Back in the 1980's when I was a wee lad, there was a program on NYC public access TV produced by Paper Tiger Television. They would examine a media institution like the NY Times and reveal it's ownership and management structure down to the board members and their own leanings - left or right. Here's what the TV Museum says about them:
"In 1981, the Paper Tiger Television Collective formed--a changing group of people that came together to produce cable programming for the public access channel in New York City. Drawing upon the traditions of radical video, Paper Tiger Television invented its own home-grown studio aesthetic using rather modest resources to make revolutionary television. Many of Paper Tiger's half-hour programs are live studio "events," faintly reminiscent of 1960s video "happenings." The show's hosts are articulate critics of mainstream American media who examine the corporate ownership, hidden agendas, and information biases of the communications industry via the media in all of their forms."
Now, we need the same thing. Not just a broad knowledge of how Wikipedia works (and Encyclopedia Brittanica) so we know what kind of trust to bestow upon it, but the new emergent Web 2.0 landscape. We all know Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace (and we seem to be okay with that). What about Facebook?
This video from Vishal Agarwala looks at the VC trail behind Facebook along with the terms of use statements to paint a pretty suspicious picture. Should we be worried? And who is Vishal and what is her agenda? She seems to be a Use Interface designer in Florida. The video has had almost 40,000 views up until now. It seems to be driven by information discussed in 2005 within the CommonGroundCommonSense progressive community. Okay but who are they? (I hate it when sites that have a clear agenda don't have an about us page that names names - makes me wonder)
Even if I presume the information is all true and accurate, I am not sure if there is enough to draw a significant conclusion. In the incestuous world of VCs, someone involved in government-driven venture capital is invested in Facebook?
Paper Tiger had a track record or built one. And they associated with some of the better known critics of that generation. That gave them credibility. Without that, this well-produced video is just a shot in the dark.
I can't help but feel these conspiracy theorists belong in the same category as the 9/11 Truthers.
Posted by: Michael Allison | July 14, 2007 at 03:45 PM
Being media literate means being able to apply critical thinking skills to your "consumption" of the media and recognizing that information is created by individuals and institutions whose self interests impact the message. Although it's an effective way of illustrating the idea of self interest, knowing who owns the media is just one aspect of media literacy.
In the 90's (when I wore a Paper Tiger Camcorder Commando t-shirt), pointing your finger at General Electric or Disney every time Mark Crispin Miller came out with a new media ownership chart in The Nation was EASY.
I think the new demands of media literacy are less about knowing that Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News AND MySpace and more about being able to tell the difference between the companies that are truly embracing the Web 2.0 ethos by being transparent and allowing the customer in and those that are slapping "blogs" on their company sites and setting up MySpace profiles that they abandon in a month when they realize no one wants to be friends with a tube of toothpaste.
Posted by: Alison Byrne Fields | July 14, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Media literacy is a skill that folks of all ages would benefit from using.
Beyond knowing who owns the platforms where Web users congregate and converse using social media, we need to understand how spin delivered in all media affects our perception of what is said versus the actual situation and why there are disconnects between perception and reality.
Strong critical thinking skills prepare media consumers to ask the specific questions necessary to draw objective conclusions about the credibility of information received via communication of all types.
Consumers of information should understand where and why messages originate, what they were designed to do, and why, which requires examination of where potential benefit from advocating a given point of view might lie.
"Following the money" very often adds valuable information to this process of determining the credibility of each item in the daily deluge of messages delivered via media of all types.
Fortunately, there are sites that provide excellent resources for educators interested in media literacy curriculum and competence for their students. Find my favorite Media Literacy education links at http://del.icio.us/sheywood/media.literacy
Posted by: Susan F. Heywood | July 15, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Essentially, the movie and the article that preceded it is sloppy detective work. That hint at something but never make their case.
Posted by: John Bell | July 22, 2007 at 02:17 PM