Ask about Media Studies

[Gomez]

Post any questions you may have about the media here and I'll try my best to answer them. I've been studying the media for nearly a decade so I'm hoping I'm fairly well equipped to field most questions on it. Fire away.

[This message has been edited by Gomez (edited 03-20-2004 07:28 PM).]

[extropalopakettle]

Do you think the media in the US, as a whole, has a political/ideological bias significantly different from that of the population as a whole?

[Antrax]

Does advertising really work? If so, why?
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Chuck]

Why does it help sales to have a sports celebrity endorse your basketball shoe? I can understand that when television was new and a good player appeared on your screen to tell you that a particular shoe was better than the others it might have made you want to buy them. After all, a good player should know these things. He makes a living using them. But now it's common knowledge that players will sponser whoever pays them the most. Everyone knows that his words were written by an advertising agency and have nothing to do with the quality of the product. So why does it still work?

[Gomez]

extro

quote:

---

Do you think the media in the US, as a whole, has a political/ideological bias significantly different from that of the population as a whole?

---

Wow, tough opening question. There have been libraries worth of books written tackling various mutations of this question over the years so my response will definately not do the issue justice. Still, I'll give it a shot. I'll warn you I'm going to ramble on a bit.

Bear in mind that as a limey, I can only offer an outsiders perspective so I could be way off on all this. Also, much of what I'm going to say is debateable so please don't think that I think I'm spouting cast iron truth.

First off I need to talk a bit about Marxism. Philosophically I'm a neo-marxist. By this I mean that I believe that there is a set of core ideologies which help to safeguard the positions of what Marx called the 'Ruling Elite'. In Marx's day the ruling elite were Royalty, aristocracy, industrialists and the Church. Nowadays they may be said to be comprised of the Government and Corporations. A neo-marxist believes that these ideologies are accepted consensually by the public and are constructed by those interested in making sure people believe them to be commonsensical. If an ideology that isn't necessarily true looks like a common sense truth it's much easier for the public to swallow.

A good example of a dominant ideology, taken by many to be commonsensical and true, which helps secure the places of the ruling elite is the idea that we in the west have a truly free press. We do, compared to some other countries, but our press is far from being truly free. The ideology that we have a free press is known as 'Liberal Pluralism' and says that if you don't think your view is represented in the media then you're free start up your own specialised newspaper devoted to your perspective and if your view is truly neglected then the free market will support your publication. If your perspective is not supported by the free market it means that there aren't enough people who agree with you to support you and you are in such a minority with your opinions that you can't expect other people to spend money airing them on their media outlets.

Tom Stoppard illustrated this principle very well in one of his plays (I forget which) when he wrote (paraphrased from memory)

"The flat earth news is free to sell a million copies if it wants. What it lacks is enough people with a penny and the conviction that the earth is flat. Freedom is neutral"

This would seem to be a very commonsensical idea, borne out by the multitude of opinions we see in the media all the time. In fact it is merely an ideology. It contains a substantial grain of truth, but isn't completely true. It takes an enormous amount of money to start up your own newspaper. Only the very wealthy could even begin to contemplate setting up their own paper. On a lesser scale, a similar principle is true for specialist magazines. For every one on the shelves there are a hundred that have gone belly up. If you or I felt our voice wasn't being heard the best thing we could do is set up a website which would instantly be lost among the millions of other websites out there. Also, even if one were rich enough to set up a newspaper, competing newspapers that are already established and very wealthy would, via economies of scale (meaning, at its most basic, the bigger they are the more they can afford to lose) be able to undercut you.

What this means is that if Borodog were wealthy enough to start up a newspaper with a strong anti-government stance, established newspapers with a dedicated readership owned by people who disagreed and saw his newspaper as a threat to theirt profits would be able to undercut him and poach his less committed readers. Extend this tactic over time and the result is that Borodog's new paper which hasn't got a dedicated readership yet and needs to earn one is far more likely to go bust. When that happens the established papers would kick up the price again and recoup the profits they lost during the price war. Since they are already rich they can afford a temporary dip in profits which Boro, as a newcomer to the market, wouldn't be able to. So even if you do have the funds to start up a new newspaper you're already in a pitch battle with the big boys which you probably couldn't afford to win.

This is quite an oversimplification and there are other reasons why the idea that we have a truly free press is flawed, but that's the gist of it.

We can draw two conclusions from all this. The first is that in the media, money talks. If you want to break into, say, the news market you need a lot of cash. The second conclusion is that ideologies, defined by commonsense-like beliefs which seem truthful but are, in reality, merely convenient fictions, do exist. Our entire news media network floats on top of one.

