Chapter 8: Information and Communication Technologies in the Information Society PDF

Chapter 8 This passage explores the profound expansion of information and communication technologies (ICT) and critically evaluates the notion of a new "Information Society." The author acknowledges the rapid rise in information availability and transmission technology, along with the global impact...

Chapter 8 This passage explores the profound expansion of information and communication technologies (ICT) and critically evaluates the notion of a new "Information Society." The author acknowledges the rapid rise in information availability and transmission technology, along with the global impact of networks and digital platforms, which have revolutionized communications since the late 20th century. The discussion references thinkers like Daniel Bell, who believed in the transformative nature of ICT as a hallmark of a new era, but contrasts this perspective with Marxist (or "Marxian") critiques, particularly those of Herbert Schiller. Schiller, an influential figure in Marxist-informed media studies, argues that while ICT advancements are undeniable, they do not fundamentally alter capitalism's goals or power structures. For Schiller, information and communication serve as essential tools that reinforce capitalism, not elements of a radically new society. Through a "political economy" lens, Schiller and his contemporaries analyze how capitalist imperatives shape media and technology. This approach considers ownership, profit motives, and structural control over information, suggesting that true understanding of media content requires looking at underlying economic forces rather than merely observing the media itself. Key aspects of the "political economy" approach highlighted include: 1. Economic Structures Behind Media: Schiller argues that analyzing media requires examining who owns and profits from these outlets, as economic imperatives influence content creation and distribution. 2. Systemic Analysis within Capitalism: Marxist critics view ICT within the capitalist system, interpreting new technologies as tools for enhancing capitalist control rather than heralding a post-capitalist age. 3. Historical Continuities: While ICT represents significant change, Schiller and others argue that it is an evolution within capitalism, not a disruption of it. For example, "techno-capitalism" reflects how capitalism adapts through digital and knowledge-based economies but still revolves around profit. 4. Power and Access: Schiller’s work emphasizes who controls and benefits from ICT. His critiques address access disparities and question how digital technologies perpetuate power imbalances, reinforcing existing inequalities rather than democratizing access to information. Thus, the passage concludes that Marxian analysis remains relevant, offering tools for understanding the persistent influence of capitalist structures in shaping both old and new media. Schiller and like-minded thinkers contend that, despite advances in information technologies, these are often employed to maintain existing power dynamics rather than to create a genuinely new social order. In Herbert Schiller's work, four primary arguments about the influence of capitalism on information and communication are emphasized: 1. Market Pressures in Information Development: Schiller argues that the processes of buying, selling, and profit-making heavily shape information and communication innovations. Market criteria, driven by capitalist motives, significantly determine the development and structure of information systems. 2. Commodification of Information: He contends that information is increasingly treated as a commodity, similar to consumer goods like cars or breakfast cereals. This commodification implies that information is primarily made available if it can be sold, aligning with capitalist practices where resources are only accessible based on market value. 3. Class Inequality in Information Access: Schiller highlights that access to information is unequally distributed, influenced by social class. Class position affects who receives what information, resulting in certain groups benefitting from the information revolution while others remain disadvantaged. 4. Corporate Capitalism's Influence: Schiller describes modern capitalism as being dominated by large, oligopolistic corporations with both national and international reach. These corporations, driven by private interests, shape the development of information and ICTs to serve corporate rather than public goals. As such, information and communication technologies primarily serve the needs of corporate capitalism, reinforcing and expanding capitalist structures rather than challenging them. In summary, Schiller argues that information systems are not neutral or revolutionary; rather, they reflect and reinforce existing capitalist priorities—market pressures, commodification, class inequalities, and corporate interests. Far from disrupting capitalist structures, the Information Society consolidates and extends them This excerpt provides a comprehensive overview of Herbert Schiller's perspective on the growth of corporate capitalism, especially the rise of what he terms a "transnational empire." Schiller argued that as corporate capitalism expanded, notably through U.S.- based multinationals, it gave rise to a global economic system dominated by corporate interests. He believed this system, often termed a "transnational empire" due to its powerful influence across borders, structured global markets in a way that prioritized business interests over public welfare. Schiller highlighted the pivotal role of information networks and telecommunications in enabling this transnational corporate influence. Corporations, he argued, became reliant on sophisticated information systems, which evolved in response to corporate needs. His son, Dan Schiller, expanded on this thesis, showing how the infrastructure, technical standards, and policies surrounding these information networks were established to favor business operations and profit motives rather than public interest. One of Herbert Schiller's central critiques was that global media and informational systems promoted consumerist values and American products, shaping public perception and lifestyle aspirations worldwide. This approach, he argued, did not aim to educate international audiences but rather to open new markets and promote consumption, subtly embedding capitalist values through entertainment and advertising. Robert McChesney and John Bellamy Foster further explored these themes in recent decades, examining the commercialization of the internet. They argued that private, profit-driven control over the internet may limit access for certain groups, potentially hindering societal productivity and public wealth. Drawing on the "Lauderdale Paradox," they suggested that treating essential resources (like internet access) as private assets undermines collective welfare. They proposed that universal access to the internet as a public right would enhance societal wealth by allowing everyone to participate fully in a digitally dependent world. In essence, Schiller, along with later scholars, contended that the integration of information networks into capitalist systems reshaped economies and societies in ways that prioritized corporate needs, ultimately reinforcing economic inequalities on a global scale. This excerpt critiques the commercialization of the internet, which has increasingly evolved to serve corporate interests. Initially, the internet was a tool for open access and unrestricted information sharing. However, the shift towards monetization is now evident in pervasive advertising, data collection, and the user-profiling practices of major tech corporations, turning users into products sold to advertisers. The piece contrasts Tim Berners-Lee's original vision for the World Wide Web with the approaches of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, which prioritize revenue generation. Berners-Lee’s gift of an unrestricted web stands in contrast to the pervasive commercial practices that now define much of the internet. This shift has led to "connectivity with strings," where user data fuels targeted marketing, and privacy is compromised. For instance, personalized ads on platforms like Amazon and Facebook are crafted based on past user behavior, transforming online habits into monetizable data. Further, the excerpt discusses Herbert Schiller’s criticism of Western media's role in supporting capitalist and American ideologies. Schiller argued that U.S.-based media not only sells a consumerist lifestyle but also perpetuates an American worldview, often portraying global events from a distinctly Western perspective. This perspective emphasizes Western dominance and often marginalizes non-Western countries, casting them as centers of crisis or tragedy rather than as culturally rich or complex societies. Schiller's work led to calls for a “new world information order” (NWIO), which sought to give developing nations more control over their own narratives, free from the heavy influence of Western media. This NWIO was an attempt to counter "information imperialism" and the cultural dominance imposed by Western media. This excerpt from Herbert Schiller’s work examines the significant role media corporations play within corporate capitalism, focusing on the close relationship between the media and the political and economic structures of power. Schiller argues that media companies, like other corporations, do not simply function as isolated information providers; instead, they are integral to the advancement and entrenchment of capitalist values. 1. Expansion and Concentration: Schiller notes that media corporations have not only expanded in size but also reduced in numbers, forming a dominant oligopoly in media sectors such as television, film, and internet-based platforms. These companies—like Disney, News Corp., and Viacom— exemplify a trend of consolidation and internationalization, enabling them to exert influence on a global scale. 2. Profit Motive and Integration: For these media giants, profit is paramount. News Corporation, for instance, has diversified its holdings across various media platforms (TV, newspapers, digital), enabling it to reach wide audiences while advancing its corporate interests. News Corp.'s structure is vertically and horizontally integrated, ensuring it controls both content creation and distribution. 3. Political Influence and Ideology: Schiller highlights how companies like News Corp. actively influence public discourse and political agendas, not merely through direct lobbying but by wielding editorial control to support market- friendly policies and political candidates who favor deregulation and free markets. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets have historically aligned with conservative values, showing consistent support for leaders like Margaret Thatcher. 4. Market Ideology vs. Public Broadcasting: Schiller points to James Murdoch’s critique of the BBC as an illustration of how these corporations view public broadcasters as competition that disrupts the free-market model by providing information without charge. Murdoch frames this as a threat to “pluralism” in media, arguing for reduced state involvement to promote private-sector media alternatives. 5. Corporate Interests as Policy Drivers: According to Schiller, media moguls like Murdoch do not always have to explicitly request favorable treatment; politicians may proactively align themselves with the media’s interests, fearing negative press coverage if they promote regulations that could hurt media profits. 6. Global Media Oligopoly: Schiller argues that, whether in the US, Europe, or Asia, media corporations adhere to a set of capitalist values aimed at  maximizing profits, minimizing state intervention, and opposing policies like high taxation and welfare spending. By controlling information flows, these corporations shape public perception in ways that reinforce the existing capitalist framework. In summary, Schiller's critique underscores the role of major media corporations in perpetuating the values and interests of corporate capitalism, where profit imperatives often drive editorial choices and political affiliations, leading to an intertwined relationship between media moguls and policymakers. Herbert Schiller’s critique of the contemporary information environment highlights how corporate capitalism shapes and constrains the flow and availability of information, driven by profit-maximizing principles rather than public interest or diversity of knowledge. Schiller argues that market dynamics dictate the types of information created, distributed, and prioritized, serving the interests of corporations and the capitalist system as a whole. 1. Market-Driven Information: Schiller argues that information within a capitalist framework is produced primarily when it promises profitability. This leads to a landscape where information that aligns with corporate profitability proliferates, while less lucrative domains, like medical electronics or other non-commercially driven fields, are neglected. For example, Thorn-EMI’s shift from medical electronics to consumer entertainment due to profit concerns demonstrates how market priorities influence corporate decision-making, often to the detriment of potentially socially beneficial fields. 2. Technological Development as Market-Aligned: Schiller challenges the notion that technological innovation is inherently neutral or purely progressive. Instead, he argues that technology development is heavily guided by market needs. Corporations like IBM and BT invest in research and development (R&D) that maximizes market returns rather than purely advancing knowledge. The example of consumer technologies built around the television set, with new devices complementing rather than challenging established products, exemplifies this profit-driven approach. Consequently, most technological “advancements” reinforce existing products and consumer behaviors rather than fostering substantial innovation. 3. Commercialization of Knowledge: The emphasis on profit has permeated scientific and technological research. Science, according to Schiller, has shifted from pure research to a commoditized endeavor aligned with economic and military interests. This aligns with David Dickson’s view of science policy in the U.S., which, since the late 1970s, has increasingly prioritized economic competitiveness and military applications over social or public health goals. Scientists and academic researchers are expected to collaborate with industry to produce commercially viable products, further intertwining academic knowledge with capitalist imperatives. 4. Information Quality and Social Impact: Schiller argues that while information has proliferated, much of it is of low quality or serves to reinforce market values rather than fostering public awareness or enlightenment. The growth of databases and information services primarily benefits corporate and financial interests, which can afford premium services for real-time data that aid in  market manipulation and profit generation. Schiller points out that a significant portion of accessible information serves advertising or consumer manipulation rather than public education or knowledge enrichment. This trend leads to a society where people may have more data at their fingertips yet are less informed about critical social, political, and economic realities. 