essay on commercialization of media

Communication

iResearchNet

Custom Writing Services

Commercialization of the media.

“Commerce” is a longstanding synonym for business as it is conducted in capitalist societies. It refers both to the institutions and practices of market economies and to the imaginative landscapes they produce. Commercial systems have two defining characteristics.

Organizationally, they rest on the assumptions that competition between privately owned companies is the most effective way to maximize the diversity and choice of products on offer, and that markets should be allowed to operate with the minimum of interference and regulation from government. Imaginatively, they present consumption as a unique sphere of personal freedom in which individuals can realize their aspirations and confirm their sense of self through the goods and services they choose to purchase and possess.

This identification of “being” with “having” lies at the core of the ideology of consumerism that provides advanced capitalism with its major meta-ideology. It presents itself as a system that can “deliver the goods.” The media play a unique role in sustaining this system. Not only do they offer a wide variety of purchasable communications goods and services, ranging from cinema seats to iPods, they are also the major conduit for the advertising promoting the consumer goods produced by every other sector of the economy.

The expansion of the modern commercial media however, coincided with the rise of the nation-state as the central political formation of modernity and with an ethos of citizenship that required mass participation in the election of governments. It was also accompanied by the development of a new kind of civil society made up of the multiple organizations through which people championed their interests and expressed their shared identities. Both of these other nodes of mobilization and power supported cultural and communicative activities that operated outside the market. States subsidized interventions they saw as helpful in cultivating national solidarity and a culture of responsible citizenship. Civil society organizations supported a range of initiatives that relied on voluntary labor. Some were devoted to sustaining momentum within the group. Others were aimed at attracting new recruits or raising money from sympathetic supporters. The history of modern commercialization is a history of the shifting relations between capital, state, and civil society, and of the persistent efforts by private corporations to enlarge their sphere of operations, both institutionally and imaginatively, and commandeer the material resources and social allegiances developed by the other two nodes of power.

From Individual Press Freedom To Media Businesses

Most observers of the communications landscape in Europe in the early decades of the nineteenth century saw markets as guarantors of greater freedom of expression. Everywhere, the dominant medium of the time, the press, was restricted by government censorship and licensing. In Cologne, the Rheinische Zeitung, edited by the young Karl Marx in his first job after graduation, was closed down by the censors for attacking the Russian Tsar. In London, every sheet of paper used in printing a newspaper was required to bear an official government stamp. By throwing ideas and argument open to the play of demand, commercialization promised to transfer power from governments to publics. A free market promised to produce a press that reflected the full range of political positions and social interests. After a series of long and bruising battles, this market-led definition of a “free press” prevailed and newspapers began to develop as modern businesses staffed by professionals. As this transition gathered momentum, however, it became increasingly clear that, far from disappearing, restrictions on expression had simply assumed another form. Control by government had been replaced by the censorship of money.

By the later decades of the century, newspaper publishing had become an increasingly expensive proposition. It required substantial investment in new printing and production machinery and subscriptions to the new telegraphic “wire” services that transmitted breaking news. Free market ideology presupposed that anyone who spotted a gap in prevailing provision could enter the market and submit their ideas to the judgment of readers. In the ensuing Darwinian struggle, good ideas would survive and develop. Bad ideas, like ill-adapted species, would die out. In reality, launching a major title was becoming a privilege reserved for the rich and well supported.

By the turn of the century, the press business was increasingly dominated by a new kind of proprietor, who owned chains of titles in a number of markets. The British entrepreneur Alfred Harmsworth (later ennobled as Lord Northcliffe) typified the imaginative estates of these new “press barons,” owning both the country’s leading popular “tabloid” titles, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, and the primary newspaper of record, The Times. The front page of The Times had long been filled with small classified ads, a practice that continued well into the second half of the twentieth century, but the Daily Mail and its rival tabloids were becoming important vehicles for the display advertising promoting the new branded goods – Lipton’s tea, Pear’s soap, and Colman’s mustard – that were rapidly replacing unlabeled generic commodities. In the process, the economic foundation of the press was shifting from sales to readers to revenues from advertising.

Early Concerns About The Commercialization Of The Media

Chain ownership and advertising finance prompted increasing concern. Observers worried that the new proprietors would mobilize the titles they owned behind the political positions and causes they particularly favored (as Northcliffe often did) and exclude or unfairly denigrate alternative opinions. The greater the reach and centrality of their publications, the greater the potential damage to open debate and diversity of expression. There were concerns, too, that the drive to maximize advertising revenues by assembling the largest possible readership was pushing popular titles toward entertainment and sensation rather than objective information and rational debate on public issues.

These developments coincided with extensions to the franchise and the move toward mass participation in the political process based on the universal vote. To commentators committed to advancing this ideal by fostering a democratic culture rooted in informed deliberation, these trends appeared as “market failures.” Given the entrenched identification of a free press with a free market, there was little they could do to change the newspaper business other than impose limits on the number of titles any one owner could command and offer modest subsidies to support minority publications. When broadcasting emerged as a popular mass medium after the end of World War I, however, they saw another opportunity to counter the censorship of commercialism.

Governments in Europe had long seen the provision of public cultural facilities as an important aid in efforts to construct the nation as an imagined community with a common heritage, and to promote rational recreation and self-improvement. The resulting array of public libraries, museums, and galleries differed from the novels, theatre seats, and magazines produced by the commercial cultural industries in two key respects: they were free at the point of use and they were designed for shared use rather than personal possession. They came to be seen as public goods, not simply in the technical sense that a number of people could enjoy them simultaneously without pre-empting each other, but also in the more general sense that they contributed to the quality of collective life as well as to the pleasure and education of individual users.

