I was watching the movie With Honors the other day–you know that movie with Brendan Fraser and Joe Pesci that followed other Gen X-ers like Reality Bites in depicting up and coming young adults who “take it to the man” and rebel against administration en route to finding their own satisfying meaning in life. Come to think of it, how many movies don’t show people taking it to the man in one way or another? Either way, it’s a thought-provoking movie and worth the 95 cents to rent it at your neighborhood video store that specializes in out-dated movies (you know, the one that still has the Star Wars: Episode 1 The Phantom Menace - Coming Soon poster still prominently displayed in its sun-faded glory in the window?) .
Anyway, it had been nearly 12 years since I saw With Honors in the theater, and was surprised by a revelation at the end of the movie. Monte (played by Fraser) had been studying government at Harvard and was seeking to produce a noteworthy thesis on the pitfalls of domocracy and the problems of staking a country’s wellfare on the fallibility of mass public opinion…until a well-read homeless man (Pesci) shows him the light of human experience. Following a series of paradox shifting experiences, Monte revises his thesis, much to the chagrin of his advisor, and restructures it around the argument that technological advancements in communication would expand public access to media and would improve democracy. In the movie, Monte’s advisor frowns on the idea, but passes the thesis without honors, setting up a gloomy outlook for such a far-fetched notion as the public dictating government and societal issues.
Fast forwad to 2007 and With Honors got it spot on. The “Information Superhighway” has become the a megaphone for anyone who can sign up for a free blog account (bonus points for those who fork out $8 to buy a domain name and start an online message board). Increasingly, the public is yanking society’s microphone away from traditional media, often beating news outlets to the punch on reporting news as it happens. What’s more, Average Joes and Janes are using the Internet as a soapbox to decry their latest injustice at the hands of big business–and this is anything but a silent majority.
Sure, I may be overstating things here–a simple blog couldn’t really make an impact on business decisions could it? Well, Consider the following:
- Top PR agencies like Ketchum track blog posts to evaluate the reach and impact of companies’ public relations programs (Even TnP got attention for last week’s Scott Post)
- Consumer opinion message board sites dedicated to trashing companies (like BankofAmericaSux.com) get major hits–AND the attention of large organizations.
- With the help of YouTube, an ever-increasing group of “backpack journalists” armed with a camera phone or a digital camera post their videos online, thereby supplying more and more video to corporate news stations than full-time videographers employed by the news stations.
- Americans don’t just watch the news anymore to find out what’s happening, they go to blogs to get the commentary–and wise reporters, writers, professionals have started their own blogs to add insight to everyday events.
No, I don’t have specific statistics to back these claims..yet…but it’s hard to deny them. The very fact that every major news organization provides an online “feedback/discussion” link at the end of each newstory to stimulate conversation about the news piece (and, keep internet surfing readers from going elsewhere for their news experience) is just one example of the reality of this new age of All Access Media.
Companies now have to deal with an empowered reader-base who decides what news is important and contextualizes business decisions. It’s a troubling lack of control for companies that they have arguably never before seen.
This raises two questions: How far will companies give in and let the rising public voice, maginified by the Internet, dictate business image? And, as this trend weakens traditional marketing and media-generated press releases, how will companies respond. The answer to come.
I haven’t seen this in quite some time, but I believe you only picked up on half the point of the movie. Joe Pesci also gave a soliloquy in class that described the Constitution as a living document, maleable and subject to change…hence the genius of the document. In part, I agree. The document should be subject to change according to the dictates of the people, and this is provided for in the text of the document. However, the notion that the Constitution is somehow “living” is somewhat more controversial, and, dare I say it, liberal (note how I refuse to call liberals “progressive”, since the notion of oligarchical monopolization of the democratic process should be the very definition of a lack of progress). A “living” Constitution allows for a single branch (such as the Executive with its signing statements to legislation which essentially purport to allow the Executive branch to ignore certain provisions within the legislation; or the judiciary with its comments on the social pulse without having been elected to their position or subject to social pressures (refer to the most recent decision on indecency standards where the court determined what was normal and common usage of profanity…or cases in which the courts looked to public opinion for popularity of the death penalty)) to unilaterally take power from the other branches, thus upsetting the delicate balance of powers. From a communications perspective, Monte had it right…putting power in the hands of the people restores the balance of powers between the three branches and the electorate. However, Joe Pesci’s speech almost seemed to contravene, in part, the idea of vesting power in the masses.
Good points Dave. Yes, the movie’s points were more focused around the government implications of “power to the people”…I guess I took some creative liberty in applying it to business.