5. Critical Theory and the Market's Influence on Information: Through a Critical Theory lens, Schiller’s perspective reveals that what may appear as neutral, technological, or information-based advancements are in fact deeply enmeshed in capitalist agendas. He questions the widely held belief that more information automatically benefits society, as much of the readily available content, particularly from sources like television and certain online platforms, emphasizes entertainment over substance. The resulting “information society” is thus not a democratized knowledge space but one oriented around sustaining the capitalist system and its market-driven imperatives. In essence, Schiller’s view aligns with Marxian critiques, positing that corporate capitalism directs the informational landscape towards profit, limiting its potential for public good. This market-aligned orientation in information, technology, and science raises concerns about whether society genuinely benefits from an increase in information if that information predominantly serves commercial rather than public interests. This text explores the significant transformations that have occurred in the information and telecommunications sectors, particularly in relation to the impact of privatization, deregulation, and market-driven policies since the 1980s. Initially, state-owned institutions and public services, such as British Telecom (BT) and other similar bodies globally, were driven by a public service ethos. These services aimed to ensure universal access, non-discriminatory access, and affordable pricing. However, over time, political movements, particularly those of the Thatcher administration in the UK, introduced market-oriented reforms that focused on privatizing public utilities, encouraging competition, and fostering a business-driven approach to telecommunications. Following the privatization of BT in 1984, the company shifted its focus towards maximizing profit, prioritizing corporate clients over residential users, and expanding its international reach. While BT sought to remain competitive in the global telecommunications market, its efforts to cater to multinational corporations led to a decline in services for everyday consumers. The drive for commercial success also led to staff reductions and a growing emphasis on international business opportunities. The text also reflects on the broader consequences of these market-oriented changes in the information domain. Publicly funded institutions, such as libraries, universities, and museums, increasingly faced funding cuts and market pressures. With the prioritization of commercial values, these institutions had to adapt by seeking private funding and offering services that could appeal to paying customers, thus reducing the accessibility and diversity of the information they provided. This shift in focus has been critiqued as leading to the commercialization of information, where access to knowledge and cultural resources becomes increasingly limited to those who can afford it, while public cultural institutions lose their ability to serve as counterbalances to corporate-controlled media and communication channels. In essence, the marketization of information has led to a reconfiguration of institutions once centered around public service goals, causing significant changes in how information is produced, distributed, and consumed, often to the detriment of equitable access and diversity. The passage discusses the process of commodification of information, with a particular focus on the implications for society, intellectual property, and scientific knowledge. Key points include: 1. Commodification of Information: Herbert Schiller and others critique the idea that information, including communication technologies, is increasingly treated like any other market commodity. This shift involves information being bought, sold, and subject to pricing mechanisms in capitalist systems. Schiller, drawing on the work of Oscar Wilde, highlights a concern about society focusing on "the price of everything and the value of nothing," implying that commodification can erode the intrinsic value of information. 2. Cultural vs. Economic Value: This critique of commodification includes a reminder from David Mellor, a Conservative politician, who argued that a society should be judged not just by its economic achievements but by its cultural ones. The piece contrasts the value of artistic and cultural contributions with the profits of industrial magnates, suggesting that an overemphasis on commercial principles can undermine cultural achievements. 3. Branding and Intangibles: Over the past decades, branding has grown in importance. Brands, like Nike or Virgin, now carry more value than the products themselves, and even individuals' names (such as that of footballer David Beckham) have become valuable commodities. This phenomenon is an extension of the commodification of intangibles. 4. Intellectual Property (IP) and its Protection: The commodification of information is closely linked to intellectual property (IP) rights, such as patents and copyrights. These protections ensure that creators can monetize their work, but they can also lead to ethical concerns, as seen in the case of John Sutherland, whose writings were digitized without compensation. 5. Scientific Knowledge and Open Access: A central issue of commodification is the treatment of scientific knowledge. Many scientists support the idea of open-access publishing, where research is freely available to the public, in line with the “Communist” spirit of knowledge sharing. However, publishers, who have long held control over scientific journals, are resisting this shift, as open- access publication threatens their lucrative business model. The tension  between making scientific research freely available and maintaining its commercialization is a significant issue in the Information Society. 6. The Changing Nature of Copyright: Copyright law has evolved over time, with the duration of protection increasing significantly—from 14 years to 70 or even 95 years for works published by corporations. This longer protection period has extended to previously unthinkable things, such as scents or smells. The passage mentions the struggle over genetic research, highlighting the profound economic stakes of intellectual property in science. 