Where commercial media were rooted in the private interests of producers and consumers, publicly funded cultural facilities were seen by their defenders as pivotal contributions to the common good. It was this view that prevailed in European debates on broadcasting and led to the establishment of radio as a public service, funded out of the public purse and oriented to providing the cultural resources deemed essential for a culture of citizenship and national solidarity. The fact that it delivered the same programs across the nation simultaneously and could be enjoyed by everyone equally – without the resource limits imposed by the limited space of a gallery or the competition for loans from public libraries – made it the ideal typical public good. In contrast, in the United States, despite a vigorous campaign for public service waged by universities and community groups, broadcasting followed the dominant pattern of the pre-existing cultural industries and became a commercial business, operated by privately owned companies and financed by assembling and selling audiences to advertisers.

The nature of advertising was changing, however. As real wages rose and a larger section of the audience began to move from maintaining basic living standards to making consumer choices that expressed lifestyle aspirations, so advertising set out to secure the links between tastes and brands. Hollywood began to embrace product placement, with manufactures paying to have their products featured and used in feature films and engineering tie-in promotions in local stores. Alongside spot advertising, broadcasters embraced program sponsorship, allowing manufacturers to include the name of the company or brand in the program title. Consumerism was no longer confined to the spaces between media artifacts; it was increasingly integrated into them. Faced with this consolidation of commercialism, at the level of both institutions and imagination, advocates of broadcasting as an essential medium of democratic life responded by subjecting the business of radio to regulations limiting the number of stations any one owner could command and insisting on a minimal diversity of output and opinion.

Commercialization Of Television

When television emerged as the dominant popular medium after World War II, the same basic division of operating philosophies was reproduced. The major European nations extended the principles of public service to the new medium and were mostly joined by their former colonies, which mobilized broadcasting behind the twin drives towards modernization and nation-building. Within Europe, the United Kingdom was unique in introducing advertising-funded television services in the mid-1950s, although the new commercial (ITV) companies were bound by extensive public interest requirements. As a consequence, competition was confined to audiences and talent, with the BBC continuing to receive the whole of the public subsidy provided by the license fee while the ITV operators enjoyed monopoly rights to advertising in their franchise regions. By guaranteeing relative security of income to both sectors, this convenient division of the spoils enabled both to fulfill their public service remits, an arrangement that supporters of greater competition dismissed as a “comfortable duopoly”.

Elsewhere in Europe, broadcasting remained a public service monopoly. Against this, the United States pursued the basic business model already established for radio and constituted television as a commercially operated medium, subject to minimal public interest regulations, a pattern widely followed in the key countries in Latin America that lay within the US’s longstanding sphere of influence. This dual system lasted more or less intact until the mid-1970s, when a combination of technological innovations and shifting political ideologies progressively undermined both public cultural institutions and the ethos of public service. As a result, over the next two decades, commercialism was to gain unprecedented geographical and cultural reach.

In a number of countries, from Norway to India, the arrival of commercial cable and satellite services, often beamed from “offshore,” broke the historic monopoly of public service broadcasting and opened the way for increased competition and commercialism. New advertising-supported terrestrial channels emerged alongside proliferating pay-TV services. Cultures habituated to the worthy fare served up by public stations were suddenly exposed to the full force of consumerism. The brashness and glamour offered by imported shows like Dynasty offered a window on a world where clothes and furnishing spoke louder than words about who one was and wanted to be. This way of looking played across an imaginative landscape already prepared by a fundamental shift in political and popular attitudes.

New Drive Toward Marketization

The elections of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US marked the beginning of a rapid movement toward a renewed reliance on entrepreneurship, markets, and competition as the key drivers of economic growth, and a corresponding rejection of public enterprise, public subsidy, and state management. It was a worldwide movement. Not only was there growing disillusion with welfare capitalism across Europe and an evaporation of trust in state-managed development in emerging economies, but the three major economies that for most of the postwar period had been partly or wholly uncoupled from the global capitalist system all embraced market-led solutions: the Soviet Union collapsed, China introduced a market form of economic organization, and India moved away from self-sufficiency.

The communications industries were central to this shift in three ways. The telecommunications and data-processing sectors provided the essential infrastructure that allowed business to operate across dispersed arenas of action in real time. The popular commercial media constituted the central spaces for product promotion and marketing. And, as core elements in the wider array of high-technology sectors, the creative and information industries were assigned a central role in developing the next phase of advanced capitalism, based on trade in ideas and expressive forms rather than manufactured goods. This pivotal position made them prime targets for policies designed to enlarge the market sector and give companies maximum freedom of operations.

This drive towards marketization was pursued though a range of interventions deployed in varying combinations. Public communications assets were sold to private investors. Markets that had previously been dominated by one or two suppliers were opened up to competition (liberalization). In Europe, the old staterun post, telegraph, and telephone monopolies were broken up and obliged to compete for customers with new entrants. Institutionally, regulatory regimes relaxed the previous rules governing acquisitions and ownership, permitting larger, more diversified media to emerge and allowing broadcasters to take more advertising in more flexible forms (such as product placement).

Ideologically, they moved from the defense of the public interest to the application of competition law and purchasers’ rights, privileging audience entitlements as consumers rather than citizens. At the same time, media organizations that remained in the public sector were increasingly cajoled or pressured into behaving as though they were commercial corporations, a process known as corporatization. In China, the major state-owned broadcaster CCTV was required to support itself from advertising sales rather than state subsidy. In New Zealand, the public broadcaster was recreated as a state-owned enterprise, whose first duty was to generate profits that could be retuned to the Treasury to top up the general pool of taxation. In the UK, the BBC was required to sell off its transmission network, commission a proportion of its programming from independent producers, urged to seek co-productions with commercial players in the US and other major markets, and encouraged to maximize the value of its assets by aggressively pursuing the merchandising opportunities offered by programs and selling program formats across as many markets as possible.

