|
Answer
|
Hint
|
|
James Curran (2003)
|
This Marxist sociologist gave a detailed systematic examination of the British press, and suggested that the evidence for owner interference in and manipulation of UK newspaper content is strong - suggesting that 4 distinct periods can be seen with regard to owner intervention and the subsequent undermining of journalistic and editorial integrity: 1. From 1920 to 1950, press barons such as Lord Beaverbrook, who owned the Express newspaper group, openly stated their ideological intentions. For example, Beaverbrook famously said: "I run the Daily Express merely for the purpose of making propaganda and with no other motive.". 2. He argues that from 1951 to 1974 there was greater delegation by owners to editorial and journalistic authority and autonomy. Consequently, this was the great era of investigative reporting by journalists into abuses of power, although owners still insisted their newspapers supported particular political ideologies and political parties. 3. From 1974 to 1992, he argues, a new more interventionist proprietorship appeared, as symbolised by Rupert Murdoch - "a businessman first and foremost" - who acquired both The Sun and The Times. Murdoch was orientated towards what sold rather than what furthered a party interest or ideological viewpoint. He notes that Murdoch shifted his newspapers to the Right as he believed that right-wing economic policies were the key to making vast profits. Murdoch introduced a new personalised style of management to the production of newspapers in the UK - he read proofs, wrote leaders, changed content and layout. Most importantly, he handpicked compliant editors and managing directors and sacked those who opposed his ideological position. Between 1979 and 1992, Murdoch was a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government because it pursued economic policies he agreed with and actively encouraged, to such an extent that he was dubbed the 'phantom prime minister'. 4. Since 1997, he argues, media ownership has been based on an ideology of 'global conservatism', as British newspaper groups have moved into the global marketplace. The most successful media entrepreneur in this period has been Rupert Murdoch - he notes how, in 1997, Murdoch instructed his newspapers to abandon support for the Conservative Party and to support Tony Blair's New Labour. However, this was not due to Murdoch's sudden conversion to social democracy, rather, it was a hard-nosed business decision, because Blair was willing to lift state controls that prevented cross-media ownership. He argues that Murdoch was right-wing, but perceived Blair to be "the only credible conservative worth supporting in 1997. In effect, a tacit deal was made between two power-holders - one a market-friendly politician and the other a pragmatic businessman - in a form that sidelined the public". As he concludes, "the Murdoch press thus changed its political loyalty but not its politics.".
Evaluations: -His analysis of media ownership does partly support the instrumentalist position because his evidence suggests that, until the 1970s, press barons generally subscribed to a right-wing ideology in the management of the content of their newspapers. -However, he argues that the evidence regarding media owners from the 1970s on does not always support the Marxist instrumentalist argument as today such owners are primarily motivated by profit rather than ideology. Moreover, their actions are not united and collectivised; media owners and conglomerates ruthlessly compete with each other in an attempt to obtain a bigger share of the market. Murdoch's instructions to Fox News to support the Iraq War, and his decision that Sky News should not cover pro-democracy protests in China, seem to have been motivated simply by his desire to increase his audiences and therefore profits in the US and China respectively. -However, he suggests that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the actions of media owners produce media content that, in the long term, benefits capitalism - in this sense, his analysis fits with the analysis of the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG), which takes a hegemonic approach to media ownership and control. |
|
John Whale (1977)
|
This Pluralist sociologist suggests that, 'media owners have global problems of trade and investment to occupy their minds' and so do not have the time to think about the day-to-day detailed running of their media businesses.
|
|
Owen Jones (2015)
|
This Marxist sociologist sees media owners, editors and journalists as part of the 'Establishment', which he defines as an alliance of unaccountable powerful groups "bound together by common economic interests and a shared set of mentalities"; these groups aim to protect their dominant position in society by managing democracy to make sure that it does not threaten their interests: -He argues that it should be the job of the media to scrutinise the activities of the Establishment but he notes that "the British media is an integral part of the British Establishment; its owners share the same underlying assumptions and mantras.". -Consequently, journalists turn a blind eye to the Establishment and instead critically attack and vilify the behaviour of the poor, the unemployed and other benefit claimants, immigrants and public sector workers. -This deflects attention and "anger away from those who actually wield power in British society". |
|
Ralph Miliband (1973)
|
This Marxist sociologist takes a manipulative or instrumentalist approach to the ownership and control of the media: -He argued that the mass media represents an ideological instrument which plays a key role in the reproduction and justification of class inequality. -Marxists believe that media owners do this by transmitting a conservative and conformist ideology in the form of news and entertainment. -The role of the media (along with other ideological agencies like education) is to convince the general public that ruling-class ideology is 'truth' and 'fact'. -By doing this, he argued, media owners shape and manipulate how people think about the world they live in. -For example, the media rarely inform the general public about why people continue to live in poverty or, if they do, they represent the poor as somehow responsible for their situation. -The media do not encourage people to be critical of the capitalist system - media representations of wealth are, on the whole, very positive, as are media representations of the Royal Family. |
|
Herbert Marcuse (1964)
|
This Marxist philosopher, who belonged to the Frankfurt School, argues that media owners play a key role in helping to control the working-class through a 'bread and circuses' approach, meaning that they deliberately make sure that media output is mainly entertainment-oriented so that people are kept happy and docile.
