The Public Sphere And Market Models In Network

The Public Sphere and Market Models in Network

Network is a critically acclaimed, and rightfully so, film which illustrates the nature and dynamics of the most advanced form of media at the time, broadcast journalism. The film is full of relationships, themes, and events which speak to a larger issue of how should media, especially mass media meant for widespread public consumption, be structured? And, moreover, what implications does that have for content, business, and societal impact. Building off the ideas of Croteau and Hoynes, one can analyze how the film portrays and resembles both the market and public sphere models provide and apply it to a wider critique of media enterprises, or at least those involved in mass media. This film truly stands the test of time in this regard because, although primarily concerned with just one of the many forms of mass media now available, it still demonstrates the interplay between the two models and how power can be wielded in these industries. The first example in the film that clearly highlights the mutually exclusive nature of these two models while also showing the incessant need for reconciling them is the relationship between Max and Diana. Their relationship is clearly doomed from the outset, but they pursue it and through it reveal differences in media impact generationally, as well as professionally. Max is the retiree who is able to see that in hindsight the tireless devotion of Diana to ratings, figures, and the like is futile at best and hazardous at worst. He epitomizes the public sphere model in regards to his work as a journalist during earlier decades of television before conglomerates dominated. Though this is true, Diana also correctly points out that Max and his colleagues did the same pandering/marketing in their time to cater to ratings and market demands in their own way. Likewise, although Diana represents the market-centered approach through her decision-making and profession-driven life, she too is a product of broadcast media’s impact on the public sphere. This model recognizes media as the primary storytellers and information sources, and Diana clearly is meant to represent how her generation grew up and adapted to this mass media (both journalism and entertainment broadcast). The difficulty of the two models coexisting is represented both in their romantic relationship as well as their individual personalities and actions. The next group of characters I thought were important to this topic were the various Communists, their organizations, and their eventual merging with the media. Diana brings the offer of a televised program to showcase the first-hand footage of the Ecumenical Liberation Army to a Communist Party leader (Hobbs) purely out of market concern. She even says she doesn't give a damn about the politics, she’s giving the people the entertainment they want, she lets Hobbs trouble herself with the public sphere aspect of it all. This highlights the two models nicely in terms of ideology perhaps, but what is more interesting is how the Communist characters evolve over time and what that says about the power of media. I am referring to the scene where representatives of the Party and Army are hashing out contract details with their attorneys in one of the Army’s safe houses and they are completely consumed by the economics and politics of media and let their message for the ‘public good’ fall by the wayside. This speaks to the ‘Power of Control’ outlined in the Grossberg, et al., article by demonstrating how these people are still ‘revolutionaries’, at least in their own opinion, but that the broadcast media outlets was able to change their behavior to essentially fold them into the status quo. I don’t really qualify this as good or bad really, but it is indicative of media’s potential to influence even the most ardent ideologues. Lastly, the dynamic between Howard Beale and Mr. Jensen that develops at the end of the film requires inclusion to this discussion. The two business models for media are reflected in both of these characters. Beale is most explicitly seen as a proponent of the public sphere model as he is evangelizing what the people ‘need’ to hear regardless of the consequences. However, he also is doing his share of pandering. Additionally, his initial frustration is born out of rejection by the corporation and their market-centered attitude, but, when he is given the opportunity, he gladly jumps back in to tow the company line to an extent. Though this of course is not the case when he blocks the CCA merger and is invited to discuss his views with CEO Mr. Jensen. All we have seen of his character so far has been brief scenes in the boardroom where he simply is looking at the bottom line, but his treatment of Howard shows a departure from this in a way. He is happy to sacrifice audience size, ratings, etc. in order to have his world view imparted on the public sphere. Albeit it is to further his market approach, it does utilize the public sphere model. These characters and this event once again show the complicated, and dynamic nature of the two models in relation to the business of media. What I take away from Network as well as the different academic approaches to the business of media is that it is rarely if ever dominated by just one model or method. Additionally, though power is increasingly concentrated with a select few through hierarchy and corporate mergers, there are players at every level who help shape the overall message and impact of media.