Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Critiques of libertarian and social responsibility theories Chomsky/ Herman, Curran, McQuail, McChesney Curran’s ‘radical’ critique Mass Media and Democracy: a Reappraisal. Proposes: – A revised, enlarged, deepened, radical understanding of the role of journalism in a democracy. – A new way of organising the media. Critique of watchdog role In classical liberal thought the public watchdog oversees the state, reveals abuses in the exercise of state authority. Watchdog role overrides all other functions of the media and dictates the form in which the media should be organised, i.e. the free market. Independence from government. But, does critical surveillance of government justify continued capitalist organisation of the press? Is the watchdog role paramount? Most media these days are given over to entertainment. Only a small proportion of news is devoted to critical scrutiny of the state. Also, why does the watchdog role only apply to the state? What about the exercise of power through structures other than the state? Role of the press as a defence against exploitation in the private sphere (home and economy)? Market-based media are not independent of all structures of power, both private and public. Under monopoly capitalism, media have sometimes refrained from investigating critically the activities of the conglomerates to which they belong. Compromises editorial integrity – impairs oversight of private corporate power. Media conglomerates as independent power centres which use their political leverage to pursue corporate gain. The Propaganda Model Traditional theorists see propaganda as being a useful conceptual tool to apply to media products of totalitarian dictatorships while applicable to the media of Western democracies only in exceptional periods (war). But, Chomsky and Herman argue that the propaganda function is a permanent feature of Western media systems. The powerful elite “fix the premises of discourse, to decide what the general populace is allowed to see, hear and think about and to manage public opinion by regular propaganda campaigns”. Journalists’ exalted claims to be working as the noble Fourth Estate are rhetoric. Media practices do not reflect genuine public spiritedness but rather a concern to boost sales/ ratings. Infotainment accompanies depoliticisation of civil society. But, radical accounts that stress the ‘incorporation’ of commercial media by big business also need to be viewed critically: – Do they analyse countervailing influences within media organisations that make for relative journalistic independence? E.g. The self-image and professional commitments of journalists (resistance to owner pressure), normative public support for journalistic independence. Public service broadcasting organisations have also resisted editorial interference from governments: – In liberal democracies political elites support broadcasting independence. Why? Ministers know that one day they will need access to broadcasting when they are voted out of office. (Does this apply in SA?) – Some broadcasting corporations are difficult to ‘capture’ because power is decentralised within them or because they are protected by an internal system of checks and balances. – The ultimate defence of public service broadcasting is public support. Pilger on public broadcasting “Perhaps in no other country does broadcasting hold such a privileged position as opinion leader as in Britain. When ‘information’ is conveyed on the BBC with such professional gravitas, it is more likely to be believed. Possessing highly professional talent, the illusion of impartiality and an essentially liberal ethos, Britain’s ‘public service broadcasting’ has become a finely crafted and infinitely adaptable instrument of state propaganda and censorship.” John Pilger So… Vigilance of the press can be blunted by the economic interests and partisan loyalties of its controllers. Vigilance of public service broadcasting can be undermined by covert pressure from governments. Broadcast authorities can be packed with govt supporters; financial pressure can be exerted; informal and formal representations can be made to promote self-censorship; future of broadcasting organisations can be threatened through legislative reorganisation. (SABC?) Watchdog role does not even characterise most media, since they are mostly given over to entertainment. The public watchdog role of the media does not legitimate a free market media system. Liberal argument based on two false premises: – State is the main threat to the welfare of society (what about exploitation and oppression emanating from other sources?) – Media become independent by being independent of the state (private media are increasingly linked through private ownership to corporate structures of power in a form that compromise their independence) Countervailing influences that can prevent subordination of media to the state or private interests are highly developed in some public broadcasting systems, but much less developed in the unregulated private sector. Simple, unthinking subscription to the free market problematic – instead need practical measures which will strengthen media vigilance. Public watchdog perspective is negative and defensive. It defines the role of the media in terms of monitoring government, protecting the public. Stops short of the Habermasian conception of the media as an instrument of the popular will. One strand within traditional liberal thought with affinities with Habermas is the ‘Fourth Estate’ perspective. Press subject to an election every time they go on sale – press as a fully representative institution and should be accepted as a partner in the process of government. Sovereign consumer – shape and nature of the press is determined by no one but its readers due to the hidden hand of the free market. Media owners must reflect the views and values of audiences to stay in business. Curran: MYTH that the free market produces a media system which responds to and expresses the views and values of the buying public. Free press: “persuasive mythology” 1. Media oligopolies: – – – – Reduced media diversity, audience choice and public control. Long-term reduction in the number of competing newspapers (local monopolies and chain ownership). But, part of the media system has grown (specialised magazines, internet, local radio stations, satellite TV). On the other hand, there is increased domination of the media in national and international contexts. Enormous resources commanded by conglomerates, their large economies of scale, and extensive domination of linked markets (undermines the functioning of the market as a free and open contest). 2. Rising capitalisation of media industries restricts entry: – – – – Still possible to enter marginal media sectors (local freesheets, local radio and specialist mags), but they have little influence. “We would find it strange now if we made voting rights dependent upon purchasing power or property rights and yet access to the mass media, as both channels of information and for a of debate, is largely controlled by just such power and property rights.” Garnham More media outlets now, but has this produced more diversity/ choice? Markets impose limits on the diversity generated by expansion. E.g. Why is there no leftish take on the news? In the pre-industrial phase it was possible for a wide spectrum of individuals or social groups to set up their trestle tables in the free market place of ideas. No longer the case. 3. The relationship between media and audiences has been transformed since 19th century. – – – Audiences much larger and heterogeneous (no longer shared beliefs/ common interest that can be ‘represented’). The rise of entertainment content – people don’t consume media for political reinforcement any more. The Sun (UK) devotes less than 15% of editorial content to public affairs news and comment, and sells to a politically divided audience of 10 million readers. It connects to structures of feeling among its readers but does not represent them in a political sense. 4. Do media controllers subordinate their ideological commitments to the imperatives of the market? Murdock as evidence to the contrary? 5. The concept of sovereign consumer control ignores the voluminous sociological literature which shows the varied ways in which audience pressures are selectively interpreted, ‘refracted’ and even resisted within media organisations. 6. Idealised notion of market democracy ignores the central financing role of advertising in media: Direct and indirect editorial influence. Structure of the press is oriented more upscale than downscale audiences – larger advertising subsidy per reader. Reproduction of economic inequalities – particularly acute in South Africa. Professional responsibility model Cult of professionalism a way of reconciling market flaws with the traditional conception of the democratic role of the media. Curran critiques professionalism as a rhetorical strategy to hide journalism’s inherent pro-systemic bias. Professionalism implies standards and procedures, which means journalists tend to act as responsible members of the political establishment, upholding the dominant political perspective. Professionalism asserts journalists’ commitment to higher goals – neutrality, objectivity a commitment to truth. Adopt procedures for verifying facts, drawing on different sources, presenting rival interpretations. Ensures that the pluralism of information and opinion, once secured through the clash of adversaries in the free market, could be recreated through the ‘internal pluralism’ of monopolistic media. Market pressures to sensationalise and trivialise offset by professionalism. But, journalistic autonomy, professional judgement not assured within media organisations which do not have as their central goal the realisation of professional norms. Scientisation of news reporting – focusing on technical, strategic and insider perspectives of politics – enables reporter to avoid being exposed as necessarily subjective participants in the political process. Horse race elections, not democratic inquest – journalists take refuge in a neutral form of interpretation. Mechanistic reliance on conventional news values. Defects of traditional perspective 1. Traditional role of media defined in terms of affording communication between government and the citizen, and providing the basis on which public opinion (aggregate of individual opinion) is formed. But, in modern liberal democracies, individuals seek to influence public opinion and govt through collective organisations (parties, unions, business orgs, and myriad structures of civil society). These are the building blocks of the contemporary democratic system – traditional liberal theory has nothing to say about how the media should relate to these, and enhance their democratic performance. 2. Untenable distinction between information and representation. – Detaches information form its political and social context. Different ways of interpreting and making sense of society, different linguistic codes and conceptual categories, different versions of ‘common sense’ privilege the interest of some while disadvantaging others. – The media’s informational role is never purely informational – it is also a way of arbitrating between the discursive frameworks of organised groups in ways that can potentially affect the distribution of resources and rewards in society. Usually, one class or social coalition is able to naturalise its interests because it dominates the channels of cultural production. Debate is limited to ‘legitimate’ areas of controversy, assumptions do not challenge the structure of social power. 3. Overstates the rationality of public discourse. What about non-rational elements in opinion formation. 4. Entertainment usually omitted from analysis of media’s democratic functioning – doesn’t conform to the classic liberal conception of rational exchange. – But, entertainment is one means by which people engage at an intuitive level in a public dialogue about the direction of society. Media fiction provides cognitive maps that structure and interpret reality and provide a commentary on common social processes. – Entertainment excluded because of the assumption that the sole democratic purpose of media is to effect changes in govt policy and exercise control over the state. (Public-private distinction.) 