Welcome back to CMAF 1010—I'm Edward Holmes, here with Laura Bennett. Glad you're joining us again for another deep dive into media and society. Laura, I keep coming back to this old Marshall McLuhan line: "The medium is the message." It's one of those deceptively simple phrases that, I think, gets at why we can’t ever just talk about content without talking about the shape it arrives in. It’s like, the actual form—TV, TikTok, newspapers—it structures the way we see the world before we even notice what the "message" is.Yeah, definitely. And what strikes me is how invisible those structures become. Even the QWERTY keyboard—I mean, it's a holdover from typewriters designed to slow people down, and now it's just... everywhere. The persistence of old tech is wild. Or, honestly, the way we doomscroll through social feeds—it's the endless scroll, the format itself, that keeps us locked in. It feels new but it’s an old pattern repackaged.Exactly, and that constant flow, it shapes not just what we think about, but how we even think. It’s like McLuhan said—media are environments as imperceptible to us as water is to fish. Most days I forget I’m even "swimming" in it. Actually, that reminds me, Laura, have I ever told you about my introduction to the 'Dead Internet Theory'?No, but you’ve brought it up before. I remember you kind of paused halfway and veered off—so I’m curious. Bring it back.Oh, right. So, the first time I ran across it, I honestly thought it was a parody. The idea is that most of the web’s content might be non-human—AI, bots, filler, just this slurry of junk and ads. It freaked me out for a minute because, suddenly, you realize you can't trust what—or even who—you’re interacting with online. It’s a thought experiment more than a conspiracy, but it really hammers home the point: you have to approach digital media critically, never just take the environment for granted. It’s unsettling. That moment really stuck with me.That’s a perfect example of why being aware of the medium's impact matters so much. We’re always telling ourselves it’s just about the "content," but it's the infrastructure shaping us 24/7. So I think this idea—media as environment, as something structuring our very reality—kind of underpins everything else we’re about to discuss.So, let’s talk power and attention—Harold Innis and Dallas Smythe, those are some core theorists here. Innis’s idea that whoever controls the medium really controls the knowledge? Still totally relevant. And then you get to Smythe, who argued that in commercial media, it’s audiences—for sale, like a product. Which is honestly a bit unsettling.It is, and it links back to what we discussed last episode—how our behaviors, and even our identities, get commodified. The 'attention economy' is, well, brutal. You’ve got infinite content, and everyone's fighting for those few seconds of focus you can spare. Platforms are built for this. The endless notifications, recommendation algorithms—it’s about capturing and selling your attention, not the content itself.Exactly, and you can trace all this back to who gets to decide what’s "knowledge." Innis talks about the 'monopoly of knowledge'—when information is only available to the powerful. Think about universities with paywalls, or media giants that decide which news stories make the homepage. And honestly, it’s not new. Back when the printing press took off, people realized knowledge was power. The church lost its monopoly because people could suddenly access texts directly.That's a really good point. The shifting control—from religious institutions to media conglomerates, to today’s big tech firms—each time, it’s about managing access and exposure. And then you see the same logics play out with algorithms deciding what we "should" see. Laura, didn’t you want to mention Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding here?Yeah, absolutely. So, Hall’s model really flips the script: media producers encode messages a certain way, but audiences decode them—sometimes in ways never intended. Take a news story: some people accept it at face value (he calls that the "dominant" reading), others resist, and some reinterpret it completely. We see that all the time now—especially with polarized issues. Just scroll through Twitter after a major news event, right?Definitely. It’s like everyone’s seeing a different reality even though the text is technically the same. I mean, the gap between what’s encoded and what’s decoded? That’s where meaning gets made—and contested.And that means understanding the economics and structures behind these messages is crucial, especially because they decide which "meanings" dominate.So, if you want to talk about dominance, you can’t ignore surveillance capitalism. It’s not just about companies collecting our data; it’s about shaping our experience—profiling us, targeting us, nudging us without us even realizing. Data’s the new oil, as they say. It’s about power, but it's also... honestly, a