Download primary definers` thesis

1
CMNS 331, 09-3
LECTURE #5.
HEGEMONY, NEWS & ALTERNATIVE MEDIA
I. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
For possible use in your Media Analysis paper (some comfort with linguistic concepts helpful – eg.
ESL)
Hackett & Zhao’s analysis of media frames of protest against Gulf War of 1991.
The point is to analyze the presence of possibly competing FRAMES in news, through identifying
their ‘traces’ in the use of language in texts. What is a FRAME?
Media Frame = principles of selection – codes of emphasis, interpretation and presentation; used to
organize media output and discourses. It enables journalists to process and package large amounts
of diverse and often contradictory info, quickly and routinely. (Key Concepts, 2nd ed., pp. 122-23)
H & Z do a close textual reading of newspaper coverage of protest. What textual characteristics do
they analyse?
a. Themes.
b. Rhetorical and argumentation strategies, eg.
- metonymy: the part stands for the whole. Eg. black bloc as representing the anti-global
capitalism movement
- binary oppositions: Us vs. Them; cops vs. criminals
- metaphors: eg. protesters as ‘middle-aged rodents’. It transposes the unknown into terms
of the known.
- straw targets: set up a weak opponent, for instant rebuttal. Eg. ‘no blood for oil’ as the
protesters’ entire case against the war.
c. Micro-choices of semantics and style:
- choice of nouns, verbs and adjectives
- ex-nomination: important realities are not named (eg. war; capitalism)
- passive vs. active voice  implications for who is seen as active agent. “The book got
lost.”
II. A DEBATE WITHIN THE CRITICAL PARADIGM: THE PROPAGANDA MODEL
Recall the competing models of media & power (liberal pluralist vs. critical paradigm), and Allan’s
discussion of “2 competing perspectives on the role the news media play in structuring public
awareness and debate about social problems” – liberal pluralism and political economy (p. 47).
What is the key difference(s) between these 2?
Lib-pluralism: power as diffused and shared; society as pluralist, and held together by over-riding
consensus
2
Critical/Pol Economy: power as hierarchical; a ruling minority dominates and/or exploits a
majority.
E.g. Marx: “the capitalist ruling class must work to advance its particular class-specific interests by
depicting its ideas and values in universal terms” – as consistent with the beliefs of ordinary people
(Allan, p. 48).
One version of the Critical Pol Econ model: Herman & Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ of the
media  dominant US media have an institutional bias that leads them consistently to amplify
propaganda campaigns on behalf of a consensus of economic and political elites. That is evident at
the textual level: double standards in news coverage of victims; of human rights; of social issues.
Cf. the film: Myth of the Liberal Media.
Why does this happen? H & C identify 5 structural or institutional ‘filters’ that lock media into this
role:
a. commercial basis and corporate ownership of dominant media
b. advertising
c. ‘source’ bias: Establishment ‘experts’
d. ‘flak’ from right-wing critics
e. ideology: anti-communism; free market fundamentalism; war on terror
Media’s role is agency of indoctrination of the masses, on behalf of elites.
PROBLEMS WITH THIS MODEL?
1. Reductionist: oversimplifies the media’s role, to a propaganda conduit
2. Functionalist: sees media pressures as all one-way; overlooks tensions, contradictions w/in
media’s political roles; and opportunities for resistance or change
3. sees Journalists as cogs in a machine; overlooks their agency. No analysis of newsroom process
4. sees Audiences as passive dupes; overlooks their capacity for creative interpretation.
5. its consequences: politically disempowering
PRIMARY DEFINERS’ THESIS
A more modest, but somewhat similar model:
“As a result of journalists’ daily struggle to negotiate the professional demands of newswork, news
produces a systematically structured over-accessing to the media of those in powerful and
privileged institutional positions.” (Allan: 65) Those sources of information consequently
“generate, control and establish initial definitions of particular events, situations and issues”.
- i.e. if there is diversity and debate, it is limited by what is considered acceptable and legitimate
within those official or institutional circles.
Who are the ‘primary definers’?
3
- state and govt institutions, courts, police, dominant political parties, and interest groups, etc. (Key
Concepts, 2nd ed., p. 242)
Is it very different from the Propaganda Model?
In some respects: it’s more focused on journalist-source interaction, rather than operation of the
whole social order/political economy. Perhaps sees more scope for give & take. But dominant
groups set the terms of debate.
Not really too different from Herman, is it?
CRITICISMS OF THE PRIMARY DEFINER THESIS: (Allan 66-67)
In its own terms (the analysis of journalist/source relationship), the thesis doesn’t pay enough
attention to:
i. Official sources may be in conflict with each other
ii. They may leak info for their own purposes [not clear how this contradicts the Thesis]
iii.The boundaries of who is a Primary Definer can shift as the result of struggles btwn and against
sources
iv. Historically, the structure of access can change over time
v. Journalists may challenge and even undermine sources, redefining issues
vi. The Thesis is too media-centric; the relationship looks different when seen thru the lens of
sources.
III. NEWS AS IDEOLOGICAL/HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
Contrary to views of news as propaganda, or indoctrination, I propose looking at news thru the lens
of hegemony theory, using notions of discourse, ideology & hegemony.
Ideology is a concept more typical of the Critical, than Lib-Pluralist paradigm. But it takes us away
from views of the media as consciously-used INSTRUMENTS of elites (“instruments”). Instead, it
focuses attention on the SYMBOLIC influence of media on audiences, and the exercise and
legitimation of symbolic power in patterns of everyday culture.
* What is ideology? "Meaning in the service of power"
* What is meaning? Significance, Socially produced, a product of culture.
* What is power? Has a positive and negative face: Positive (the power to wipe out smallpox, go
to the moon); Negative, the ability to dominate others, even against their interests.
* Thus, ideology = the practice of reproducing social relations of inequality within the sphere of
signification and discourse [Hartley: 103/4]
What makes news 'ideological'?
At the broadest level, media are influenced by: political culture, cultural narratives, social beliefs
expressing the core values and meanings of society.
4
E.g. - the legitimate role of govt; the distinctiveness of 'our' country; the distribution of social and
economic resources; the meaning of individual's lives.
For Lib-Pluralism, a plurality of groups in society, none with overriding influence, express such
values. Individuals have a high degree of choice and autonomy. If values are shared throughout a
society, that reflects a genuine consensus.
For CP: Popular beliefs (or common sense) can't be separated from the hegemony of dominant
elites, or the "power bloc", themselves the product of a set of established social relations - e.g.
employer/employee relationship, production of commodities for markets; relationship between
advertisers, media, and audiences. The elites' way of looking at the world expresses their interests,
and tends to be disseminated thru institutions like the media, to the broader population.
Want to turn to a broader concept: Hegemony. How does this differ from 'ideology'?
* Emphasis on process, rather than contents of consciousness
* Is less tied to Marxist concepts of social class, rooted in economic relations
* Has a more political component: Gramsci spoke of political alliances, the power bloc.
* Evokes the possibility of resistance, counter-hegemony
Hegemony
So, the potential for resistance, and the reproduction of class relations (and dominance) in the
sphere of culture, is further refined by the concept of "hegemony".
= a concept developed by Gramsci in the 1930s and taken up in cultural studies, where it refers
principally to the ability in certain historical periods of the dominant classes to exercise social and
cultural leadership, and by these means – rather than by direct coercion of subordinate classes -- to
maintain their power over the economic, political and cultural direction of the nation. [Hartley, in
your COURSEWARE, p. 86]
What does Hegemonic Process "Do" -- When it is successful?
- wins consent for the existing social order
- neutralize class antagonisms (redefining them, e.g. as differences of culture or intelligence).
- naturalizes existing, dominant social relations: historically specific social relations are granted the
status of eternal verities, and transformed into common sense.
- ex-nomination: it suppresses or fails to identify important aspects of social relations. E.g. the
concept of 'capitalism' is generally ex-nominated in political discourses: no party calls itself a
'capitalist' party [O'Sullivan et al, 86].
Or think about gender; e.g. the headline: "Senator and Blonde in Crash". A woman is defined by
her looks, body or procreative ability; men are represented in terms of their job, action, character,
etc.: their gender does not need to be named.
- generalizes: the particular interests of the dominant class are translated as the universal interests of
the whole society; partial 'truths' are taken as complete descriptions of the whole.
5
Important Dimensions of its Cultural Dynamics - and Implications for News [Allan: 78-80]
1) It is a lived process -- embedded in our everyday practices thru which we try to make sense of
the world. As subjects, we enter into this process. We are complicit in our own domination. It's
not the same as deliberate brainwashing. Nor conspiracy.
