Recently, I read the book NOISE WARS: Compulsory Media and Our Loss of Autonomy (Algora, 2009) by Robert Freedman. It made the rounds in the industry because of its statements about the application of out-of-home media. From the back of the book:
“Noise wars looks at the role of media in society in a unique way – by focusing on the emerging trend of audience captivity: the relocation of TV and other intrusive electronic media from our home, where we have personal control over it, to all the settings in which we don’t have control: schools, gyms buses, subways, taxis, elevators, retail stores, hotel and office lobbies, street corners, street furniture, and gas station pumps, among others.”
The book also addresses several other areas of noise pollution, including boom cars, outdoor homes, and cell phones.
I always want to know what people think, especially of the industry I work in. In this case it would be easy to look past Mr. Freedman’s writing and argue the points in the book. However, with the way it’s release traveled through the industry, I felt compelled to offer an objective point of view.
Mr. Freedman starts a compelling discussion on the use of media in society. Clearly, there is a problem here. There is probably not a single person who will read either this review or the book who has not been annoyed by a cell phone, a boom car, or a noisy TV in a public space, so Mr. Freedman’s book brings to the forefront situations that have affected all of us.
He calls into question the use of audio and video in areas such as public schools and school buses. He shows how far some organizations will go to make a dollar, and the potential backlash to those organizations and the industry as well, which gives all of us a black eye. I do not believe I am alone in this feeling.
Mr. Freedman references two Supreme Court cases from 1949 and 1952 regarding compulsory audio as a founding point for the book. He includes most of the decisions in the endnotes, and they are fascinating to read. However, a 57 year-old ruling is pointless when, even as Mr. Freedman himself writes at the end of the book, “…the environment has changed considerably since 1952. Then, the issue was a single, novel instance of audience captivity.”
The book includes several statistics such as networks, the number of screens and number of impressions. But his argument against these networks is based almost entirely on opinions, comments from blogs, and quotes from articles. I had hoped to read insight into the potential negative impact of these networks. Instead, I read blog comments, such as, “I’m either going to bring ear plugs to the grocery store or just shot [sic] myself in the head when I see one of those TVs. Maybe that’ll get them to stop?”
In one very telling passage, he writes:
“…those who don’t go to the gyms because of the TVs are never counted, and yet based on the high annoyance level people attribute to the TVs, it would be hard to discount the sizable number of people don’t become members for just that reason.”
Attributing the “annoyance level” of TVs to a single outlet and a complete lack of supporting evidence make it very easy to discount this argument. This is an assumption, not a argument, and not grounds for a debate.
There are plenty of case studies on the potentially negative impact of television and noise on our health and Mr. Freedman mentions several of them in the book. Yet he seems to take extra effort to try and tie them to societal and public media. The chapter on boom cars exposes how undesirable this feature of our culture can be, and he references a London study about the relationship between loud noises and cardiac damage, loosely linking it to boom cars. But, he doesn’t provide a citation for this research, leaving me wondering how close the study is to the boom car effect.
In the appendices, Mr. Freedman notes that it’s beyond his resources “…to identify all of the organizations whose mission is in whole or in part to curb the unwanted intrusion of electronic media…” He lists 13 of them. At the same time he lists 65 organizations affiliated with the Out-of-Home Video Advertising Bureau (OVAB) and the Canadian Out-of-Home Digital Association. I found it strange that he would list only 13 that advocate against media, yet have no problem listing 65 organizations that support it, especially in a book with a clear agenda against the idea. I thought he would make the lists to his advantage.
The book brings to light that our industry is not desired by everyone; there are many people and organizations that do not like media in society. This is important. We need to understand that for every action there is a reaction.
However, I found myself asking too many questions that the book could not answer, or answered with assumptions based on the opinions of others and without evidence.
Because the book has such little factual or direct evidence supporting its claims against media in society, and because almost all of the research is devoted to scouring the internet for citations from anti-media sources instead of providing expert insight and testimony, I cannot recommend this book as a resource to learn more about the debate on media in society.
The effort is admirable, but the execution may have been better suited to a research paper or critique than a full-blown manuscript.
Mr. Freedman authors a “research blog for critics of captive-audience media” at mediabychoice.com. I subscribe to it, and will continue to do so. You can find direct links to the groups advocating responsible media on his site.
You can find the book on Amazon here.
[...] Noise Wars by Robert Freedman [...]