bit terrifying in terms of privacy and agency.The panopticon metaphor really fits here—prisoners never know if they're being watched, so they police themselves. These days, all the apps, smart devices, and cameras do the same thing; they structure our behavior just by existing. Even if no one's actively watching, you feel like someone could be. That changes what you do. It really does.Exactly. And I've spent a fair bit of time researching media concentration—who owns what. The trend is worrying: vertical and horizontal integration mean a handful of companies have massive influence. Disney gobbling up studios, Comcast owning content and distribution networks—they’re able to set the range of acceptable discourse. I—maybe this is a stretch, but when so few gatekeepers control both what’s produced and how it gets to you, it’s a real risk for democracy. It narrows our choices so subtly we barely notice.No, I’m with you. And it loops right back into surveillance—not just of us, but over the stories we hear and the conversations we’re allowed to have. Who gets to decide what’s visible? Who gets categorized, profiled, targeted? Those questions carry huge social consequences.Which is why, more than ever, we need real critical media literacy. It’s not just about "fact-checking," it’s about asking: who made this, who profits from it, and what agendas might be baked into this format? There are great tools and initiatives out there—like browser plugins that reveal tracking, or workshops on deciphering media bias.A key strategy is diversifying what you consume. Get out of your algorithmic bubble! News sources, independent creators, voices you wouldn’t normally encounter—it's easier said than done, but it’s essential for challenging our assumptions and avoiding those echo chambers. And, on a practical level, that also reduces the risk of being manipulated by one-sided framings.And it’s not all doom and gloom, right? People are getting savvier—more are turning on privacy settings, using encrypted messaging, checking the sources before sharing. I mean, none of these are total solutions, but they’re good steps towards regaining a bit of control.Exactly. And it’s the sum of these small actions—being intentional, being critical, using tech to protect your privacy—that can eventually shift the wider culture toward greater agency.All of this builds to a more basic point, really. Whenever you encounter a piece of media, before believing it or passing it on, pause—ask yourself who made it, for what reason, and what you might be missing. That's such a simple practice, but it’s tough to stick with when we’re all drowning in content.Right, and resist the urge to just stick with stuff that already aligns with your views. It’s almost too easy to block or mute what we don't like, but that just builds an echo chamber and... honestly, reinforces biases. So seek out different perspectives—international, local, whatever breaks your daily pattern—even if it’s uncomfortable.It’s also about using the technology itself—ad blockers, VPNs, secure messaging. These are basic—well, maybe not basic for everyone—but these tactics help limit exposure and control your own data. And, you know, they’re not silver bullets, but they make the surveillance machine work harder to track you.And if enough people start doing that, even in small ways, it pushes change—from the user side, but possibly also in how platforms structure their systems.So, looking forward—as users, as creators, and as societies—we need to keep the pressure on for media transparency and accountability. There’s huge ethical responsibility here. If you're putting content into the world—especially at scale, like corporations—there's a need to be as transparent as possible, to think about the downstream effects of your platforms and technologies.Especially as we get further into this era of AI-generated content and deepfakes. These tools can democratize creative work, sure. But they also... I mean, they really do have the potential to undermine trust in pretty much anything you see or hear. We’re talking about a world where verifying reality gets ever harder.Which means education and regulation—not in a heavy-handed sense, but as proactive steps. Individuals have a role; so do governments and tech developers. We need a culture where the ethics of media innovation align with democratic values, not just profit motives. Maybe that’s idealistic, but it's the only way out of permanent crisis mode.Well said—I don’t think it’s too idealistic at all. If anything, it's necessary. As we wrap up, let’s keep these questions alive: Who’s shaping our media? How do we build more resilient, informed societies? We’ve got a lot to tackle in future episodes.Yeah, and thanks to everyone for joining us. Edward, always great to talk with you—lots to think about, as usual.Always a pleasure, Laura. We’ll see you next time on CMAF 1010. Take care, everyone.

Episodes

Media Power, Meaning, and Surveillance