One of the best ways to grasp new concepts is to apply them in a real-world context, so for the duration of the quarter, we will ask you to choose a media company (see "Media Company OPTIONS" under We
Chapter One: Media/Society in a Digital World
Note: Read the summary below and click on all supplemental links as part of this lecture;
the videos and articles provided will assist with your understanding of this chapter.
Key Questions:
1. How can we understand the importance of media in relationship to socialization, structure and agency?
2. How can a sociological lens help us understand the relationship between media and social context?
3. What roles do structure and agency play in our understanding of media culture?
Themes:
1.1 Definitions: Media vs. Medium & Interpersonal vs. Mass Media
1.2 Technology, Interactivity & Consumption
1.3 Cultural Experience & Socialization
1.4 Sociology: Social Relations, Structure & Agency
1.5 Model of Media
1.1 Definitions: Media vs. Medium & Interpersonal vs. Mass Media
Before we examine and critique the role(s) of media in our social world(s), it is essential to identify and narrow our scope by defining terms; after all, "media" is a term used very loosely in contemporary culture. As Croteau & Hoynes (2019) explain in your textbook , the term "media" is the PLURAL of medium and is derived from medius,which is the Latin term for "middle."
A helpful way to think about these concepts is that mediumsfacilitate communication between (are in the middle of) a sender and receiver; for example, television is a medium that facilitates programming from producers/creators/networks to audiences. Other mediums include radio, print, film, and the internet, and notices that they are both digital and non-digital (print).
The term "media" is the plural of these mediums, but is often used incorrectly; although it doesn't sound like correct grammar, the proper way (within the field of Media Studies) to use "media" in a sentence is "media are" not "media is." When individuals, including politicians, members of non-profits, etc. say "media is" and fail to recognize that the concept of "media" actually encompasses many different mediums with various logics, there is an assumption that all mediums function the same, include the same message, and follow the same regulations and economic structure. For example, when "the media" is blamed for violent action or political outcomes, there is a misunderstanding that needs to be refined; are we talking about film? Television? News media? Are we talking about the digital edition of the news? Are we talking about the Tweets that come from that news organization? In other words, it is important to be specific about mediums when making claims about impact, and when referring to "media" it is important to remember that this is a plural term.
Now, the next step in introductory terminology is to identify which media are "interpersonal" and which mediums are considered "mass" - this course focuses on "mass" media. Some of you may have taken Communications courses that focus more on interpersonal communication, which is one-to-one, includes a single known receiver, and is very interactive (may include a conversation, for example). Mass communication, then, is exactly what it sounds like: one-to-many, involves a potentially large and unknown audience, and features limited, if any interaction. Think about the film medium, which is typically consumed in a theater, at home, on a device, etc. - is this "interpersonal" or "mass" communication? Yes, it is considered "mass" communication because you are not interacting with the text and it is created for a potentially large and unknown audience. Sure, you or someone you may know may talk at the screen and argue with a plot point or character development, but the characters are not talking back to you in one-to-one communication; hence, film is mass communication.
Again, this course is particularly interested in mass communication (and in particular, mainstream, mass communication) because texts (both digital and non-digital) that are designed for mass consumption will often lead to a variety of social impact(s).
1.2 Technology, Interactivity & Consumption
But what about the internet? Isn't that interactive? Does that mean that it's a form of interpersonal communication? As Croteau & Hoynes (2019) point out, the internet offers a blend of interpersonal and mass communication due to technological features and affordances; in particular, the internet blurs the boundaries between "private interpersonal communication and public mass communication" (p. 9).
For example, the internet allows for email communication (typically one-to-one or to various known users), which is more interpersonal communication, but is also allows individuals to engage in very public forms of interactive, real-time communication via hashtags, viral videos, "likes," "retweets," etc. This very "active" form of participation with/in a medium is extremely different than the consumption experiences of books, magazines, films, television, etc. Croteau & Hoynes (2019) stress that the internet has allowed audiences to be "users" of media and can be active in various ways: choosing what media content they will access, deciding when will use media rather than depend on scheduled broadcasts, sharing/promoting/distributing media content, responding to and commenting, and creating their own media content (p. 9). For this reason, the internet offers more "dynamic" opportunities for interactivity than traditional media.
Not only has the internet offered applications and interfaces - like Twitter and Instagram - that create dynamic spaces for user interactivity - it has also created opportunities for fans of television programming to engage in public conversations about content. Before the internet, fans did not have the ability to connect with other fans during/after consumption. Now, the ability to comment, in real time, allows fans to engage with community rather than rely on interpersonal communication with those watching with them or someone sitting next to them on the subway.
For example, think about the Super Bowl or Bachelor Nation. The Super Bowl is an annual event that has become even more exciting due to the use of hashtags and the sharing of memes, commentary and reactions during the game itself. Bachelor Nation, on the other hand, is the ecosystem of fandom that exists in conjunction with The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, and this "Nation" is the community of fans that enjoy engaging offline and online in order to react to the weekly drama.
Navigate to Twitter and search for the hashtag #bachelorinparadise and look at the posts for a few minutes; this is an example of fandom communication that operates both during programming and before/after. You could also check out #SaveAPBio to see how fans of the NBC series A.P. Bio have engaged Twitter to launch support for the show after it was cancelled recently:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/ap-bio-canceled-nbc-save-ap-bio-patton-oswalt-twitter (Links to an external site.)
How has this ability to interact changed the consumption experience of television, then? Are we now compelled to offer our commentary of television on social media? Are we only considered fans of a television program if we engage with its network-sponsored hashtag? These are the types of questions that allow us to explore the connection between media and culture. How are media shaping and impacting our everyday lives?
1.3 Cultural Experience & Socialization
It's no secret that media have had a profound impact on socialization; from the moment we wake up to that last check of our social media accounts before we go to bed, digital media have become integrated in our everyday communication and behavior. Many of us (depending on accessibility issues) "search" for information daily and rely on Google (a for-profit media company) for the answers to our questions (click here (Links to an external site.) to read a quick opinion piece about trends in "search"). Think about the Apple Watch; a wearable device offers an (expensive!) alternative path to the way we think about convenience, connection, communication, health, and other facets of social live. Take a moment to scroll through the website for the Series 4, (https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/?afid=p238%7CsJKznVXu8-dc_mtid_20925qtb42335_pcrid_339078136212&cid=wwa-us-kwgo-watch-slid---apple+watch-e (Links to an external site.)). Which of these features to we need? Which of these features may seem to impact our relationship to this device?
