Evidence for the model

Evidence for the model - Evidence for the model. It is not...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Evidence for the model. It is not too difficult to find evidence that supports the general proposition put forward by this model that the content of the media is manipulated (consciously or unconsciously) to reflect the needs and interests of a powerful ruling class in Capitalist society. Historically and cross-culturally , we have evidence from various totalitarian societies across the world: Although this may appear rather extreme and not representative of liberal democracies such as our own society, evidence of media manipulation is not difficult to find - even though such manipulation tends to be subtle and not well- publicised. .. The most obvious evidence for the model comes in relation to patterns of media ownership . As we have seen, newspaper, television and radio, book and magazine publishing and the like is dominated by a relatively small number of owners . Where competition between companies exists it is likely to be over market share rather than over fundamental ideological disagreements about the nature of society. Thus, although daily newspaper owners compete vigorously with one another for readers, there is little difference in the world view put forward in papers such as the Sun, Today, Star and Mirror (even though the latter has, historically, always supported the Labour Party politically). On the contrary, all of the major daily papers conform to a relatively narrow , consensual view of social reality that can loosely be characterised as politically and socially conservative (and the majority are actively Conservative in their political support). That is, societies ruled by dictators , absolute monarchs and so forth. In Iran , satellite television receivers have recently been banned to "prevent the spread of Western Imperialist propaganda" (American films, pop music stations and the like).
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
There is a wide body of evidence to suggest that owners do try to directly control the content of the media - this is especially true of newspaper owners (such as Lord Beaverbrook, Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothermere in the past and Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch in recent times), possibly because unlike television and radio station owners they are not bound by rules of " political balance " (The basic idea here is that in any political discussion the views of all the major political parties should be invited or represented). In addition, it is also evident that the distribution of printed materials (newspapers, magazines, books and so forth) is highly dependent upon a very small number of powerful distribution companies . The significance of this can be expressed in two ways: 1. Firstly, distributors can perform a censorship role , whereby they refuse to distribute material that they consider to be morally abhorrent or unlawful (in this latter respect, the libel laws in Britain mean that the distributor (as well as the author and publisher ) of material judged to be libellous can be sued for damages).
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/17/2012 for the course SCIE SYG2000 taught by Professor Bernhardt during the Fall '10 term at Broward College.

Page1 / 7

Evidence for the model - Evidence for the model. It is not...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online