At the same time as established media sectors were being reconstructed around the principles of commercialization, however, new forms of communicative activity were developing on the Internet. With the rapid expansion in computing power, the increasing speed and capacity of broadband networks, and the mobility offered by WiFi connectivity and the migration of the net to mobile phones, the struggle for the future of Internet services has become a major arena of contest between competing principles.

Self-organized communities played a central role in the Internet’s development from the outset. Where commerce relies on prices or advertising subsidy and public goods are funded out of taxation, these grassroots initiatives are grounded in an ethos of reciprocity and collaborative creation. The first, and still in many ways the most impressive, example of this new gift economy in action is the free software movement that, though pooling expertise, has created a range of robust alternatives to the commercial software produced by Microsoft. This same basic principle has been successively applied to an ever-expanding range of uses. These include the wiki movement, which allows postings, such as the entries to Wikipedia, to be modified and added to by other participants, and the multiple recommendation sites, where users of hotels, airlines, and other facilities post their experiences and tips.

These developments are a double-edged sword for commercial enterprise. On the one hand, piracy and unauthorized postings are reducing revenues. On the other hand, users’ loyalty and enthusiasm for peer-to-peer sites opens up new markets and promotional opportunities. The major media have been quick to capitalize on this, buying up sites, establishing a corporate presence in sites like Second Life, and pioneering novel forms of viral marketing. Public cultural institutions are also moving onto the Internet, using websites to extend their reach, make their resources and archives more readily available, and develop new participatory relations with audiences.

At present, then, we are witnessing both an intensification of commercialization and the extension of public goods and gift economies. The future of public communication will depend on eventual balance between these possibilities.

References:

• Albarran, A. B., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (1998). Global media economics: Commercialization, concentration and integration of world media markets. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.
• Andersen, R. K., & Strate, L. (eds.) (2000). Critical studies in media commercialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Budd, M., Craig, S., & Steinman, C. (1999). Consuming environments: Television and commercial culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (2003). Power without responsibility, 6th edn. London: Routledge.
• Ewen, S. (1977). Captains of consciousness: Advertising and the social roots of consumer culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• McAllister, M. (1995). The commercialization of American culture: New advertising, control, and democracy. London: Sage.
• McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
• Murdock, G., & Wasko, J. (2007). Media in the age of marketization. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Taylor Wright, David Varney, Quinn Weldon, and Austin Anderson

Commercial media is media that is privately owned by larger companies and corporations. The sole purpose of commercial media is to make money off their programs and advertising (Commercial). Noncommercial media refers to media that primarily does not involve the larger corporations, for example state sponsored TV (Commercial). Noncommercial networks on TV or radio don’t run advertisements in exchange for large profits, instead they’ll rely on and ask for donations with a brief pause during the show (Commercial).

The goal of commercial media is to capitalize on the mass media industries. The main industries are newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet (Biagi 8). In America the majority of broadcast time has about a ⅓ ratio of commercial to show time. About “10 to 20 minutes of show time are typically devoted to advertising,” usually depending on the network the show’s being aired on (Commercial). The amount of money that advertisers will have to pay for a time slot can also depend upon that shows ratings and the network it’s on (Commercial).  Each network is different, ranging from the type of shows they stream and the advertisements they show on their network. There is “about 1,700 televisions stations operating” just in the United States alone, with the majority being commercial media-based networks (Biagi, 9). Commercial media is the market’s perfect tool for advertising and displaying goods and services to the mass public (McChesney).

Noncommercial stations back in the early 1900’s survived for years “on a mix of modest federal funding, grants, and listener donations from regular fundraising campaigns” (Usher). In recent years government funding in America for noncommercial medias has gone down. Having lack of public broadcasting networks causes a lack of difference in mass opinion. In other countries the reason that small newspapers and magazines still exist is because of government newspaper subsidies, these subsidies have been around since the 1970s (Usher). Government subsidies in other countries were put in place with the purpose to “help keep afloat struggling newspapers and create a diversity of opinion” (Usher). The reason noncommercial media has slowly been disappearing from the world is because the world is shifting towards watching and consuming only commercial media. Government funding is being pulled from the majority of noncommercial media within the U.S.

Commercialism has some very major influences on media, in numerous different ways. But it is important to note that commercial forces are always influencing the type of media that is being produced, whether it is local, national, or international. Some of these implications have very negative effects, that can be somewhat detrimental to media corporations. Such as large-scale layoffs, pulling of funding, conflicts of interest, and instances of that nature.

Now with commercial media being a major force in today’s society we have seen a large portion of skewed information that is being released to the general public. In an international and national standings, we don’t see major impact of this problem because there are hundreds of companies releasing information, so educating yourself on important news in not hard, with so many different perspectives. You’ll never get the full story but at least you can be educated on it. But with information being released in a local news sense, we can see the impacts being very large. Especially if there is only one real news source that is publishing information. The problem here is that when a local news outlet published information, it is usually news that is published to fit the views of the owners. This view can be political, because “even in open and democratic societies with a free press, economic factors and corporate decisions often influence what is and is not covered in the new” (Pavlik, 54).  This is important to note because not only does this show that happens to everyone It shows that it is almost unavoidable.

In local terms, corporate media causes problems not just in the media that is being produced, but in the industry, themselves. We are seeing a more and more news outlets downsizing, and when this happens on a local level we are losing the ability to have fair coverage of information. This is happening because of the fact that with less workers we have less coverage of important topics that impact the community.

In a more mass media sense, there is a large amount of advertising that go into the consideration of content in the media that is output into main stream media. Many advertising companies will threaten to pull their ads and essentially their funding from the media source if their content contradicts their views. In a broad example of this, a republican corporation parent isn’t going to allow for their company to run a show or produce news that hold more democratic views, so to stop this they might threaten to pull funding to deter the company form producing anything in that matter

No matter who you are, or where you are, you are typically exposed to some sort of media every day. It is said that the average adult is exposed to over 100 commercials per day. This saturation of media in our lives is speculated to have some sort of effect, and that is what the advertisers behind these commercials are paying different platforms for.

