#athabascau

         For the sake of this assignment, I went back to my Media Audience blog post and the critique I got in my evaluation. As it was early in the course and I was focused on making progress, I overlooked the deeper meaning in what I was writing as it pertained to the course. As per the tutor’s thoughts, I was missing the importance of my role as a prosumer in media. A prosumer is someone who can act as a consumer, producer and distributor of media rather than taking a position as being “passive receptacles of media” (Klein, 2017). I spend a fair share of time as an audience to film and feel very passionately about it, which drives me to write about my thoughts through apps like Letterboxd. I take the time to write my reviews, reference external influences of my thoughts, and promote the films that I believe people should see and enjoy. As a consumer, I pay for a subscription to this app that allows me aesthetic benefits and ad removal for my experience with the app and can imply a bit of prestige for other users who look through my account (Savage, 2014). Letterboxd then has my money to improve user experience and pay staff, but the data they collect from myself and all users is free to them and increases their profit as well.

A concern I outline in my blog post is the impact of targeted media and advertisements online that can lead to an echo chamber of ideologies and impact mental health as well. I focused on the internet in expressing my concern for audiences, but this extends further to traditional media and examples of media convergence as well. Gasher et al., (2016) touch on the anomaly of cultural products and how audiences are exposed to cultural products and hidden advertisements because those with a vested interest can control things like what is advertised, and the costs associated with them. This is important to my previous argument because similar to how people experience curated online, people have always chosen what shows, movies, newspapers and more that they invest their time into. For example, if someone is tuning into the same show each week, whether broadcasted or through streaming, they could be influenced by the intentions of those with vested interests over time. It sheds light on the importance of diverse programming and voices in media, to break up the penetration of single influences and ideologies.  

This ties into the important topic how media is regulated with the audience in mind, whether that be traditional media or new media. In a Canadian context, the CRTC has struggled at length with improving legislation as technology and media have rapidly evolved (Shtern & Blake, 2014). Not everyone agrees that the CRTC is always necessary in holding power over broadcasting and telecommunications, but that overlooks the impact of allowing media concentration (specifically vertical integration) to dominate the market more than it already does (Shtern & Blake, 2014). Despite the intervention of regulatory bodies, there are still many issues such as the “lack of ownership diversity, leading to a situation in which four major companies exercise considerable control over Canada’s broadcast and telecom systems” (Shtern & Blake, 2014, p. 94). This means that audience members have to exercise more critical thinking and consideration of the media they consume, but also that platforms online that allow diverse voices are more important than ever.

References:

Gasher, M., Skinner, D., Lorimer, R. (2016). Mass communication in a digital age. In Mass communication in Canada (8th ed.) (pp. 336–361). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Klein, R. (2017). CMNS 201. Introduction to Communication Studies. Study Guide. Edmonton: Athabasca University.

Savage, P. (2014). Audiences are key. In L. R. Shade (Ed.). Mediascapes: New patterns in Canadian communication (4th ed.), (pp. 127–149). Toronto, ON: Nelson Education

Klein (2017) explains how some scholars claim that "communication systems are based on profit-making and serve those in positions of power". This is aligned with how I feel about much of the media I consume, as I can often identify who may have influenced it without digging too deep. There are many obvious examples, such as product placements in film/television, repeated advertisements from Amazon in one sitting rather than more diverse commercials, and how the parties with the most money can spam the most political ads on Facebook, therefore influencing a bigger audience. When reading The Corporation by Joel Bakan (2004), I learned about how corporations manipulated holiday advertisements to target children into wearing their parents down to make purchases. But the most disturbing part of that chapter, was learning that corporations can start advertising through schools, by investing money into education and slowly influencing generations of consumers (Bakan, 2004).

I think about this a lot when I am consuming media, even something as simple as a new movie in the theatre. Who invested in the production of this film? Did they suggest cuts, or improvements, to drive a narrative they wish to promote onto our screens before the cameras even roll? I can't think of how many times I have seen a shocking headline only to find who published or sponsored the story, and realized the credibility was non-existent. Or to see a colourful, clean and appealing advertisement for clothes, appearing reputable and of quality, only to find in a few clicks that the brand is highly unethical and steals designs from minorities. I can't watch a movie, click an ad, read a story, or make a purchase without the knowledge that the more mainstream it is, the more unethical my consumption likely is. When my guard is down, how likely is it that those behind that specific media were just more successful in hiding their influence?

