by Sut Jhally
What would you say is the one thing that threatens our survival on this planet the most? To Sut Jhally, it is advertising. Advertising pushes us towards material things for satisfaction, while pushing us away from social relationships. It pushes us towards ever-increasing economic production, while simultaneously driving impending environmental catastrophe. It focuses our attention on individual and private needs, while pushing collective issues to the margins. By stressing immediacy, it steers us away from looking at future consequences. In these ways, advertising represents a serious threat to our survival on this earth.
A central problem of capitalism is not only in creating means of production, but also means of consumption. This is advertising's role, and it is a vastly important one that has changed our cultural landscape. How does advertising do this? By connecting peoples' needs and desires to products, a task that is, at a fundamental level, a seemingly incongruous task.
This is reflected in the general response that people have to advertising. As ads invade more and more of our social space, it becomes harder and harder to get people to notice them, to make them 'stand out' against the crowd of ads flooding our lives. This is, to cite Bateson, a kind of schisogenic relationship, a kind of cyclical, schizophrenic regression, many of the results of which manifest themselves in our daily lives, in our cultural values. Will advertising really ever be able to connect that which it is impossible to connect-material wealth and happiness? At a fundamental level, probably not, but what a gargantuan effort has been made to try to connect these two ideas, ideas which are fundamentally as different as night and day, square peg and a round hole.
This feature of advertisting, the attempt to connect commodities to desires and needs, started in the 1920s.
Advertising addresses us as individuals, not members of a society. Social issues, collective concerns are not its domain. Advertising is the voice of the marketplace, and as such it enforces the beliefs of those who require its existence (the business/corporate class), beliefs like the market is good for us, that government regulation is bad.
When it comes to addressing the social problems we face, advertising makes us look in the wrong direction. Though surely the resources exist to solve a great many of the social and environmental problems that we face today, our priorities, seemingly in the hands of big business, are focused elsewhere. Advertising has helped destroy the sense of community that is necessary in solving those collective problems. In fact, our gaze is so stringently fixed in the direction of the market that it is difficult to even think about how to solve our problems collectively. Instead, we see the further encroachment of advertising into institutions once considered free from their influence. Schools, universities, public broadcasting-core components comprising our public institutions-now seek corporate advertising dollars to help fill the gaps left by decreasing budgets. Is this not an intrusion onto sacred ground?
Part of Jhally's solution is that it is necessary to somehow glamorize the struggle for social change, to make it "fun and sexy". This would essentially steal the steam from what fuels advertising and use it instead in ways that would create a better society for all. This is an interesting idea, but more details are needed...
Monday, April 2, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Chapter 4: The Age of Hyper-Commercialism
The rise of advertisting has in large part paralleled the rise of commercialism that began early last century. As mass production became commonplace, producers worried about how to sell their products, of which there was an excess. Advertising was a key part of the solution. It is ironic that the largest firms in the least competitive markets tend to do the most advertising (p.141).
Along with the rise of corporate mergers, advertising supergroups have emerged (e.g. Omnicom Group).
Characterisitics of advertising:
1) builds brand identity and customer loyalty
2) necessary to launch new products
3) paradox-those products that are the most alike require the most advertising to convince people they are different (p.142)
4) often relies on the premise that something is wrong with the consumer, and buying some product will solve their problem (p.143)
5) as commericialism increases, adveristers find it harder to succeed, thus continually pushing advertisting into new territory, searching for new and innovative (increasingly intrusive) ways to reach potential customers (consumers are like roaches analogy)
6) advertising tends to avoid controversial topics
7) typically targets classes of consumers with disposable incomes, thus accentuating class bias
8) as newspapers came to depend more and more on ad money for their financing, the newspaper market became smaller (more consolidated) and competition decreased as more and more papers were either gobbled up or put out of business
*9) media creates an audience, which is sold to advertisers (explain more...)
10) media and commercialism are merging to the point where they are becoming inseperable in the content they produce
New frontiers in advertising
As most media consumers tend to be turned off by ads, advertisers have turned to new and innovative ways to reach their audience. It seems that the more traditional model, in which advertising is separate from content, is giving way to a new model in which advertising is fused into the content itself, thus giving consumers no real way of avoiding ads other than foregoing the content all together. (Even this is becoming more and more difficult as ads have come to permeate almost every concievable social space in our lives...)
Listed below are some examples of this new model, in which advertisers' influence has encroached more and more into media content (to the point that media have come to depend on ad dollars to be successful)...