If you want to find out more about ideologies, precisely what they are and how they are constructed and accepted you can't do better than read an introduction to Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was an Italian analyst from the twenties who set out the theory of neo-marxism through the publication of his Prison Notebooks. I advise you to get an introduction and not head straight to the notebooks themselves because Gramsci's writings, although brilliant are very rambling and cover a whole load of topics outside the media. A good introduction will distill his thoughts into a comprehensible whole and will probably be more informative than the notebooks themselves, at least at first.

Now I think it'd be a good idea to talk a bit about the determinism of ideas. This arm of media studies is devoted to the sort of chicken-egg question of what comes first, people's ideas and beliefs or the media which represents them? I believe that the political ideologies of verious groups form and spread cyclically. By this I mean (and this is another oversimplification but I feel I should be getting to the point soon) that the mainstream media networks air people's views BUT also work extra hard to propagate those views which are beneficial to it. But which views are beneficial? The answer is simply the one's which they can exploit to make more money.

For example, George W. Bush's 'Compassionate Conservatism' gained a lot of support among a lot of people. His politics (or at least the voter friendly spin that he put on them) struck a chord and lots of people adopted them. Once they had adopted them they naturally became a lot more friendly to media shows which validated them. Hannity and Colmes being a prime example. The media barons, recognising this, devoted more airtime to their views and this extra airtime naturally worked to convince more people of the truth of these philosophies, which then fed back into the system and so on. Put simply, I believe that the media cannot originate political sympathy for a particular party out of nothing but they can capitalise on an existing public sentiment and amplify it.

Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story. It helps a whole lot of the public sentiment in question is friendly to the financial interests of the media corporations. If there was a sudden groundswell of support for an anticapitalist like Ralph Nader, someone who most definately wouldn't give tax concessions to media conglomerates, the media barons would fight to protect their interests. I predict they'd choose not to run stories that made him look good and would order the broadcast of silly little faux pas that made him look bad. Take the now infamous 'Dean Scream', for instance. Howard Dean, a man far less likely to give concessions to media corporations that George W. Bush who has already done so, got worked up at a rally and started shouting a bit. BFD, right? But we heard about it ad nauseum for weeks afterwards. It made him look unstable and what I believe was a disproportionate amount of airtime was devoted to it.

So, in summary, the media can make ideas stronger and more prevalent within the public. However, it cannot create them out of whole cloth. Media corporations, like any other business, act in their own best interests so if a prominent politician running for election promises to give them tax concessions they'd probably more more inclined to popularise the politics of that that candidate rather than his opponent.

Which leads me to your actual question (finally!). Does the mainstream media have a political/ideological bias significantly different from that of the population as a whole?

I don't believe so. It cannot be significantly different. The reason for this is that, in democratic society, the belief that the mainstream media's ideological basis (which we can only really glean from what we see, hear and read) is significantly different to that of the people (who are after all, its customers at the end of the day) leads us into something of a paradox.

If the overall stance of the mainstream media were significantly different to that of the public as a whole then there would be a large segment of the public demanding change. As we have seen, individually we can do next to nothing to ensure our minority views are heard but as a group we have more consumer power. We can demand change. If the media were at variance with a significant enough segment of the population they would soon become aware of this through their market research, sales and audience ratings. Since their goal is purely one of profit, they would immediately churn out more shows to target the majority and maybe even replace Alan Colmes with someone who isn't a complete pussy. The situation would be rectified.

Even if Bush promised massive concessions to media corporations, the media would still have an enormous incentive to alter the strength at which their ideologies are propagated if said ideologies fall out of favour. The reason ties in to the theory of hegemony (Another one of Gramsci's innovations but not necessary to go into at the moment). Basically, if a viewpoint is unpopular it is easier to accept if you raise the amount of airtime devoted to viewpoints that are popular. Put another way, if the population as a whole got heartily sick of Republicans and 'Compassionate Conservatism' a good way to pacify them would be to increase airtime devoted to opposing viewpoints a nominal degree. That would send the message to those who oppose the prevailing political ideologies perpetuated by the media that they were not being ignored. They'd calm down and stop making so much noise, leaving the public discourse clearer for the promulgation of Conservative messages.

I am, of course, assuming that American news media is, at the moment predominantly conservative. As an outsider I cannot be sure and have gained this impression from Eric Alterman's excellent book 'What Liberal Media?'. Irrespective of the actual political ideologies that are currently dominant in American news media, the theories and principles remain unchanged. If the message was predominantly Democratic or Libertarian, the media would act in the same way.

In conclusion, the political ideologies of US News media aren't significantly different from those of the general public (of course this all depends on how you define significantly which can only be defined subjectively). They cannot be. If they ever were it would show that the people running the media corporations were incompetent, which we know is not the case. There may be a slight variance (again, slight needs to be defined subjectively) but not a significant one.

Hope that helps. Sorry it took so long

<edited for clarification>

[This message has been edited by Gomez (edited 03-21-2004 12:49 AM).]