7. Open Source vs. Proprietary Software: The commodification of information is also seen in the realm of technology, where proprietary software companies like Microsoft face competition from open-source alternatives like Linux. Open- source software challenges the profit model of major companies, reflecting broader tensions between commercial interests and public good. 8. The Future of Information as a Commodity: Schiller and others fear that the trend toward commodification will lead to a society in which cultural activities and knowledge, once freely accessible, are increasingly mediated by micro- payments. This trend threatens to reduce much of our shared cultural heritage to marketable units, further entrenching the idea that information should be bought and sold, rather than treated as a public good. In summary, the commodification of information has far-reaching consequences, not only for the economy but for cultural and intellectual life. It challenges traditional notions of public access, the value of intellectual property, and the role of science and culture in society. The central argument is that information, increasingly treated as a commodity in a market system, is distributed based on individuals' ability to pay. While everyone has some access to information products, the quality and range of information vary greatly according to one's social and economic status. The concept of the "digital divide" exemplifies this, with wealthier individuals gaining access to cutting-edge technologies and high-quality information, while the less affluent have access to inferior or even trivial content. This divide can also be seen between nations, where wealthier countries have better access to advanced technologies and richer sources of information, while poorer countries are limited to the leftovers from the global information market, including low-quality content and dependence on what the affluent nations are willing to share. Herbert Schiller, a key thinker on this topic, describes this as a form of "information stratification," where there are distinct divisions between the "information rich" and the "information poor." Schiller notes that, while new technologies theoretically offer universal access, in practice, the ability to pay plays a decisive role in determining who gets the most valuable information. For the majority, what is offered is often superficial, low-quality content designed for mass appeal, such as infotainment or junk media, while the most sophisticated information technologies and services are largely restricted to the wealthy and powerful, including large corporations, the military, and governments. The case of television and the expansion of cable and satellite channels is cited as an example of this trend. Television programming, driven by commercial imperatives, often caters to mass audiences and focuses on entertainment, which reduces the diversity of content and fails to serve the information needs of the public. Subscription- based services further exclude those who cannot afford them, further deepening the divide between information haves and have-nots. Ultimately, Schiller and other critics suggest that the commodification of information, rather than empowering the public, often results in the poor being inundated with irrelevant or shallow content, while the wealthy continue to enjoy more sophisticated and valuable forms of information. This dynamic underscores how class divisions, far from being alleviated by new technologies, are reinforced and exacerbated in the information age. Herbert Schiller critiques the central role that corporate capitalism plays in shaping the information landscape. He argues that the major beneficiary of the "information revolution" is the corporate sector, which has the financial power to shape and dominate information technologies and systems. As large corporations have grown both in size and reach, their need for advanced information networks and technologies has expanded. These corporations have the means to develop, implement, and control cutting-edge ICTs to coordinate their global operations, control management processes, and respond to diverse local conditions. Schiller highlights that these technologies, and their use, are largely determined by those who can afford them, reinforcing the power dynamics of corporate capitalism. Corporate interests are at the forefront of technological innovation, with companies often shaping technological developments to meet their specific needs, such as increasing control over workforces and expanding global reach. This leads to increased decentralization of operations, while simultaneously strengthening centralized control via real-time tracking and communication technologies. Corporate control of information and communications is also tied to its ability to avoid scrutiny from nation-states. By operating through vast, global networks, multinational corporations are able to bypass local government regulations, such as taxes, through practices like transfer pricing. Schiller points out that large corporations, like Google, Amazon, and Starbucks, often pay little to no tax in countries where they generate significant revenues by exploiting global