Check out some of the "films" associated with this product: https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/films/ (Links to an external site.)
More recent discussions of media technology and modern culture have centered on the adoption of virtual reality. Whether or not you have experienced virtual reality recently, you've probably engaged in discussions, or read news articles about the possible impact (both socially and economically) that this technology might/will have on the way we experience information. In fact, The New York Times developed an application, as well as partnered up with Google and their devices (Daydream & Cardboard: http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/nytvr/ (Links to an external site.)), that will allow their readers to experience news via virtual reality. How might this change "news?"
Because of how fast mobile technology has become integrated into our everyday lives, many researchers have conducted studies on impact and behavior. Some issues that have emerged as zero-TV households, time-shifted viewing, and multi-tasked media usage(e.g., streaming television content on your computer and texting with a friend at the same time). Because younger generations, including yours, have grown up using digital technology (to varying degrees, of course), many journalists and academics track and analyze the consumption habits and outcomes of teenagers. The following link takes you to the results of a comprehensive study conducted by Pew Research (http://www.pewresearch.org/about/ (Links to an external site.)) on Teens, Social Media & Technology in (May, 2018):
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/ (Links to an external site.)
Here is another short article from Wired magazine about teenage use of social media from a different perspective:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/how-teens-use-social-media/ (Links to an external site.)
Take a moment to think about the ways that digital media impact your life on a daily basis. Think about a world where you didn't have a smart phone or computer: How would you call a friend to tell them you're going to be late for a study date? How would you get help if your car broke down on your way to work? How would you figure out correct information during a heated debate with a friend about the wage gap between men and women?
With all this in mind, it is important to think conceptually, or theoretically, about the relationship between media, technological development, and society. One way to do this is to consider socialization, defined by your book as, " ... the process by which people learn the expectations of a particular role" (Croteau & Hoynes, 2019, p. 177). In this way we can think of mass media as socializing agents; but it's important to keep in mind that we're all impacted by media/mediums in different ways at different times in our lives. Think about it: How have mass media shaped your values around what "beauty" means? Or what "masculinity" looks like? You have been socialized, by socializing agents, which includes the mass media, to accept the norms of our culture.
And because of digitization, those norms, or what is culturally "normal" have shifted as well. Think about relationships, dating and apps such as Tinder (https://www.gotinder.com/ (Links to an external site.)). Now think about online relationships on discussion boards, chat rooms, social media websites, video games, etc. Here is a link to a debate about if such relationships are "real" from the "Room for Debate" feature in The New York Times. The different views represent how we, as a culture, have different (and strong!) opinions on the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/05/real-relationships-in-a-digital-world (Links to an external site.)
As mentioned before, many researchers (including those at Pew Research) have taken a serious interest in the relationship between media and society and because media are also seen as socializing agents, it is a continued focus in academia as well. Sherry Turkle(https://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/ (Links to an external site.)) , a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), wrote a book titled Alone Together (2011) that received much support and criticism regarding the social impact of digital media on our lives. Many of her points illustrate the issue of socialization and media as a "socializing agent," and I'd like you to watch her TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=en (Links to an external site.)
Also, check out this short (three-minute) film from Charlene deGuzman that offers a similar take:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/05/219266779/our-cultural-addiction-to-phones-in-one-disconcerting-video (Links to an external site.)
Do you support these perspectives? For many, this critical take removes individual choice and responsibility. Both Turkle and DeGuzman paint a negative picture of the impact of media consumption on our everyday lives. Is there room for positive experiences? How can we think about media consumption in a more nuanced way? Media theorists will often point to the terms "structure" and "agency" to describe the complex ways that media and consumers interact; rather than think of things as "good" or "bad," we can think about media consumption as a practice that is influenced by structures such as the government, capitalism, and social constructs (to name a few).
1.4 Sociology: Social Relations, Structure & Agency
For this section, I have prepared a short lecture video: Structure & Agency.mp4播放媒体评论。播放媒体评论。
If you have trouble accessing this video, here is a link you can use:
http://flashmedia2.du.edu/relay/Structure__Agency_-_20150701_122700_25.htmlLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.
Remember: Structures can be social and institutional. The family is an example of a social structure; social patterns organize the way we understand "family" while the government is an example of an institutional structure that exerts measurable power over our agency. "Self-branding" can be understood as a form of agencywithin the constraints of the media industry (tension between structure/agency), beauty industrial complex, and other norms about the self; here, we are able to curate and present a version of ourselves within the structure of industry culture.
In fact, the concept of self-branding as it relates to digital media and beauty has not only been deemed a space for agency, but it is also a space that has created concern. The issue over whether we are truly "choosing" (agency) how to "brand" ourselves online has come into question due to the way that applications (we can think of these as structures) encourage us to alter our appearances based on cultural norms related to physical beauty. New York Times reporter Amanda Hess explores this issue in her beauty apps episode of "Internetting with Amanda Hess"; while you screen this short video, I'd like you to think about how it applies to the terms we've discussed so far: socialization, medium, agency, structure:
The Ugly Business of Beauty Apps | Internetting with Amanda Hess (Links to an external site.)
1.5 Model of Media
Your textbook offers a visual model (see p. 16) so that you can begin to think about media in a sociological way, a way that privileges social relations, socialization, structure, agency, and context.
According to Croteau & Hoynes (2019), "Four components, each represented by a separate box in the diagram, make up the core of our model. All four elements are simultaneously a part of the social world and surrounded by the social world (the shaded area). The graphic organization of these four elements is arbitrary; there is no 'top' or 'bottom' to the process; rather, it is a circular process" (p. 16). This model emphasizes relationships; for example, "users" influence "technology" and "technology" influences "users," as I've pointed out earlier in this (written) lecture.
