Political Economists' and Neoliberals' Views of the Media - Literature review Example

Political Economists and Neoliberals Views of the Media – a Marketplace for Ideas? Introduction The media should be a marketplace for free ideas.At least, in a democracy, this should be true. However, that is not always the case. Specifically, the power elite has control over the media, and this means that the messages that are disseminated to the masses are those which further the interests of this power elite. This idea is actually the cornerstone of both the political economists and the neoliberals, although the two theories diverge very slightly. In both theories, the ruling elite are who control the messages that get through. The slight difference is that, in a neoliberal society, in addition to the dominant elite controlling the message, there is also a message to the mass audience that the neoliberal tenants – that deregulation, private enterprise and low taxes are all good, as are income and wealth disparities – are the tenants that should be present in society. In contrast, the opposite views, the progressive views, that higher taxes should be pursued, government should be expanded, wealth should be more evenly distributed, and businesses should be firmly regulated, are all beliefs which would presumably harm the free market system and the corporations that make up the free market system, therefore these are the tenants which are disparaged in a neoliberal society. At any rate, under either of these ideas, there is not a free exchange of ideas, because the messages are so controlled by dominant forces. This essay will examine the two schools of thought – political economists and neoliberals – and show how each of these schools of thought leads to a mass media that does not disseminate ideas so much as it creates propaganda for the ruling elite. Political Economists Political economists, according to Brenkman (1979) are in line with Karl Marx, as his critique of the bourgeois economy was known as political economy. The basis for Marxism, at least in the classical sense, is that the economic base determines everything else that occurs in the superstructure of the social, political and intellectual consciousness of a given society. Thus, the culture industries, including commercial media, would be examined in this light, in terms of the economic determinations. This would mean that the media and the messages that are disseminated throughout a society are determined by the economic base of the organization that produces them (Chandler). The political economist looks at large economic structural forces, and how the mass media is associated with this (Havens et al., 2009). Thus, for example, in a very crass way, Fox News might disseminate information according to their economic base, which might be corporate sponsors. This would mean that corporations in general would be portrayed in a positive light, because this is the economic base for the news station. Or, as Chandler notes, the commercial media organizations must cater to their advertisers, and, therefore, would have to produce entertainment that would appeal to the masses, which would mean that the media, in general, would focus upon programming that emphasizes sex and violence, as these are the things that sell (Chandler). This is a strict Marxist interpretation, and Chandler notes that the political economists who follow Marxist ideology, such as Graham Murdock, still understand that economics control the media, and ideology is subordinate to this (Chandler). Brenkman (1979) states that the reason why the producers manipulate the media as it were is that it had to restructure the forms of association with the proletariat, and it has to do this by exercising control over the discourses which develop and support this association. Because of this need to control the association between the producers and the rest of society, Brenkman (1979) states that we live in a culture that is the product of this association. Moreover, the mass communication exists to produce a relation between the subject and the collective. He says that television is an example of this. Guy Debord has even coined a phrase for the phenomenon that commodity is what determines culture – society of the spectacle (Brenkman, 1979, p. 100). This would mean that the commodity does not merely play the part as something that is in answer to a persons need or desire, but, rather, the commodity becomes the world of experience in an of itself. The commodification has the power to transform the public and has a chance to shape the constitution of society, through its use of mass media. The political economists also state that consumption, which is the inevitable by-product of the producers controlling the media, can anchor social identities and regulate intersubjectivity (Brenkman, 1979). Murray (2005) states that the political economists view of media controlled essentially by corporations is an affront to diversity of ideas and freedom of speech. Rossman (2004) states that the Dixie Chicks controversy in 2003 is an example of the political economic theory at work. Only, instead of the media being essentially beholden to their corporate sponsors, the media in this case, Clear Channel, might have been beholden to the Bush Administration. As the story goes, The Dixie Chicks are a popular country trio who insulted George Bush in March of 2003, telling an audience that they were embarrassed that the President was from Texas, because that was the state that the group hailed from. After that, there was a widespread boycott of their music, and, even though, before the controversy, their songs were at number one the country and adult contemporary charts, after the controversy, their songs disappeared from the charts altogether. The economist Paul Krugman states that Clear Channel conspired against the group, because it was attempting to get a favorable ruling from the FCC regarding deregulation that would allow the channel to expand its reach. Therefore, because of this, it conspired against the Dixie Chicks as a favor to the Bush Administration (Rossman, 2004). As Rossman (2004) notes, this is an example of political economy at work, because, in this case, the corporations use the media as their missionaries, distorting reality and promote hegemony as it does this. He uses historical examples of this, including William Randolph Hearst using his newspaper conglomerate to disseminate information that is favorable to his financial interests and political ambitions. Rossman (2004) also notes that there has been a large concentration of media ownership since World War II, and that corporations often own media conglomerates – individuals no longer do. Thus, the political economists would state that the media is being used, like William Randolph Hearst before them, by the corporations that own these conglomerates. Neo Liberals The neo liberal ideology, and view of mass communication is not appreciably different from that of the political economists. Like the political economists, the neo-liberal view of the world is that economic power should be concentrated in the hands of the very few, and this is accomplished by free-market idealism. Giroux (2004), who is highly critical of the ideals of neoliberalism, calling it a “scourge,” states that unions are broken, income is decoupled from productivity, the needs of the society are subordinated to the market, and public goods and services are “an unconscionable luxury” (p. 494). In the neoliberal ideology, communication is used as a way, according to Giroux (2004), of the private colonizing the public, and communication serves as a way to “squeeze out and chase away everything which cannot be fully, without residue, translated into the vocabulary of private interests and pursuits” (p. 494). Because, in the neoliberal ideology, the corporations are all powerful, the media disseminates idea that are in line with the neoliberal ideals, according to Giroux (2004). Thus, the idea that there should be an unfettered market is disseminated through the media as being an ideal for society, and the media outlets give voice to the intellectuals, politicians and fanatics who adhere to these idealism (Rivlin, 1987). The idea that there should be mass deregulation and privatization, which are the cornerstone of the neoliberal ideals, are what is touted in these media outlets. Society then becomes a kind of extension of the neoliberal ideals, when the media is used in this manner – according Giroux (2004), the neoliberal ideals can be seen throughout society, from the spheres of healthcare, childcare, public assistance, education and transportation, to interpersonal social relationships between teachers and students, parents and children, and doctors and patients. Moreover, Giroux (2004) states that social Darwinism, the notion that the fit will survive, and the less than fit will perish, permeates mass media. For instance, this can be seen in reality television. He also states that the ideals of neoliberalism, which fosters a selfish and narcissistic bent to society, can be seen in shows such as The Jerry Springer show, as well as crass shows that trade in crass consumerism, such as Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? and Cribs. In a nutshell, according to Giroux (2004), in a neo-liberals market-driven discourse, “corporate power marks the space of a new kind of public pedagogy, and one in which the production, dissemination, and circulation of ideas emerge from the educational force of the larger culture” (p. 497). Through the media, neoliberalism can be seen in market identities, values, conglomerates and social practices. Moreover, it offers solution to societal problems that are of the benefit of the corporations – as Giroux (2004) states, the solution put forth by neoliberals to water pollution is the buying of bottled water. Therefore, what should be a non-commodified public sphere – water – is replaced, like everything else, by the commercial sphere. Sender (2005) states that neoliberalism replaces the external forms of government with internal ones, “where success in the new labor marketplace becomes increasingly dependent on the ability to self-govern (p. 8). In a neoliberal society, then, there is a marked difference between rich and poor. Herman & Chomsky (1988), states that the media serves the ends of the dominant elite. Therefore, what is disseminated is more like propaganda than a free exchange of ideas. The power elite is able to filter the news to make the news hew closely towards the dominant elite, and the economic, social and political interests of this elite. It is also able to marginalize dissent in the same manner. The government and the dominant private interests are who are in charge with filtering the news and information that is disseminated to the public. Moreover, because the dominant elite is so dominant that the filters are such that the people in the news media do not even know that it is happening – they believe themselves to be objective. This is because they are operating within the constraints, but that the constraints themselves are so powerful and built into the system in such a fundamental way, that people in the news media think that they are being objective, when, really, they only think that because they are not violating journalistic integrity. Unfortunately, the journalistic integrity, and the constraints of such, is controlled by the media (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Bresnahan (2003) examined how the media and the neoliberal ethos worked together to create a neoliberal government in Chile in the early 2000s. Part of the issue here was that there was not a diverse media, and there was not social mobilization. In this case, the Concertacion, which embraced neoliberal concepts, fostered an environment where there was the possibility of total corporate control of the media. Thus, a consumerist, entertainment model, which was incompatible with democracy and the democratic need for diverse and vigorous public sphere took hold in that country. Bresnahan (2003) states that the neoliberal theory does not see the users of the media as citizens, but, rather, as consumers. Media democratization is reduced to the realm of expanding market choices. Bresnahan (2003) states that the collapsing of democratization into the expansion of market choices is what enabled Concertacion to gain power through communication and policies. With the concentration of media in the hands of the powerful elite, the mass communication no longer is a marketplace for ideas, nor is the purpose to inform the citizenry, foster public debate or enhance critical reasoning. The purpose of the media is to disseminate the information that the government and dominant market forces want to have disseminated (Bresnahan, 2003). Analysis