1) advertising before films in movie theaters
2) product placement, i.e. placing a product in a tv show, movie or radio program (independent rating guidelines for p.p. have been developed (iTVX))
3) digital insertion (e.g. inserting virtual ads on the field of a televised sports game)
4) branded entertainment, moving beyond simple product placement to the actual integration of a product into a storyline
5) the rise of reality tv shows has been an important vehicle for the use of product placement
6) the rise of 'integrated marketing' wherein advertisers are let in early on the production of a film or tv show so that their products may be better placed into the story
Other specific examples of the entrenchment of advertising into the social spaces in our lives:
7) integrating music and advertising
8) advertising in public broadcasting
9) commerical sponsoring of museums
10) commercialization of higher education (academic research driven by corporate funding) e.g. UC Berkely has been dubbed a "corporaveristy" by some skeptical professors there
11) "cause-related marketing" - linking a social cause to a marketing campaign
12) convergence of public relations and advertising
13) NBC's "Patient Channel" for people in hospitals
14) TV sets in stores, on trains, etc.
15) temporary tatoos for sports players
16) advertising space on police cars
17) imprinting on state beaches (New Jersey)
18) rise of focus groups, psychologists and cultural anthropologists as critical to market research
19) "guerilla marketing"
20) "urban marketing"
21) focus on children (most impressionable of all groups)
22) children's stories in which snack foods are protagonists
23) is there a link between childhood obesity and junk/sugary food advertising?
Does this system provide people what they really want? From this angle, it provides people with choices that are limited to a certain spectrum that is defined by the producers/advertisers. Within that "box", yes we do have choice. Outside of that box, things become more difficult.
Hyper-commercialism has reached the point where our values (democracy, freedom, individuality, equality, education, community, love, etc.) have become commodified. Commercial culture produces cynicism and materialism, both bad for public life. H.C. weaves corporate power and influence deeply into our culture, almost to the point where it is difficult to see in many respects. What implications does this have for the concepts of freedom and democracy?
The power and influence of advertising did not just happen. It has attained its status by fighting against public policy involvement, active lobbying in Washington and the courts (ensuring First Amendment protection and minimal government regulation, business tax-exemption (essentially a subsidy) etc.), and promoting active PR campaigns.
Though each new communications technology is trumpeted for its ability to empower citizens and free them from adv/commericial interests, in each case adv/commercial clout has increased such that new ways of infiltrating public and social space are developed, thus further entrenching their influence and power into our lives, which actually disempowers the citizenry.
However, this analysis reveals that the advertising industry is essentially the Achilles' heel of the commercial media system, for without it, the system could not exist in its current guise (because of economic dependence), and also because adv. in general is unpopular with the public. (c.f. the popularity of YouTube...you can watch what you want when you want with no ads...seems more democratic in principle than the norm)
Along with the rise of corporate mergers, advertising supergroups have emerged (e.g. Omnicom Group).
Characterisitics of advertising:
1) builds brand identity and customer loyalty
2) necessary to launch new products
3) paradox-those products that are the most alike require the most advertising to convince people they are different (p.142)
4) often relies on the premise that something is wrong with the consumer, and buying some product will solve their problem (p.143)
5) as commericialism increases, adveristers find it harder to succeed, thus continually pushing advertisting into new territory, searching for new and innovative (increasingly intrusive) ways to reach potential customers (consumers are like roaches analogy)
6) advertising tends to avoid controversial topics
7) typically targets classes of consumers with disposable incomes, thus accentuating class bias
8) as newspapers came to depend more and more on ad money for their financing, the newspaper market became smaller (more consolidated) and competition decreased as more and more papers were either gobbled up or put out of business
*9) media creates an audience, which is sold to advertisers (explain more...)
10) media and commercialism are merging to the point where they are becoming inseperable in the content they produce
New frontiers in advertising
As most media consumers tend to be turned off by ads, advertisers have turned to new and innovative ways to reach their audience. It seems that the more traditional model, in which advertising is separate from content, is giving way to a new model in which advertising is fused into the content itself, thus giving consumers no real way of avoiding ads other than foregoing the content all together. (Even this is becoming more and more difficult as ads have come to permeate almost every concievable social space in our lives...)
Listed below are some examples of this new model, in which advertisers' influence has encroached more and more into media content (to the point that media have come to depend on ad dollars to be successful)...
