Mass media and Society

COMU3223 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP

Does media ownership matter? In an age of freedom of information and the individual right of free speech, are the owners of media agencies and outlets really agenda setters and gatekeepers of information? A review of current communication and political economy literature concludes that media ownership does matter. Although predominantly subtly and indirectly the owners of the media outlets do still steer public opinion and build the dominant discourses of society. The following analysis of literature argues that owners still do hold a powerful role in the production and distribution of news and media products.

An outline of relevant theoretical concepts will lay a foundation for this analysis. One of the primary frameworks scholars have analysed the media through is the theory of Political Economy, Andrew Calabrese in his book ‘Towards a Political Economy of Culture: capitalism and communication in the twenty-first century (2004)’ describes political economy as “always being concerned with analyzing a structure of social relations and of social power. But it is particularly concerned to analyse the peculiarities of that system of social power called capitalism (2004).” Congruent with this Herman and Chomsky in their book ‘Manufacturing Consent (1997)’, construct the propaganda model which identifies five social powers, referred to as filters, influencing the media industry under the capitalist system, the first of these filters being ownership (Herman, 1997). Both pieces of literature indicate the profit driven climate of capitalism has great effect on the media product distributed (Calabrese, 2004). But has capitalism been driven by the social power elites such as media outlet owners or have the power elites been driven by capitalism? There is the thought that each feeds into the other. No one person or group of people can dictate capitalism however neither can the capitalist system continue without the support of institutional guardians (Lowe, 2001). Another question is then posed; doesn’t the consumer of the media product determine what they want and create the demand for the media institutions to provide for? Who then holds the power to decide what is to be demanded; the consumer or the producer? Some argue that the power is still in the hands of the media institutions, utilizing the dominant discourse of the society, tactfully directing the public by creating the public opinion (Lowe, 2001). Figuratively speaking, holding up a picture of what the public see as a mirror image of what they want. The public in turn demand what the media has told them they want. Theoretically media ownership does matter, although the media owners don’t dictate the capitalist climate they do promote it, as without it they would not be making the money which establishes and maintains their power (Calabrese, 2004).

Simons also agrees that media ownership matters, his main concern being the concentration of ownership and the power that bestows to influence information sourcing and distribution (Simons, 2007). Simons does make mention that some literature does argue that it is the journalists and other content makers who hold the information gate keeping position and not the owners. However Simons counter argues that the proprietors, through indirect paths, influence what content journalists and editors actually produce and use (Simons, 2007). In this piece of literature two factors are identified as having influence over what information is and isn’t distributed. One of these concepts is self-censorship; a journalist’s subconscious judgment calls on information appropriateness, in respect to the corporations values (Simons, 2007). Corporate Culture was the second factor influencing journalists reporting. Fostering corporate culture allows media owners to remain hands off while still influencing news content (Simons, 2007). Simons investigated Australia’s two media giants, News Limited and the Packer organization, and found the same in both, a family loyalty, where if you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. Employees and their families are taken care of as if they were part of the Packer or Murdoch clans (Simons, 2007). These indirect influences allow all the autonomy a journalist could want without the risk of mutiny, the journalist not only works for the corporation but identifies themselves with it.

Simons raises another point, that diversity in ownership doesn’t always mean diversity in content (Simons, 2007). As will be discussed later Bagdikian in his book ‘The New Media Monopoly’ comments how the media elites within American society all hold fairly similar values and therefore produce very similar content (Bagdikian, 2004). Simons shares this view, however offers a solution to this consolidation of content. Quoting Julianne Schultz from Simons’ book, “It is possible to have media diversity from a consolidated media company, but it requires a strong editorial culture to achieve and that bit of the equation is not much in evidence these days (2007).” Although many scholars have researched into and reported on the influences within the media, Simons does admit that little is known about it and how it should be measured, but does stress the risk of extreme consolidation and how it could affect political and societal processes (Simons, 2007). From Simons literature it can be gleaned that media ownership influences do occur however subtle they may be and to maintain diversity of content editors must foster a strong culture of autonomy apart from the corporation.

Simons discussed a lot of the indirect influences owners can hold over news and media content (Simons, 2007). McChesney also discusses some of these influences in his book ‘The Political Economy of Media: enduring issues and emerging dilemmas (2008).’ However this text does delve into the more direct power plays of the media barons. McChesney touches on the autonomy of journalists within the professional framework. He argues that although some autonomy is given to journalists, it is only to gain credibility to improve commercial developments; many journalists use their position to promote their corporations’ ventures in turn earning favour with the corporation (McChesney, 2008). Similar to Simons, McChesney also discusses a level of self-censorship, but refers to is as a professional code to which employees must adhere. This code is developed by media owners and managers to ensure a level of professionalism is found within the products’ content (McChesney, 2008; Simons, 2007). This however, limits journalism’s ability to serve as its traditional and possibly idealistic role as the democratic watchdog (McChesney, 2008). What good is a watchdog if it can only bark at certain perpetrators and not others? McChesney discusses some of the direct influences owners have on media content. While Capitalism grows so does the demand for higher profit margins, therefore costs are cut, limiting the resources available and necessary to journalism. Media owners directly cut funding to expensive projects opting for cheaper alternatives. This feeds the capitalist system as discussed earlier and the cycle begins again (McChesney, 2008). Media owners have also given direct orders on what issues to cover and which to stay clear from to avoid public and political scrutiny. This direct form of censorship could be seen as a breach of ethics but in an environment that fosters corporate culture these direct orders may not be as blatant as they appear in print. However this indeed demonstrates how the news products that society consumes and doesn’t consume is directly influenced by the media owners (McChesney, 2008).

