Reading The Media: The Sociology Of Mass Communications
The Political, Economic and Historical Context.
Ownership & Control:
In the previous papers I indicated that, to some extent, the artifacts of popular culture, popular novels, popular music film and television are economically unique. If we accept this first and foremost (though not necessarily of paramount and exclusive importance) then it follows that issues of ownership and control of the mass communications industries are vital to an understanding of the content of the media.
Influence over content is often denied in particular in the newspaper industry, and indeed the British press did once enjoy some reputation for impartiality, however it is widely acknowledged, both by the media studies specialist and by the general public, within Britain and abroad, that during the post war period at least, the reputation of impartiality and independence which the British Press had enjoyed, whether deservedly or not, has been compromised by the arrival of overtly politically biased tabloids. Whether such a reputation was ever much more than image is an issue that is addressed in Seaton & Curran's history of the press in the UK "Power without Responsibility". What is certain is that, from the inception of a commercial press, dependent for its survival on advertising, and therefore also dependent on large circulation and mass production newspaper publication in the advanced industrial economies has been restricted to companies (and individuals) with access to large capital resources. The establishment of The Independent in the late eighties was only possible by using the most advanced publishing technology- and it is no longer an independently published newspaper.
If the popular press has altered the perception of the British newspaper industry, the political obligations and requirements which constrain the broadcasting organisations to operate within a framework which demands that issues which can be clearly identified as directly political, are presented in what may be described as a balanced way, has assured that some reputation for impartiality has survived to the present day.
In news and current affairs broadcasting the more or less constant series of conflicts between government and broadcasters which has occurred over the period of television's rise to dominance as the primary means of news dissemination has served to reinforce the impression of an independent and courageous group of professional communicators and journalists whose position is so elevated as to be beyond the direct intimidation or manipulation of politicians.
There is also an attitude of superiority which pervades the quality press and television news journalistic culture that sees the popular press and overseas news organisations as more directly controlled by their governments and owners. Serious journalism is about a particular set of values. According to the NUJ code of conduct "A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of freedom of the press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. He/she shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship."
In the UK however there is a myriad of bodies that monitor and constrain the content of press and broadcasting, so numerous that they are generally known by acronym- ASA, BCC, BSC, & PCC. (Hutcinson p385). These institutions represent only part of the content control that British broadcasting is subject to, and generally concern themselves with issues of "taste and decency". Informal content control and self censorship- more insidious and pernicious than formal control does characterise a large part of the UK media's output. This is perhaps most obvious in the media representations of conflict, and the parameters that are set on the "political".
In the case of the UK media's representation of the conflict in Northern Ireland this informal constraint has been well documented.
Liz Curtis in "Ireland, The Propaganda War" lists over fifty programmes and other articles for broadcast by television that, from 1959 to 1983, have been banned, censored, or delayed. The list includes documentaries, dramas, talk shows, news bulletins, news feature articles, feature films, including those commissioned by the Television companies, and, curiously, a pop video. Since 1983 to the present day this catalogue has continued to grow apace, particularly affecting, not current affairs, but drama.
Current affairs and news broadcasting appears, even to the most supportive of television critics, to have operated a "treading on eggshells policy", justified almost as a matter of course with the throwaway line "careless talk costs lives" (Ian Irvine "Life in Wartime" The Independent 2nd December 1988.), the tacit admission of war status passing as commonsense knowledge, despite the denials of the political establishments of all parties. Allusions to artistic integrity had to some extent insulated film and docu-drama makers from direct censorship, on political grounds at least. The traumatic summer of 1988 saw every fictional or semi fictional examination of the Ulster crisis subjected to the predictable de-topicalizing delays and sanitising alterations. Two major BBC drama series were indeed based in Northern Ireland during 1988, but their setting was more or less incidental to the routine plots of genre thrillers. Neither 'Crossfire' nor 'Act of Betrayal' were filmed in Northern Ireland and, sadly, both found it necessary to indulge in the vacuous and stereotypical portrayals of fanatical paddies so beloved of the Anglo-Saxon that they have endured for at least a century and a half. Dramatic programming of value has been possible, even in recent years, and has, after supervision at the highest level, reached the screen, notably 'Giro City', 'Angel'(Channel 4, 1985 & 86) and 'An Unreported Incident' (BBC Scotland 1987). The net through which such work has to pass has become ever finer and more specific.
The Government's broad hints of yet stricter supervision of drama, given on October the 19th, by way of a criticism of the distastefulness of the appearance of 'terrorist sympathisers' immediately following an atrocity, have undoubtedly been heard and understood by the IBA and BBC.
Government direct intervention to ban, alter, or de-topicalize programming on Northern Ireland had, however become increasingly unnecessary and had been viewed as counter productive; The BBC and IBA had learned as early as 1970 that they must if they are to survive toe the government line. With the compliance and acquiescence of the television authorities, backed by a press, without exception, wholeheartedly supportive of the British role in Northern Ireland a kind of hegemony has been established.
Broadcasting on Northern Ireland, or for that matter on terrorism in general must conform to exact and exacting standards, denying the terrorist the "oxygen of publicity" (Rt Hon Douglas Hurd , Home Secretary, BBC Nine O' Clock News 19 October 1988.) while enabling the State to "emphasize the integrity of the social order, and invite the participation of the whole nation , addressed as if it were a unitary community." (Philip Schlesinger in "Guilty of the Use of Force", "The Times" 26th February 1988.)
That the media in general, and television in particular has manifestly failed to explain the why while detailing graphically the what of the day-to-day horror of Northern Ireland is undeniable. "The media's voluntary self restraint permits it to retain their public credibility, and the state's ideological capital remains intact by avoiding evident censorship. By representing terrorism as the initiating force, state violence can be seen as purely responsive, and draconian legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act given a gloss.
At a global level the mass media of the third world, if such a term is appropriate given the levels of literacy, direct governmental control is the rule rather than the exception. Indigenous News agencies in most of the south are part of the governmental organisation usually under a department analogous to the Ministry of Information. the agencies receive the reports of the international news agencies and select those events deemed suitable for the population before passing the reports on to the broadcast or printed media companies.
Many journalists in the advanced industrial countries are quick to condemn the overt government manipulation of information that goes on in many countries of the South, but to a certain extent this is merely the extension of the government control of mass media that has been established practice in Europe and North America for many years- the actions of the IBA or the Board of governors of the BBC may be more indirect and much more subtle but government control is government control.
There has, in the last two decades, been considerable agitation by the counties of the South, in particular via the OAU and the Non - Aligned Movement, for a new international information order. The general thrust of this campaign can be viewed as an attempt to set the agenda of news coming out of and going into the Third World. At worst this can be seen as a attempt to legitimate censorship, at best as an attempt to put the events of the Third World in the historical context of colonialism.
For the majority of the population in much of the South, television is virtually unknown. TV signals are restricted to urban areas and to the middle and elite classes. Even rural community radio will tend to be restricted to communal use at the premises of the local elite group.
This has the effect of further identifying the elites in developing countries with the values, aspirations and life styles of the industrialised North. The penetration of the mass media in the developing world has had the effect of yet further removing the urban elites from the rest of the population and confirming their assimilation into the international business and technological elite. This issue - of the media's role in the globalisation of western cultural values is one that we shall return to towards the end of the module.
|
|