Essay - "Mass Media, the Internet, and
the Modern Consumer" - October, 1997
By Colin Miller
It is, indeed, an interesting time, this age of information. As we
witness a complete change in the nature of mass communication, the ripples expand from
millions of points. Some of these ripples fade, dispersing as minor vibrations. Others,
however, coincident in direction, raise implications like a breaking Tsunami. Until very
recently, the consumer of information relied mostly on mass media, as opposed to
interactive means. It is not called mass media because it is directed towards the
"simple masses" like one might think of the tabloid press. It's name, mass,
refers to a format based on mass consumption. Information travels one way, packaged like
any other Twinkie, formatted uniformly regardless of the user. In this sense, a classic
novel is no different than a periodical or daily paper. That's old news, so to speak, but
now it's getting truly engaging. We are at a span in literary history where mass media is
falling to the worldwide interactive flow of information. The tide is finally coming in on
a regular basis, and some sandcastles are about to fall.
Mass Media, by its nature, allows its producers to comment without questions and state as
fact without support. The consumer may protest by refusing to buy that publication. The
consumer may disagree, add to, or question further in the form of a letter to the editor.
If the format encourages a controlled dialogue (has a letters to the editor section), and
the editor chooses to publish that letter, the individual may see public satisfaction
within a couple months. Even so, very rarely does a reader's letter elicit the same
attention as a featured article. In the end, though, control lies with the producer of the
publication, as does the last word. It is, after all, their product. Traditionally,
because individuals knowledgeable, or even interested in a topic were difficult to locate,
to find differing opinions from other sources, one had to search it out. One could either
invest time at the library, money at the bookstore, or hope to come across a special on
public television.
If someone desired to impart his/her own information to the same audience, they would have
to publish themselves or find someone willing to publish their ideas, work to distribute
that publication, and somehow promote it so that others would read it. It costs a lot of
money, and takes a lot of time. Publishing in print in order to raise your voice to a
specific audience is not conducive to a free exchange of ideas. In publications that claim
to make unbiased and educated reviews of equipment which might constitute a substantial
economical investment, this has serious implications.
Reviewers and editors of audio and video publications carry an assumed authority as
experts. They do, to be fair, have more experience with a variety of equipment than the
average enthusiast does. Particular magazines will vary in practice, but the position
established by the nature of mass media provides an extreme potential for abuse. Scholarly
journals and trade magazines do have a great deal of peer review, but writers for
publications intended for the "average" (read less knowledgeable) consumer may
assert speculation or hearsay as technical fact without fear of embarrassing rebuttal.
Individuals without the least amount of understanding, let alone training, can comment on
the workings of the latest, or even the most conventional technology wearing a guise of
authority, with only their editor to answer to. In some cases, the editor, technical or
not, may not be qualified to make decisions about what is truthful and responsible to
print, yet still not defer the decision to someone better suited. Some editors might even
be extremely qualified, but also have an agenda as it relates to advertisers.
Although many very good publications address subjective and objective issues, others may
spread false rumors, or utter misinformation with what, on the surface, appears to carry
equal validity. If one doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the workings of
discussed material, it proves difficult to weed out the garbage from the cabbage. For
those publishers with false pretense, or a simple lack of understanding, mass media is a
nice machine indeed. Enter the trusty, rusty wrench, center stage. (Now the matching
center channel really pays off. Just listen to that grinding!)
On our beloved Internet, information, free for the most part, has many sources, and
depending on the forum, may undergo a vast amount of scrutiny with minimal effort from all
parties involved. Not to say that there isn't misinformation in abundance, but the
opportunity to cross-reference that information with other sources provides a
significantly enhanced ability to sift through opinions and possible fact so that we can
decide what may be considered more or less believable. It allows us to find answers that
are sometimes more or less complex than expected, but perhaps more reliable as a whole
because the answers which survive have done so under the trials of differing opinions, and
occasionally chunks of hard evidence. Even though the mass media does not always directly
participate in this process, it is discussed, and the content put forth often refuted as
well as supported. Because of this, reviewers have had, as of late, a much more difficult
time making unsubstantiated claims without risking their credibility, as the readers now
have public forums to discuss specific topics among those more knowledgeable. I believe
it's about time. Hopefully some good will come of it. And where does it leave the
audio/video "rag?"
These "rags", referring to the less reputable and most guilty offenders, will
have to adapt, or hope to appeal to the shrinking demographic groups with enough
discretionary income to buy audio/video equipment and attract advertisers with no Internet
access. If somebody makes a technical statement that flies in the face of well understood
physical properties, they're going to have a heck of a time backing it up, especially
since many technically competent people have computers, and with them the means to
traverse our electronic universe. It is truly a brave new world. A bit scary, but perhaps
all the more useful to those who might fall victim to self-serving and self-appointed
authorities who comment on the most esoteric without understanding the most conventional.