1) advertising before films in movie theaters
2) product placement, i.e. placing a product in a tv show, movie or radio program (independent rating guidelines for p.p. have been developed (iTVX))
3) digital insertion (e.g. inserting virtual ads on the field of a televised sports game)
4) branded entertainment, moving beyond simple product placement to the actual integration of a product into a storyline
5) the rise of reality tv shows has been an important vehicle for the use of product placement
6) the rise of 'integrated marketing' wherein advertisers are let in early on the production of a film or tv show so that their products may be better placed into the story
Other specific examples of the entrenchment of advertising into the social spaces in our lives:
7) integrating music and advertising
8) advertising in public broadcasting
9) commerical sponsoring of museums
10) commercialization of higher education (academic research driven by corporate funding) e.g. UC Berkely has been dubbed a "corporaveristy" by some skeptical professors there
11) "cause-related marketing" - linking a social cause to a marketing campaign
12) convergence of public relations and advertising
13) NBC's "Patient Channel" for people in hospitals
14) TV sets in stores, on trains, etc.
15) temporary tatoos for sports players
16) advertising space on police cars
17) imprinting on state beaches (New Jersey)
18) rise of focus groups, psychologists and cultural anthropologists as critical to market research
19) "guerilla marketing"
20) "urban marketing"
21) focus on children (most impressionable of all groups)
22) children's stories in which snack foods are protagonists
23) is there a link between childhood obesity and junk/sugary food advertising?
Does this system provide people what they really want? From this angle, it provides people with choices that are limited to a certain spectrum that is defined by the producers/advertisers. Within that "box", yes we do have choice. Outside of that box, things become more difficult.
Hyper-commercialism has reached the point where our values (democracy, freedom, individuality, equality, education, community, love, etc.) have become commodified. Commercial culture produces cynicism and materialism, both bad for public life. H.C. weaves corporate power and influence deeply into our culture, almost to the point where it is difficult to see in many respects. What implications does this have for the concepts of freedom and democracy?
The power and influence of advertising did not just happen. It has attained its status by fighting against public policy involvement, active lobbying in Washington and the courts (ensuring First Amendment protection and minimal government regulation, business tax-exemption (essentially a subsidy) etc.), and promoting active PR campaigns.
Though each new communications technology is trumpeted for its ability to empower citizens and free them from adv/commericial interests, in each case adv/commercial clout has increased such that new ways of infiltrating public and social space are developed, thus further entrenching their influence and power into our lives, which actually disempowers the citizenry.
However, this analysis reveals that the advertising industry is essentially the Achilles' heel of the commercial media system, for without it, the system could not exist in its current guise (because of economic dependence), and also because adv. in general is unpopular with the public. (c.f. the popularity of YouTube...you can watch what you want when you want with no ads...seems more democratic in principle than the norm)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Chapter 2: Corporate Control and Professionalism
In this chapter, McChesney documents the changes U.S. journalism has undergone during the 20th century. Major sections of the chapter are:
Journalism's Great Crisis
Before the Gilded Age (1865-1901), before commericial interests began their encroach into the media, there was a diversity of newspapers, and the opinions reflected in those papers were highly partisan. A diversity of views resulted, no one pretended to be objective or unbiased, and some would say this is what a healthy press should be doing-presenting diverse viewpoints on the politics of the day, creating an informed citizenry, an essential part of democracy in action. (Or is this an overly-romantic view of the past?)
During the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s), several factors emerged that would lead to what McChesney calls the first great crisis of commerical journalism. These factors include the rise of sensationalism (or yellow journalism, tabloidism), the increased dependence on advertising revenue, the increased difficulty of launching a new daily, the awareness of contradictions between commercialism and democracy in media, and critique of these factors found their way into public life. These are some of the factors that lead to journalism's first great crisis, when the commercial interests involved in the media took their first steps to ensure protection of their interests from public and government interference. These actions were to set a pattern that would be used over and over again in media policy debates throughout the twentieth century. They are:
Question-Is the purge to eliminate the "liberal bias" in the today's media not a form of partisanship disguised under notions of the professional code (objectivity, etc.)? In other words, are the codes that are supposed to make journalism "professional" ultimately being used against one group by another (by the right against the left) to further one groups aims? Can the partisan creation of a bias lead journalism to a truer picture of itself, or to a picture that is all the more partisan in nature? If the "liberal bias" were eliminated, where would that leave us? With a view dominated by the right, but portrayed as unbiased (c.f. Fox News-We Report, You Decide ethos)...
