Nothing very profound really. Just that sometimes because you can do something it doesn't necessarily follow you should do something. Of course it is entirely understandable that the media have leapt to use these tools (twitter / text commentary) not because they offer additional information, but rather because they tick the big box labelled "interaction". Obviously it's not real interaction. Rather these constant appeals for texts or emails are designed to cast the viewer or reader in the role of a virtual Greek chorus, to be called upon to laugh or wail at the appropriate moment. It doesn't add anything, beyond texture. And why would it? All the public can bring are opinions. But this conceit allows the media to claim that they are "reaching out", that they are "interacting" with their audience. And they are, but in a way that has been contrived to keep the audience at a safe distance, disconnected from any real influence. Email the studio? Text the presenter? Like they really give a fuck what you think. They are in charge. Not you.
Now you might think that, even by my standards, this is fairly cynical. And I suppose it is. But then I think about the "news" programme Sky News show on week nights at 7 pm. If you want the prime example of how the mainstream media views the idea of "interaction" and it's role then I suggest you tune in. The concept for the show (as it is) is that they use the internet to drive the content for the programme. It sets the agenda. Which, when you think about it, doesn't sound too bad. But they don't do this. It seems to me that this programme is entirely contrived so that Sky set the news agenda, while at the same time allowing them to protest the contrary. Once you strip away the usual mix of the "funny" and the "quirky" (Two words that should never appear in an news programme. Unless of course the presenter has been beaten to death by someone brandishing a sign emblazened with these two words) you are left with something much less mundane. And something altogether more cynical. They claim that the agenda for the programme is set not by the stories importance, but by the number of people who click on the story on the Sky News website. They even have a "top 5 most clicked". And "big deal" says you. But the point is that Sky get to pick the stories that appear on it's website. Despite the claims that it's a virtual free-for-all it isn't. Only clicks on the Sky News site count. Which is rather like those fecking award things where you can only select from an already preselected and filtered list. And lo the Greek chorus is called upon again. To click the video. To show the surfing dog. And you feel empowered by doing so. Sky (and the rest) are listening to me, and people like me.
And of course they are. After all that's what being "interactive" is all about.
To say this is unbelievable tells half the story. It's unbelievable the way that "only" the entirely predictable can be. Of course this whole approach raises some fairly fundamental questions. Does Osama Bin Laden, for example, sit pondering in his cave, worried that his latest statement has only entered the Sky Top 5 at number 2, behind the tennis playing Duck at number 1? (Perhaps if he'd plugged it on the Jonathan Ross show. Or got his arse into gear and appeared on Loose Women or that fucking loathsome Titchmarsh thing). And of course I'm exaggerating, but at it's core there is something thoroughly worrying. Sky (and the rest) are just, for all their bold claims to the contrary, trying to drive you to their website. They don't care what you think, The whole "interaction" thing the media crow about is window dressing, allowing you to believe that you've contributed something of value to the debate. That you've somehow been "engaged". When the reality is that all you are is a click through, to be totalled up, collated and used to sell advertising space.
Interactive? I think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment