The mass media form an important sociological institution, playing an increasingly important role in the development of our identity, norms and values. Recently, the role of the mass media has increased considerably, as new technologies and wider availability means we spend more time in contact with them. This can be seen in our increased reliance on television, arguably the most influential medium in developed countries.
The majority of the mass media involve very little audience participation. What liee there is through "Letters to the Editor" or phone-ins is normally edited in some way. This, along with the fact there are relatively few media organisations in comparison with a huge audience means that those who are in control of the media wield significant power.
Trends in ownership
As the
media have grown,
noticeable trends in
ownership can be seen which have
implications for their influence on society.
- Concentration
- Often cited as the most worrying trend, this involves smaller media companies being swallowed up by larger ones. For example, the News Corporation owns a large proportion of the UK's national and local newspaper market and Clear Channel Communications now owns a very big share of the USA's radio stations.
- Vertical Integration
- The ownership of many or all stages of production and distribution in order to maximize profit. For example, a newspaper mogul could own a sawmill, a paper mill, newspaper offices, a printing house, lorries and newsagents. Such an extreme example doesn't happen very often, but less dramatic integration does.
- Diversification
- When a company has interests in non-media companies. For example, Vivendi Universal, which is largely a media company has environmental and waste management interests. This means that when something economically bad happens, like a bubble bursting, the company has other means to support itself.
- Cross-media ownership
- Media conglomerates have ownership of companies in more than one medium. Examples include most of the big media companies like the News Corporation. This can provide some of the economic stability of diversification as when one medium does badly, another can go some way to cut the company's losses *cough*.
- Transnational Ownership
- The spread of a company's control over national borders. This leads to speculation (mostly in countries that aren't the USA) that local and national productionis being undermined.
- Technological Convergence
- As technology converges, media companies that previously existed in distinctly separate sectors now have the opportunity to merge together. Many do, such as AOL and Time Warner.
Theories
Various sociologists have developed theories as to how the mass media affect society as a whole. For the purposes of this node, I will focus on Marxist and Pluralist theories about the mass media, because they are suitably contrasting and are the only ones I know about.
Marxists, as is their wont, link the mass media to the imposition of social order and structure by bourgeois to support the domination of the ruling class. Marxists emphasise the way the media tend to (in their eyes) a conservative, conformist view of the world, promoting the established ideology of the capitalists. This creates a "false consciousness" to keep the proletariat's minds away from the harsh realities of capitalism.
The German Ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 1845
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.
Ralph Milliband's study "The State in Capitalist Society" (1973) gives an insight into a traditional Marxist view of the mass media. He dismisses the idea of pluralist diversity and suggests that:
The State in Capitalist Society, Ralph Milliband 1973 p198
Most newspapers in the capitalist world have one crucial characteristic in common, namely their strong, often their passionate hostility to anything further to the Left than the milder forms of social democracy, and quite commonly to these milder forms as well
Milliband argues that the media give some degree of impartiality but only so they remain in the limited sphere of "acceptability". There remains a stream of propaganda against views that fall outside the general consensus. The media reflect the viewpoint of the dominant group in society and give the impression that nothing is radically wrong with it. He also suggests that we should not forget that the majority of the media are privately owned.
Criticisms
In response to the criticisms of traditional Marxism, some Marxists have instead developed a different theory. They believe that instead of the media's content being directly influenced by their owners, capitalist ideology is implicit in everything. The ruling class's view is taken as "common sense". The proletariat are happy to go along with this, aiding the continuation of this hegemony. This theory is hegemonic or neo-Marxism.
Hegemony, R. Bocock, 1986.
The convictions of people are ... Not something manipulated by capitalists or put into the minds of the masses by them, but rather flow from the exigencies of everyday life under capitalism. The workers, and others, hold the values and political ideas that they do as a consequence both of trying to survive and of attempting to enjoy themselves, within capitalism.
Hegemonic Marxists believe that one of the main methods of perpetuating the ideological views of the capitalist system is through the agenda setting of the media. The media present us with a narrow agenda for discussion. What David Beckham wore to go and visit his greatest fan is more discussed than the inequalities that exist within society. When the National Lottery was instituted in the UK, a survey was performed in which people were asked if they would rather have one big-ass prize or many smaller prizes but with greater odds of winning. Most, no doubt under the influence of the hegemonic capitalist belief that one should maximize profit, went for the former option.
Supporters of the pluralist or liberal theory believe that the media offer a wide selection of views, contributing to free and democratic society. If people do not like what the media show, they do not buy or watch it. The media have to play to the market or they go out of business. Pluralism emphasises the role that the media play in providing information and the opportunity for open debate. People are not victims of ideological hegemony, they can interpret and choose what they want.
Pluralists believe that the freedom that exists in setting up media ventures ensures that a range of opinions is represented and that editorial freedom and professional journalistic standards help to maintain effective media. Pluralists also believe that the limited audience participation in the media is nevertheless effective and allows individuals to express opinions and criticisms.
Pluralists tend to defend the media from Marxist criticisms. They point out that vertical integration is often frowned upon as a business practice (which is probably why it hasn't happened) and many countries have laws preventing cross-ownership and the proportions of imported content that are allowed. Furthermore, journalists and editors do not always heed the counsel of their bosses as there is a strong tradition of "investigative journalism". The best example of the benefits of such nosiness is Watergate.
As it goes, I tend to agree with the pluralist view, but it is a bit optimistic for my tastes. There is evidence of owners interfering in the content their companies produce in several cases. For example, when BSkyB was contemplating a greater stake in Manchester United, most newspapers opposed the move, with the notable exception The Sun and The Times, two News Corporation newspapers.
Sources:
My Sociology notes
Paul Taylor et al, Sociology in Focus ISBN: 1873929218