Rise of Professional Journalism
The rise of professional journalism was an important response to the first crisis discussed above. By the end of the Progressive Era, many journalism schools began to emerge. An emphasis was placed on nonpartisanship, on factual accuracy and the discrediting of sensationalism. The emergence of this ethic helped perpetuate the myth that the owners and editors of a paper (professionally trained) function independently. Extending this logic also justifies a decrease in the number of papers, for if the editors and staff are professional, wouldn't one source be as good as another? This argument ignores the filtering effect that ownership has on the content of news (see Chomksy & Herman's propaganda model). This ethic also changed the nature of the media debate by shifting focus from institutional and governmental roles to that of individual journalists themselves (in the sense that those journalists who had not properly internalized necessary values would be weeded out by the system in place, an extremely effective way to ensure conformity to a set of ideals which rewards those who follow the status quo and punishes those who violate it.)
Limitations of Professional Journalism
The role of "experts" in society (i.e., the secular priesthood) emerged during this era, and professional journalists were part of that class. "Experts" internalize values that maintain the status quo, and are called on by elite groups to, among other things, provide legitimacy for the existence of institutions and to justify actions of ruling business class interests. "Experts" also become shielded from public criticism because their status seperates them from the opinions of the uninformed masses.
McChesney identifies three deep-seated biases that accompany the "professional journalist" ethos:
The Commercialization of Journalism
In this latest phase, starting in the 1980s, the increased corporate conglomeration of media interests has made journalism itself become more commercial in nature. Effects include:
Recent media coverage of corporate scandals (Enron, etc.) that have emerged have been poor, a mere shadow of what journalism was intended to be. This is because the mainstream media was, to a degree, complicit in the process (consider the effects of filtering). There is an interlocking relationship between government, big business and the press which has transformed the way the press operates; some would say this relationship has compromised, even bankrupted it. How can a media system that has increasingly become dependent on corporate backing be critical of that which sustains it? Again, it's the "don't slap the hand that feeds you" principle.
Journalism's Great Crisis
Before the Gilded Age (1865-1901), before commericial interests began their encroach into the media, there was a diversity of newspapers, and the opinions reflected in those papers were highly partisan. A diversity of views resulted, no one pretended to be objective or unbiased, and some would say this is what a healthy press should be doing-presenting diverse viewpoints on the politics of the day, creating an informed citizenry, an essential part of democracy in action. (Or is this an overly-romantic view of the past?)
During the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s), several factors emerged that would lead to what McChesney calls the first great crisis of commerical journalism. These factors include the rise of sensationalism (or yellow journalism, tabloidism), the increased dependence on advertising revenue, the increased difficulty of launching a new daily, the awareness of contradictions between commercialism and democracy in media, and critique of these factors found their way into public life. These are some of the factors that lead to journalism's first great crisis, when the commercial interests involved in the media took their first steps to ensure protection of their interests from public and government interference. These actions were to set a pattern that would be used over and over again in media policy debates throughout the twentieth century. They are:
- Make very little information about the nature/content of the media policy changes/debates available to the public. If the public is uninformed, then they will not be able to raise their voices in objection or concern. Their voice will not be a part of the debate at all.
- Use the First Amendment to protect your interests by claiming that government regulation and control interferes with your rights to free speech and free press, thus twisting the original intent of the Constitution to protect and serve your own (profit-driven) business, commercial interests. Also, having a lobby to represent your interests in Washington is indispensable. This functions to minimize the role of the government in your business affairs.
- The complementary argument for #2 is to push the idea that the market, left to its own devices, is the best regulator of business. Appeal to notions, widely upheld by the business elite and economists, that the market provides the most natural place for competition to unfold, and is therefore the best environment for self-regulation to occur; undue government regulation is seen as a hindrance to the natural "unfolding of the market", as it were.
Question-Is the purge to eliminate the "liberal bias" in the today's media not a form of partisanship disguised under notions of the professional code (objectivity, etc.)? In other words, are the codes that are supposed to make journalism "professional" ultimately being used against one group by another (by the right against the left) to further one groups aims? Can the partisan creation of a bias lead journalism to a truer picture of itself, or to a picture that is all the more partisan in nature? If the "liberal bias" were eliminated, where would that leave us? With a view dominated by the right, but portrayed as unbiased (c.f. Fox News-We Report, You Decide ethos)...
