I really enjoyed the readings for tomorrow. “A Propaganda Model” by Herman and Chomsky and “On Television” by Bourdieu reminded of many texts I read for my CMC 200 project. I think studying the influences behind media is something essential when we want to investigate whose ideologies are being exposed.
Bourdieu’s text (especially) reminded me of McChesney’s theory on democracy and journalism. For McChesney, journalism has (or should have) a watchdog function. It should keep tabs on those who are in power. Therefore, a journalistic environment where newspaper cannot effectively do their job without capitalist and market pressures hinder democracy. The author argues that, currently in the US, our legislation towards media and the free market system (which helps big media corporations) are harmful for democracy.
I like that Bourdieu calls attention to the advertisers/media conglomerates' arguments concerning the rating system (part of the problem in creating democratic media). He states, “The audience rating system can and should be contested in the name of democracy.” I would go farther to say that the entire system should be contested at this point.
In his theory, McChesney also calls attention to the conservative discourse of “let the audience pick what they want.” However, the truth is that, with the mass media’s scope and influence, they can train the audience to want their crappy material. As we often see in media studies, companies and advertisers create consumers since an early age (and they also create passive viewers).
Another fact that could dispute the conservative discourse comes from the Herman and Chomsy reading. The articles shows data that points to an alarming scenario. Even though the Herald had an incredible readership, it was taken out of circulation because of market pressures. Hence, the readers wanted that material. However, the free market system failed in providing them with what they wanted (something that the free market boasts about being “able” to do).
McChesney has several interesting practical proposals to change this scenario. I think it is interesting that Bourdieu calls his change ideas “utopia.” I do believe that as critics we should stay positive. We should not only criticize, but also look for change. In McChesney’s case, he advocated for pluralistic media to be regarded as a basic human right and as a necessity for democracy. He believes a model such as the British one (BBC), where tax money goes to several media, could provide space for journalists and other media producers to create material without being caged to market pressures. He believes that would engender more diversity in content.
I am not sure if that model would be successful in the US, but I do believe it is worth to explore other alternatives to our current system.
If anyone is interested in McChesney, I highly recommend this book as a starter.
I find your post very interesting - I also found the discussion of television ratings to be both fascinating and illuminating. Your quote, "with the mass media’s scope and influence, they can train the audience to want their crappy material," is particularly significant to me, as I am immediately reminded of all of the reality television shows that American audiences are inundated with, day in and day out. I automatically think of the franchise “Real Housewives of (insert a city here)” and how many different versions of this show exist. At the basis level, this television series is not good, to be put simply. However, because of the revolution of reality TV over the past 10 years, the audience for these Real Housewives shows continues to consistently tune in, watch, and participate in these shows. While I might be critical of the Real Housewives franchise, I myself cannot escape the insidious reaches of reality TV – however, my vice is the Bachelor/Bachelorette franchise. For me, as you point out, this crappy television programming is a source of laziness and passivity. I don’t have to “think” while watching these programs, and I can enjoy the surface level of the content, rather than be concerned about the greater societal implications, etc. These shows provide “ideals” centered entirely on consumerism and product-based goals and achievements, thus the audience becomes a passive consumer both in consumption of these ideologies and potential for consumption to match the “role models” of the television shows. This mindless regurgitation of media in order to please the passive viewer and garner more ratings (which in turn equals more profit) only perpetuates consumerist ideologies in which shallowness is celebrated in favor of a more glamorous environment. Unfortunately, while I am well aware of the implications of these television shows, as well as the ideologies they project, I still can’t seem to turn off the TV when the new season of The Bachelor returns.
ReplyDelete