From my very limited experience so far, the platform is faithfully operated under the anti-capitalist, leftist ideology and this orientation can be seen from many aspects, especially its worker cooperative structure and the ad-free environment. It’s noteworthy that the majority of the content across the platform is premised on a basic consciousness of class, be it the documentary section (Elizabeth Lo’s Hotel 22), original news, or education programs (Economic Update with Professor Richard D. Wolff).
My primary concern is a very practical one—the sustainability and profitability of such a platform since it is completely funded by crowdfunding to fulfill its mission free from capital, commercial, and corporate contamination. How could it blaze new roads within the current media landscape? This sounds more like a question on service management and business model specific for business students. For me, a real revolution is almost impossible given the entire economic structures of late capitalism. I'm indeed more interested to see to what extent it could grow into and how media conglomerates might respond to it with what kind of discourses at different levels of production, consumption, and reception. In what ways would it fail? If it relies on a dedicated group of niche audience to survive, it will betray its mission to become the Netflix for the 99% of the population. The paradox seems to hang there at the outset. Also, this self-claimed post-capitalist service is supposed to maintain subscription by its users as a commercial product, and that entangles it into another paradox.
Thanks for this reflection, Ran…Means TV's cooperative structure is also interesting because the mission you mention ("worker-owned media infrastructure that reflects and empowers the 99%") is reminiscent of Bernard Sanders’s proposal that corporate boards restructure to give workers more power; most worker-coop structures or employee-owned businesses are “designed to meet community needs, with economic participation and democratic governance by members” (cf. https://institute.coop/worker-cooperative-faq). So I wonder if members will gradually have a say in producing and/or curating content? If the leftist media project then is to reorient the idea of a “successful” platform so that we are less consumer- and profit-oriented, then Means TV’s viability in the marketplace won’t, one would hope, be contingent on mass reception or net subscriptions?
ReplyDeleteThe “99%” as a linguistic item, then, could be defined differently, as it doesn’t only encompass the wealth gap or point to those who make 99% less than the ultra-ultra rich (as it was defined at the outset of Occupy). 99% = people already invested in building an anti-capitalist working-class movement? So Means TV could ideally sustain itself outside the for-profit-economy? It’s funny, writing this, even non-profit orgs have a different resonance now. It’s all about the worker, the employed and the unemployed, how, why, when. (But I do think a revolution is possible, and on the way, just that it looks far diff than how we’ve envisioned it)
Thanks for the link to the webpage on worker cooperative. It's very informative and detailed.
DeleteAs you pointed out, I think it's crucial to ask who decides the content. I have this particular concern in part because it reminds me of a political slogan used by China's Communist Party, which claims that the party represents "the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people in China". But we seldom feel appropriately and adequately represented, as one of the masses. It's because we don't have a say in many issues. In this light, I'm not trying to question the validity of the 99% rhetoric, but I think it's not enough to just claim that the media "reflects and empowers the working class". Moreover, it would be no more than a simplification if the 99% interest and concern is taken as homogeneous. So how is Means TV deciding what content to produce and stream for the 99%? I'm very curious about their criteria and procedures of survey, selection, and curation.
Means TV's use of the streaming platform also really reminds me of the activist video revolution of the 1970s, where video as a technology was seized for particular marginal issues and purposes (abortion rights, women's lib, student movements, workers' movements)
ReplyDelete