Media is Much More Complicated Than You Might Think

by Ryan Wasson

Media is a concept we don't often think about, yet we experience it virtually every day. Almost everyone now has a phone, and as TV seems to be trending downward, (at least from what I have seen and heard) our media consumption has changed over time. But the devices we use to view media have changed as well. But the concept of media gets much more complicated than a New York Times article on a phone.

I recently read a scholarly article published by Ralph Schroeder, a professor at the University of Oxford. In the article, Schroeder gives a brief history of where media started and how it has grown to the levels it is today. Schroeder said that the reach that media has connects to three different kinds of people groups or “publics” as Schroeder called them: politics, economics, and culture. When broken down, politics focuses on news and civic engagement, economics keys in on media consumption and advertising, while culture focuses on entertainment and leisure (Schroeder, 2019).

I learned that media has evolved, according to Schroeder, from its main function of new and political participation to the ever-present role it now has in our lives. In one sense, referring back to media’s use in politics, Schroeder argued the main uses of media here are zero sum, meaning one side wins while the other loses. While Schroeder said there are multiple perspectives to this, this is the main function of media in relation to politics along with looking to gain the most attention in the public sphere to set any kind of agenda (Schroeder, 2019). I find that enlightening, since this helps explain to me why certain issues are considered for debate by politicians and moderators while others are cast aside.

Schroeder focuses on discussing some of the issues of media research as well. While much is known about media, a majority of the research, Schroeder said, is centered on North America and Europe. Schroeder said that this scope of research is too narrow and that comparing media across different time periods and parts of the world may provide more information. I think this is a great idea considering mobile technology is not exclusive to the United States by any means. Many countries have been involved in mobile technology over the years and delving into their history may uncover new findings. At least it gives respect to those outside the U.S. and Europe that have made advancements in mobile technology.

Some of the focus internationally in media research has looked at how nations have adopted mobile technology in recent years. Schroeder said that in places like India and China, mobile and smartphones are being adopted but how they will be used differs on governmental structure within these nations. Schroeder said the main contrast between these two nations and their use of mobile technology comes in the freedom India gives through being a democracy while China, being a communist nation holds a firm grip over control of media. Being a U.S. citizen in a free country, having personal freedom to do whatever I want with my phone is something I am grateful for. I am interested in seeing what develops, should media use continue to grow in communist countries like China and Cuba.

Schroeder touches on some ideas of how media could and is affecting different types of government around the world. In democracy, he focuses on the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump was elected president; sparking concerns of the use of social media in how disinformation can be spread, which “contribute to the corrosion of democracy,” (Schroeder, 2019). Within a communist nation like China, Schroeder said China is now being seen as a rising force in the media that counters media from western nations. I think, while media has its benefits, power is something many crave, and media control gives those in power an outlet to control what messages they want their people to hear. In the case of misinformation and disinformation, I believe the job is two-fold between media companies to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation as well as an educated public to consider what they are viewing and to confirm information with multiple reliable sources.

Schroeder makes an interesting point when he talks about how modern media today has become so intertwined in our daily lives that it becomes invisible up until there is a problem in the system. I think he's absolutely right. Schroeder refers to concepts like “net neutrality” (which refers to whether or not all or selective parts of data need to be tracked or if charges should be applied) and addiction to phones. While these are valid points, and issues that are frequently thought about and discussed, unless there is widespread support to address issues like these in whatever way that might be, these processes will become invisible to us, much to Schroeder’s point, regardless of how advanced mobile technology becomes.

The last point I thought would be interesting to discuss from Schroeder comes from how people have been affected by their interactions online, otherwise known as mediated communication. According to Schroeder’s findings, the use of a telephone and mobile phone have not substantially transformed people’s lives. In fact, in both cases, people became closer socially and the closer people are on their mobile devices, the closer they are geographically (Schroeder, 2019). This is something that, in my personal experience, I both agree and disagree with. I believe in using my phone, my connections have been consistent, if not deeper, with my family and closest friends. But, with many newer friends I have, as well as some older friends I contact every now and then, I haven't exactly felt closer to them through the use of a phone. I would argue that I feel closer to these people through face-to-face interactions as opposed to staying in contact online.