5. Does not distinguish between the legal right to publish and the economic opportunity to do so. Limits the ability of sections of the community to voice effectively their interests, their opinions, their view of relative priorities. Journalists and objectivity Can journalists transcend their own subjectivity in accounting for the facts? Does such a demand rest on plausible philosophical assumptions about the nature of, and relations between, perception, the external world, facts and values? The biases of objectivity Theodore Glasser: As a set of beliefs, objectivity is rooted in a positivistic view of the world – a commitment to external, observable, and retrievable facts. Such an ideology promotes three kinds of bias: Bias against the watchdog role of the media in favour of the status quo. To remain value neutral, only news sources with impeccable credentials (invariably prominent members of society) are quoted. The democratic process requires the participation of ordinary citizens as much as those who are prominent. 1. 2. Bias against independent thinking. Journalists have to remain impartial and value neutral – therefore no longer the need nor the opportunity to develop a critical perspective from which to assess the events, the issues, the personalities he or she is assigned to cover. 3. Bias against the journalist’s assumption of responsibility for what is reported. News seen to exist “out there” (independent of the reporter), so journalists can’t be held responsible for it. The day’s news is viewed as something journalists are compelled to report, not something they are responsible for creating. Objectivity in journalism effectively erodes the very foundation on which rests a responsible press. “News is never a mere recording or reporting of the world ‘out there’ but a synthetic, value-laden account which carries within it dominant assumptions and ideas of the society within which it is produced.” Theodore Glasser Development media theory Developing countries lack infrastructure, finance, professional skills, even audiences, needed to sustain media institutions comparable to developed world. Media subject to economic dependence, foreign domination and arbitrary authoritarianism. Media theory for development advocates positive use of media to promote national development (economic, social, cultural and political); the pursuit of cultural and informational autonomy; support for democracy; solidarity with other developing countries. Assumptions: – Media should make a positive contribution to national development process (economic, social, cultural and political); – State should be able to restrict the media if economic interests and the development needs of the society are at stake (responsibilities emphasised above their rights and freedoms); – Media should give preference to information about other developing countries that are geographically, culturally and politically akin; – To protect development objectives, state subsidies and direct control are justifiable. Democratic-participant theory Reaction to commercialisation, monopolisation in privately-controlled mass media, and to centralisation and bureaucratisation in public broadcasting. Practical realisation of this theory is encountered primarily in developed societies. From the 1960s onwards, calls for alternative, grassroots media, expressing the needs of citizens. The theory supports the following: – Multiplicity/ diversity of media; – Small scale use of media; – The right to relevant local information; – The reciprocal role of communicator and recipient (right to answer back); – Horizontal communication; – De-institutionalising of the media; – Interaction and involvement (use media for interaction and social action in small-scale settings of community, interest group or subculture). Principles: – Individuals and minority groups can claim the right of access to the media and right to have needs served by media. – Organisation of media and content of messages should not be influenced by political or bureaucratic control; – Existence of media must be justified in terms of the needs/ interests of recipients, not in terms of those of media organisations, journalists and advertisers; – Groups, organisations and communities should have their own media; – Small-scale, interactive and participatory forms of media regarded as more beneficial than large-scale, unidirectional media which are used only by journalists; – Communication is too important to be left to professionals. Curran’s ‘radical’ alternative ‘Radical perspective’ – assumes a (masked) contest between different social classes over allocation of wealth, power, prestige, public resources and life opportunities. Media are part of this conflictual context – so they influence the outcome of this contest. Key question: “How should media mediate in an equitable way conflict and competition between different social groups in society?” 1st strand of ‘radical’ approach: Similar to classical liberalism - media seen as a ‘representative’ system (but in the radical case they reflect the prevailing conflictual rather than consensual structure of society) In South Africa we have broadcasting systems that reflect the balance of social or political forces in society, as well as conventions that reporting maintains a ‘fair balance’ between major political parties. 2nd strand of radical approach: Media as countervailing agency which should actively seek to redress what is perceived to be the imbalance of power in society. Expose wrongdoing, correct injustice, attack the abuse of power, but also – in more overly radical terms – act as an interventionist agency that promotes greater equality. Subordinate groups less able to articulate and advance their interests than more powerful groups – journalism should facilitate subordinate groups’ access to the public domain, and offset their weakness of organisation or resources. Liberal vs. radical Liberal approach = emphasis on media’s information role framed in a consensus view of society (‘public’ as an undifferentiated aggregation of individuals). Radical democratic approach = stress ideological-representational role (conflict model – media represent opposed or competing ‘publics’ with divergent interests).