Living in the modern world with its deftly organized media, well-developed system of informational sources and media-transportation mechanism makes everyone excessively dependent on media and all the items designed to provide access thereto (like the internet, television, the radio and so on). However the author of the book “The bias of media” Harold Adams Innis delivers a brand new look upon media and information therein. The noted political economist looks upon media as a key pillar for cultural stability and longevity of societies.
In particular, the idea of the media two-dimensional existence is worthy of attention. Innis convincingly claims that any kind of society or an empire is indefensibly concerned with duration over time and extension in space (Innis, 2016). Relation of a media to this or that direction is determined by the source of retention of information. For instance, the information retained on the stone is supposed to be time-biased media, because of the heaviness and duration thereof, which causes the impossibility of transportation of the stone from one place to another. As far as space-biased media is concerned paper is supposed to serve as the simplest example thereof, because of the portable and light nature thereof. Additionally the author claims that the last kind of media is featured with militaristic societies seeking for expansion their authority over territories whereas those societies promoting their authority by way of some ideological or religious influence are associated with time-biased media. Thus, the internet, for example, very much spreads over time as portals like Wikipedia keep increasing the amount of articles they have for access every day. Moreover, as for the extension of space, the internet is reaching more and more computers every day, giving access to millions to people to information online.
One more vivid piece of Innis’s knowledge deals with the concept of monopoly. The author transmits the economic concept into the political and social realm evolving his speculation to the notion of “monopoly of knowledge”. Supposing that the media of society (which represents the whole amount of knowledge possessed thereby) is comprised of a set of informational systems, there should definitely be one central “body” advocating the nature and amount of knowledge to be subsequently spread throughout the whole system. Moreover this “body” is also presumed to determine the method this information will be obtained through. Therefore, this body can be safely a monopoly of knowledge which is fully entitled to define which information is legitimate. In my consideration this idea is a worthy one. It brought me to speculation upon the “power” rendering this entitlement to that body. How do we take up the information to trust and be ruled by? Harold Innis has his own suppositions on this score. The author emphasizes the function of determining the method the information is supposed to be spread through. Once this method proves to be the most available one among wide masses, it becomes the most popular one with people. Having attained a definite amount of entrustment the body begins building up the hierarchal ladder involving professionals, amateurs and ignorant ones, regulating thereby the amount of credit paid to each of the groups. Moreover, distinguishing the group of the ignorant ones and subsequently transferring them into the political clan of “opposition” helps the monopoly to solidify the support of wider masses and at the same time incite the later to go against the earlier.
Therefore, we can convincingly infer (and this is what Harold Innis does at the end of his academic reflection) that the one wielding the information rules a society itself.
Within my own consideration, I have made a try to apply the concept of “monopoly of knowledge” to the internet. Provided that the global net represents vast concentration of information, it can be divided upon a range of subsystems. Nevertheless, the concept of monopoly proves definitely incongruent with the notion of the internet. The political form of “anarchy” would suit better I suppose. No ruling body can be distinguished within this system. And the reason is that there is no objective of designating one. The internet is not about the power and authority. The key objective of this phenomenon is encouraging dependence of wide masses on it. That is why the global net is an all-encompassing informational abyss designed to match anyone’s needs and priorities to cover wide masses.
Works Cited
"Harold Adams Innis: The Bias of Communications & Monopolies of Power." Harold Adams Innis: The Bias of Communications & Monopolies of Power. Web. 04 Feb. 2016.