|
|
Paul Trowler (2008)
|
This postmodernist sociologist has a lot to say about postmodern society and the media: -He observes in Haralambos and Holborn, "the media are not just one aspect among many of the postmodern condition, but are its intimate defining aspect". -In relation to the 'myth of truth', he observes, "in postmodernity, the norm is complexity: there are many meanings and not one deep, profound meaning.'. -He argues that media messages in the postmodern world are 'polysemic' - each media message or text is now interpreted in a variety of ways, which makes it difficult for any one message to be more powerful than another. |
|
Henderson (2015)
|
This Marxist sociologist points out that the British mass media were strangely quiet about a deal made between then chancellor George Osborne and the Chinese Government, in which Chinese state-owned companies were invited to participate in the development of nuclear power plants in Britain - he especially considers that: -The Chinese have a poor health and safety record with regard to building nuclear power stations. -China has a deeply corrupt economy and there are fears that companies operating in Britain may attempt to side-step safety measures and regulatory agencies. -Though technically state-owned, it is the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army, not government agencies, that control the Chinese companies building these power stations - the £2 billion guarantee promised by Osborne to these Chinese companies will result in the British taxpayer subsidising the Chinese Communist Party. -The question of the Chinese state's (and thus Communist Party's) involvement in Britain's power stations, is a matter of national security. -He concludes that the nuclear deal with China is, in effect, a trade-off for allowing financial services (the only economic sector the British government privileges) to penetrate the Chinese market - this means the government was set to embark on a potentially dangerous path. -Had this deal been negotiated by Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, he argued, the media would have been wondering if he were in the pay of the Chinese government, but George Osborne? Surely not. |
|
Tony Levene (2007)
|
This postmodernist sociologist observes that members of society now have greater choice in their access to a greater diversity of media, which makes it easier for them to reject or challenge the meta-narratives proposed by the powerful: -He documents how university students in 2007 were able to utilise media products such as Facebook and Twitter to construct a 'viral' campaign to defeat the corporate giant HSBC, which had proposed to introduce overdraft fees. |
|
Tunstall & Palmer (1991)
|
These Marxist sociologists suggest that governments are no longer interested in controlling the activities of media owners because the class interests of media owners and the political elite often overlap: -Rather, 'regulatory favours' are the norm - newspapers owned by a media conglomerate will directly support a government or neglect to criticise government policy or even withhold information from the general public in return for governments failing to enforce media regulation or even abolishing it altogether.
Evaluations: -The problem with this account is that it implies that media owners, wealth-holders and the political elite are united in some sort of ideological conspiracy to manipulate the opinions of the UK population. But there is some evidence for this cooperation in other societies - for example, in Italy, it has been demonstrated that Silvio Berlusconi's control of 3 television stations (which reached 40% of the Italian audience) was instrumental in his party winning the general election in 1994 and Berlusconi becoming Prime Minister. |
|
Castles & Kosack (1973)
|
These Marxist sociologists argue that it suits the capitalist class for white working-class people to view ethnic minorities as a threat because this distracts them from the real cause of inequality, that is, the organisation of the capitalist system.
|
|
Jean Baudrillard (1998)
|
This postmodernist sociologist argues that the postmodern revolution in communications media means that audiences are immersed in so much information that they find it difficult to distinguish between real life and the media version of reality, which he calls 'hyper-reality': -In a media-saturated postmodern world there are multiple versions of hyper-reality and this has undermined the power of both 'truth' and 'objectivity'. -It has resulted in individuals subjecting media content to multiple interpretations. |
|
Gregory Philo (2012)
|
This Marxist sociologist, in his study of media coverage of the global banking crisis of 2008 onwards, found the media focused attention predominantly on the views and solutions offered by the 3 main political parties, and the bankers themselves: -This meant the people the media asked about solutions were those most supportive of the system which created the problems in the first place, and there was very little media discussion of solutions outside the existing system of financial arrangements. |
|