tax loopholes. Additionally, Schiller stresses that information in the "information age" is not just a tool for communication or development but a commodity that is increasingly owned by private corporations. This shift in ownership restricts access to valuable information, particularly data gathered by market research or proprietary research and development. Intellectual property laws, such as patents and copyrights, further reinforce the notion of information as a privately owned asset that is withheld from the public domain to benefit corporate interests. Finally, Schiller acknowledges that the corporate sector doesn't only consume information; it also controls the information industries themselves. The sector is dominated by a small number of massive corporations that control both the hardware (e.g., IBM, Microsoft) and the content (e.g., Google, Philips) of the information industry. This concentration of power shapes not only the products available in the market but also the very structure of the industry, which is driven by profit motives and the ability to pay. The convergence of technologies and services further consolidates corporate control, leading to a prioritization of commercial interests over public access and democratic participation in the information age. This text explores the relationship between information technology, surveillance, and consumer capitalism, emphasizing how modern media and information structures reinforce capitalist market interests. The key arguments can be distilled as follows: 1. Surveillance and Capitalist Control: Scholars like Oscar Gandy and David Lyon emphasize how information technology is used not only for economic gain but also for class control, serving to strengthen capitalist interests. The state and corporations deploy surveillance to maintain social hierarchies and control, e.g., monitoring trade unionists and dissenters to stymie potential challenges to the system. 2. Consumer Capitalism: The "information revolution" extends consumer capitalism deeply into personal lives. The concept implies an individualistic, consumption-driven lifestyle that contrasts with community-oriented values. Consumerism encourages passivity, hedonism, and a focus on personal rather than public or civic engagement, with consumer needs seen as solvable through the purchase of products. 3. Role of Television and Media: Media, especially television, entrenches consumerist behavior by promoting products and lifestyles aligned with capitalist ideals. Advanced media tech like interactive TV, targeted advertising, and product placements fuel consumption habits and foster dependency on commercial entertainment, leading to "civic disengagement" (Putnam) and a preference for home-centered lifestyles. 4. Celebrity Culture and Manufactured Desires: The media fosters aspirations by promoting symbols of success, beauty, and fame, pushing the public toward consumerism to "achieve" these ideals. Celebrity culture exacerbates this by promoting "false needs" rather than genuine, self-directed goals. 5. Technology and Market Dependency: Increasingly, individuals rely on the market to fulfill needs previously met through self-sufficiency, such as growing  food or making clothes. Technologies, especially those providing entertainment, create dependencies, replacing communal or self-organized activities. 6. Targeted Surveillance for Consumer Manipulation: Surveillance technologies allow corporations to gather and analyze data on individual preferences, enabling precise marketing. This trend is exemplified by practices like data mining and customer profiling, which enable more focused consumer targeting, creating a feedback loop that amplifies consumer dependency on products and services tailored to personal profiles. In sum, the text argues that information technologies and media amplify consumer capitalism by creating private, consumption-oriented lifestyles, eroding public engagement, and fostering a dependency on market-driven solutions for personal needs. This system sustains itself through surveillance and targeted marketing, which reinforce a cycle of consumerist behavior that benefits corporate capitalism at the expense of civic and communal bonds. This passage offers a series of critiques against Critical Theorists' views on the Information Society, specifically those of scholars like Herbert Schiller. Here’s a breakdown of the main objections: 1. Lack of Practical Solutions: Critics argue that Critical Theorists often fail to propose actionable solutions or alternatives. Schiller, for instance, points to public information over private, yet offers limited guidance on implementing such a system. 2. Association with Communism: The fall of Communist states is sometimes used to question the feasibility of non-capitalist alternatives, which Schiller’s critiques often imply. However, defenders argue that the mere fall of Communism doesn’t nullify the need for critique of capitalism nor dismiss the possibility of alternative systems. 3. Fall from Grace Mentality: Some argue that Critical Theory tends to imply a deterioration in information quality (e.g., an increase in "garbage information"). However, this can be a simplistic view, as information quality may not necessarily be worse than in the past, and tools like surveillance can also improve consumer convenience. 