It is important to keep in mind that just because the elements aren't next to each other, that doesn't mean that a relationship isn't present. In other words, Users have a relationship to the Industry and Technology can have an impact on/relationship to Content. The point is that we have to think about all of these elements (Users, Content, Technology and Industry) as they relate to one another to truly understand the complexities of media culture. For example, Croteau & Hoynes (2019) point out that within the Black Lives Matter movement, new technology (Twitter, hashtags) allows members of this movement to gather and share content to other members of the movement, the public and news organizations alike (see pages 20-21).
(Trigger Warning: shooting, racial violence)
Now, let's apply the model to the shooting on June 17, 2015, in South Carolina, committed by white supremacist Dylan Roof (who is now in federal death row), and how this social event was mediated.
(Review of case and sentencing: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/dylann-roof-trial-charleston.html (Links to an external site.))
Remember, we need to start thinking about how readers/audiences, technology, the media industry, and the media message/product all impact each other. Therefore, our questions change and we no longer think about these issues in isolation. From a sociological standpoint, we need to think about and question relationships, structure and agency. Here are some questions we might ask about this event, using this model: What messages did the media industry create about Roof's act? How did these meanings affect how readers/audiences reacted? How did readers/audiences use digital media to grieve, communicate and spread information? How did technology (such as social media) influence the media industry and reporting?
One of the meanings that had a direct impact on this social event was the term "terrorist" and why or why not this term was used to describe Roof and his act. Was it a "terrorist" act? Why or why not should this term be used? Remember, the industry creates meanings about this event and those meanings directly impact how audience members react, or understand, the events. Based on information you've received from media outlets, whether it be local news, Twitter, Facebook, NPR, or Fox News, do you think that Dylan Roof is a "terrorist?" Here is a short article from The Intercept exploring why he was not considered a "terrorist":
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/22/department-justice-didnt-charge-dylan-roof-domestic-terrorism/ (Links to an external site.)
You can apply this model of critical thinking and relationships to breaking news and information about violent acts more generally, beyond the debate about "terrorism." Think critically about mainstream media involvement in breaking news, how survivors communicate, how the public is able to help, how stories from survivors help the nation/world grieve, etc. How does amateur video (technology) help journalists cover the events of that evening?
Remember: By asking different - critical - questions that focus on structural and social "relationships," we can have a better understanding of the intersection between media and culture.
Chapter Two Lecture: The Evolution of Media Technology
Note: Please click on all supplemental links as part of this lecture; the videos and articles provided will assist with your understanding of this chapter.
Key Questions:
1. What are the key characteristics of media/mediums and how did they impact history and culture?
2. How does the presence of media affect the phenomenon that we wish to stake a claim in?
3. What are the main theoretical approaches to the study of media and how might this awareness affect our day-to-day?
Themes:
2.1 Deconstructing the term "technology"
2.2 Theoretical approaches to technology and society
2.3 The historical development of media technology and cultural/institutional impact(s)
2.4 Wu: Cycle of technological innovation
2.5. Noble: Algorithms of Oppression
2.1 Deconstructing the term "technology"
Close your eyes (after reading this quick prompt) and think of the word "technology" - what comes to mind? Do you see a circuit board? A cyborg? A robot jumping onto a box? This chapter unpacks the relationship between media culture and technology; and as you've noticed, the authors work to broaden your scope to think beyond just scientific innovation.
Remember that model of media from the last chapter (p. 10 text)? Technology is connected to our social world(s) and impacts sites such as Users and Industry; therefore, we have to think about how technology shapes, and is shaped by issues such as media ownership, cultural meanings, historical/cultural context and consumer behavior.
According to Croteau & Hoynes (2019):
1. Technology includes scientific innovations used to shape, impact and/or improve human life;
2. Technology makes every medium unique;
3. Technology is influenced by a variety of social forces (adoption, regulation, accessibility);
4. Technology accumulates, does not always eradicate older developments.
With this in mind, we can start to think more critically about therole(s) of technology in contemporary culture, not just simply as an "advancement" for humankind. Think about home assistants or "smart speakers" such as Google Home or Amazon's Alexa (examples of the term autonomous technology, as discussed in your textbook). Both are technological developments that grew out of supposed societal needs (from a consumer standpoint) yet have also made impacts on societal behavior (again, this has to do with consumption). They are extensions of other technological assistants such as Apple's Siri, yet are unique in their physical presence.
How necessary are these assistants? Do you have one in your dorm/apartment/home? Think about the cultural implications of these assistants: How does privilege and affordability factor in? How does this increase our dependence on technology? How might hacking and privacy factor in to our evaluation of these assistants? We have to start thinking beyond just the "science" of technological innovation to include more society/cultural questions (sociology).
For this section, we have prepared a video lecture: "Perspectives on Technological Development:
2.2 Theoretical approaches to technology and society
When we start to include more of a sociological orientation toward our understanding of media and technology, the issue of "impact" is not far behind; in other words, the question of "how does technology impact us" is a central question of Sociology, Media Studies, and Communication Studies. Your textbook identifies two main theoretical approaches that have developed as a result of this question: (1) Technological Determinism; (2) Social Constructionism.
1. Technological Determinism:
Technology causes change in ways that people don’t intend or are aware of; is the primary causal element of social change; focus on the role of technology.
Scholars who are technological determinists include: Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, who have very different perspectives (see text, pp. 32-34). McLuhan was an optimist about media technology and the way a new medium disrupts tradition and reshapes social life, extending our senses and connecting us to create a "global village." He posited that "the medium is the message," meaning that the technology itself (such as TV) is what has an impact, regardless of the content. In contrast, in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman was very critical of technology and particularly television, arguing that the rise of this medium was contributing to the erosion of democracy with a decline in the seriousness of public life and participation.
2. Social Constructionism:
Emphasis on the role of active human agents in the determination of how technology is used; social forces (cultural norms, economic pressures, legal regulations) fundamentally shift the ways technologies are designed and developed; social reality is socially constructed - humans “normalize” technology consumption.