What is obvious is that both of these theories – political economic and neoliberalism – have much in common. And, in both of the theories, there is not a true dissemination of ideas. The political economic theory states that the power elite controls the means of production, and they also control what message is sent out into the ether. This may either be because the power elite controls the media through the power of the purse – like corporate advertisers might control the media to where the media is only putting out ideas that are good for these advertisers. Or it might be more direct – such as media conglomerates putting out information that is good for them. This has a long tradition, as shown by William Randolph Hearst, who put out information that is positive to his economic interests, while suppressing information that is not. There is a subtle difference between the neoliberal ideology, and the marketplace of ideas, from that of the political economists, although, at least on one level, the ideologies are identical – they both proclaim that the power elite is what controls the message, and that the messages that are out there are propaganda to make these powerful interests look good. That said, the neoliberal model is slightly different on another level from political economy, because, in addition to ensuring that the ideas that out in the media are favorable to corporate interests, there is also a push to disseminate neoliberal ideals as a good thing. Thus, the media in a neoliberal society will push the idea that free markets are good, and governments are bad. Public is bad, private is good. Wealth and income distribution disparities are a good thing, as are deregulation. These are the messages that are disseminated in a neoliberal society. Of course, both of these theories make sense, when looking at the reality of the media. That is that the media is reliant upon money, and the people who have the money in society are those who are in the power elite. Therefore, it would serve the selfish economic interests of the media outlets to make sure that their corporate sponsors are well taken care of. Hence the dissemination of ideas that benefit the rich and the large corporations – deregulation, low taxation, and the like. These are held up as virtues when the corporations are the ones who are paying the bills for the media outlets. Unfortunately, this kind of reality does not make for a free exchange of ideas. The cynical view is that dissenting opinions are not heard if they differ from the messages that the power elite want the masses to hear. When this happens, however, the media outlets are not disseminating free ideas at all, let alone fostering healthy debate. They are simply putting out the message that benefits the dominant elite. While this is the cynical view of the media, it would seem that it would be the common-sense view, as well as the view of a number of critics, such as those cited above. Therefore, the media is not a marketplace for free ideas at all. All the messages, all the television shows, all the commercials, etc., are geared towards getting people to see the corporations as good people, and to buy their products. Therefore, the message that water should be cleaned up becomes a message that bottled water is the solution to this – a market-based solution will trump a public-good solution every time. Conclusion It is difficult to imagine where the myth of the “liberal media” has come from, and how it has taken hold of the conservative media. The market forces simply would not support a truly liberal media, because a truly liberal, or progressive, media would put out information that goes against corporations. And, since corporations are the ones who own media outlets, or are the financial sponsors of media outlets, it stands to reason that their message is the one that will get through every time. There are clear implications for a democracy in both of these models, however, the political economists and the neoliberal models. Namely, there cannot be a true democracy without a free exchange of ideas and the ability for dissents to get through. But, when the power elite control the medias, then this free exchange of ideas, debates and dissent cannot clearly happen. This would seemingly be dangerous for democracy itself. References Brenkman, J. (1979) “Mass media: From collective experience to the culture of privatization,” Social Text, no. 1, pp. 94-109. Bresnahan, R. (2003) “The media and the neoliberal transition in Chile: Democratic promise unfulfilled,” Latin American Perspective, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 39-68. Chandler, D. “Marxist media theory,” Available at: http://cym.ie/documents/chandler.pdf Giroux, H. (2004) “Public pedagogy and the politics of neo-liberalism: Making the political more pedagogical,” Policy Futures in Education, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 494-503. Haven, T., Lotz, A. & Tinic, S. (2009) “Critical media industry studies: A research approach,” Communication, Culture and Critique, vol. 2, pp. 234-253. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988) “Manufacturing consent,” In Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books. Murray, S. (2005) “Brand loyalties: Rethinking content within global corporate media,” Media Culture, vol. 27, pp. 415-435. Rivlin, A. (1987) “Economics and the political process,” The American Economic Review, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1-10. Rossman, G. (2004) “Elites, masses and media blacklists: The Dixie Chicks controversy,” Social Forces, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 61-79. Sender, K. (2005) “Queens for a day: Queer eye for the straight guy and the neoliberal project,” Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1115&context=asc_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dqueens%2520for %2520a%2520day%2520queer%2520eye%2520for%2520the%2520straight %2520guy%2520and%2520the%2520neoliberal%2520project%26source%3Dweb %26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CC8QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F %252Frepository.upenn.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle %253D1115%2526context%253Dasc_papers%26ei%3D6fEvUZv9FYfniwKVvIGQCw %26usg%3DAFQjCNHf-c-PVnTOVPlqS_nVq3QZ_S4bDQ%26bvm %3Dbv.43148975%2Cd.cGE#search=%22queens%20day%20queer%20eye %20straight%20guy%20neoliberal%20project%22 Read More