Rise of Professional Journalism
The rise of professional journalism was an important response to the first crisis discussed above. By the end of the Progressive Era, many journalism schools began to emerge. An emphasis was placed on nonpartisanship, on factual accuracy and the discrediting of sensationalism. The emergence of this ethic helped perpetuate the myth that the owners and editors of a paper (professionally trained) function independently. Extending this logic also justifies a decrease in the number of papers, for if the editors and staff are professional, wouldn't one source be as good as another? This argument ignores the filtering effect that ownership has on the content of news (see Chomksy & Herman's propaganda model). This ethic also changed the nature of the media debate by shifting focus from institutional and governmental roles to that of individual journalists themselves (in the sense that those journalists who had not properly internalized necessary values would be weeded out by the system in place, an extremely effective way to ensure conformity to a set of ideals which rewards those who follow the status quo and punishes those who violate it.)
Limitations of Professional Journalism
The role of "experts" in society (i.e., the secular priesthood) emerged during this era, and professional journalists were part of that class. "Experts" internalize values that maintain the status quo, and are called on by elite groups to, among other things, provide legitimacy for the existence of institutions and to justify actions of ruling business class interests. "Experts" also become shielded from public criticism because their status seperates them from the opinions of the uninformed masses.
McChesney identifies three deep-seated biases that accompany the "professional journalist" ethos:
- Official sources (e.g., government, experts drawn from the establishment) have come to be seen as the only legitimate sources for news. Unofficial sources are seen as biased and unprofessional. Problems-reliance on official sources creates a narrowly defined view of events (consider coverage of the nation's (military) role in the world), makes it difficult for journalists to be overly critical of those sources (at risk of losing them), and creates a too-cozy relationship between the press and its sources.
- Avoidance of contextualization; focus on the hook. News becomes event-driven, and important social issues are addressed in the context of an event (protest, riot, official report); the issues themselves are horribly under-reported.
- Ownership/advertising filters (this includes internalization of values, e.g. the U.S. is fundamentally a force for good in the world), which 'filter out' (if not enforce a 'code of silence' on) content that is overly critical of the owner and advertisering class who provide the money to keep the operation afloat in a competitive market environment. Government will tend to be criticized before corporations will.As a result, a pro-corporate/business perspective emerges. Editorials become biased in favor of advertisers and business.
The Commercialization of Journalism
In this latest phase, starting in the 1980s, the increased corporate conglomeration of media interests has made journalism itself become more commercial in nature. Effects include:
- A general depoliticization of the population, such that public awareness of government and political affairs has been reduced to a level of de-education. Most news regarding government and politics is in the form of scandal of individual players.
- The number of journalists has decreased, in the wake of the focus on making profit above all else. And profits have been record-breaking in this era, across the board.
- International coverage has suffered dramatically. Awareness of U.S. involvement in the foreign affairs of other countries has been reduced to a trickle. This only gives the government and its partners a freer reign, because few in the media will hold their actions accountable.
- The PR industry has been able to fill in the gap left by these cuts with messages that suit its clients.
- Investigative reporting is an endangered species, if not already extinct. Instead, in the interests of professionalism and saving money, there has been a general shift to "official-source stenography" style reporting, in which official sources are cited uncritically and the viewer/reader is left to make their own decisions about the matter. The merits or demerits of those official sources are not questioned, when in fact, they need to be to approach something closer to "objective" journalism. This is a total about-face from the original responsibility given to the press at its outset.
- Muckracking is now seen as partisan, and therefore unprofessional.
- Editorials have become "advertorials", portraying views that are favorable to the interests of the owners/advertisers of the paper.
- The revolving-door relationship between media companies and business has continued.
- Journalists promote the content of the media conglomerate for which they work.
- "Fluff" (stories about the activities and personal lives of celebrities, about crime, violence, disasters) has filled in the gap created by commercial pressures. "Fluff" is easier to produce than the other types of stories that have been replaced by the commercialism trend, and niche-markets for this fluff have proliferated as well.
- The increase in crime coverage has enforced stereotypes about who is a typical perpretrator (a black man) and who is typical victim (someone white). This also gives power to the police to be more aggresive in their tactics, as it is perceived as justifiable by the general public.
- Minority coverage/representation has suffered at the hands of commercial interests.
- Business journalism has emerged as a highly successful niche unto itself. Business journalism supports capitalism, the pursuit of profit, and portrays business practices in a favorable light. Critique is not a part of its premises. From a journalistic point of view, considering that the funding for news comes from corporations, does not the idea of business journalism itself represent a conflict of interest? Internalization of values favorable to a pro-business outlook is not seen as a form of self-censorship; instead, stories come to be charged with an underlying pro-business current that shapes content in ways that are favorable to a capitalist ethos.