[Gomez]

Antrax & Chuck

To do your questions justice I want to go over some old articles and notes because it's another very big topic and very theory heavy. Bottom line is that advertising works. Even if you don't think it works on you, it does. I just don't think I'll be able to give a decent explanation of exactly how it works for a couple of days. Don't let me forget.

[Antrax]

I won't, I'm very curious. You see, I invested a lot of time in getting to a certain level of self-awareness. It is my belief that I'm highly resistant to any form of suggestion now. It would be very interesting to see if I'm not, and learn how advertising snuck past me
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Antrax]

Bump. Save me from being brainwashed!
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Kd]

You've already been brainwashed into believing that you can't be brainwashed.

Has product placement always been effective? How does it compare to, say, subliminal messaging, or using sex to sell a product? (because, yeah, both of those work too.)

[Antrax]

Bump.
Why are Soap Operas so popular? Don't the people watching them realise how bad they are?
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[casinopete]

I think some of them do.

I've known at least two otherwise intelligent people who regularly watched pro wrestling (which is essentially a soap opera, just with acrobatics and punching). They both knew it was stupid, and yet were entertained regardless.

[Antrax]

Thou hast been bumped.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Vinny]

Here's something I have always wondered. They do regular TV commercials for movies and dvds and video games and sometimes music albums, but why don't they ever do them for books? Why don't they advertise new releases so that you would rush out to buy them.

I thank god that there are movie trailers so I know what's coming out. Why aint there tv ads for books so I can be better informed?

[Vegetable]

I've seen books advertised.

[Chuck]

I think I've seen books advertised but the commercial is always very short. By the time I begin to suspect that it's an ad for a book the commercial is over. I guess they don't have a big TV advertising budget.

[Internet Stranger]

I know that when I used to watch wrestling heavily, I used to look beyond the "big wrestler A is going to beat on wrestler B".

I learned things like ring position and skill of performing the acrobatics correctly. There are many adages in it. Like the person performing the move has to be the one that makes sure the person taking the move wont be hurt, sometimes at your own expense. T

here is also a psychology in the specific moves performed. Like wrestler A beats on wrestler B's leg. Later in the match, wrestler B should fail a move because of the hurting of his leg previously. Psychology also entails how and what you say to keep the fans into the match and to have them cheer the person you want them to cheer (to sell merchandise).

The Rock is an example of a really good wrestler.

There is a ton more involved, but Ill stop hijacking the thread now. =0)

[Lepton]

Is Tarantino the hottest thing in Hollywood today, or is another outstanding movie required?

[Antrax]

Gomezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Termital]

Hmm. Oddly enough I've had this discussion over in GLC a few days ago. It's not all snogs you know. Gomez must not be checking this thread, so I'll remind him of his teaching duties over in PT

I'd go further than Gomez, saying that we've merely gone from selection/editing of the news for the benefit of the goverment to the benefit of the conglomerate. The rule of profit suggests CNN's stance on IP (intellectual property) rights, whether right or wrong, would be dictated by the interests of Warner Brothers, EMI, and even Netscape (they're all part of the same company). Even if their views were unpopular and repulsive to the audience, costing CNN money, wouldn't they serve the interests of the conglomerate?

Sidetrack 1: They don't actually care if they convince you, you understand. The merely have to make you accept that:
a) this is on the agenda of "hot" (issues to be dealt with soon) issues. Since in most western cultures now the time and space for large public meetings where the issues that actually bother you and your community can be heard and discussed (say, the staple turkish/arabic coffeehouse) have been replaced by couch time with Larry King, this is quite easy.
b) there there is a finite number of views on the subject, represented by their panelists or whatnot, and that the one they care for is in the same ballpark of validity as the others on display.
Once that's done, the politician is secured of the safety of throwing his support behind it, so your lobbyist doesn't break your bank motivating him.

And of course, sometimes the links aren't so obvious or close to home. Do you know if some media company shares links with, say, Monsanto? Now ask yourself, if the holding company restructured, would they keep singing the same tune? An answer of "not neccessarily" signifies that they are not actually governed by ideology. [Yeah, a lot of trouble to illustrate the obvious, but venting never hurts anyone] And I think I'll meet little opposition claiming they're in fact in the business of constructing them, not adhering to them.

Sidetrack 2: In my mind, ideologies are like geometries. Complex systems that can be boiled down to a few axioms. (Axioms are the unproven, unprovable assumptions you start with). And like geometries, sometimes different ones can be used to solve the same problem, and sometimes they're just plain useless for anything other than intellectual masturbation.