Note: Remember, context is KEY to social constructionism. What are different forms of context that could impact the way society uses and adopts technology? Historical, right? A large issue relates to nation; and in particular, cultural norms, regulation, government structure. So because "social construction" is a theory that asserts that humans are active in the determination of how technology is used, we can't leave out differences in the environments in which those humans are making those decisions.
Raymond Williams, a longtime media scholar contended that the use and impact of media technology is shaped by social factors and processes that transform an innovation into a useful technology. For example, Williams asserted that preexisting cultural values and practices shape the way that technologies are adapted and used. He compared the individualistic values of the United States and how citizens/government created a more commercial media industry and then the collectivist values of the UK society and how citizens/government created a more state-controlled media industry. Williams' example showed that the "technology" did not impact the US and the UK in the same way (technological determinism); rather, it was adopted in particular ways due to social forces and human decision-making.
Here, you can see that both of these theoretical frameworks have very different approaches to the issue of human agency(independent human action); determinism implies that a force outside humanity "determines" outcomes while constructionismimplies that humanity plays a role in the development and need for technological consumption. This can create tension between the two theoretical perspectives. Both frameworks have developed based on historical and cultural outcomes as well as organized research and observation; in other words, both theories reflect the conclusions of theorists that are trying to make sense of humanity's relationship to technological innovation. As you can see, not all theorists agree on this. Within the field of Media Studies, most theorists fall in the middle of these frameworks/theories; they agree that media technology influences us to a degree, and that we influence media technology to a degree as well.
Scholars are divided on which theory they support, although most fall somewhere in between.
One concept that is explored within the area of technological determinism is materiality, a term that refers to the tangible and physical characteristics of a medium/technology that enables capabilities and limitations. Materiality is a helpful way to identify the characteristics of innovation that have led to societal change, including consumer behavior, trends, and cultural development.
Let's think about the materiality of the media technology that Beyoncé has used to distribute her creative work(s), and how the "tangible and physical characteristics" of each technology have been a response to both fandom and innovation. Discussing and evaluating "materiality" offers a way for us to consider physical characteristics and their relationship to impact, social change, etc.
Questions of materiality:
What are the capabilities and limitations of listening to Beyoncé's songs on the radio?
What are the capabilities and limitations of streamingBeyoncé's Homecoming on Netflix?
Trailer for Homecoming:Homecoming: A Film By Beyoncé | Official Trailer | Netflix (Links to an external site.)
How does the materiality, then, of each technology (radio vs. online video streaming) create different experiences for the user? What is the role of user agency in both of these experiences? And how is Netflix responding to the limitations of other mediums when it comes to user experience; in other words, how might audio + visual + interactive (user is able to pause, watch on their own time, etc.) be a reaction to the needs of contemporary culture?
2.3 The historical development of media technology and cultural/institutional impact(s)
On pages 36-59 of your textbook, the authors offer a brief historical overview titled "From Print to the Internet" that not only highlights technological innovation, but also describes the ways that each development in media technology contributed to social change.This is a sociological approach; by evaluating the "tension between media technology and the people who create, regulate, and use it" (p. 36), we are able to understand and articulate the ways that media impact culture.
Building on the issue of sound recording (from our Beyoncé example earlier in the lecture), Croteau & Hoynes (2019) point out how the ability to record music, which was previously only consumed in live performance, impacted artists (musicians were now able to record their work and distribute it) as well as users(recorded music was played at social gatherings instead of live music, which actually became controversial because many saw this change as a threat to live performance), and impacted/created an industry that led to record labels and eventually, streaming services (see p. 43). Here, you can see how media technology impacts and is impacted by society, but that these impacts are not in isolation, and they include other elements such as context, regulation, and the interests of capitalism.
In the section on the internet, two key terms are introduced that are fundamental to understanding the contributions of this technology: digitization and convergence.
Digitization: "The shift from analog to digital media" (p. 58).
Convergence: "The blurring of boundaries among types of media" (p. 58).
As Croteau & Hoynes (2019) state: "Digitization sets the stage for convergence ..." and they use the medium of print, and newspapers in particular, as an example. As the newspaper industry started taking advantage of digitization and the availability of digital websites to deliver content, many outlets made the shift from being purely analog to including digital distribution (the problem they had was how to monetize it!). This process of digitization (shift from just print stories to including digital stories on their websites) led to the convergence of print stories, embedded video, hyperlinks, interactive discussion boards (comment sections), and digital photography on their websites.
Questions to consider: How has digitization shifted the media landscape? What opportunities has digitization created? What pressures has digitization created? Has digitization determined the industry or has is enabled opportunity by human agents? Or both?
2.4 Wu: Cycle of technological innovation
Another theory that is worth noting from this chapter is Tim Wu's (2011) Cycle of Technological iInnovation, in which he - from a social constructionist perspective - identifies a "cycle" of impact on technology from markets and standardization. This impact is important because mediums have been industrialized and are marketed, and therefore considering this "cycle" offers us a lens into thinking about how media technology changes based on consumer and market needs:
1. Introduction of innovation begins period of idealistic experimentation;
2. When technology threatens to displace/render obsolete older markets/revenues, companies seek to control or “tame” it through standardization;
3. Novelty wears off, users are familiar with flaws and limitations, dissatisfaction grows.
Wu argues that media companies, in various mediums, stifle true innovation and creativity because they work to standardize innovation rather than promote competition; in other words, companies would rather pour capital into the mass marketing/production of a successful technological advance rather than pour capital into experimentation. Wu says that this type of intervention on technological development works to slow down innovation and leads to dissatisfaction once users are bored with mass production.
Let's think about virtual reality for a moment, as a technological advance. There was a period of idealistic experimentation, where Google, Samsung, Microsoft and Oculus emerged in the marketplace and offered consumers a way to experience this emergent technology (which was now becoming mainstream). We can think about Facebook's purchase of Oculus as a way to "tame" this emergent technology and make sure that it supports existing technology (social media, FB) rather than offer competition. Do you feel that the novelty has worn off of virtual reality? Have you tried virtual reality? If so (and many of you might as a supplement to gaming), has dissatisfaction grown? Using Wu's theory, we might be able to argue that because virtual reality has been integrated into the marketplace, and developed by mainstream, mass, media companies, the interest is more in "standardization" and marketability rather than innovation, and therefore dissatisfaction(not complete) has grown among (some) consumers.
At the same time, virtual reality is being used in alternative spaces,such as film festivals, as consumers continue to be interested in more interactive experiences. So, while the mainstream market can often stifle new media technology in an effort to standardize it, non-mainstream efforts continue to use media technology in creative, disruptive and accessible ways. Check out this articlefrom Wired (2019) on the use of virtual (and augmented) reality in film festivals:
"Film Festivals Move to Make Virtual Reality a Marquee Event (链接到外部网站。)"
Here is an article with links to the several immersive VR/AR works from this year's Tribeca Film Festival: "This year’s Tribeca Film Festival uses AR and VR to explore music-making and empathy. (链接到外部网站。)"
2.5. Noble: Algorithms of Oppression
Now that you've familiarized yourself with the relationship(s) between innovations in media technology, context, industry, and social relations, there are additional considerations to raise, especially as we, as a culture, continue to rely on technology for everything from counting our daily "steps" to organizing playlists to share with friends to storing our financial information.
Some of you may already be aware of the growing concern over technology and gender and racial profiling; in particular, this comes up in search engine results, but also in facial recognition as well as courtroom sentencing software.
"A Popular Algorithm Is No Better at Predicting Crimes Than Random People (链接到外部网站。)"(Links to an external site.)
Dr. Safiya Noble (USC, Annenberg) wrote a very successful/widely cited book titled Algorithms of Oppression (2018) that details some of these issues, and I'd like you to watch a short video of her discussing them. How does her work contribute to existing theories such as technological determinism and social constructionism?
Algorithms of Oppression: Safiya Umoja Noble (Links to an external site.)
Note: Please click on all supplemental links as part of this lecture; the videos and articles provided will assist with your understanding of this chapter.
Key Questions:
1. What is a production perspective and why is it important to understand the media from this reference point?
2. What is the political impact of concentrated corporate ownership of news and other forms of media?
3. What is the relationship between media ownership and and diversity in media content?
4. Does advertising negatively influence media contents?
Themes:
3.1 Production perspective
3.2 Concentration of Ownership & Conglomeration
3.3 Vertical & Horizontal Integration
3.4 Advertising & Content
3.1 Production Perspective
Why is it important to understand the media industry from a production perspective? First of all, and most importantly, the media industry is an industry and therefore profits play an essential role in the production and distribution processes. When profits play an essential role, is becomes important to think about economic constraints as well as the social and economic processes that play a role in the production of media texts. Think about it this way: Media products are not "free-floating texts," rather, they exist in a context of economic interests, constraints, and processes. Our job now is to become familiar with this context and begin to think about the media industry as inextricably linked to an economic structure. Remember, from a sociological perspective, we cannot understand the media industry without understanding the forces and relationships that affect that industry.
This quote, from Gillian Doyle (Glasgow University), offers a helpful - and critical - way to think about this context: "The general aim is to make intellectual property, package it and maximize revenues by selling it as many times as is feasible to the widest audience at the highest possible price."
Here, Doyle is describing the "commercial mandate" of media culture, which highlights profit as the primary motivation, or goal, of a media company. A "non-commercial mandate" is when a media company operates for outcomes other than profit, including educational, community-based, etc. Beyondmedia Education, a non-profit out of Chicago, is an example of a media company with a non-commercial mandate:
http://www.beyondmedia.org/ (Links to an external site.) (notice the .org domain)
When we think about the media industry from a production perspective (which includes analyzing business models), we can begin to understand why news media companies, for example, are taking the following steps to cut costs:
1. Cut the number of journalists; multi-use of journalists
2. Decrease investigative reporting
3. Use frequent wire service (ex. Associated Press) reports
4. Use video public relations segments
5. Rely on a small number of elites for news sources
6. Focus the news on preplanned official events and on certain institutions
BUT REMEMBER! Producing media, especially on a large scale, depends on funding ($$), so seeking profit - or having a commercial mandate - does not necessarily mean that the production itself is problematic, or "selling out." Media producers contend with development costs, production costs, marketing and distribution costs, as well as overhead costs (lawyers, publicists, etc.); in other words, when we think about profit generation, we have to think beyond "good" or "bad" and start to critically analyze the costs of being part of a conglomerate, or the costs of a newspaper being owned by a hedge fund, which is the case with The Denver Post.
3.2 Concentration of Ownership & Conglomeration
After the passage of the the Telecommunications Act of 1996(more on this in the next chapter), the media industry within the United States has become more concentrated, and now only a handful of firms, or conglomerates, dominate the media industry. A conglomerate, such as The Walt Disney Company or Time Warner, Inc., owns several different media companies across mediums,meaning that they own companies in movies, television, film, publishing, etc. Examples of conglomerates include: Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, and Time Warner, Inc. We can also consider Alphabet/Google as a digital conglomerate as well. (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)This is from Vox's "Recode" and is a timely, comprehensive ownership map because it includes content, distribution and streaming video:
One consequence of a concentrated media environment is the promotion of political and/or ideological agenda(s). Here, media outlets may promote an owners' specific political alignment; for example, your chapter mentions Berlusconi and Bloomberg. This undermines citizen monitoring, alternative media, and can threaten democracy. On the one hand, shouldn't the owner of a company be able to make decisions about their product? On the other, if we rely on news media outlets to inform us about political representatives and their platforms in order to vote, how does the promotion of an owner's political agenda threaten democracy?
The film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism focuses on Fox News and how Rupert Murdoch's (who was the CEO of 21st Century Fox at the time of the documentary but is now co-executive chairman of Fox Corporation, the company that remains after 21 Century Fox sold the majority of its assets to Disney in 2018 ) politically conservative agenda has impacted the way this company frames the news. Here are a few clips from this film that help explain the intersection of concentration of ownership, politics and power.The filmmakers, who belong to the non-profit media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Links to an external site.), interviewed several journalists who had worked for Fox News in order to understand how the company creates their political agenda (note: this is an older film, but the techniques they use are still used and relevant to this discussion):
Peter Hart on media consolidation (Links to an external site.)
