problem.  On the other hand, when people figure out the very liberal news divisions are heavily biased and they quit watching…Big Problem.  You can’t just yank it like a TV show.  You can’t get a group of liberal news executives, reporters and the like to change stripes.  They don’t see a problem because they believe they are mainstream.  Besides, how can liberals being of such superior intelligence be wrong?  Still each month the audience continues to shrink along with advertising dollars.  What do we do??

  Start SCREAMING.  This is unfair.  The Big Evil MSM needs to be reformed.  Break them up.  The Evil Republicans along with Evil Big Business have hatched a Rovian plan to highjack the airwaves and print media. The majority party in congress is acting like a majority…how dare they be so mean.  The GOP has turned everybody into Sheeple. 

  It’s actually quite simple which is why it hurts so bad.  If your message appeals to people they will buy it, vote for it and spread it around.  A majority will form and you will be in control.  I still believe and support your right to free speech/free screech, even if your goal is to silence mine.

  Posted by U Scare Me on Apr 22, 2005 at 8:55 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 19 posts.

Also featured The Blogosphere: Insiders vs. Outsiders
Broadband Internet: Unhappily Ever After?
Union Stations

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Pat Aufderheide

• P.O.V.: A Home For Homeless Films
  P.O.V. is one of those occasional reminders that public broadcasting matters. Every… morePosted on June 17, 2008
• Apocalyptic Activism at Sundance
  The Sundance Film Festival is now the most important U.S. market for… morePosted on February 15, 2008
• Save the Dramatic Chipmunk
  When college kids make mashups of Hollywood movies, do they violate the… morePosted on January 18, 2008
• Is Wikipedia the New Town Hall?
  Public broadcasting everywhere is in crisis, and in part it's because technology… morePosted on March 12, 2007
• Sundance Docs 2006
  Have the marketplace successes of Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11) and Robert Greenwald… morePosted on February 17, 2006