Does all this mean there's a gap between where media and the public stand? Like Gomez said, most of the time not much but that's just because they're very good at what they sell. However it is that Don Imus passes himself as entertaining (and, like Antrax, I'd like to know more about that), once you're there it isn't much different from catechism. Two hours of somebody spouting nonsense to which you cannot respond. Time and again. And whether you respect Imus is about as relevant as the respect the priest garnered. Usually it's very little from kids, but they grow on you.

Skillful as you may be of course, it may take some effort to convince people to extend voting rights to poultry. Which kind of explains why what I hear from the Americans I talk to isn't really on the line followed by U.S. media.(As usual, that could mean more about my choice of verbal sparring partners.) My view from afar is that U.S. is deeply (and roughly evenly) divided at this time, but the media try their best to pretend it is business as usual. Having read several papers, missing all radio stations and watching NBC, CNN, and Fox they seem to form a spectrum signifantly more dense in the "Condescending to the benighted opposition to this Administration" to "Holier than thou 'how dare you traitor oppose me' Republican" area.

So, I'll add these questions to Gomez's mounting snowball:
- Do you believe media outlets operate under [as opposed to promote] ideological imperatives?
- Does market pressure affect the delivery of "hard" news to any significant degree? How about the euphimistically called "Special Interests"? Let's stick to the American market for this one.
- I'd also like to hear comments on these more obscure subjects:
a) the media role on the attempted overthrow of the Chavez goverment, and afterwards.
b) the spanish press between the train bombing and the elections.
c) predictions about media behaviour in the upcoming italian elections. Mostly the ones not under the long hand of Berlusconi.
d) the new "nearly live" event transmissions, and the way they gained respectability.

But mostly, I wonder: Is greek TV programming so offputing and dull to make me glad a commercial break is coming up?(There. Isn't that a more interesting subject than media monopolies?)

------------------
Yearn brightly

[This message has been edited by Termital (edited 05-26-2004 01:49 AM).]

[Antrax]

_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Guest]

1)Who are they kidding when the advertise Televisions on you telly? demonstrating how the colour quality (etc.) is better than on your own telly?

[Phil_The_Rodent]

I'll take a stab at Antrax's question, seeing how I studied in both Mass Communications (B.A.) and Advertsiing (Dip. Hons.) and it keeps being bumped.

Simple fact of the matter is, advertising doesn't really work anymore, as people interpret advertising (telling a one-sided truth to baffle me into buying something I don't want or need, blah blah blah). What's working in the corporate media mix these days is P.R. However, that doen't mean advertising has NO effect.

I'll skip to the short and simple. Advertising doesn't tell you so much as HOW to feel about a product, just to THINK about the product (yes, Gomez, I'm a big fan of Lippman.. I'm also a Uses and Gratifications guy). Simply, advertising reinforces brand through repeated exposure. P.R. nowadays is what builds brands and relationships; it's advertising's job to remind you about it...

That's the short of it, leaving out other elements of the marketing mix.

[Antrax]

That concept I was familiar with. However, I don't see why anyone would want that. Yoplait has yoghurt commercials here that are extremely annoying and idiotic. Everybody knows it exists. I know of 3 people, other than myself, who refuse to try the product because the commercial is so annoying. So everybody knows Yoplait exists, but how does that mean they'll buy more?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Celt]

McDonalds has a very effective advertising campaign running here at the moment to counteract the bad-health reputation they are getting.

Here's an example. A reporter states that he is going to expose the truth about the contents of what McDonalds call a Big Mac. He then barges in to the restaurant and jumps the queue in front of women and children (all beautiful and healthy of course) and demands a Big Mac. When he gets it (takes about a second) he demands to know what's in it. The server replies with the appropriate description and is hounded again with "But what's the beef patty made of". "Beef, 100% pure Irish Beef", he responds. "Is that all?", the smirking reporter demands. "And a little salt", comes the reply. "And is that it?", the reporter enquires, somewhat stunned. "Yeah!", replies the server totally baffled by even the need to question it. "You have nothing else to say?", asks the reporter in one last attempt to make a story. "Do you want fries with that?", asks the server. "Sure! Why not!", responds the reporter.

I get the impression that each scene was totally crafted and took about 150 takes to get just right. Of course they don't tell you that McDonalds' definition of beef is anything that was in close proximity to a cow at the time of its death or how little "a little salt" is.

The common scenario is that the idiotic unlikeable reporter storms in and asks questions obviously wanting to hype the story. When he gets the boring "truth" he goes away disappointed. It's clever in that it relies on the fact that people are mistrustful of the media but are not yet mistrustful of the message that the media cannot be trusted. - Very Clever.

[Phil_The_Rodent]

[Antrax]

So advertising is about making you buy other products, and not choose a specific brand for the products you already buy?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Phil_The_Rodent]

Advertising will definitely promote the product line, and try to bring the product advertised to the "first you think about" in the product line. So, yes.