I’m startled by the phrase “media science”. It seems like an oxymoron, particularly since science implies at minimum the ability to replicate results. But I’m not the one to be meditating on media science at all, since I rarely watch television any more, and when I turn it on, I listen more than watch.

I know this. The reality shows have little to do with reality,the news shows present very little that is new, and what passes for light entertainment is more often than not vapid and non-engaging. The more the programmers and producers try for a “bang-up” show, the more their results seems to end with that poetic whimper that Eliot made so famous.

I have an acqaintance who is writing a book. She has advisors who tell her she must “write to the market” if she wants to find a publisher for her work. Her current writing is terrible, which she acknowledges – and the problem seems to be that she is writing to sell, rather than writing to communicate her vision, her truth and her convictions in her own voice.

Perhaps the media sorts suffer from the same difficulty. We get 100 channels and nothing to watch because they are writing only to sell, without clarifying their vision or cultivating a voice with which to communicate. They don’t have a flight pattern – they’re grounded, not even able to take off.
If we had fiction, adventure, a sense of drama and complexities equal to those found in life to engage us, it would be one thing. But the proliferation of channels and the need to fill air time with something – anything! – at the lowest possible cost has left us with the Home Shopping Network, mixed martial arts, a dozen Judge Judy spinoffs and other such delights.
That’s the view from this side of the Atlantic, anyhow.

Best wishes for the coming months, from someone always eager to listen to your voice!

Linda