As briefly mentioned earlier, Bagdikian discusses concerns of a consolidated media with limited diversity (2004). This study is primarily based in the United States, and observes the five big media giants present in their society. Bagdikian links the parallels between the media industry reforms and the changes in the political scene over the past 20 years (Bagdikian, 2004). He observes that the dominant media owners share the same conservative political views, and how they choose their staff accordingly. This again provides evidence of the influence ownership can have over content. The Staff are hired on the basis of their like-mindedness and their potential to foster the corporate culture, which condenses the diversity of opinions and open thinking (Bagdikian, 2004). Now this can happen within an organization, therefore how much more could the bias be concentrated when all the media barons think alike and hire staff of a like mind? This could completely distort the public’s perception of reality, to the point where the public is only exposed to one version of the truth; no matter how many media outlets they access (Lowe, 2001). And all the discussed literature indicates to the preliminary stages of this being present in our current media industry.

Some would argue that in the current technology age with the building popularity of citizen journalism and niche markets, that diversity is still alive and well (Garza, 2006; Reece, 2007). And it is, however these new institutions have their flaws. Citizen journalism allows for all to voice their opinions without the censorship of an editor or an overruling party of authority (Garza, 2006; Hogan, 2005). This is a positive step towards diversification of news, but through the deregulation of news content and professionalism, not only is the corporate bias removed but also the standards of factual reporting. Within an organization there will be biases but they are institutionalized and can be predicted and identified in media products but in citizen journalism, there is no institutionalized bias or order of conduct, a consumer cannot be sure of the accuracy of the content nor the bias of the content maker (Garza, 2006; Hogan, 2005). Niche markets have also allowed for specific populations to be catered to rather that mass broadcasting of generalized information, an audience can access what appeals to them and not have to wade through the rest of the content to get to it (Reece, 2007). Although niche markets have opened up new doors for news distribution, niche markets are expensive to maintain, developing a media product for multiple groups instead of the one product for all can be costly and not allow for great profits to be made (Reece, 2007). This in turn does not allow smaller up starting media companies to grow to the size of the media giants to challenge the media barons’ dominance. Still allowing the current media giants to set the agenda and influence the content which is made available to the public (Bagdikian, 2004).

This analysis has explored theoretical and practical applications of media ownership to evaluate the weight of influence it holds over media content and how that shapes the public‘s perceptions of society. A review of current communication and political economy literature has concluded that media ownership does matter. Although predominantly subtly and indirectly the owners of the media outlets have and still do steer public opinion and build the dominant discourses of society.
References

Bagdikian, B. 2004, The New Media Monopoly, Beacon Press, Boston

Calabrese, A and Sparks, C. (eds.), 2004, Towards a Political Economy of Culture: capitalism and communication in the twenty-first century, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham

Garza, C. L. 2006, Technology sparks a New Generation, Houston Chronicle, viewed 13 October 2006, Available at: www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/tech/news/4227158.

Hogan, J. 2005, The Rise of Citizen Journalism, Fairfax Digital, viewed 1 October 2006, Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/the-rise-of-citizen-journalism/2005/10/23/11300.

Herman, E.S. Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media, Pantheon Books.

Lowe, E. 2001, The Media and Cultural Production. Sage

McChesney, R. 2008, The Political Economy of Media: enduring issues and emerging dilemmas, Monthly Review Press, New York

Reece, T. 2007, What is Niche Marketing?, viewed 9 August 2008, Available at: http://www.e-comprofits.com/swsniche.html

Simons, M. 2007, The Content Makers: understanding the media in Australia, Penguin, Melbourne

References: Bagdikian, B. 2004, The New Media Monopoly, Beacon Press, Boston Calabrese, A and Sparks, C. (eds.), 2004, Towards a Political Economy of Culture: capitalism and communication in the twenty-first century, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham Garza, C. L. 2006, Technology sparks a New Generation, Houston Chronicle, viewed 13 October 2006, Available at: www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/tech/news/4227158. Hogan, J. 2005, The Rise of Citizen Journalism, Fairfax Digital, viewed 1 October 2006, Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/the-rise-of-citizen-journalism/2005/10/23/11300. Herman, E.S. Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media, Pantheon Books. Lowe, E. 2001, The Media and Cultural Production. Sage McChesney, R. 2008, The Political Economy of Media: enduring issues and emerging dilemmas, Monthly Review Press, New York Reece, T. 2007, What is Niche Marketing?, viewed 9 August 2008, Available at: http://www.e-comprofits.com/swsniche.html Simons, M. 2007, The Content Makers: understanding the media in Australia, Penguin, Melbourne