“Ever since mass media became mass media, companies have naturally used this means of communications to let a large number of people know about their products. There is nothing wrong with that, as it allows innovative ideas and concepts to be shared with others. However, as the years have progressed, the sophistication of advertising methods and techniques has advanced, enticing and shaping and even creating consumerism and needs where there has been none before, or turning luxuries into necessities.” (GlobalIssues.org)

When a company advertises their product or service it is in the interest of enticing potential consumers towards purchasing whatever it is they are selling. These companies have become so good at this that, sometimes, we don’t even realize that we are being advertised to. When most people think of a commercial they imagine the convoy of thirty second messages between sections of the television show they are watching. But what most people don’t realize is that there are very few places nowadays where we are not exposed to some sort of advertising. When researching for this chapter I have run into multiple advertisements that have diverted my attention for a moment or two. Even the outside world is not safe, think of how many billboards, signs on storefronts, emails, magazines, newspapers, and even other products themselves that have promoted something that you could buy.

“[T]he New York Times [is] a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. … You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations.” (Chomsky)

Like was mentioned before, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with commercial advertising. Until, that is, the companies behind the advertisements starts to insidiously push their own agendas on consumers. There has been much speculation that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was greatly affected by this. People criticized news outlets of skewing coverage to the more “sensational” of the two candidates and possibly creating an outcome that was not best for the people of America.

“Trump’s screen-to-screen exposure during the campaign provided bait to capture advertisers’ most coveted product: our attention. To keep our attention, media must entertain us. And Trump delivered—especially for media’s bottom line. As CBS CEO Leslie Moonves infamously stated: ‘[Trump’s candidacy] may not be good for America, but it’s  damn good for CBS .'” (Pickard)

In today’s world media is shared among thousands of people, spanning across many different countries and cultures. It is a commonality between people regionally and globally, weather they share different ideas, values, or beliefs. Although media is for the people, in recent years it has become dictated by only a few people. The shift of media ownership has drastically changed as the wealthy get wealthier and companies start expanding by buying other companies. Today this is referred to as a media oligopoly, the domination of the media marketplace by a select few, seriously limiting the diversity and ownership of all media.

With the consolidation of media ownership, we see more effects every day, starting with larger companies buying out smaller ones. These buys are not considered small in the least and really show how wealthy these companies can become. Some examples include, the $19 billion buy from Disney in 1996 to acquire Capital Cities/ABC and in 2001 AOL took it a step further buying Time Warner for $160 billion (Pavlik & McIntosh, 59) Companies like AOL and Disney increase their wealth tremendously with these purchases, and with that comes the increase in power. Companies are able to acquire more control and dictation as they know can expand their products to many other people. Also, they are able to obtain even more power in deciding what content gets distributed and when people are able to view it. This further limits people from deciding what they believe the media should be showing.

Limiting the number and variety of people who own media further decreases the diversity in media content. It also increases the social disparities isolating minorities more than ever. Minorities lose their voice when they have no one to represent them, which in this media industry is exactly what is happening. In the Converging Media book it describes this as, “fewer owners owning more media, results in less diversity of media voices and the possible silencing of minority and non-mainstream views” (Pavlik & McIntosh, 58). This creates an even bigger separation between the media owners and the minorities. Reducing the variety of voices that are being heard, leading to the reduction of content that is being displayed and distributed.

Not only is media consolidation affecting minorities it is also affecting social, political and cultural issues. With the media owners having so much power they also obtain power outside of the media industry. They are able to influence all aspects of society, such as politically, socially, and culturally. With this much prestige in society, the media ownership starts to create a hegemony. This means that the ideas, values, and beliefs of the wealthiest start to become seen as the views of everyone. Even if the people under the wealthy do not agree with them, they still follow the hegemony that is created because they eventually see it as their norm. Examples of this can be seen in politics as people running for office will try to receive money from these media corporations to advance their campaign. Media companies will usually agree to this on the condition that these politicians are promoting the ideas and beliefs the owners of the company desires. This allows the wealthiest media companies to have an effect in politics even when it is not their concerned industry.

With the limiting of media ownership, the separation between classes increases and minorities continue to lose their voice. The media oligopoly continues to intensify creating less diversity and variety of the media content being distributed. Socially, culturally, and politically, the media hegemony reflects only the views of the wealthiest and those leading the media industry. This becomes dominant and only increases as the need for power is never relinquished by those who having, further benefiting them and hurting those below them.

The implications of commercial media are growing and continuing to affect the general public. The concentration of media ownership is narrowing, leaving only a few people to dictate what media is being produced and distributed. It creates a barrier between those in power and those that are not, exemplifying the social inequalities and the current wealth gap. Commercial media today is looked at as one of the most powerful and expensive industries. It has reign over political, social, and cultural issues that are currently going on today. Using advertising to influence consumers, bribing politicians to set the political agenda, or pressuring their viewpoints and beliefs as the status quo, forcing people to believe in them too. Minorities lack a voice in the media, which leads to lack of proper representation and the formation of stereotypes. As media companies see their wealth and power strengthen, they will try to expand upon it. Weakening the idea that media is equal and beneficial for everyone. As it is going now media will continue to change, benefiting those powerful enough to control and hurting those who receive it.

Works Cited

Biagi, Shirley.  Media/Impact: an Introduction to Mass Media . Cengage Learning, 2017.

Chomsky, Noam. “What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream,” Z Magazine , October, 1997. http://chomsky.info/199710__ /.

“Commercial Broadcasting.”  Wikipedia , Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Dec. 2017,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_broadcasting 

McChesney, Dr. Robert W. “The Mythology of Commercial Broadcasting and the Contemporary Crisis of Public Broadcasting.” http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/RMmythCB.html .

