Max Headroom Episodes 4 and 5
Two episodes raise the issues of protecting private information and media access, both which remain relevant today.
As previously mentioned, I am bringing posts from my former author website to my Substack. In this installment, I continue with the Max Headroom episode reviews, with two more reviews that include additional thoughts about them.
During the summer, I hope to have more frequent Substack writings, though it will depend on my schedule, between vacations and certain work-related activities.
Episode Name: Security Systems
Premise: When Edison Carter sets out to investigate who is the mystery bidder for Security Systems Inc., he learns that the company's AI has him listed as committing the most serious crime of all: credit fraud.
Theme explored: The question raised is what happens when one entity is given control over personal information and security and the dangers that come with it. Security Systems Inc. touts that "your inalienable rights are consumer credit, unlimited TV and personal security" and that only the company can ensure them all.
But as we learn from the episode, when somebody seeks a monopoly over such information, there's no telling what that person might use it for and how that person might use it. Edison Carter learns that quickly after the AI falsely designates him as wanted for credit fraud (a crime described as "worse than murder" in this dystopian environment) and must now go underground to uncover the truth behind Security Systems Inc.
Another issue touched upon is the risks involved with artificial intelligence and how it can do the unexpected -- but while many stories tend to explore the idea of the AI turning against its users and causing harm, in this case, the AI serves a purpose in helping Edison Carter, thanks to the convincing of Max Headroom. Though an unusual twist, one can still ask whether it's wise to let a computer algorithm decide everything.
Max Headroom quotes:
"I'm glad that's over. Some of us can't cover our eyes, you know."
"You call this space? And I though the Network was cramped."
"I wonder if security guards ever hold a party and, if they do, do they let each other in?"
"As they say, when you're buying suppositories, with friends like that, who needs enemas?"
"You know what security guards are like -- shoot first and still argue about whether you can come in."
Personal observations: This is a good example of why Max Headroom was ahead of its time in many ways. Personal information, who is entrusted with it and who is able to access it is a major concern, but tends to get overlooked in our quest for security. Whether it's the government or a private company being entrusted with that information, there are plenty who worry about who controls it, what gets shared and whether it's really being protected by those people. And it's a reminder that we shouldn't just use "security" as a reason to believe that certain individuals or entities must be trusted at all times with such information.
Additional thoughts several years later: There are related issues that tie into today's society, ranging from the censorship industrial complex to people losing access to bank accounts because they took a political position that others didn't like. How closer are we coming to the point that we start jailing people for spreading "misinformation" or taking a political position somebody dislikes?
Allowing any one individual or company, public or private, to have access to private information or gain control over any information, whether done in the interest of "security" or combatting "misinformation" can lead to serious abuses. We must continue to question the reasons for doing this, because as we have seen, it can lead to more harm than good.
Episode Name: War
Premise: Network 23 investigates how a lesser rival network seems to always be on the scene of terrorist attacks during a global ratings sweep.
Theme explored: Media access is the issue at hand here. Breakthru TV, a less influential network, obtains exclusive rights to story packages involving the White Brigade, a terrorist organization railing against the heavy influence of television networks. But it's revealed that White Brigade and Breakthru TV are actually working together, with Breakthru TV's CEO hoping to get Network 23 to purchase the rights to the story packages. It escalates to the point that the Brigade unleashes an attack on the "ad market," this world's version of the stock market, in an attempt to discredit Edison Carter revealing the White Brigade's intentions in staging its attacks.
Though the theme of media access is taken to an extreme in this episode, there are questions that must be asked about how important access is. Is it worth it to give favorable coverage of a government agency in order to maintain access to it? Or the same involving a corporation? Or a non profit agency? Or a political organization? At what price does the quest for ratings (or whatever factor is used to measure audiences) must be questioned when those the media has access to engage in questionable behavior?
Max Headroom quotes:
"If I could get a hold of Breakthru TV, I wouldn't touch them with a bent TV antenna."
"The rigors of investigating, so tiring."
"For those cold mornings, why not try Chrenobyl Pops? They'll give you that warm glow all over."
"If they think I am endorsing car accessories, they've got another dipstick coming!"
Personal observations: Media today would be well advised to ponder the question about the importance of an audience above all else, especially if it means only favorable coverage may be given of any entity in exchange for access to those with the entity.
There's also an interesting exchange in which Edison Carter asks, "Since when did news become entertainment?" and Murray replies "since it was invented." Today's media environment arguably is the perfect example of "news equals entertainment" and it's something everyone should think about when it comes to the news they consume. And when it comes to media access, it often means the media further perpetuates the idea that news should be entertainment, lest its access be lost.
Additional thoughts several years later: By now, more people have come aware about the "news equals entertainment" phenomena and are making different choices because of that. Or perhaps instead of "news equals entertainment," it's "news equals propaganda," in part to ensure media keeps the access it wants.
And while the access in question may not always be those engaging in violent behavior, it can be related to groups who insist upon favorable coverage. That clearly perpetrates the idea that "news equals propaganda."