Frank O'Donnell on Fox News' political agenda (Links to an external site.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLthBfWnHlA&index=18&list=PL54FC814AE797FA21Another wide (Links to an external site.)
Related: Fox News Network has updated its tagline to "Fair & Balanced" to "Most Watched. Most Trusted" as of June 2017: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/fox-news-is-dropping-its-fair-and-balanced-slogan.html (Links to an external site.)
Also Related: As you probably noticed, this documentary has a particular, critical take on Fox News, so it is important to reflect on how this genre (documentary) often reproduces particular viewpoints, but also works to uncover information not widely shared in mainstream media via interviews, case studies, etc.
Another widely discussed consequence of concentrated media ownership is the lack of diversity, whether it be type of content, those who work in the industry, or viewpoints/voices. Your book reminds us that this varies by medium; in other words, due to technology (streaming services, lower cost to produce music, etc.) there seems to be more content diversity in the music industry, while concentration has led to less political diversity in news media. Review studies by: Entman (1989), Peterson & Berger (1975), Lopes (1992) & Dowd (2004) in your textbook for more detailed information. There are many organizations that fight for increased media diversity, including Free Press.
Take a look at their campaign: https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/diversity-media-ownership (Links to an external site.)
3.3 Vertical & Horizontal Integration
Two business strategies that media conglomerates benefit from are vertical and horizontal integration. When companies are able to integrate in these ways, they can:
1. Self-promote their products across mediums
2. Minimize costs
3. Maximize profits
STRATEGY: VERTICAL INTEGRATION
Production & Distribution of a single media product
Example: Film Company
Talent agencies, production studios, manufacturing plants, venues (theater chains, Internet-streaming services, etc.)
STRATEGY: HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION
Company acquires ownership across different types of media rather than within one medium/industry
Example: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Vertical integration: This film was produced by Lucasfilm Ltd., which is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, and was distributed by Walt Disney Studios, which is another subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Thy were able to produce and distribute a single product (a film) using all of their own holdings, or subsidiaries, and did not have to outsource or hire any media companies outside of the conglomerate.
Horizontal integration: Due to its diverse, cross-medium holdings, Disney is able to promote the film using its television networks, radio stations, magazines, etc. For example, Star Wars was subtly promoted on ESPN's Insta page (ESPN is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company):
Here, Disney is able to produce their own media products within the conglomerate and self/cross-promote using their own holdings!This is synergy: They dynamic where components of a company work together to produce benefits that would be impossible for a single, separately owned unit of a company. Think about it, how can a small, independent film studio compete against the production and distribution power of Disney? This is why indie studios have to work hard to secure distribution from a major media company so that they can maximize exposure despite their lack of synergy.
Look at following poster for "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" and let's think about synergy and horizontal integration. What media companies do you see on this poster? Which media conglomerate owns both? Why is it to their advantage to combine their resources in this way?
Now, what is potentially "lost" when cross-promotion and commercial interests drive media production and certain companies benefit from this synergy?
Consequence: LIMITATION of alternative discourses, identities and narrative strategies in media production.
Which ideas are given more visibility?
How does this visibility create normalization (we will discuss this term later in the course)?
3.4 Advertising & Content
As the authors (2019) of your book point out, "The media industry is, in large part, an advertising-funded business ... In 2016, online advertising overtook television as the world's largest advertising medium" (p. 81). For those of you who frequent social media applications, you are no stranger to digital advertising, including sponsored advertising and native advertising. Have you ever checked out the policy on sponsored advertising on Instagram?Here is a link to their FAQ page; click on the down-arrows under "Learn More about Ads" to learn more about the process: https://help.instagram.com/1415228085373580 (Links to an external site.)
Next, screen this clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on native advertising:
Native Advertising: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (Links to an external site.)
After viewing this clip, explore Buzzfeed and see if you can locate sponsored advertising:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ (Links to an external site.)
Finally, it is important to note that not only has the internet created platforms and opportunities for conglomerates to increase their power, and for companies to advertise directly to us based on our searches and clicks, it has also created tremendous opportunities for up-and-coming producers.
For example, you may be familiar with Issa Rae's show on HBO, Insecure (https://www.hbo.com/insecure (Links to an external site.)), which was based on her YouTube series/channel, The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL854514FC0EBDCD8E) (Links to an external site.). Rae used this platform to produce her show, and develop her voice, and was eventually picked up by a major network. According to Rae: "If it weren’t for YouTube, I would be extremely pessimistic, but I’m not anymore. YouTube has revolutionized content creation. If it weren’t for YouTube, I would still be at studios trying to convince executives that Awkward Black Girls really do exist … Online content and new media are changing our communities and changing the demand for an accessibility of that content” (2015, p. 125). I've included an excerpt from her book (which includes this quote) in the Supplemental section of this module.
And not only do up-and-coming and aspirational independent producers utilize YouTube as a distribution platform, we've also seen the rise of problematic content that has been reported to radicalize users. If you're interested in reading more about this, check out this story from The New York Times that profiles a young man who experienced the exposure of extremist content (and in particular, alt-right content) on YouTube and actively began seeking out content based on what the platform's algorithm suggested for him:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html
Chapter Four Lecture: Political Influence on MediaNote: Please click on all supplemental links as part of this lecture; the videos and articles provided will assist with your understanding of this chapter
Key questions:
1. What are the major government regulations on media?
2. Do regulations apply the same to all media?
3. What are the arguments for and against regulating in the "public interest"? How does this compare with the arguments put forward by those who support a "free market" approach to mass media policy?