“Media and Advertising.” Global Issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/160/media-and-advertising .

Omachonu, John O. and Kevin Healey. “Media Concentration and Minority Ownership: The Intersection of Ellul and Habermas.”  Journal of Mass Media Ethics , vol. 24, no. 2/3, Apr-Sep 2009, pp. 90-109.

Pavlik, John V., and Shawn McIntosh.  Converging Media: a New Introduction to Mass Communication . Oxford University Press, 2018.

Pickard, Victor. “The Problem With Our Media Is Extreme Commercialism.”  The Nation , 30 Jan. 2017, http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-our-media-is-extreme-commercialism/ .

Usher, Nikki. “Funding Public Media: How the US Compares to the Rest of the World.”Nieman Lab, 11 Mar. 2011,  http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/03/funding-public-media-how-the-us-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world/ .

Introduction to Media Studies Copyright © by Taylor Wright, David Varney, Quinn Weldon, and Austin Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Media Commercialization, Public Interest and Sustainable Development in Nigeria

OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 08, No. 10, pp. 69-78, 2015

10 Pages Posted: 19 Dec 2015

Dele Odunlami

Olabisi Onabanjo University - Department of Mass Communication

Tokunbo Adaja

Date Written: October 30, 2015

The economics of media production, distribution and consumption makes the issue of commercialization an inevitable reality in the modern society. But the mass media exist essentially as a social institution to provide voice to the populace through a ‘full, truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context – that gives meaning’. However, unfolding realities reveal that commercial considerations have vitiated the statutory mandate of the media as the fourth estate of the realm. In Nigeria, like other developing countries, the challenge is how media professionals can balance their desire to break even and successfully navigate the complex and harsh mace of economic realities for an enhanced bottom-line on the one hand and remain committed to the professional demands of their calling on the other. This is crucially so because of the media’s place and role as societal conscience, compass and barometer of development. This paper x-rays the emerging issues in the wake of media commercialization in Nigeria and their implications for public interests and sustainable national development with suggestions on the way forward.

Keywords: Commercialization, Media Economics, Social Institution, Public Interest, Sustainable Development

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Dele Odunlami (Contact Author)

Olabisi onabanjo university - department of mass communication ( email ).

Ogun State, Ogun Nigeria

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, sustainability & economics ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Socially Responsible Investment eJournal

Oida international journal of sustainable development.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

The Significance and Impact of the Media in Contemporary Society

• First Online: 10 March 2018

Cite this chapter

• Faith Gordon 3  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies ((PSLS))

1274 Accesses

This chapter explores the significance of the media and the impact it has on the meaning-making processes in contemporary society. It draws on key national and international academic literature and previous studies on the role and functions of the media. This includes the key theoretical debates on deviancy amplification, folk devils and moral panics. It assesses the media’s impact on criminal justice policies and on public opinion of, and support for authoritarian ideologies and policies. In particular, it will focus on exploring how the media can influence popular culture and the impact of media portrayals of crime on societal perceptions, responses and reactions directed towards social groups, in particular children and young people ‘in conflict with the law’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

It has long been acknowledged that the media are difficult to capture and define (Craig 2004 : 3). As outlined in Chap. 1 , the terms ‘media’ or ‘mass media’ refer to the traditional definition of the media, as consisting of newspapers (the print media), radio (broadcast media) and news bulletins and programs (televised media). While choosing to focus on the contemporary media, this book acknowledges from the outset that there is an extensive body of work existing on the historical origins of the media; mass communication and its impact, and the role of technological development (see Downing 1980 ; Frost 2000 ; Curran 2002 ).

There has been much criticism of pluralist theories on the media, including the arguments that pluralism is an ideological justification for the media and that the basis of the theory is not grounded in evidence. Rather the pluralist model assumes that the content of the media is diverse, without presenting evidence to reinforce or prove this theory (see Blumler and Gurevitch 1995 ).

Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of a range of media outlets in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) is a prime example of the concentration of power and the influence of owners on media content (see Golding and Murdock 1991 ; Horrie 2003 ; Cole 2005 ). Further to this, academics such as Barker ( 1999 : 46) argue that conglomeration has aided a general concentration of media ownership, with research such as Bagdikian’s ( 2004 ) stating that the US media were controlled by 50 corporations in the 1980s, and by 2003 this had been reduced to five controlling the majority of the 178,000 media outlets. Significantly as Tait ( 2012 : 518) observes, the ‘scale and intensity’ of the phone hacking scandal in 2011, saw the resignation of the chief executive of one of the UK’s most influential newspaper groups, the resignation of one of the UK’s most senior police officers, the arrest of Andy Coulson, who had acted as the then Prime Minister, David Cameron’s head of communications, the resignation of two senior executives from key companies in the Murdoch empire, as well as the collapse of the takeover deal in relation to BSkyB and the closure of the News of the World (see also Keeble and Mair 2012 ; McKnight 2012 ; Watson and Hickman 2012 ).

As Barrat ( 1994 : 61) notes, the majority of media organisations are influenced by ‘a variety of commercial influences’, including the need to be profitable and also obtaining revenue through ‘advertising’. Some media outlets are part of the public sector, such as the BBC and they have the requirement ‘to provide a public service’, by ‘informing, educating, and entertaining audiences’ (Barrat 1994 : 61).

Tait’s ( 2012 : 520) analysis of the phone hacking scandal asserts that it has ‘revealed some fundamental issues in British political communications, the political system and the practice and regulation of journalism’. His analysis also documents ‘a secret history’ between Murdoch and British politics (Tait 2012 : 520–523).

Semiology provides a suitable vehicle for studying the meanings behind media content (see O’Connor 1989 ; Hall 1997 ; Berger 1998 ; Barker 2000 ; Schirato and Yell 2000 ). In contemporary literature it is now referred to as semiotics and was first developed by the Swiss linguist, Saussure, who proposed that meaning was ‘produced through … language systems’ (Schirato and Yell 2000 : 19). He focused on the ‘linguistic sign’, which he divided into the ‘signifier’, ‘the signified’ and the ‘sign’ (Schirato and Yell 2000 : 19).

