The Medium Is The Messenger

Reading about a murder is different than watching a murder take place.

If Yellow Cab Co. picks up a couple of bank robbers outside the bank and drives them a few blocks away and drops them off, are they liable? Could the company be charged for participating in their escape?

What if it was an Uber driver? If you are being paid, knowingly or not, to participate in a crime, aren’t you still legally liable? I remember the old saying, “Ignorance is no excuse” and wonder if that applies to having no knowledge that a crime is in progress? That your activities are contributing to the success of the heist, or the fraud.

Passing counterfeit money is, technically, a crime. Even if you are unaware the bills are phony.

Is it ok for Verizon to allow counterfeiters to use the texting of Apple’s stolen logo to engage their phone system users in fake security warnings and soliciting credit cards to install phony digital safety systems?

At what point do we hold people accountable for enabling crimes?

I think we can all agree, unless you are being held hostage or have a gun pointed at your head, you shouldn’t be driving the getaway car, passing counterfeit identities or facilitating communications between crooks.

And if you do those things while capable of interfering with the criminal process, you are, by default, guilty of subordination, at the least, and an accomplice, at worst

.

You may be naive, unaware, distracted or oblivious, but you are not an innocent bystander.

Our major media industry, ( i.e., newspapers/magazines, TV, telephone, radio and on-line social media podcasters, bloggers and commentators ) all try to evade any form of responsibility for their contributions to scammers. They claim, “The media is just the message. Don’t blame us. We are just delivering the information. What others do with it isn’t our problem.”

In the New World of Digital Communications, we have to distinguish between the “Media” and the “Medium” because they are two different things. The “Media” are the pixels that make up the picture on your computer or TV screen. The more of them and the more closely grouped they are, the clearer the picture. The “Medium” however, is the screen. The collection of liquid crystals spread between layers of phosphorus and glass create an image. Stimulated by electrons, it moves and changes colors. It is active vs. passive information.

The “Medium” then is that picture, or the content, that we see. Whether in a still photo (magazines, newspapers, books, etc. ) or video projection ( TV, computer monitor or IED ) the user is engaged by a multi dimensional continuous stream of information.

This form of informational delivery has an entirely different effect on our brains. Reading about a murder is different than watching a murder take place. The emotional impact is quantitatively different.

My point is, the media companies want to have maximum impact on their customers, because they are in the influence business. So it is entirely disingenuous to claim to not be responsible for what the information they deliver actually does. They know what they are doing, every inch of the way. They have the tools to measure the impact, to monitor the deliveries, and to filter out bad actors.

If what they delivered was benign, they wouldn’t be concerned who is watching, reading and listening to their content. They are not innocent bystanders, any more than Charlie Manson was.