4. What are political forces other than government that affect media?
Themes:
4.1 Relationship between Government & Media
4.2 Regulating Ownership
4.3 Regulating Content
4.4 Regulating for Access & Distribution
4.1 Relationship between Government & Media
In addition to the limitations that a commercial (for-profit) media system creates, governments are understood as structures that constrain media production. One global issue at the intersection of governance and media culture is free speech; many countries operate with state-controlled media industries that exist as the voice of the political establishment while others, like the United States, support a commercial media industry with laws in place that protect free speech. Reporters Without Borders, a French non-profit that consults the United Nations, circulates the "World Press Freedom Index" each year as a way to rank which countries are the safest for journalists. Based on a questionnaire that was sent to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights defenders, Reporters Without Borders worked to measure freedom for journalists in 180 countries in their World Press Freedom Index (for more information on their methodology, click here (Links to an external site.)). Surprisingly, despite our laws protecting free speech, the United States was ranked #45th. Why? Here is a link to the rational given and information on the US: https://rsf.org/en/united-states (Links to an external site.) (here is the link to the entire Index: https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table (Links to an external site.).
As you can see from the Index summary (2020), despite the First Amendment, journalists have been arrested and treated unfairly within the context of the Trump Administration - including being denied entry to White House briefings - and messages of distrust (media as "enemy of the people") has impacted their professional lives, which suggests that even democracies experience a complex relationship between the government and media industry. So while the commercial system places economic restraints on the media industry, the government acts a structure that places additional legal and political restraints. It is important that we understand how these structures both limit and facilitate media production, and how media producers navigate this complex landscape.
Freedom & the "Public Interest"
According to the US Constitution:
First Amendment: Government should have a "hands-off" approach to the media environment.
Section 8, Article 1: Congress can intervene on account of the "public interest."
So what exactly is the "public interest?" It is monitored and served by Federal Communication Commission policy (independent US government agency), who attempts to balance the interest of various groups, highlighting that there is no single public interest. According to your textbook, "The FCC supports the viewpoint that the government cannot write media regulation in stone for all eternity because technological and economic changes are constantly occurring. Finally, they believed that regulation that promotes diversity in programming and services is in the public interest (2019, p. 112). As your textbook points out, approaches to the "public interest" have changed over time, and the 1980s was a turning point in this history; it was at this time that the FCC pivoted to the notion that media were in less need of protection and should be classified more as commodities in a marketplace. Remember, regulation is inherently political (in all policy areas) and therefore definitions can change based on leadership and power.
For a list of current FCC leadership, check out this link: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership (Links to an external site.)
Therefore, the government/FCC has been charged with balancing the protection of free speech by limiting government interventionwhile at the same using intervening on behalf of the "public interest" (which is often cited as regulating for balance and diversity) as they see fit. And on top of all this, our country operates in a capitalistic system, which promotes a "free marketplace";therefore, media producers and consumers are often against media regulation. A simplistic way to think about these competing interests in the regulation debate is:
Regulate or Deregulate? As Croteau & Hoyes (2019) argue, "... in various ways, the relationship between government and media in U.S. society involves balancing the protections of free expressionby limiting government intervention with the protection of the public interest by using government intervention" (p. 110). And what about the role of the marketplace? Should we just let purchasing power determine the fate of media products and companies, not regulation (deregulation approach)? As Croteau & Hoynes point out, "Supporters of deregulation generally assert that the 'free market' system is adequate for accommodating the needs of both media producers and media consumers" (p. 110). But what about the "public interest" and ensuring diverse opinions? How might leaving this in the hands of the marketplace complicate things? Would all opinions be heard? How might recent issues with Facebook, YouTube and Twitter highlight the need for regulation; particularly when it comes to extreme political viewpoints, hacking and hate speech. In 2019, YouTube announced that it was going to remove videos related to extremism and hate speech; this is an example of self-regulation working to preemptively act before the possibility of FCC/federal regulation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/youtube-remove-extremist-videos.html?emc=edit_na_20190605&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news (Links to an external site.)
Also, the historical case study on microbroadcasting (in your textbook) and the eventual passing of the Local Community Radio Act is a wonderful example of the nuance of media regulation (see p. 119).
4.2 Regulating Ownership
There have been many changes in the media environment since the Constitution was written, including media technology and ownership patterns. Several updates to legislating ownership have taken plan in the form of Telecommunications Acts, and the trend now is deregulation, which favors free market capitalism (fosters competition in a less regulated marketplace), which created a context for an increased concentration of media ownership. The environment for media policy deregulation was solidified with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was designed to meet the new digital media marketplace and promoted synergy(vertical and horizontal integration through conglomeration) as the way of the future. For more detailed information on this Act, click here (Links to an external site.). Also, page 123 of your book offers an overview of how the 1996 Act is different than the 1934 Telecommunications Act.
Less than two years after the passage of this Act, there was a 12% decline in the number of radio stations due to an increase in ownership (larger radio companies purchased smaller companies nationwide). This consolidation directly effects access to local radio stations; if there is an increase in national radio there is less of an opportunity for local music, weather, and news to be heard. Despite this trend in deregulation, and an increase in mergers and cross-ownership, the government will continue to prevent monopolies in accordance with the public interest.
4.3 Regulating Content
Take a moment to think about the creation of content: Are you an artist? Have you ever written a song, performed it, or produced a film? Think about the creativity that was involved in that project and how much time you spent on its production. Now think about whether or not you pay for creative work: Do you illegally download music? Do you use Spotify; if so, do you know how much artists get paid per play? What does it mean when you illegally download music, television or movies? Questions such as these are central to debates regarding the regulation of media content. You are most likely familiar with terms such as "copyright infringement" or "trademark"; these are all connected to the protection of artistic works by the government.
Your textbook mentions a film, Copyright Criminals, which is a very interesting documentary that explains the relationship between the hip-hop industry, sampling and regulation. Please click on the following link and watch the three short videos as a way to understand this complex and controversial issue:
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/d0bc17ae-d82c-4220-bc02-e832056d2739/hip-hop-sampling-copyright-criminals/ (链接到外部网站。)
If you're having trouble accessing the videos through the PBS site, here are some links through the PBS YouTube page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SmmLJSbEU (链接到外部网站。)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdMVxSP_4x8 (链接到外部网站。)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kldKdSmgaYU (链接到外部网站。)
(Links to an external site.)(Links to an external site.A recent-ish case of copyright infringement was brought up against Robin Thicke, TI, and Pharrell Williams for their track "Blurred Lines." Marvin Gaye's children brought the case to court because they believed Thicke, TI and Williams committed infringement by using their father's song "Got to Give it Up" for "Blurred Lines."What do you think? Listen to both tracks
Got to Give It Up: GOT TO GIVE IT UP - MARVIN GAYE (Links to an external site.)