As the findings of a number of content analysis studies highlight, the media exaggerate the levels of crime, in particular violent crime in the UK (see Ditton and Duffy 1983 ; Schlesinger and Murdock 1991 ; Williams and Dickinson 1993 ; Callanan 2005 ; Greer 2005 ; Reiner 2007 ).

Dorfman and Schiraldi’s ( 2001 ) research found that 76 percent of the public said they formed their opinions about crime from the media, whereas 22 percent reported that their knowledge of crime was formed through their personal experiences.

Bibliography

Aggleton, P. (1987) Deviance , London: Tavistock Publications.

Google Scholar  

Albertazzi, D. and Cobley, P. (2010) The Media: An Introduction (Third Edition), Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Allan, S. (1999) News Culture , Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ang, I. (1990a) ‘Culture and Communication’, European Journal of Communication , Volume 5, Number 2, pages 239–260.

Ang, I. (1990b) Desperately Seeking the Audience , London: Routledge.

Archers, J. and Jones, J. (2003) ‘Headlines from History: Violence in the Press, 1850–1914’, in E. A. Stanko (ed.) The Meanings of Violence , London: Routledge, pages 17–32.

Bagdikian, B. H. (2004) The New Media Monopoly , Boston, USA: Beacon Press.

Barker, C. (1999) Television, Globalization and Cultural Identities , Buckingham: Open University Press.

Barker, C. (2000) Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Barrat, D. (1994) Media Sociology (Fourth Edition), London: Routledge.

Barthes, R. (1977) ‘“The Photograph Message”, Translated by Stephen Heath, 1977, An Excerpt’, in V. Goldberg (ed.) Photography in Print: Writings from 1816 to Present , Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, pages 15–31.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , Translation by Mark Ritter, London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Becker, H. (1963) Outsider: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York and London: Free Press.

Becker, H. (1967) ‘Whose Side Are We On?’, Social Problems , Volume 14, Number 3, pages 234–247.

Berger, A. A. (1998) Media Analysis Techniques (Second Edition), London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Berrington, E. and Honkatukia, P. (2002) ‘An Evil Monster and a Poor Thing: Female Violence in the Media’, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention , Volume 3, pages 50–72.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bessant, J. and Hil, R. eds. (1997) Youth Crime and the Media: Media Representations of and Reactions to Young People in Relation to Law and Order , Hobart, Australia: Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies.

Bignell, J. (1997) Media Semiotics: An Introduction , Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Blumler, J. and Gurevitch, M. (1995) The Crisis of Public Communication , London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Box, S. (1983) Power, Crime, and Mystification , New York, USA: Tavistock.

Braham, P. (1982) ‘How the Media Report Race’, in M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott (eds.) Culture, Society and the Media , London: Methuen, pages 274–275.

Branston, G. and Stafford, R. (2003) The Media Student’s Book (Third Edition), London: Routledge.

Briggs, A. and Cobley, P. eds. (1998) The Media: An Introduction , Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.

Briggs, A. and Cobley, P. eds. (2002) The Media: An Introduction (Second Edition), Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brown, S. (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime: Listening to Youth? , Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (2002) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research , London: Routledge.

Caliendo, S. M. (2011) ‘Race, Media and Popular Culture’, in S. M. Caliendo and C. D. Mcllwain (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Race and Ethnicity , Oxon: Routledge, pages 73–81.

Callanan, V. J. (2005) Feeding the Fear of Crime: Crime-related Media and Support for Three Strikes , New York, USA: LFB Scholarly.

Camargo Heck, M. (1980) ‘The Ideological Dimension of Media Messages’, in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis (eds.) Culture, Media, Language , Oxon: Routledge, pages 122–127.

Chibnall, S. (1975) ‘The Crime Reporter: A Study in the Production of Commercial Knowledge’, Sociology , Volume 9, Number 1, pages 49–66.

Chibnall, S. (1977) Law and Order News: An Analysis of Crime Reporting in the British Press , London: Tavistock Publications.

Cicourel, A. (1968) The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice , New York: The Free Press.

Cohen, A. (1955) Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang , London: Collier-Macmillan.

Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (First Edition), Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Cohen, S. (1980) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (Second Edition), Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Cohen, S. and Young, J. eds. (1981) The Manufacture of News: Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media (Second Revised Edition), London: Constable.

Cole, P. (2005) ‘The Structure of the Print Industry’, in R. Keeble (ed.) Print Journalism: A Critical Introduction , Oxon: Routledge, pages 21–38.

Conboy, M. (2006) Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language , London: Routledge.

Cormack, M. (2000) ‘The Reassessment of Ideology’, in D. Fleming (ed.) 21st Century Media Studies Textbook , Manchester: Manchester University Press, pages 93–95.

Corner, J. and Hawthorn, J. eds. (1993) Communication Studies: An Introductory Reader (Fourth Edition), London: Arnold Publishers.

Cornwell, B. and Linders, A. (2002) ‘The Myth of “Moral Panic”: An Alternative Account of LSD Prohibition’, Deviant Behavior , Volume 23, Number 4, July–August, pages 307–330.

Craig, G. (2004) The Media, Politics and Public Life, New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Croteau, D. and Hoynes, W. (2003) Media Society: Industries, Imagery, and Audiences , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Curran, J. (1998) ‘Newspapers: Beyond Policy Economy’, in A. Briggs and P. Cobley (eds.) The Media: An Introduction , Essex: Longman, pages 81–96.

Curran, J. (2002) Media and Power, London: Routledge.

Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (1992) Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain (Fourth Edition), London: Routledge.

