In this weeks lecture, it was asked of us; "can commertial media both profit and deliver its social functions?" I would argue, no. The Hutchins commision (1947) indicated that the media is a critical aparatus of liberal democracy. It is the means by which voters make decicions about their government, and therefore is a powerful tool for creating hegemonic dominance, or for deriding incompetent systems. They (the commision) prescibed,
1. That what it discusses must be true and give meaning to events.
2.That what it discusses must engender a forum to debate those meanings.
3.That it must produce a "representative picture of the constituent groups within a society".
4. That it must present and clarify their host societies goals and values.
5. That it must give "full access to the days intelligence".
What does no. 5 mean? I believe it's too ambiguous to be helpful. Also no 3 often gets violated in commertial media as buisness pressures dictate that you cannot market to more than one group at one time. Commertial media often publishes content that will appeal to the hegemonic dominant group (caucasions), sometimes at the expense of other groups (eg, the TV show "border security" by channel 7, never airs caucasions being investigated, usually asians).
The buisness of commercial media is essentially the real estate of human ears and eyes. Advertisers pay for access to these. The success or failure of the broadcasting body is dictated by its abillity to generate audiences for their sponsors. The Australian commertial media market (News Limited, Fairfax, Nine, Win, Southern Cross, 10) had to compete with one another to survive, and for greater market share. The key word is "generation" of audiences, as this does not nessesarily imply informing them about any political manoueverings. Modern media has decended somewhat into mental atrophy (a current affair, today tonight, ect) in order to be easily digested, and entertain rather than inform. Most of the aformentioned conglomerates had wide portfolios spanning across a multitude of media publishers, which served to show their function as buisnesses and not as social services.
State interventions can aid the content of the media, yet doing so risks creating a system in which the public are both informed and led by the same people. This bias could easily foment illiberal practices. The Swedish newspaper "Dagbladet" is an example of this model of funding. The "ethical wall" that separates the commercial and social functions within commercial media is not policed by any statutory authority, and is often blurred or totally ignored (does sport reporting serve a social function, or is a spectacle which is geared towards drawing viewers?) The editor and owner of "The Guardian" C. P Scott was quoted as saying "Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred". Consider this concept of the ethical wall. Should someone who owns a media outlet be allowed to edit it? Ultimately its success as a buisiness will beneifit the individual. Its success as a social function will not. Therefore, it is more likely that such a person would efface their profit driven partiality, omit certain stories and exaggerate others, to generate a readership. This will succeed as a enterprise, but at the cost of the "sacred" nature of impartiality.
No comments:
Post a Comment