The song remains the same (Ian Costello)

Throughout the history of media we see a steady trend towards monopolistic entities. Indeed it is the endgame for all businesses, a utopian vision that as post-modernism assures will never come to pass. This is no deterrent to their efforts though and it is this “motive force” that Ayn Rand swoons over. At times it has been very much a matter of dominating in terms of a technical innovation. Such as in the case of Microsoft and Bell. But in the past 70 years there has been a slow and silent takeover by a few media giants.

If knowledge is power they are omniscient. The study of 20^th and early 21^st century history is the history of media dissemination. Famed and illustrious scholar Marshall Mcluhan put it best with his famous words /lecture“the media is the message”(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImaH51F4HBw). I repose now for a moment to ponder; to what extent did those early men of media business understand the implications of the industry they were creating? I remember an excerpt from an interview with former vice president of Pepsi Co. Alan Pottasch in which recounting his early days working in broadcast, after editing and preparing that evening's boxing match, would go to a nearby pub to bet on the outcome (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/02/local/me-pottasch2). This perhaps most fundamentally describes the power. The newtonian vision of anticipating all future events through an understanding of their trajectory.

This power, through standard business practices, is now nearly entirely centralized. For all intents and purposes a “handful” of entities is one singular economy of internal give and take. So we may as well dub it centralized. Furthermore it is not that the trajectory is understood fundamentally, enough so that it can be further predicted, but rather that it is designed with a critical agenda dictated by the “bottom line”.

Disturbingly enough at this point my afore mentioned comparison of newtonian mechanics to a power seems to fall short. The reality is far more organic. The nature of the content delivered does not itself dictate entirely the “image” of reality we begin to accept, and purchase in accordance with, but rather market research and careful data analysis (becoming ever more diverse and specialized in the era of information technology) becomes a self regulating ecosystem of consumerism. This is essentially the prescription given by Guy Debord in “Society of the Spectacle”.

The problem with the images handed down by the media power structure is their inherent inaccuracy, and unbalanced representation of minorities. My prayer is that given information technology the many niche populations and producers can find each other and the necessity of “major” media avenues will dwindle. The inherent laws of supply and demand can then run their course and change the edifice of media as we know it.

This will not however solve two immediate issues. The first being the raw real estate controlled by media giants that permits them unbridled influence. Think times square, think about all the advertising on every highway in America. We are interminably relegated to be an audience with no real choice to change this other than ostracizing ourselves permanently from society. The second being that access to the internet is relegated in essence by the same powers that produce the content that is so heavily critiqued, so in essence even if through using techniques of the “smart grid” to ensure only the essential programming and content for each individual the proverbial means of production still rest in the hands of the few. Not in the sense of producing content, but distribution and infrastructure that allows this content to arrive to continue and be relevant. Both instances reveal that the power structure will not change, and that user/audience appeasement would just be a requisite for the continued increase of capital.  It is still an issue of "technical" dominance.

Ian Costello