So no-one feels left out, I’ll just explain the joke:
This week, I’ve been asked to look into the speech of James Murdoch in 2009 on the digital age.
Firstly, I’ve been asked to to clearly define the point of the speech. Quite simply, it was there to inform people about convergent media and how all platforms of media consumerism are merging into one giant online platform. However, the bourgeoisie are trying to stop the convergence in it’s entirety in order to prevent the masses becoming too strong – they want to keep markets separate so that businesses can continue to reinforce ‘spectacle’ and the society of thereof. He says it is an archaic way of thinking, and is only there to keep the rich in power, and proletariat without. He concludes that independent media is the way forward, but will only be achieved if it benefits the society. This notion will only happen if the the society agrees to make it happen – a similar conclusion to my essay; nobody can accurately predict the future, so the society simply has to hold the firm belief that promoting convergent media can’t make the state any worse.
This speech of course relates to Power and Spectacle, and also incorporates pieces of Memory as well, from the old ways of thinking of separate media markets, to Darwinism. The emphasis however was not on the past or future, but on the present situation.
Key quotes that support the above analysis are as follows:
“This all sounds like a dynamic, exciting, thriving sector to be part of.Moving faster, being more interconnected, expanding its scope. And in some ways it is.
But the present is not as great as we tell ourselves.
You don’t need to scratch the surface very hard to see that opportunities for media businesses are limited, investment and innovation are constrained, and creativity is reduced.
This is bad for customers and society.”
“Tonight I will argue that while creationism may provide a comfortable illusion of certainty in the short-term, its harmful effects are real and they are significant.”
“Is this creationism good for investment? No. A heavily regulated environment with a large public sector crowds the opportunity for profit, hinders the creation of new jobs, and dampens innovation in our sector.”
“Indeed, the defining characteristic of the UK broadcasting consensus is the absence of trust.”
“There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.
The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.”
So put simply – creativity will make the market more diverse, and is the natural progression of the media industry, now being hindered by old-fashioned modes of capitalist thought. Do I agree?
I agree capitalism is an archaic way of thinking, yes. I agree with the conclusion that the society will only better itself if the society profits from it. However, therein is the juxtaposition – of society only cares about profit and benefits for it’s own gain as opposed to the gain of the government, doesn’t that make the ideologies of capitalism reinforced? Society must want to change for the benefit of the society, but not necessarily for profit directly. Profit can promote change, yes, but the true incentive surely lies in a context much deeper than that of money. Profit is part of a capitalist dialect – a society wanting to end capitalism so poor people can make more money is like saying you want peace in Iraq so that America can safely invade without incident.