NDM News: Essay

• Focus on the question 
• Application of theories, issues/debates, wider contexts 
• Detailed evidence/statistics; range of examples 
• Well structured; clearly expressed 

Exemplar paragraph:

A Marxist perspective would argue that the so-called “information revolution” has done little to benefit audiences or to subvert the established power structures in society. Far from being a “great leveller” (Krotoski, 2012) as many have claimed, it has merely helped to reinforce the status quo by promoting dominant ideologies. The most popular news website in the UK by a considerable margin is the ‘Mail Online’, which receives more than 8 million hits every month and is continuing to expand rapidly – with forecasts that it will make £100 million or more in digital revenues in the next three years. Similar to its tabloid print edition, the website takes a Conservative, right-wing perspective on key issues around gender, sexuality and race and audiences appear to passively accept what the Marxist theorist, Gramsci, called a hegemonic view. When one of their chief columnists, Jan Moir, wrote a homophobic article about the death of Stephen Gately in 2009 there were Twitter and Facebook protests but, ultimately, they did not change the editorial direction of the gatekeepers controlling the newspaper.

Marxist perspective:

• “information revolution” 
• “great leveller” (Krotoski, 2012) 
• promoting dominant ideologies 
• ‘Mail Online’, 8 million hits/month 
• £100 million in the next three years 
• Conservative, right-wing 
• Gramsci, hegemonic view 
• Jan Moir, homophobic - death of Stephen Gately, 2009 
• gatekeepers

The key aspects of Pluralism we discussed in lesson included:

Pluralist perspective:

• audiences: “conform, accommodate or reject” (Gurevitch) 
• uses and gratifications theory 
• Castells “culture of freedom” 
• “The Great Leveller”; “Paradigm shift” (Krotoski) 
• Ferguson protests (tweets/hashtag); Tomlinson case (G20) 
• Arab Spring, protests 
• UGC, citizen journalism, blogs 
• democratization 
• “mutualisation of news” (Rushbridger, The Guardian)

The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view:
It has become increasingly clear through the years of how new and digital media has significantly imposed in our everyday lives - having a largely influential effect on society. Supporting this very point, are statistics provided from office for national statistics', who revealed that in 2017, 90% of households in Great Britain had internet access, an intense increase from just 61% in 2007. the statistic alone illustrates the rapid pace of change that has taken place within the media landscape in the last 10 years.

A pluralist perspective would argue that society is dominated by a diverse collection of different social classes and cultures - all of which share the same level of authority and influence. This pluralist stance claims audiences have the same level of control as the media institutions in both their consumption and production. Castells supports this point of view, as he claimed that this rise of new and digital media has lead to "Technological blossoming of the culture of freedom, individual innovation and entrepreneurialism". Demonstrating this, is the huge uprise in content from citizen journalists called ‘user generated content’. In other words, technological advancements that have led to social media websites such as twitter or Facebook allow audiences to have this seemingly unlimited space to express their thoughts regardless of what it is they are sharing. Undeniably, audiences are being given a strong sense of power here because they can essentially override bigger institutions if they have something significant enough to do so. An example of this comes from one of the first cases of citizen journalism whereby footage of police brutality against 'Rodney King’. Rodney King was an African-American; After a high speed chase, the officers surrounded him, tasered him and beat him with clubs. The event was filmed by an onlooker from his apartment window and the home-video footage made prime-time news and became an international media sensation, and a focus for complaints about police racism towards African- Americans. What came from this was the fact that the four officers who were involved, were charged with assault and use of excessive force. This is a prime example of how audiences have created content significant enough that is has had the ability to override seemingly more powerful institutions such as the police.

However, this ‘culture of freedom’ and apparent ‘power’ can be challenged. Another perspective is that this superficial power internet users have is all an illusion. Opposing to Pluralists, are Marxists who claim that the capitalist owners of the mass media intentionally aim to promote ideas that give them huge massive benefits to their class of which they are members. This idea that user-generated content is giving audiences space to communicate their own personal ideas and thoughts is all a ploy scheme of making audiences feel like their opinions are voiced when in reality, audiences are still only listening to the media influencers and elite. An example of this is how user-generated content is actually used generously in marketing. Companies will gladly take advantage of audiences as 65% of brands (or news institutions) believe user-generated content is more influential than brand videos and photos, and 85% of consumers find visual user-generated content more influential than brand videos and photos. News institutions realise that while it’s conventional to be creating high-quality content, it’s important to remember that a shaky homemade video can convert better than a million-dollar ad campaign. That’s because for today’s consumers, authenticity is much more important than looking professional. Audiences are drawn in by the raw, genuine footage and subsequently are far more likely to be drawn in and believe what they are presented with. The power audiences have is also challenged by how we still have a hierarchy even within social media i.e media influencers like celebrities or politicians. This brings up the interesting argument that in fact audiences are still ‘sheep’. This is demonstrated by Pareto's Law, which adamantly states how the "minority of producers serve a majority”. Audiences’ consumption of the media is being governed by a small portion of the media. Furthermore, supporting this further is the fact that "the top 5% of all websites accounted for almost 75% of user volume" according to Lin & Webster. Despite the vast, large number of content creators, the bigger institutions seem to overwhelming draw in the most audience. This clearly depicts their control over audiences; new and digital media simply gives the elite another form of controlling audiences. Marxist’s would go on to claim that it has merely helped to reinforce the status quo by promoting dominant ideologies in order to maintain the power structures in society.

The fusion of the internet into our everyday lives has become significantly more concentrated; A reason for this is the accessibility audiences now bear. A large majority of internet users are accessing the web via their handheld devices such as mobile phones or tablets. This is reinforced by David Robert Grimes who, in a Guardian article, stated that "An estimated 61% of millennials garner news primarily through social media." Clearly, This accessibility is a huge benefit to audiences because they are given the ability to access any source of information at the touch of their fingerprints. It could be argued that although there may be a hierarchy of people in power in the media, audiences still control the content produced. Their interests and opinions need to be reflected to ensure the continuation of media texts. This is why television shows, podcasts, broadcasts eventually stop - audiences govern if it suits them or not. This is especially evident as Aleks Krotoski was noted to say the Information Revolution was a "paradigm shift - on par with the printing press.” A huge medium, the print industry, has come to the end of its golden age simply because of audiences adaption to new and digital media. The decline of newspaper specifically demonstrates this.

Elaborating on the Marxist perspective of the media, Alain De Botton has argued that audiences respond passively when consuming media. Audiences are bombarded with information, leaving them helpless to the news and our consumption of it and therefore maintaining the status quo because they are so bewildered by the flooding of content. This essentially promote hegemonic ideology and ensure the dominance of the upper class. Furthermore, this links nicely into Lasswell's 'hypodermic needle model' - which suggests audiences are passive, like Botton claims, and simply absorb whatever the media presents them with and internalise what they see. In other words, the media can 'brainwash' audiences easily because of how submissive they are towards the media. This suggests they can control audiences easily, making them hugely influential and powerful. Yet, this model has been criticised widely, it is said to be outdated and too obsolete. Research methodology became more highly developed, it became apparent that the media had selective influences on people. As a result, an alternative model, called the two step flow developed by Lazarsfeld. The two-step flow of communication model hypothesises that ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders, and from them to a wider population. So rather than whatever the media pushes, it is down to people like celebrities to really influence audiences. This suggests media institutions don't have the power, rather the media figures such as celebrities and politicians do.

To conclude, it appears that there is a huge amount of evidence both in favour of the media having the power and audiences having the power. However, it feels that, to me, it is more evident that the media retain all the power - and audience are merely alluded by the power it 'appears' they have.