Recent media coverage of corporate scandals (Enron, etc.) that have emerged have been poor, a mere shadow of what journalism was intended to be. This is because the mainstream media was, to a degree, complicit in the process (consider the effects of filtering). There is an interlocking relationship between government, big business and the press which has transformed the way the press operates; some would say this relationship has compromised, even bankrupted it. How can a media system that has increasingly become dependent on corporate backing be critical of that which sustains it? Again, it's the "don't slap the hand that feeds you" principle.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Chapter 1: Political Problem, Political Solution
The tension faced by media lies between its more recent role as a profit-driven business enterprise and its more traditional role of maintaining an informed citizenry, an essential cornerstone for a democratic society. As new mediums of media transmission have emerged (newspapers, telegraph, telephone, radio, tv, satellite, cable, internet), there has been a consistent shift towards the privatization of media interests, to the point that as of 2003, 5 corporations controlled 85% of mainstream media in the U.S. Chapter 1 examines in more detail the policies that have accompanied each new medium, and how business interests have become more and more intertwined in those policies over time.
In conjunction with the increased dominance of business interests has been the shrinking role of the public and the increased role of commercial lobbying in shaping media policy. Media lobbies have grown significantly, with 284 in existence in 2000. One effect: representation on Capitol Hill is not possible without a lobby in the current environment. Another effect: corporate lobbies inherently work against the public interest. Presently, corporate interests essentially own media policy in Washington.
1. Newspapers
In the early years of the republic, government postal subsides significantly reduced the cost of sending newspapers through the mail, which encouraged their production and distribution (a postal subsidy for democracy?) There was even debate about not charging newspapers at all. During this period, a large number of newspapers and periodicals were in circulation, seen as a necessity by many for the creation of an informed citizenry. Profit-seeking business interests were not yet a part of the equation.
2. The telegraph
With the emergence of the telegraph, competition between two means of media distrubution emerged. The telegraph was essentially a private monopoly controlled by Western Union that had serious repercussions on the political economy, including media, of this country. Because money provided access to the new technology, naturally those companies with more money would tend to have more access to the new medium than those without. Marginalization of those without access was one consequence. Western Union is also tied to the emergence of the AP. Because Western Union had a monopoly over who could and couldn't use the telegraph, and by allowing the AP to do so, AP became the only wire news service in the country and it became the main voice for most major newspapers of the time. McChesney even argues that the concept of "objectivity" in journalism has its roots in this period.
These are some of the effects of the integration of business interests into the means of media distribution. An analogy-imagine that one company controlled tv, or radio.
3. Radio
Radio frequencies are limited and highly sought after public resource. How will the government decide who gets access? Initially, the government (the FRC and then the FCC, 1934) awarded licenses to those who were seen as best serving the 'public interest'. Soon, advertising was espoused as a legitimate way to pay for the costs of broadcasting. For-profit broadcasters soon dominated the airwaves. Objections to these developments emerged, and this is when lobbying by commercial broadcasters in Washington began. Revoling-door relationships between the FCC and commercial broadcasters also began. PR campaigns emerged to promote the views of commercial broadcasters. Once in the door, broadcasters then began to characterize government regulation as an infringement on First Amendment rights, thereby reducing the ability of the FCC to constrain their actions. In these ways, commercial broadcasters gained virtual free access and control of what was intended to be, and still technically is, a public resource. These was the beginning of the active shaping of media policy by commercial and business interests in their favor.
What happened early on with radio set a precedent for what would happen when new technologies (TV, cable, satellites, the Internet?) were developed. Commercial and business interests shaped the policies determing how they would be used, not the public.
Pattern: The government assumes the risk of creating new technologies (funded by tax-payer dollars of course). Once established, those technologies are then handed over to the private business sector, where profit can be made. This creates a role for the public wherein they fund products that they will eventually wind up buying, and in terms of media, fund the mediums through which they consume media.
Over time, a pro-business, neo-liberal perspective has come to dominate media policy, such that the market is seen as a more efficient regulator of media interets than the government. Naturally, such a perspective completely serves the interests of the profit-driven, corporatized media system which dominates today. Arguments are now such that public interest or government regulation is portrayed as a violation of First Amendment rights guaranteed the media oligopoly, a reversal of intent that would surely cause great alarm for those who intended for the media to serve the public interest.
