Thursday, May 10, 2012

Media and the "Illusion of Choice"

Check out this info graphic from Frugal Dad about who owns our media. Remember that media is a pervasive force that helps shape the way we view reality. The average teen consumes 10 hours and 45 minutes of media a day (pdf). The fact that so few companies are in control of this media means that we're not really getting diverse messages. How can we ensure that the media we consume demonstrates multiple viewpoints? How can we avoid falling into a media tunnel? 


Source: Frugal dad


7 comments:

  1. This is terrifying to me. MissRepresentation also did a great job explaining how these mergers developed and how it affects (basically) all that we see, hear, read, and believe (?) now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know! I want to be optimistic about the internet providing more diverse outlets for expression, but sometimes I think I'm just being naively idealistic.

      Delete
  2. Can we stop a minute and unpick this "10h45m" claim, which I've seen a few times now?

    Presumably it's from this KFF study:
    http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia012010nr.cfm

    I find the results of the survey extremely hard to believe; perhaps I'm too old (or not old enough to have kids yet...)

    * Firstly, the "10h45" figure is "10h45 of media products consumed but really only actually in 7h30 in elapsed time" i.e. kids are listening to music while surfing the internet. How much of the rest of the media consumption is done in similar "I'm-not-really-paying-attention-to-it" ways? That's not clear.

    * Second, the study is based on self-reported questionnaires from a sample of ~2000 respondents. ~700 media diaries were completed by volunteers; this is not a valid randomized sample (and to their credit they know this and therefore *don't* use the diaries to normalize teens' *actual* media use versus their reported use). How reliable is self-reporting in this field? Aren't children notoriously bad at estimating time?

    * An hour and a half sending texts, every single day? Really? And that's on top of the 7h30 of media use? The average kid can't be sleeping or eating much.

    * 1h30 is attributed to "computer" -- how much of this is actually media consumption? According to the report this includes such non-"media" tasks as "doing graphics". If kids have any sort of hobby that requires any computer use (i.e. any of them) that's counted in here.

    * Again, a point of personal disbelief more than anything: 4h30 of TV?? Every day?? Don't these kids have any Lego at all??

    I'm not particularly attacking the study or your use of the number, but I think just quoting "10h45" without any caveats or a link to the study risks propagating a statistic that is really more nuanced than a single headline figure suggests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some really valid points, and I do think it's worth questioning how valid this figure is. As far as the method of collection, I don't think there's really any accurate way to get these numbers. Self-reporting seems like the only way that wouldn't create a false environment, but I definitely understand why we should be skeptical of it. I wanted to share my thoughts on a few of your other concerns, though this is really more of a "looking at it from a different angle" than "you're wrong" because I do think that all of your points are valuable concerns (and I added the link to the study in the post, which I had read in its entirety before this, but hadn't thought to include here--maybe because the number's now getting thrown around so often, and you're right that we should always question where stats like that come from).


      * Firstly, the "10h45" figure is "10h45 of media products consumed but really only actually in 7h30 in elapsed time" i.e. kids are listening to music while surfing the internet. How much of the rest of the media consumption is done in similar "I'm-not-really-paying-attention-to-it" ways? That's not clear.

      -For me, this is the problem! If I knew kids were spending 10h45m of analytical, critical consumption of media, I wouldn't be as worried. But if they're spending that much time (or even 7h30m), then I find it VERY hard to believe they're taking the time to consume critically. The fact that they are "multitasking" further suggests to me that they are just being passive receptors for the media messages, and--in my opinion--that's the main problem.

      * An hour and a half sending texts, every single day? Really? And that's on top of the 7h30 of media use? The average kid can't be sleeping or eating much.

      -I know this is anecdotal, but I completely believe this number. My little brother is 16, and he has his phone with him ALL OF THE TIME. He texts in the middle of real-life conversations, he texts his girlfriend WHILE SHE'S SITTING NEXT TO HIM. So, as far as eating, I think they're texting during meals. They may even be texting in their sleep ;) (I'm kidding, mostly). That number doesn't seem off to me at all.


      * Again, a point of personal disbelief more than anything: 4h30 of TV?? Every day?? Don't these kids have any Lego at all??

      -This is another one that I have no trouble believing. We don't turn the TV on that often in my house. There are days where it doesn't come on at all, but in my mother's house (where my teen brother lives) it is literally always on--often overnight. This is true of a lot of houses I've been to. So, no, maybe teens aren't actively sitting in front of the TV contemplating every moment of 4h30m of programming a day, but I absolutely believe many are exposed to that much. And--as I mentioned above--it's those passively consumed messages that worry me the most.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your response! A couple of points:

      * These numbers are an average. If some kids are playing video games all night every night -- as I know I had a good go at as a child! -- there are other kids racking the TV hours up to make up the average. If you get home from school at 4 and go to bed at 9 then the 4h30 of TV is pretty much this entire time. *Every* night. I really don't believe that's true. When do they fit the other 3h in?

      * Also, as you allude to, there's a variance in both quality of engagement and "media-ness" ; I submit that listening to that bloody Adele song AGAIN, whether you're paying attention or not, is qualitatively different to watching a TV ad break even though they take about the same time. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that media exposure maybe doesn't correlate that well with the number of hours of media consumed -- watching a movie is probably less "media-y" in total than the ad breaks, IMO, in terms of net cultural influence. Perhaps that's just me.

      Delete
  3. To get back on-topic, $272bn may be greater than Finland's (population: ~5m, less than NYC but more than LA), but it is only 1.8% of US GDP ($15,500bn).

    What I find extraordinary is how powerful a bunch of people who, really, control only a tiny fraction of US spending have become.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think that means that consumers still have the power if they want it?

      Delete