4. Inequality and Simplification: Critical Theory’s view of "information rich" and "information poor" is seen as too simplistic. Critics argue that inequalities in information access need a more nuanced understanding that considers variables like race, gender, and different forms of capital (economic, cultural). 5. One-Way Commodification: Theorists like Schiller critique the commodification of information as inevitable, but the existence of open-source software, free downloads, and non-commercial content suggests some resistance to market influence. 6. Questioning Consumerism's Negative Portrayal: Critical Theory’s portrayal of consumerism as manipulative and responsible for instilling "false needs" is contested. Critics argue this view romanticizes a pre-consumerist era of "authentic needs," which may not reflect historical realities. 7. Overemphasis on Decline of High-Quality Information: While Critical Theorists may argue that valuable information is overshadowed by low-quality  content, others point out that high-quality programming and literature remain accessible. Technological advances like time-shifting allow consumers greater control, possibly broadening their access to quality information. These objections suggest that while Critical Theory highlights important issues in understanding the Information Society, it may require more nuanced approaches to account for complexities within modern societal structures and resistances within consumer culture 1. Popular Fiction for the Working Class: In the 19th century, working-class reading material was often sensationalized literature (like "penny dreadfuls") rather than complex or intellectual fiction, suggesting a long-standing trend of catering to popular taste. 2. Awareness of Consumer Manipulation: There’s a challenge to the notion that people are easily deceived by consumerist imagery. Postmodernists argue that individuals recognize the artificiality of advertisements and enjoy the irony or artistry involved without being fully "duped." 3. Home Life and Community Involvement: Emphasis on home life doesn't necessarily lead to isolation from communal activities. It is possible to balance private and social spheres, staying engaged with the outside world. 4. True Desires vs. "False Needs": Critics argue that people aren't just seduced by advertising; they buy goods like food or technology because they genuinely enjoy or find value in them. Advertisements don't solely determine demand; product quality matters too. 5. Corporate and Military Interests: While some critics view the military as serving corporate interests, real-world complexities often defy such simplistic explanations. For example, U.S. military involvement in the Balkans and Afghanistan lacked clear corporate gain, pointing instead to political or humanitarian motivations. 6. American Media Bias: The U.S. media is critiqued for prioritizing national events and viewpoints, leading to bias. However, this national focus isn’t exclusively in service of capitalism; it reflects audience interest. Media also plays a role in exposing corruption and abuses, adding complexity to the "propaganda" critique. 7. Technology and Consumer Adaptation: There’s a gap between intended and actual use of technologies. Consumers adapt products like mobile phones for new functions (like texting) beyond what developers originally envisioned, highlighting user agency and adaptability. 8. Digital Accessibility and Capitalism: Some critics argue that capitalism restricts internet access to those who can afford it, creating a "digital underclass." However, it’s suggested that capitalism may still deliver  widespread access, as it has with other technologies and consumer goods like Coca-Cola. These points illustrate the complexity in understanding consumer culture, suggesting that people are not passive consumers and that capitalism, while flawed, isn't entirely restrictive in its reach or effects. Conclusion Theses caveats aside, there is a very great deal of value in Critical Theory, something surely evident from the bulk of this chapter. Indeed, as I argue in the final chapter, Herbert Schiller seems to me the most helpful yet underrated scholar of the Information Age. Several of its major emphases seem to me indispensable for an adequate understanding of the significance of information. Herbert Schiller’s work, in starting with the real, substantive, world rather than with ‘technological possibilities’ or ‘imagined futures’, offers an important understanding of major dimensions of the role and significance of information and allied technologies. He may have overstated his case at times (Tunstall, 2006 ), but the attention he draws to market criteria and corporate capitalism cannot but convince us of their pivotal role. Furthermore, he has a sharp eye for social inequalities, which are not set to disappear. Quite the contrary, he reveals, locally and globally, how these are key determinants of what kind of information is generated, in what circumstances and for whose benefit. Finally, the identification of consumer capitalism, however much one might want to qualify the term and particular conditions, is a helpful reminder of just how much the informational realm is dedicated to the pursuit of selling to people who appear to be retreating further into privatized ways of life. Note 1 The term can be used to distinguish intellectual work that is influenced by Marxist thinking in terms of analysis from that which subscribes to the wider political Marxist package.