Media 6: The Informal Media Economy

“…the boundaries between flexibility and exploitation can be very leaky.” (p.68)

Thomas and Lobato’s examination of informal media work is an illuminating one, particularly for someone considering entering the field. A term liberally sprinkled throughout the chapter is ‘flexibility’, and while this is a word I would generally consider to possess positive connotations, the reading is quick to dispel any such romantic notions. No, this flexible, informal media work “has a real downside: it can mean insecurity, overwork and low pay.” (p.68) Well, that’s not good.

Lobato and Thomas are quick to point out that in the initial onset of this informal media work, “…the general theme of many of the major creative industries documents … was excitement about the flexibility of new working cultures.” (p.73) People were excited about the new type of work that the creative industry could offer, and I think that excitement still exists, though perhaps it’s a little muted nowadays.

It’s interesting though, because while the potential horrors of informal work have never truly been laid upon me, I feel like I’ve generally understood the hard work necessary to break into the field. I know that it’s a world of unpaid internships and obscenely long hours. What’s particularly fascinating is that the workers themselves are aware of this standard – “the glamour and pleasure of creative work provide a foil for extraction, creating consensual forms of domination in which workers are eager participants.” (p.74) It’s as if working in the industry is its own reward, and the borderline exploitative working conditions is just the price one pays for the opportunity.

While I was reading the chapter, the thought occurred to me several times that there are workplaces that seem to straddle the line between “the positive, secure aspects of formality and the flexibility of informality” (p.87). The obvious one that I imagined was Google (though to be fair, any observations I have about their working conditions are based on Film and TV representations. Silicon Valley, anyone?), but while Lobato and Thomas do acknowledge that some “large corporations” come close this ideal, they are most definitely the exception to the rule. So it’s not a particularly inviting landscape, and not one I’m certain I’d like to delve into. It’ll be interesting to see how it develops, whether a “formalization of workplace and recruitment practices, along with better and more extensive government regulation” (p.85), as the reading proposes, will ever come to fruition.