Reviewers, their editors, and consequently, publishers themselves must take responsibility
for the work they publish, or suffer the aftermath of their actions.
That's not to imply that every journalist must take pains to think like some
equation-spitting robot. (Sadly, I know of at least one prominent school of journalism
that encourages just such training, right down to vocabulary.) Although objective analysis
always lends more substance to the pot, subjective evaluations will always play a part in
any kind of interesting work. The most personally rewarding media imparts an experience,
as well as information. The best incorporates both into a complementary entity. A list of
technical information may prove interesting for those inclined toward engineering, but for
most of us, by itself, it's pretty boring. It's really hard to reap any entertainment
value from an audio magazine that thoroughly measures a product and then simply repeats,
"Yes, it's pretty much the same thing as the last thing we reviewed, according to our
tests. Here are the obscure measurements that you can't understand without an engineering
background with no explanation as to their relevancy." If you're an engineer, it very
well might be fascinating, perhaps. Even so, most of us aren't (fascinated).
Measurements are good, as is factual understanding, but overwhelming the reader with
numbers and concepts does not facilitate comprehension. It's not very much fun either. The
material must be personable and entertaining for the targeted reader also, which makes the
responsible reviewer's job pretty daunting. To express a subjective, perhaps even an
emotional experience, while refraining from characterizing features by such vague and
undescriptive lingo as "pace", is indeed difficult. Let's face it. Most
reviewers are quite enthusiastic about their equipment. They should be, and it is very
possible to get carried away. It's also easy to play it safe and avoid controversy by not
commenting on sonic attributes and personal reactions, instead seeking guidance from the
book reports sixth grade drove through our life so thoroughly. A good reviewer, a reviewer
worth the time to read his or her work, must balance these objective measurements with
personal experience, hopefully even relating the two, while taking pains not to
misrepresent a product as something that it isn't. It does not serve the reader to have a
reviewer exaggerate sonic differences if, by every measurement, those differences may be
truly minimal. Nor does it serve the reader to have reviewers ignore differences that
might be relevant.
It seems like an impossible task to satisfy the entire spectrum of demands placed on the
reviewer striving for absolutely responsible and entirely factual creation. In truth, it
is impossible. Nobody can be an expert in all fields of any topic, as the implications of
any topic extend to other topics. Possibly, the most important thing I learned in school
was that many experts knew very little about information that their field did not directly
address, even though that information might carry great relevance regarding their
specialty. They never stopped to wonder because they thought they knew pretty much all of
it. Psychologists were an interesting bunch. (Engineers were "interesting" also,
but usually in stranger, personal ways.) Of course, there were the neuroscientists who
knew the nooks and crannies of neural pathways, the social psychologists who had barely
predictive models which really sometimes bordered on sociology, and the clinical
psychologists who could label an individual with a number of personality disorders.
Psychology intrigued me because of how much it really needed (needs) expanding on. Each
academician had insights into particulars of their areas of a field which usually
contained a vast range of ideas even within specific topics, some more supportable than
others. None of them knew the entire picture, and so spoke about what they did know, or
believed to be true, and the better professors encouraged discussion even if outside of
their area of expertise so long as not to purely speculate.
Similarly, hi-fi reviewers and their editors must make choices and suffer or benefit from
the consequences of an expanding forum - this Internet of communication which has caught
so many in its web. To make a statement of fact, one must prepare to substantiate it. To
make a statement of opinion, if simply for the sake of completeness, one must explain the
reasoning behind that opinion. To do otherwise, one must expect ridicule, deservedly.
For a somewhat mainstream publication, it makes sense, I think, to carefully blend a
variety of aspects. For example, make some simple and useful measurements in a first pass
(a square wave can show a lot about bandwidth, phase, response, and amplitude linearity).
Then, include subjective aspects as to provide enough insight as to help a reader perhaps
decide if such a product might be worth pursuing, but not with such terms which apply only
as abstractly to carry as much weight as pure imagination.
Sometimes it appears a difficult line to walk. All writers must expect criticism of their
ideas, especially as the Internet expands to give a louder voice to challenges that would
otherwise die on an editor's desk. But, so long as the editor and the writers work
together to keep their feet out of their mouths, there are that many more feet to stand
on. It's becoming a rough little village for those who would take on the soapbox, and I
think it will be all that much better for it. Content will determine success of publishing
on the Internet, not big money, glossy paper, or a hodgepodge of colorful glitz. Hurrah
for the little guys. Throw out the prose, and dodge the tomatoes in the meantime! It's
gonna get messy.
Colin Miller
� Copyright 1997, Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity
Return to Table of Contents for this Issue.