1b) In the newsroom, the production of 'hegemonic' texts occurs, not typically thru intervention or
coercion from above, but thru the institutional routines and professional criteria of everyday
journalism. (e.g. news values/selection, treatment and telling of stories; routine accessing of
'authoritative' sources).
2) It's a matter of common sense -- not nec'ly well-articulated doctrines. Non-reflexive, uncritical,
unconscious ways of perceiving and understanding the social world. It's a broad framework which
allows space for different versions, competing views -- within limits.
2b) News is not the same as a narrowly 'partisan' ideology -- e.g. support for Conservatives over
Liberals or NDP. Rather, it establishes a field w/in which different sectional viewpoints can content
-- but within limits. E.g. debate over US policy in Vietnam. Or over how to deal with deficit. The
contending legit positions share hegemonic assumptions.
3) It's always contested. Active process of negotiation. Not monolithic structure imposed from
above. Ruling group can't take for granted its reproduction; outcome is never guaranteed in
advance.
3b) Thus, news media are not a watertight system. That's partly why the propaganda model is
misleading.
3c) At the same time, media are not a level playing field. Their workaday news values, routines
and orgl structures, even without conscious, politically-motivated interventions, tend to reproduce
dominant worldviews and power relations.
News then, does not generate meanings or select agendas in a vacuum. It draws definitions of
events, issues, and language to frame them, from other institutions and cultural practices - which are
themselves 'structured in dominance'. But news may add to these discourses, elements of its own.
News, as Allan insists, has its own 'culture'.
4) Objectivity and balance are not a sham. "They are required if news is to act alongside others
institutions -- family, school -- in naturalizing dominant ideology, and winning consent for
hegemony." [Hartley, Understanding News: 61/62]. If hegemony works in large part thru 'common
sense definitions of reality,' hegemonic ideology is most likely to be at its most effective in
apparently 'objective' reports, not explicit opinion.
Indeed: one of the most ideological aspects of news discourse may be its ethos and procedures of
objty.
Yet to repeat: News is not mere conduit for external forces or elites. It has 'relative autonomy', a
coherence, a logic, of its own. It is a 'discourse'.
News as Discourse
Discourse = the social process of making and reproducing sense(s) or meaning. [Hartley,p. 73; in
COURSEWARE, p. 84]
1. A kind of language that has rules and conventions (codes).
6
Each discourse has its own codes, or underlying deep structure, of which its speakers may not be
consciously aware. (E.g. most of us speak intelligible English sentences without being able to
identify the rules of grammar which make them possible. Similarly, few of us could identify the
visual "rules of grammar" of TV news; but we'd recognize a blooper if we saw one.) So, the
characteristics of a discourse can't be reduced to the conscious intentions of its speakers.
We can see news as a kind of language. It has codes which construct a certain version of reality.
E.g. what and who is considered newsworthy? A credible source? Controversial? Deviant? Who is
an expert, who an advocate?
A huge variety of apparently event-driven stories can be generated from a limited set of rules and
concepts. (Don't you have the sense that news is the same small number of stories over and over
again? Cf. Hollywood movies.)
These rules means that news does not simply 'reflect' some reality out there. News constructs its
own version of reality. If this discourse is ideological, it suggests -- that this reality is linked to
power.
2. Discourse is made up of signs - items which can produce various meanings. Signs derive their
meaning not simply or even primarily by direct reference to something 'out there' (e.g. a word and
its referent) - but by its relationship with other signs in the same system. E.g. binary oppositions:
love/hate; black/white; terrorism/freedom fighter; news story/editorial). E.g. TV news: short,
medium, long-range shots. News as a 'sign system' implies that the world has to be 'made to mean'.
3. These signs have multi-accentuality. They can mean different things, depending on the
circumstances of their use. And they are not simply descriptive; they are implicitly evaluative, e.g.
"freedom fighter".
E.g. the single student in front of the tank during Tianenmen Square: individual heroism against
oppression, or military's restraint? (What if he was portrayed as mad? If both student and soldiers
knew the world's TV was watching?)
But news and other hegemonic institutions work to try to FIX meanings, in ways that favour the
powerful.
4. News discourse is relatively autonomous; it has certain traditions, practices, a weight of its own.
Thus, propaganda model is inadequate. We shouldn't consider news as simply a reflection of some
outside force (like owners, or advertisers). News can't simply be manipulated at will by them;
owners can't mould the news too much, without it ceasing to be recognized as news. Journalists are
not simply puppets; audiences are not simply dupes.
This is a critique of the propaganda model, which implies the deliberate control/manipulation and
cmn of info and imagery, to achieve political objectives. The political effects of 'discourse' are less
deliberate. Discourse helps structure thought and bhvr, but in ways that aren't necessarily evident to
its users. E.g. journalists make snap decisions about newsworthiness, w/out articulating to
themselves the 'news values' on which such decisions are based, or the consequences of their
decisions.
Perhaps the most important ideological consequences result, not from the occasional departures
from the highest standards of professional journalism. Rather, ideology is embedded in those very
standards themselves.
7
5. On the other hand, while it is relatively autonomous, a discourse does not exist in a vacuum. It
has social & historical conditions of existence. (A different political and economic system would
have a different kind of media/news system). Moreover, news discourse is linked (if not directly) to
social struggles, interests and inequalities -- e.g. those of social class. [Cf. Hartley’s Key Concepts.]
First 3 chapters of Allan, describe some of those broader relations: commercialism, State.
The rules & codes of news, have been formed thru interaction w/in this environment. News may
offer openings to express alternative or counter-hegemonic viewpoints. But to the extent that news
more generally generates meanings in the service of power, it is an 'ideological' discourse.
6. a notion of the intended audience is generally inscribed w/in the discourse; i.e. definitions of
ourselves (if we are part of the intended we-group) as 'subjects' in relation to other people and
things. By contrast, there are explicit or implied "Others", which the discourse excludes, denigrates,
defines as evil, etc.
7. News cannot be seen as "reflecting" an already-existing and self-evident "reality" that exists
independently of its representation in news or other discourse. The focus instead, is to look at
representation. What rep'l strategies does the news use, to naturalize its representations; to invite us
to accept them impartial and neutral; as reflecting reality, common sense, popular consensus?
Naturalizing Representation: Presentational Devices in newspaper, radio & TV (from Allan,
Chap. 4)
* inverted pyramid style in newspaper's 'hard news' accounts (p. 90)
* assumptions about the social world, shared with the implied reader (92)
* Radio's mode of address heightens its sense of immediacy (95)
* BBC radio uses authoritative language, delivered by newsreaders with the 'right' accent (96)
* More popular forms of radio "ventriloquize" the voices of ordinary people (97)...
* ...and commercial TV uses 'happy talk' to 'people-ize' the news (101)
* TV's dialogic strategy includes direct eye-contact by the newsreader with the camera (100)
* TV's alignment of images and words reinforces the sense that viewers can see for themselves
(103)
...Allan is calling attention to the textuality of news, its status as 'machinery of representation' (S.
Hall), and the devices by which it naturalizes itself, as neutral, objective and impartial. While at the
same time, the concept of hegemony suggests that behind and thru its objectivity mode, news
functions as an ideological discourse. It is representing particular interests as the general; partial
constructions of reality as equivalent to reality. It contains the range of debate, and it does so
precisely thru the mechanisms which seem to make news an open access medium - e.g. accessing
'both sides' of an 'issue'.
Objectivity then, is fundamental to the way news discourse is currently produced and received.
(See also Bennett, Chap. 6.)
a) the language and practices of objectivity are not set in stone: they are somewhat flexible,
negotiable;
8
b) objectivity language/practices provide an opening to challenge particular media representations c) but overall, they naturalize the media's dominant institutional arrangements, and media frames.
Alternative Media
Some media explicitly challenge the dominant media and its regime of objectivity. Esp. when they
consciously seek to represent oppositional political perspectives, social movements, or marginalized
voices. Read Hackett &Zhao, “Nibbling at the Margins,” in COURSEWARE, before finalizing
your Term Paper topic. Some char'ics of such "alternative" media:
1. challenge to some aspects of social order's fundamental assumptions; politically dissident;
progressive orientation (or reactionary?)
2. co-operative and democratic decision-making, internally [but with many exceptions]
3. different sense of 'news values'; access to voices marginalized by establishment media
4. horizontal cmn with and among their audiences; audiences as participants
5. more open advocacy; skeptical of dominant media's claims to objectivity.
Very few alt media org's would meet all of these. It's a rough guide. And sometimes, 'mainstream'
media have spaces and openings whereby they function as 'alternatives' to themselves.