Curran, J., Douglas, A. and Whannel, G. (1980) ‘The Political Economy of the Human-Interest Story’, in A. Smith (ed.) Newspapers and Democracy , Cambridge: MIT Press, pages 288–347.

Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. and Woollacott, J. (1988) ‘The Study of the Media: Theoretical Approaches’, in M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott (eds.) Culture, Society and the Media , London: Routledge, pages 11–29.

Devereux, E. (2003) Understanding the Media , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Devereux, E. (2007) Understanding the Media (Second Edition), London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Ditton, J. and Duffy, J. (1983) ‘Bias in the Newspaper Reporting of Crime News’, British Journal of Criminology , Volume 23, Number 2, pages 159–165.

Dorfman, L. and Schiraldi, V. (2001) Off Balance: Youth, Race and Crime in the News , New Hampshire, USA: The Police Policy Studies Council.

Downes, D. and Rock, P. (2007) Understanding Deviance , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downing, J. (1980) The Media Machine , London: Pluto Press Limited.

Durham, A. M., Elrod, H. P. and Kinkade, P. T. (1995) ‘Images of Crime and Justice: Murder and the “True Crime” Genre’, Journal of Criminal Justice , Volume 23, Number 2, pages 143–152.

Dyer, R. (1993) The Matters of Images: Essays on Representations, London: Routledge.

Eldridge, J., Kitzinger, J. and Williams, K. (1997) The Mass Media Power in Modern Britain , London: Oxford University Press.

Entman, R. M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’, Journal of Communication , Volume 43, Number 4, pages 51–58.

Ericson, R. V., Baranek, P.M. and Chan, J. B. L. (1987) Visualizing Deviance: A Study of News Organization , Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ericson, R. V., Baranek, P. M. and Chan, J. B. L. (1999) ‘Negotiating Control: A Study of News Sources’, in H. Tumber (ed.) News: A Reader , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 297–307.

Erikson, K. T. (1962) ‘Notes on the Sociology of Deviance’, Social Problems , Volume 9, Number 4, pages 307–314.

Erikson, K. T. (1966) Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance , New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Farnen, R. F. (1990) ‘Decoding the Mass Media and Terrorism Connection: Militant Extremism As Systematic and Symbiotic Processes’, in C. R. Sander (ed.) Marginal Conventions, Popular Culture, Mass Media and Social Deviance, Ohio, USA: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, pages 98–116.

Farr, K. A. (2001) ‘Women on Death Row: Media Representations of Female Evil’, in D. E. Eber and A. G. Neal (eds.) Memory and Representation: Constructed Truths and Competing Realities , Ohio, USA: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, pages 73–87.

Fiske, J. and Hartley, J. (1989) Reading Television , London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1994) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press , London: Routledge.

France, A. (2007) Understanding Youth in Late Modernity , Berkshire: Open University Press.

Franzese, R. J. (2009) The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma , Illinois, USA: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Frost, C. (2000) Media Ethics and Self-Regulation , Essex: Longman.

Gado, M. (2008) Death Row Women: Murder, Justice, and the New York Press , California, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Gallagher, M. (1982) ‘Negotiation of Control in Media Organizations’, in M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott (eds.) Culture, Society and the Media , London: Routledge, pages 148–171.

Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. H. (1965) ‘The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers’, Journal of Peace Research , Volume 2, Number 1, pages 64–91.

Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. H. (1982) ‘Structuring and Selecting News’, in S. Cohen and J. Young (eds.) The Manufacture of News: Deviance, Social Problems and the Mass Media (First Edition), London: Constable, pages 52–64.

Gieber, W. (1999) ‘News Is What Newspapermen Make It’, in H. Tumber (ed.) News: A Reader , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 218–223.

Glover, D. (1984) The Sociology of the Mass Media, Cornwall: Causeway Press Limited.

Golding, P. and Elliott, P. (1999) ‘Making the News’ (Excerpt), in H. Tumber (ed.) News: A Reader , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 102–111.

Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991) ‘Culture, Communications, and Political Economy’, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society , London: Edward Arnold, pages 15–32.

Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994) Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance , Oxford: Blackwell.

Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009) Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (Second Edition), West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Goodwin, A. (1990) ‘TV News: Striking the Right Balance?’, in A. Goodwin and G. Whannel (eds.) Understanding Television , London: Routledge, pages 42–59.

Gorton, K. (2009) Media Audiences: Television, Meaning and Emotion . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Green, D. A. (2008a) ‘Suitable Vehicles: Framing Blame and Justice When Children Kill a Child’, Crime Media Culture , Volume 4, Number 2, August, pages 197–220.

Green, D. A. (2008b) When Children Kill Children: Penal Populism and Political Culture , Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Greenslade, R. (2003) Press Gang: How Newspapers Make Profits from Propaganda , London: Macmillan.

Greer, C. (2005) ‘Crime and Media’, in C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin and E. Wincup (eds.) Criminology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 152–182.

Gross, L. (1992) ‘Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media’, in E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner and E. M. Warth (eds.) Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power , London: Routledge, pages 130–149.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order, London: Macmillan.

Hall, S. (1986) ‘Media Power and Class Power’, in J. Curran, J. Ecclestone, G. Oakley and A. Richardson (eds.) Bending Reality: The State of the Media , London: Pluto Press Limited, pages 5–14.

Hall, S. (1997) ‘Discourse, Power and the Subject’, in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices , London: SAGE Publications Limited, pages 41–74.

Hall, S. and Scraton, P. (1981) ‘Law, Class and Control’, in M. Fitzgerald, G. McLennan and J. Pawson (eds.) Crime and Society , London: RKP, pages 460–498.

Hart, A. (1991) Understanding the Media: A Practical Guide , London: Routledge.

Haydon, D. and Scraton, P. (2000) ‘‘Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less’: The Political Context and Rights Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables - Thompson Case’, Journal of Law and Society , Volume 27, Number 3, pages 416–448.