Blurred Lines: Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines (Clean) ft. T.I., Pharrell (Links to an external site.)
In 2015, the jury awarded the Gaye family $7.4 million and they sought for an injunction to temporarily prohibit sales of the track. Click here (Links to an external site.) to read a New York Times interview with Robin Thicke published after the verdict.
FAKE NEWS
Fake news has become a major issue in politics in the US but also around the world, and in some cases is being used as a political weapon. Watch this video lecture for an exploration of the issues.
Regulating for Diversity & Morality
As we've seen, the issue of content "diversity" in media coverage is cause for debate; the overall consensus is that concentrated media ownership threatens diversity of information by putting the media industry in the power of a few, wealthy companies. However, there was an attempt made by the government to promote diversity by protecting the industry against any single viewpoint from dominating media coverage. This attempt was called The Fairness Doctrine, and unfortunately, this policy was revoked in 1987 due to the fact that broadcast scarcity seemed to no longer be an issue. According to Croteau & Hoynes (2019), "The goal in the application of the doctrine was to ensure diversity of views within the program schedule of a station. The Fairness Doctrine, for example, did not interfere with conservative radio talk show hosts but rather required the station to provide other programming that included differing points of view. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine never suppressed views, but it sometimes required additional speech for balance" (p. 94).
Think about "balance" for a minute and connect to the concentrated media environment. Media conglomerates are owned by CEOs with particular points of view and without a policy like The Fairness Doctrine, are allowed to project such views with little protest, right? Think back to Fox News; many criticize this news media company because they favor Republican and socially conservative guests while only minimally offering the Democratic and socially liberal point-of-view. Here is an example of a study conducted by the non-profit organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting on the guests on Brit Hume's talk show: http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/foxs-slanted-sources/ (Links to an external site.). So where do we see diversity in media content? Is identity representation the first thing that comes to mind? Indeed, being able to watch programming with increased racial and LGBTQ identities, among others, is important, but what about political diversity? This is an important issue to think about, and with the failure of The Fairness Doctrine, we have a lack of protective policy.Think about how any lack of regulation in this area has impacted the amount of coverage devoted to presidential candidates in 2016. Due to the popularity of President Donald Trump's controversial rhetoric, ratings skyrocketed whenever he was featured on television, which led to an increased amount of ratings and advertiser support. According to the New York Times, he received$2 billion worth of "free" media during the election season: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0 (Links to an external site.) When ratings, advertiser dollars, and profit become the driving force behind political coverage, whose voices are left out? How might we see this already happening with 2020 candidates? Which voices are being covered and which are being left out?
On the other hand, we certainly experience the regulation of morality in the United States; more specifically, violence and sexuality. Media industries experience either direct regulationfrom the government/FCC (example: broadcast networks have to abide by profanity and indecency regulation) or they self-regulate,as is the case with the Motion Picture Association of America.
Your textbook mentions the self-regulation of the video game industry and television industry, but what about the regulation of controversial digital content that emerges so quickly that policymakers and the government are stumped over what to do about it? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 was created in order to help regulate copyright infringement online, but there have been other issues related to digital content in the realm of morality; for example, online harassment and revenge pornography. Often, regulation cannot keep up with emergent digital practices due to the steps it takes to sign a bill into a law, which is why music piracy was an unregulated issue for en extended period of time.
Another interesting case in media regulation is the pornography industry, which has no formal regulatory body; rather, this industry is able to generate content that meets the demands of the marketplace. However, there are laws that regulate child pornography as well as age restrictions and HIV/AIDS/STD testing for performers. Additionally, there is a limit to content; a lawsuit can be filed against a production company for producing what may be deemed "obscene" content. It is important to keep in mind that not all pornographic content is legally "obscene" unless it is deemed so in the court system - you may personally find it to be obscene, but "obscenity" is a legal term that, once applied to a work, has direct repercussions, which includes that the work be officially removed from the marketplace.
4.4 Regulating Access & Distribution
The issue of net neutrality manifested as a debate over access and distribution, and highlights the impact of deregulated political context. As Croteau & Hoynes point out net neutrality is, "The idea that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) should simply offer access to the internet and be 'neutral' in their handling of internet traffic ..." (p. 136). Although the 2010 Open Internet Order (issued by the FCC, see p. 137), failed to comprehensively support net neutrality, in 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of classifying the Internet as a "common carrier" (here (Links to an external site.) is a link to an article with more information on this ruling). This effectively preserved net neutrality and worked to treat it as a public service like mail or the landlines, which allowed us all to breath a sigh of relief; ISPs (Internet Service Providers) were prohibited from creating "fast lanes," which would allow their content to stream faster than content from their competitors. For example, Comcast would stream content that they created (NBC, Bravo, etc.) faster than content from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon. Therefore, if Comcast was our ISP (Comcast billed us for Internet service, cable, etc.) in our homes, we'd be able to watch The Real Housewives without a problem, but if we wanted to stream Empire on Hulu, we may have to sit through buffering and lagging. Here is a short video (Links to an external site.) from The New York Times on the that decision regarding net neutrality.
Also: Here is a link to WIRED magazine's guide to net neutrality: https://www.wired.com/story/guide-net-neutrality/ (Links to an external site.)
However, when current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai took office, he was immediately interested in reversing the Title II classification of the Internet as a "common carrier" in favor of turning over governance of the Internet to the Federal Trade Commission (America's consumer protection agency that also governs the advertising industry). Many ISPs feel that they should not experience government regulation, yet the public benefits from a regulation if it does, indeed, preserve net neutrality. Remember, the regulation of media is a political issue, so it would make sense that a pro-business administration would favor less regulation, just like a pro-government service administration would favor more regulation.
In May, 2018, Senate Democrats voted to overturn Pai's overturning of the Obama-era protections of net neutrality (in other words, to restore net neutrality), but it did not pass in the house, so as of June 11, 2018, media companies and conglomerates are now able to operate without any restrictions related to fast lanes, etc.