Effects of the 1996 FCC telecommunications act:
In conjunction with the increased dominance of business interests has been the shrinking role of the public and the increased role of commercial lobbying in shaping media policy. Media lobbies have grown significantly, with 284 in existence in 2000. One effect: representation on Capitol Hill is not possible without a lobby in the current environment. Another effect: corporate lobbies inherently work against the public interest. Presently, corporate interests essentially own media policy in Washington.
1. Newspapers
In the early years of the republic, government postal subsides significantly reduced the cost of sending newspapers through the mail, which encouraged their production and distribution (a postal subsidy for democracy?) There was even debate about not charging newspapers at all. During this period, a large number of newspapers and periodicals were in circulation, seen as a necessity by many for the creation of an informed citizenry. Profit-seeking business interests were not yet a part of the equation.
2. The telegraph
With the emergence of the telegraph, competition between two means of media distrubution emerged. The telegraph was essentially a private monopoly controlled by Western Union that had serious repercussions on the political economy, including media, of this country. Because money provided access to the new technology, naturally those companies with more money would tend to have more access to the new medium than those without. Marginalization of those without access was one consequence. Western Union is also tied to the emergence of the AP. Because Western Union had a monopoly over who could and couldn't use the telegraph, and by allowing the AP to do so, AP became the only wire news service in the country and it became the main voice for most major newspapers of the time. McChesney even argues that the concept of "objectivity" in journalism has its roots in this period.
These are some of the effects of the integration of business interests into the means of media distribution. An analogy-imagine that one company controlled tv, or radio.
3. Radio
Radio frequencies are limited and highly sought after public resource. How will the government decide who gets access? Initially, the government (the FRC and then the FCC, 1934) awarded licenses to those who were seen as best serving the 'public interest'. Soon, advertising was espoused as a legitimate way to pay for the costs of broadcasting. For-profit broadcasters soon dominated the airwaves. Objections to these developments emerged, and this is when lobbying by commercial broadcasters in Washington began. Revoling-door relationships between the FCC and commercial broadcasters also began. PR campaigns emerged to promote the views of commercial broadcasters. Once in the door, broadcasters then began to characterize government regulation as an infringement on First Amendment rights, thereby reducing the ability of the FCC to constrain their actions. In these ways, commercial broadcasters gained virtual free access and control of what was intended to be, and still technically is, a public resource. These was the beginning of the active shaping of media policy by commercial and business interests in their favor.
What happened early on with radio set a precedent for what would happen when new technologies (TV, cable, satellites, the Internet?) were developed. Commercial and business interests shaped the policies determing how they would be used, not the public.
Pattern: The government assumes the risk of creating new technologies (funded by tax-payer dollars of course). Once established, those technologies are then handed over to the private business sector, where profit can be made. This creates a role for the public wherein they fund products that they will eventually wind up buying, and in terms of media, fund the mediums through which they consume media.
Over time, a pro-business, neo-liberal perspective has come to dominate media policy, such that the market is seen as a more efficient regulator of media interets than the government. Naturally, such a perspective completely serves the interests of the profit-driven, corporatized media system which dominates today. Arguments are now such that public interest or government regulation is portrayed as a violation of First Amendment rights guaranteed the media oligopoly, a reversal of intent that would surely cause great alarm for those who intended for the media to serve the public interest.
Effects of the 1996 FCC telecommunications act:
- Essentially reduced ownership caps, allowing further monopolization and corporatization of media companies to flourish in the free-market environment. Government role further eroded.
- Limited information in mainstream media about details of act. Public knew very little about it.
- Increased concentration of ownership and capital; decreased regulation and overall quality of media produced by this system.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
preface
McChesney's book examines eight myths surrounding the U.S. media system. They are:
1) That the media merely reflect reality, not shape it...
The media constitute a social force in their own right, subject to powerful economic forces (e.g. commericial and advertising interests) that influence its content, and thereby shape the reality
that we come to know through that content.
2) That the corporate, commercial media system is "natural", a logical outgrowth of democracy...
The notion of a for-profit media system would likely cause the founding fathers to turn in their graves, and the notion that such a system is "free" (a view in fact propogated by the corporate media system) would likely cause their self-exhumation...
3) That debates concering media policy accurately reflect public opinion/public interest...
Public involvement in the shaping of media policy has fallen by the way side, being instead supplanted by powerful corporate interests whom the media have come to serve and depend on for their well-being. The result? Let me count the ways...
4) That commericial media unquestionably provide the highest quality journalism possible...
The very nature of a commericial media system is paradoxical to the notion of journalism providing the necessary information to sustain an informed citizenry. When profit enters the picture, any idealistic sense of what journalism is or should be becomes de-throned, subject to forces which tarnish its processes and products.
