I'm infatuated with demassification, althougth it is often viewed as conglomeration's "evil twin." Sure, there are cons to demassification, but its not all gloom and doom.
First of all, breaking mediums into genres or niches counteracts the lack in diverse content generally brought about through conglomeration. Imagine radio without demassification. You could really want to listen to girl-power ballads from the likes of Kelly Clarkson and Demi Lovato but get stuck listening to Taylor Swift singing about yet another time that she's had her heart broken because to there only one radio station that plays all different genres, and not exactly the best of every genre. I'm sorry T-Swift, you know I love you but either find a better taste in men or a puppy. Pick one. Personally, I think it would be much easier to just get a puppy. Then you could make beautiful songs about your new puppy.
The point I am trying to get across is that with out the demassification of the radio, we would all be listening to the same thing. Then, the cultural diversity that America is so proud of wouldn't exist because we all be the same. Could you imagine all being the same? This doesn't just go for radio, its for all media because all media impacts our culture. If all our media was the same, so would we. Americans wouldn't have any depth; we wouldn't millions of different type of people (because each person and their beliefs are unique) we would have one.
Also, demassification normally happens because a "new" medium comes along and steals all of the "old" medium's advertiser, audiences, or both. Without new media, we wouldn't have demassification. If demassification went away, so would magazines, TV, radio, and the internet.
I guess demassification isn't so bad after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment