Mass media and art are considered to be a part of the political and ideological superstructure in capitalist society, with their role being of propagating values that cultivate a capitalist-positive status quo, shaping how people see the world through a range of legitimating ideas. For instance, supporting capitalism and negatively labelling its alternatives, and rationalising, justifying and defending the concept of privatization. On the contrary, it is traditionally believed that art imitates life, a simple concept known as mimesis, as journalists, filmmakers, writers, sculptors and painters depict reality - as they see it - in an artistic way. Hence, it makes us question the nature and role of mass media and art; do they reflect society or do they project their own interpretation? Are they shedding light on ‘the reality’ or merely on their (or their makers’) perception of it?
Art
Firstly, many have questioned the one-way nature of mimesis (the belief that art imitates life) by arguing that life sometimes imitates art rather than the other way around. Primarily, Oscar Wilde wrote that the way we perceived foggy conditions (in London in the late 19th century) had changed. He referred to the
“Wonderful brown fogs that come creeping down our streets, blurring the gas lamps and turning houses into shadows” he argued that “poets and painters have taught [people] the loveliness of such effects.”
Secondly, art’s projection of its own interpretation of society is also portrayed in concepts of ‘propaganda’ and ‘censorship’. All of the major dictators of the 20th century understood the power of art to influence the population. For example, Adolf Hitler set up the Ministry of Propaganda and National Enlightenment in Germany. It was headed by Goebbels, who made sure that nothing was published, performed, or exhibited without his approval. In Russia, Stalin was shown god-like in many paintings, a phenomenon known as the Cult of Stalin.
Moreover, this viewpoint (that art projects its own interpretation of society) is further highlighted in the concept of ‘art for art's sake’. It is an expression used to convey the idea that the chief or only aim of a work of art is the self-expression of the individual artist who creates it. This may not necessarily be a reflection of society, but rather a work of his own interpretation. For example, many works of literature (a form of art) deal with the concept of ‘utopia’ which is an imaginary and perfect society with highly desirable qualities for its citizens, making the piece of literature (art) an interpretation rather than a reflection of an imperfect society.
Mass media
Moving on, mass media are tools for the transfer of information, concepts and ideas to both general and specific audiences. However, do they just transfer this information, concepts and ideas or are the media messages injected into the audience’s mind in ways that change their behavior? Known as the ‘hypodermic needle model’ or ‘magic bullet theory’- this theory considers the audience to be targets of an injection or bullet of information fired from the pistol of mass media. The audience are unable to avoid or resist the injection or bullets. A simple example being of the marketing effect, as an advertisement often influences viewers in such a way that they end up buying a product solely because of the way it had been promoted. Additionally, just as advertisers try to convince consumers to buy one product rather than another, so does the media through ‘preferred readings’. One way this is achieved is through the use of headlines and subheadings, which effectively tell the reader how they should interpret an article. Another way is to use captions to tell an audience what a picture means. As such, cleverly steering public opinion towards an intended direction without the audience noticing that they are being influenced - which is also a diluted form of propaganda.
Furthermore, this is also evident in the processes of selection and presentation of media content. To simplify, an event only becomes news when someone with the power to apply this label decides it is newsworthy. Likewise, traditional Marxism sees the media as a significant ideological institution in capitalist society as it shapes the way people think by controlling the nature, extent and type of information on which they make judgements. It is a manipulative model in which the ruling class use the mass media as a tool to teach an ideology that favours the interests of bourgeoisie. Similarly, Marxists see the media as an ‘agency of social control’ because the views of the owners and controllers are continually highlighted, promoted and given access to the media. On the other hand, contradictory views are ignored, misrepresented or marginalised and denied such access. For example, The Glasgow Media Group showed how UK television news broadcasts portrayed owners positively and trade unions negatively during industrial actions in 1980s. Subsequently, mass media can be branded as a willing tool in the hands of the elite which projects their interpretation of society, rather than reflecting the society.
Alternatively, the Pluralist approach argues that the control of media is increasingly in the hands of technocratic managerial elites who remain employees rather than employers. However, on evaluation, the pluralist viewpoint on the separation of ownership and control in mass media appears overstated. Firstly, at the senior level of global corporations, owners are unlikely to employ managers who are opposed to their interests. Secondly, the owners remain the most powerful individuals in such organisations. For example, Rupert Murdoch has a 35% share in News Corporation,while Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post . Whoever owns the media exercises a great deal of power, therefore, further strengthening the stance that mass media projects its owners’ and controllers’ interpretation of society rather than reflecting the society. Lastly, this viewpoint (that mass media projects its own interpretation of society) is consolidated in the interlinked concepts of: Agenda-setting, Framing and Priming.
Agenda-setting: - There are two primary areas of media agenda-setting: (i) the media tells us the news and (ii) it tells us what to think about the news. Press coverage sends signals to audiences about the importance of mentioned issues, while framing the news induces the unsuspecting viewer into a particular response. Additionally, news that is not given press coverage often disappears as it lacks a vehicle of mass communication. For instance, the worker’s strike of Amazon employees during Black Friday (due to unsuitable working conditions) was covered by a range of news networks, but not The Washington Post, as the owner of both companies are one and the same.
Framing: - Entman describes framing as
"The process of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a particular interpretation."
News outlets can influence public opinion by controlling variables in news presentation. News reporters exert emphasis on only particular facts to clarify their specific angle on the view of a matter. An essential in this matter is their method of presentation, crucial to suitably create, convey, or reinforce a message to the audience in the desired framework of these fundamental particulars. Thus, not only does the media identify ‘supposed causes of problems’, in fact it also encourages ‘moral judgments’ and promote ‘favoured policies’.
Priming: - Media provides a context for public discussion of an issue, setting the stage for audience understanding. An example is how the media reporting may be very strong leading up to an event such as the Olympics, Super Bowl, or World Cup, making it almost impossible for audiences to ignore the event. Such aggressive reporting thus creates an audience of people at least temporarily interested in the sport, even though prior to the reporting many (perhaps most) members of the audience were not sports fans. Rather, they are people who get caught up in the moment.
One can even have a look this video for a detailed description on these three concept
In conclusion, Nick Davies’ words for the mass media tends to appropriately summarise both mass media as well as arts’ projection of their own interpretation of society rather than its reflection, as he states:
“An industry whose task should be to filter out falsehood has become a conduit for propaganda and second hand news."
I would highly recommend checking out Mustafa Saifee's account at Academia.edu, a for-profit open repository of academic articles free to read by visitors.
Comments