Musings on "meaningful content"

I think the point of discussions in class is to make us think in new ways about old ideas or issues. If so, our first class has already succeeded. What it made me think about was how enormously complicated it is to measure information flow and media use, as well as to internalize why we measure these things in the first place. This may sound a bit confusing at first, so let me elaborate.

The studies by the Kaiser Foundation and Pew's well-respected annual reviews of media use are important indicators of how people use new and old communication technologies very generally. They are also used as one basis of many for numerous contentious arguments amongst the public and between some activist organizations on what types of media content are considered "legitimate," "good," "educational," and so on.

My initial response to these arguments has up to this point been that they should be of our main concern. Controlling media content, as far as I can tell, has never been a good idea in itself, what with the First Amendment and all. Coming from a background in the political economy of communications, I have been more interested in looking at who owns the media outlets, who pays the journalists, who employs the producers of news and entertainment shows, etc. I have even worked on a project to study whether corporate ownership in fact increases indecent media content on various outlets.

But today's discussion has really laid out some important aspects of the indecency debate to which media policy and political economy do not relate. These include the ways children choose to use the media that is available to them. Why choose certain content over others? Why are Myspace and Facebook so prominent? Yes, Merchants of Cool points out that there are actual individuals, companies studying how they can create products to advertise to young people, ultimately looking for ways they can profit off the creativity of youth. And that is definitely related to economics, to market forces, to the pressure for companies to compete through sales.

But the lines do blur when we think about what is or is not educational, informational, useful. Not only is it questionable why TV is singled out as more trashy and stupid than other media forms (as discussed in class), but one is also unsure about what portions of media content are creative and important. As I watch the CNN coverage of caucus after caucus after primary, I am struck by the lack of useful information that reporters are giving us about the candidates. It's just like any other trashy media content.

And what about what people consider to be entertainment? Who says reality TV in itself is bad, if it just distracts people from their lives for a little while?

(OK, I wholeheartedly disagree with the previous sentence. But others might not.)

But the point is, it is simply impossible to define what the public wants. I really wish I didn't have to feel this way, but I do. I think everyone has their own opinion of what public needs are, what is quality entertainment and news and what isn't, and when indecency and morality in media content isn't defined by corporations, it is defined by communist or dictatorial regimes.
Is there really a good way to measure these things?

The best way to go forward, I guess, is to try to figure out ways for people to become educated about their media system, media production, media content analysis, media policy, and then allow them (through stringent legislative means, if necessary) to have the ability to create media content that expresses their own viewpoints. If it's about trash, let it be. As long as it's personal, it means something.

I may change my mind about all this tomorrow.