5) That the news media in the U.S. has a significant "left-wing" bias...
A myth actively created by those on the right to further their vision. Compare this with Chomsky's notion that the overall range of the political spectrum itself has moved to the right, so that what once seemed "left" is actually more moderate, and what is now "right" is even more conservative/extreme than before...
before ........... L ------------moderate------------R
now ................................ L -----------moderate------------R
6) That market forces (e.g. the drive for profit) provide the best product, the product that the people want...
This is more rhetoric lauding the success of the "free market system" in our lives, when in fact government involvement is rampant, to the extent that without it, it is very likely that the "free market system" would collapse. Regarding the media, the desire for profit results in products that are not necessarily the best, nor what people necessarily want. McChesney uses the phrase the "hyper-commercial carpet bombing" of our culture, a vivid image of the reality of our times.
7) That technologies determine the nature of media...
Has the emergence of the Internet and digital communication precluded the need for public policy regarding these forms of communication?Embracing such a view only allows those with vested interests in using these new mediums to pursue profit to reach that goal unchallenged by the public. It just makes it that much easier for them, and makes us that much more dependent on what they do, for in the process, they ultimately come to shape our choices and in turn, our reality...
8) That no alternative to the status quo will improve matters...
This is perhaps the most ideological of all the myths, the most empowering for those in control of the media system, and has the most disempowering, apathy-inducing effects for those who consume the products that that system creates. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, as it were. How is it done in this case, regarding commerical media? Hopefully McChesney's book will provide some answers...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McChesney's understanding of the core problems of the U.S. media system lies in the inter-relationship of three components...
inadequate journalism/hyper-commercialism
commercial structures (of the media)
(links to) explicit government policies
1) That the media merely reflect reality, not shape it...
The media constitute a social force in their own right, subject to powerful economic forces (e.g. commericial and advertising interests) that influence its content, and thereby shape the reality
that we come to know through that content.
2) That the corporate, commercial media system is "natural", a logical outgrowth of democracy...
The notion of a for-profit media system would likely cause the founding fathers to turn in their graves, and the notion that such a system is "free" (a view in fact propogated by the corporate media system) would likely cause their self-exhumation...
3) That debates concering media policy accurately reflect public opinion/public interest...
Public involvement in the shaping of media policy has fallen by the way side, being instead supplanted by powerful corporate interests whom the media have come to serve and depend on for their well-being. The result? Let me count the ways...
4) That commericial media unquestionably provide the highest quality journalism possible...
The very nature of a commericial media system is paradoxical to the notion of journalism providing the necessary information to sustain an informed citizenry. When profit enters the picture, any idealistic sense of what journalism is or should be becomes de-throned, subject to forces which tarnish its processes and products.
5) That the news media in the U.S. has a significant "left-wing" bias...
A myth actively created by those on the right to further their vision. Compare this with Chomsky's notion that the overall range of the political spectrum itself has moved to the right, so that what once seemed "left" is actually more moderate, and what is now "right" is even more conservative/extreme than before...
before ........... L ------------moderate------------R
now ................................ L -----------moderate------------R
6) That market forces (e.g. the drive for profit) provide the best product, the product that the people want...
This is more rhetoric lauding the success of the "free market system" in our lives, when in fact government involvement is rampant, to the extent that without it, it is very likely that the "free market system" would collapse. Regarding the media, the desire for profit results in products that are not necessarily the best, nor what people necessarily want. McChesney uses the phrase the "hyper-commercial carpet bombing" of our culture, a vivid image of the reality of our times.
7) That technologies determine the nature of media...
Has the emergence of the Internet and digital communication precluded the need for public policy regarding these forms of communication?Embracing such a view only allows those with vested interests in using these new mediums to pursue profit to reach that goal unchallenged by the public. It just makes it that much easier for them, and makes us that much more dependent on what they do, for in the process, they ultimately come to shape our choices and in turn, our reality...
8) That no alternative to the status quo will improve matters...
This is perhaps the most ideological of all the myths, the most empowering for those in control of the media system, and has the most disempowering, apathy-inducing effects for those who consume the products that that system creates. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, as it were. How is it done in this case, regarding commerical media? Hopefully McChesney's book will provide some answers...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McChesney's understanding of the core problems of the U.S. media system lies in the inter-relationship of three components...
inadequate journalism/hyper-commercialism
commercial structures (of the media)
(links to) explicit government policies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)