The Print, The TV, The Radio and The Internet
I always thought that there was a media war of a different kind going on in America, but I wasn't sure how to conceptualize it until I saw this story by Media Matters. Apparently Bill O'Reilly is attacking the print media. Normally he rants are either red meat for his fan base or outright biased propaganda, but this time I think there's and underlining motive.
Print media has always involved (if not encouraged) feedback from it's audience, but response time is really slow. Plus people have to actually read the story, and reading isn't as big a pastime as it used to be. You also have to take the writer's stance at face value (unless you want to read something else to confirm or deny their opinion). And traditionally, there's research involved.
TV media is 98% a one-way street: they tell you things, and you shut up and listen. You can reply, but in TV feedback is filtered out and edited more. So a one-page rebuttal can appear as a two-sentence soundbite. Plus there's the visual: if the person giving the news looks cool or attractive, they're going to be more believable. Sad, but true. Of course, this setup is ideal for people who want the media to control (not inform) the masses.
Radio media is essentially print media with personality. Looks don't matter much, but a voice and a quick wit (at least for radio personalities) is often key. Feedback is better than print and TV because the audience can write-in and call-in. Thing is, radio always seem to work on a faster pace, so sound bites are very important.
Lastly, there is the online media. The good news is that anyone with a computer and internet access can join in. The bad news is anyone with a computer and internet access can join in. So people have to be careful with things like "the truth" and "plagiarism." Feedback is lightening quick, but online you can control whether that feedback is even recorded. It involves reading, writing and basic knowledge of computers, which can create a generation gap.
Now if were someone like O'Reilly, TV media and radio media would be my haven. I could say what I want for as long as I'm allowed and if I don't want to hear any backtalk I can ignore or alter it as it comes in. I would get voice and face recognition. I would get clips and soundbites.
Of course, I can see how O'Reilly would hate the print and online media. Both require some kind of research and/or verification before it can be accepted. There's more feedback involved, and if you don't like responding to feedback (especially negative feedback) you don't want to get involved in these forms of media. And while I freely admit that I don't have stats to support this, my gut tells me that people in the print and online media (compared to TV and radio) are more likely to have an stronger academic background (whereas the other two forms probably have people with a stronger entertainment background). I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, I can see where this is going. Print and online media doesn't come off as manipulative, and it's contributors aren't always obligated to any group or organization. So their danger lies in their independence. I suspect TV news (particularly cable news) will continue their assault on the online media (especially blogs, which aren't always media-influenced) and the print media. I think the AM/FM radio people will get more hostile towards the XM crowd. Time will tell whether the "revolution" will be televised, blogged, published or broadcasted.
Print media has always involved (if not encouraged) feedback from it's audience, but response time is really slow. Plus people have to actually read the story, and reading isn't as big a pastime as it used to be. You also have to take the writer's stance at face value (unless you want to read something else to confirm or deny their opinion). And traditionally, there's research involved.
TV media is 98% a one-way street: they tell you things, and you shut up and listen. You can reply, but in TV feedback is filtered out and edited more. So a one-page rebuttal can appear as a two-sentence soundbite. Plus there's the visual: if the person giving the news looks cool or attractive, they're going to be more believable. Sad, but true. Of course, this setup is ideal for people who want the media to control (not inform) the masses.
Radio media is essentially print media with personality. Looks don't matter much, but a voice and a quick wit (at least for radio personalities) is often key. Feedback is better than print and TV because the audience can write-in and call-in. Thing is, radio always seem to work on a faster pace, so sound bites are very important.
Lastly, there is the online media. The good news is that anyone with a computer and internet access can join in. The bad news is anyone with a computer and internet access can join in. So people have to be careful with things like "the truth" and "plagiarism." Feedback is lightening quick, but online you can control whether that feedback is even recorded. It involves reading, writing and basic knowledge of computers, which can create a generation gap.
Now if were someone like O'Reilly, TV media and radio media would be my haven. I could say what I want for as long as I'm allowed and if I don't want to hear any backtalk I can ignore or alter it as it comes in. I would get voice and face recognition. I would get clips and soundbites.
Of course, I can see how O'Reilly would hate the print and online media. Both require some kind of research and/or verification before it can be accepted. There's more feedback involved, and if you don't like responding to feedback (especially negative feedback) you don't want to get involved in these forms of media. And while I freely admit that I don't have stats to support this, my gut tells me that people in the print and online media (compared to TV and radio) are more likely to have an stronger academic background (whereas the other two forms probably have people with a stronger entertainment background). I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, I can see where this is going. Print and online media doesn't come off as manipulative, and it's contributors aren't always obligated to any group or organization. So their danger lies in their independence. I suspect TV news (particularly cable news) will continue their assault on the online media (especially blogs, which aren't always media-influenced) and the print media. I think the AM/FM radio people will get more hostile towards the XM crowd. Time will tell whether the "revolution" will be televised, blogged, published or broadcasted.
Comments