Conscious Choice: Frank Beacham on Technology

October 1999

Frank Beacham on Technology

by Travis Stansel

What role does technology play in your everyday life? If you sit in front of a computer for eight, ten, twelve hours a day, then it obviously plays a huge role. But did we as a society choose for technology to have such a place in our lives, or was it thrust upon us? Does it have a place in our lives that may be a bit out of proportion with its intended role as a tool?

Frank Beacham is a writer and producer of theater, television, radio, and film; he says we treat technology with a reaction of "gee-whiz" and that we celebrate technology "just because it is." He further charges that "we don’t review technology" and its potential implications in our lives.

In an interview Beacham did with writer Jerry Mander (author of Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, among others), Mander asked if society would have chosen to adopt the automobile as transportation and cultural symbol if we would have known about the potential results: suburban sprawl, congestion, longer commutes, pollution. His point is that no one questions the potential problems until it is too late.

Beacham is not a Luddite, he says; he simply believes that technology needs to be assessed with a dose of "techno-realism," a view that neither worships nor disparages technology. He asks whether we really need digital television, or a computer in every classroom: "Is learning new software really the equivalent of an education?"

Travis Stansel: Your column is called "Questioning Technology," but you embrace a lot about modern technology. What do you think of the Neo-Luddite movement?

Frank Beacham: I find much validity in the Neo-Luddite movement. Modern technology cuts multiple ways. Each new technology creates winners and losers, often causing people to be hurt. We don’t evaluate new technology in this country based on its value to people, but on its value to the corporation building it. This is where things go wrong. The arrogance, greed, and stupidity of corporate America know no bounds. It’s up to individuals to defend themselves against bad technology, something that’s increasingly tough to do.

I believe one must live in one’s own time, which is where I probably differ from some in the Neo-Luddite movement. I could refuse to use the Internet because I don’t like its trend toward commercialization, but in the end that’s a copout. I’d rather raise hell against the machine. It’s more fun.

TS: Since 1995, performance in every sector of the economy — with the exception of information technology — has been less than stellar, and high-tech has in fact been pulling along the slower areas. Have computers reached a point of diminishing returns, where companies are spending money on them for their own sake rather than for any gain in productivity?

FB: I think people and organizations are getting hip to the perishable side of computers. Microsoft strangled computer users for a long time with inferior, difficult-to-use products that required constant updating and tweaking. The upgrade path has been so expensive and unsatisfying that many people are starting to question it. I think the era of Microsoft dominance is coming to an end and we’ll see cheaper computing appliances that do one job well for a long, long time.

TS: I have a friend who works at a consulting firm that made $2 billion in business in 1997 consulting on Y2K fixes. Do you think the Y2K problem is pushing high-tech spending? If so, what will happen when the year 2000 passes?

FB: I think Y2K is an overblown media issue. The only good I can see coming out of it is that people will better understand how dependent they’ve become on technology and the corporate lords that control it. Maybe they’ll start saying no to excessive computerization of daily life, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

TS: Is our addiction to technology being pushed by a fear that if we don’t buy into it, the economy will falter and with it the "American way of life"?

FB: Sure. Look at Al Gore. His presidential campaign issues are centered around using technology to solve human problems. He thinks the way to fix education is to put Internet connections and computers in every classroom. Or the way to tackle kids and violence is to put V-chips inside every TV set. The guy scares me. Technology is simply a tool, not an answer to every problem. Not the underpinning of our "way of life." It’s the great false god of our time.

TS: The government has set a timetable for the implementation of digital TV broadcasts, the spectrum of which has been given to broadcasters for free. Do you think Americans will buy into digital broadcasting, or will it turn out to be a huge fiasco?

FB: No, I think digital "over the air" television will fail. The cause will be technology glitches that prevent millions of urban viewers from even receiving a TV signal without expensive, carefully aimed outdoor antennas. Viewers who cannot receive a signal over the air will be driven to cable and satellite service just to watch TV. Broadcasters are now in a state of panic over this, and public finger pointing has begun. Their congressional DTV scam of 1996 backfired and will be their Waterloo.

TS: What do you think of the government spending time and energy on the issue of TV resolution?

FB: The government should be protecting the public’s national resources, not giving them away to corporations who make big campaign donations. The Congress should not have given the broadcasters $70 billion in public spectrum for free. It was outrageous, perhaps the greatest corporate giveaway of the 20th century.

TS: Is there anything Americans can do to stop the digital TV bandwagon from pushing forward?

FB: Yes, refuse to buy the new digital TV sets. It will stop them cold!

TS: Computer manufacturing has horrible environmental consequences and a terrible labor history — how can environmental and social justice groups balance the need to get information out with the need to live up to their own ideals?

FB: By investigating and making public information about how these companies poison their own customers.

TS: Many social critics are saying, and have been saying for a long time, that adolescence in America seems to be lasting into the thirties — when I hear this, I think of two things, the poor state of American education and the impact of television, which you noted offers "information without experience." How do you think that newer technology, such as the Internet, which is trying to take TV as its cue, is affecting the development of children?

FB: It’s shortening their attention span, drowning them in irrelevant information, depriving them of the ability to critically think for themselves and to question those who make decisions on their behalf.

TS: ABC/Disney now owns Infoseek, and most of the popular "portals," or what used to be called search engines, now have broadcasting links. Do you see link ups like this as a sign of things to come? What happens when traditional broadcasters begin to make a bigger presence on the Net?

FB: Corporate brands are cultural poison. AT&T wants to control the first page and content of its new cable broadband service. America Online wants their logo there instead. The great threat to the Internet is corporations limiting free access to non-corporate content providers. These large media companies are bad, bad news. Their‘information’ is corrupt and cannot be trusted. If people only would wake up and see how they are being deprived of any semblance of the truth in mass media these days. The exploitation is mind boggling.

TS: You often quote Thoreau as a critic of technology — technological criticism has been around for a while, but is anyone listening?

FB: Thoreau was a student of human nature, and that’s what this is really about. Is anyone listening today? No, I’m afraid not. When it comes to technology, I see nothing to be optimistic about. We’re in danger of being destroyed by our own toys.

Travis Stansel is a Chicago-based writer, editor and former public radio producer; he is currently on staff at Northwestern University.

Frank Beacham is a New York-based writer and producer whose column, "Questioning Technology," appears in papers such as the Boston Phoenix and the Los Angeles Reader and is distributed by Alternet. His interviews and articles are also available on his web site.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: