John Grierson and the power of the medium

John Grierson

I was intrigued by this week's examination of John Grierson’s career. As a groundbreaking filmmaker, Grierson defined what is now known as a documentary film. Grierson was also a social activist who used the medium of film making as a way of promoting and preserving democratic values. In one of his interviews from the biographical documentary we watched in class, Grierson said film is the “gateway to social democracy.” He saw film as a method of involving the masses in the pursuits of their government.

This view of film as a medium of social action was evident in Grierson’s work as Canada’s first Commissioner of the National Film Board. He started this role in 1938 and created films to inform Canadian citizens about the events of World War 2.

The medium of film in 1938 was a powerful method of conveying information and news to a wide audience. I am certain that Grierson also discovered the potent downsides to this medium. Namely, film could also be used to communicate government propaganda, political bias, and falsehoods.

Grierson discovered in the 1940’s what Marshall McLuhan would later write about in the 1970’s, that any new medium has both benefits and drawbacks. A new medium will add value while at the same time take away something else. For Grierson, film had the power to promote the value of social democracy, while at the same time weaken democracy through government-controlled propaganda film.

Fast forward to 2010. Consider the medium of the Internet. Wikis. Blogs. Twitter. Facebook. Many educators believe that these Web 2.0 tools pave the way for the “Twenty-first Century Learners.” Just like Grierson’s belief in film as an agent for social democracy, today it is the Internet that will promote democratic ideals. Everyone has a voice on the Internet. This is democracy, isn’t it?

But, what if large companies had the ability to control the Internet? What if only companies with commercial interests provided the software and hardware people need to access the Internet? Am I truly free if I rely on a company like Google to navigate the Internet and access my email?

Today’s users of the Internet put great trust is large companies like Google. How are we certain that the Google search engine is not affected by corporate sponsorship, commercial interests, or political influence? Who decides what is appropriate or offensive on Youtube (which is owned by Google). What social norms or moral benchmarks does Youtube use in managing its content? If they are imposing their social norms on me, is this a democracy?

This leads to a discussion about the importance of open source software and not-for-profit providers of Internet access, search engines, and hardware. I suggest that these tools pave the way for promoting social democracy, as alternatives to today’s ever increasing sense of commercialism and modernism. Modernism is the belief that “newer is better” in the world of technology.

This once again highlights the importance of critical thinking skills that young people need to have as consumers and producers of media. And while the Internet, 3-D movies, video games, and iPods are all powerful media, John Grierson gives an interesting perspective on what medium really matters:
Education is the master medium of all media.

I look forward to expanding on these ideas later in this course!