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Penguin Canada.

I am hyper aware of my media usage at all times. As previously explained in my first post, I am privy to thorough statistics of my film viewing habits through the Letterboxd app. For instance, I know that I've viewed around 2300 films in my lifetime, that I've only seen 166 Canadian films versus 1938 American films, and that this year I've spent 377 hours watching film. My phone tracks how much I spent active on it throughout the way and provides me updates when I have unusual habits (such as using my phone less). When I am speaking about needing a new product, or have googled something I might want, I am reminded through advertisements and recommendations on my devices. If I like horror movies, am politically aligned with the NDP, have a cat, and so on, the content I am an audience to reflects that. Netflix recommends horror films, my Twitter (or X) is left-leaning and my advertisements are for cat toys.

To expand on my previous blog post, this is where the concerns are with media becoming a perfectly curated echo-chamber for my lifestyle and beliefs. On one hand, this may be a positive for myself and my perceived intelligence, such as my ability to seek out what I believe is a bigger picture when I don't feel I'm seeing that. Whereas some people, people I know in my personal life, are berated with overwhelmingly negative, anxiety-inducing and very one-note content. For example, someone might be targeted by social media content exclusively about wars, tragedies, contentious debates and more. If they are to receive the same perspective over and over again, this can wear on their mental health and narrow their ability to see nuance in the content. I am very conscious of the fact that because this may not be the content I am receiving, this creates a disconnect between myself those people. I don't see their perspective, and how it has been formed, and they may not see mine either. We are both missing a piece of the puzzle and this boils down to algorithms.

When exploring this topic today, it's hard not to mention Bill C-18 and C-11. How media is presented to me, where it is accessed, and who controls it, is all relevant to the fact that I am Canadian. Bill C-18 was proposed a solution to low revenue in news organizations, however, it is my personal opinion that this was a doomed endeavour. Google and Meta are incentivized by profit, and have a lawful duty to be a profit-imperative organization for their shareholders. The Canadian government attempting to extract money from these organizations in exchange for our news, was not a mutually beneficial proposal. While these organizations continue to profit as they did before, Canadians are now without access to news on one of the biggest platforms in the world.

Gasher et al., explains that "media are the major means through which governments-- federal, provincial, and municipal-- communicate with residents and citizens" (2016, p. 4). In a time where poverty is on the rise, there is a housing crisis (something I am frequently affected by), and a healthcare crisis (my current line of work), convincing Canadians to vote can genuinely be life or death for some citizens. Some people are working double days and can't take time to watch news through the television, some can't even afford television. For myself, I work part time and am in full time university, which means I can struggle to seek out news in between reading textbooks and working in a very exhausting industry.

However, I am passionate about politics and the health of our nation, which is severely impacted by a lack of access to news through media right now. Furthermore, Bill C-11 is now proposing a change to what I can access from content creators and streaming (Pugh, 2023). While it addresses an important issue such as Bill C-18, there is present concern around how it diminishes our access to specially curated content. If Canadian content is promoted more frequently to us, it is less likely to be always relevant to our interests (Pugh, 2023). While diversity in media is necessary and there is great depth to a conversation around social media being echo-chamber, this can open Canadian creators to negative attention from frustrated users (Pugh, 2023). As a Canadian, I am very concerned about the future of accessing media and how it will impact many systems in our country.

Gasher, M., Skinner, D., & Lorimer, R. (2001). Defining the Field. In Mass communication in Canada (8th ed., pp. 2–31). essay, Oxford University Press.

Modern media has rapidly evolved throughout my lifetime, and how I use it religiously at twenty-five was unimaginable even a decade ago. A great example of media convergence that was even ahead of its time was a 2015 Norwegian drama called Skam (inspiring many iterations across different countries) that released scenes from an episode across each week, aligning the date of the scene with it's release time. A ten minute scene following the lead characters of the season taking place on a Friday afternoon, would be released at the corresponding time. Instagram accounts for each character would post updates following the timeline of the show, and reveal pieces of information that watching the episodes didn't provide. I awaited each release, completely unavailable in Canada, and relied on Norwegian viewers to upload the scenes into a Google Drive folder. To date, it has been the most immersive experience I've had with a tv show/film embracing media convergence.