MSM vs. New Media

Is there a difference between MSM and New Media? This question, I believe, was the underlying one in the 2003 debate between the 5 commisioners of the FCC over media ownership. According to the chief commissioner, Michael Powell, there really is no difference between MSM and New Media, and the kind of information and the way it is reported in over the Internet and blogs, etc, will rival the MSM and needs to be "regulated" by deregulating the ownership laws. He claimed that if nothing were to be done to help the MSM companies grow, they would fall by the wayside in this new media age.

His opponents, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, would argue and say that the two are vastly different and if the bar was let down further to allow the MSM companies to grow bigger, they would take over all the minor broadcasting comapnies that sent signals through television, thereby depriving the local viewership of vital information concerning their locales through a non-biased medium. How are MSM and New Media different? For one, accessability. There is so much information on the Internet that McChesney does well in terming it a "bottomless well of information". From one's very own home one can access newspapers from around the world in any major language. This is markedly different than second-hand MSM news, ostensibly people would opt for the Internet thereby validating Powell's stance. To further seem to validate his stance, one would think that New Media offers something that MSM could rarely provide - instant dialogue and engagement. For instance, if you read something on a blog that you disapproved of, you could, with the mere click of a button, issue a public response denouncing the publisher. This is seemingly the way to go.

However, as McChesney points out, research has shown that the MSM profit had in fact increased from 1996 (the year of the Telecommunications Act to deregulate media ownership) to 2003 - undermining the whole thrust of Powell's claim that the MSM corporations are in dire stress and are will go under if something is not done. Perhaps this can be explained in light of the above assumptions, that while the Internet is a bottomless well of information, and may even be a replacement of MSM, that is not what the people are comfortable with. McChesney points out that there is a economical concept called "bandwagon effects (pg. 216)", where "technology will grow in value as more people use it until it monopolizes the the field over even superior rivals (ibid)." Such is the case, I believe, with the Internet vs. MSM. People have grow so accustomed to MSM, that it would be very difficult to convince them of its obsoleteness. Let's be honest, TV lets you become more knowledgable by remaining lazy. It great, and people love it. The Internet and New Media, on the other hand, require people to be active. Another downside of the New Media is it's amount of material, and with that, the harder the choice for the individual user. With MSM, there are only a few channels on the non-cable networks, and the MSM would be in big trouble without those, for they are the real moneymakers. As they admit themselves: that it is impossible to make a profit by solely running a cable TV network.

In 2003, the political activists among the American people came out and spoke up with great numbers against the decision that would hand over greater amounts of money and power to the big media corporations. Michael Powell said in a futile effort, that his followers are the happy guys in the fraternaties just sitting back with their beer enjoying the TV as they know it. At the end of the day however, money talks... except hopefully, in a democracy, like this one.