Herman, E. (1990) ‘Media in the U.S. Political Economy’, in J. Downing, A. Sreberny-Mohammadi and A. Mohammadi (eds.) Questioning the Media , London: SAGE Publications Limited, pages 75–87.

Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. (1988) The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York, USA: Pantheon.

Horrie, C. (2003) Tabloid Nation: From the Birth of the Daily Mirror to the Death of the Tabloid , London: Carlton Publishing Group.

Jewkes, Y. (2004) Media and Crime , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Keeble, R. L. and Mair, J. eds. (2012) The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism on Trial , Suffolk: Arima Publishing.

Khabaz, D. V. (2006) Manufactured Schema: Thatcher, the Miners and the Culture Industry , Leicester: Matador.

Kidd-Hewitt, D. (1995) ‘Crime and the Media: A Criminological Perspective’, pages 9–24, in D. Kidd-Hewitt and R. Osborne (eds.) Crime and the Media: The Post-Modern Spectacle , London: Pluto Press.

Kitsuse, J. I. (1962) ‘Social Reaction to Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and Method’, Social Problems , Volume 9, Number 1, pages 247–256.

Knight, V. (2016) Remote Control Television in Prison , Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krinsky, C. ed. (2008) Moral Panics over Contemporary Children and Youth , Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Lacey, N. (1998) Image and Representation: Key Concepts in Media Studies , Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press Limited.

Lashmar, P. (2010) ‘The Journalist, Folk Devil’, Paper Presented at the Moral Panics in the Contemporary World , International conference, Brunel University London, 10–12 December.

Lemert, E. M. (1951) Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior , New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lemert, E. M. (1967) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control , Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice Hall.

Lilly, J., Cullen, F. T. and Ball, R. A. (2011) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences , (Fifth Edition), London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Machin, D. and Niblock, S. (2006) News Production: Theory and Practice , London: Routledge.

Marsh, I. and Melville, G. (2009) Crime, Justice and the Media , Oxon: Routledge.

Masterman, L. (1990) Teaching the Media , London: Routledge.

Mawby, R. C. (2010) ‘Chibnall Revisited: Crime Reporters, the Police and “Law-and-Order News”’, British Journal of Criminology , Volume 50, Number 6, pages 1060–1076.

McKnight, D. (2012) Rupert Murdoch: An Investigation of Political Power , UK: Allen and Unwin.

McNair, B. (1994) News and Journalism in the UK , London: Routledge.

McNair, B. (2009) News and Journalism in the UK (Fifth Edition), London: Routledge.

McQuail, D. (1972) Sociology of Mass Communications , Harmondsworth: Penguin Publishers.

McQuail, D. (1991) ‘Mass Media in the Public Interest: Towards a Framework of Norms for Media Performance’, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society , London: Edward Arnold, pages 68–81.

McQuail, D. (2000) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (Fourth Edition), London: SAGE Publications Limited.

McRobbie, A. (1994) Postmodernism and Popular Culture , London: Routledge.

McRobbie, A. and Thornton, S. (1995) ‘Rethinking “Moral Panic” for Multi-mediated Social Worlds’, British Journal of Sociology , Volume 46, pages 559–574.

McRobbie, A. and Thornton, S. (2002) ‘Rethinking “Moral Panic” for Multi-mediated Social Worlds’, in J. Muncie, G. Hughes and E. McLaughlin (eds.) Youth Justice: Critical Readings , London: SAGE Publications Limited, pages 68–79.

Mercer, C. (1992) ‘Regular Imaginings: The Newspaper and the Nation’, in T. Bennett, P. Buckridge, D. Carter and C. Mercer (eds.) Celebrating the Nation: A Critical Study of Australia’s Bicentenary , Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin, pages 26–46.

Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure , New York, USA: The Free Press.

Moores, S. (1993) Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption , London: SAGE.

Morley, D. (1997) Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies, London: Routledge.

Muncie, J. (2006) ‘Labelling’, in E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (eds.) The SAGE Dictionary of Criminology (Second Edition), London: SAGE Publications Limited, pages 229–231.

Muraskin, R. and Domash, S. F. (2007). Crime and the Media: Headlines vs. Reality , New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education.

Murdock, P. and Golding, P. (1977) ‘Capitalism, Communication and Class Relations’, in J. Curran, M. Gurevitch and J. Woolacott (eds.) Mass Communication and Society , London: Edward Arnold, pages 12–43.

Naylor, B. (2001). ‘Reporting Violence in the British Print Media: Gendered Stories’, The Howard Journal , Volume 40, Number 2, pages 180–194.

Newburn, T. (2007) Criminology , Devon: Willan Publishing.

Nichols, B. (2010) Introduction to Documentary (Second Edition), Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press.

North, L. (2009) The Gendered Newsroom: How Journalists Experience the Changing World of Media , Cresskill, USA: Hampton Press, Inc.

O’Connor, A. (1989) ‘The Problem of American Cultural Studies’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication , December, pages 405–413.

O’Sullivan, T., Dutton, B. and Rayner, P. (2003) Studying the Media (Third Edition), London: Arnold Publishers.

Osgerby, B. (2004) Youth Media , Oxon: Routledge.

Pearson, G. (1983) Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears , Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Perry, D. K. (2002) Theory and Research in Mass Communication Contexts and Consequences (Second Edition), New Jersey, USA: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publisher.

Potter, W. J. (2010) Media Literacy , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Poynting, S., Noble, G., Tabar, P. and Collins, J. (2004) Bin Laden in the Suburbs: Criminalising the Arab Other , Sydney Institute of Criminology Series, Number 18, Sydney: The Sydney Institute of Criminology.

Prus, R. and Grills, S. (2003) The Deviant Mystique: Involvements, Realities and Regulation , Westport, USA: Praeger Publishers.

Radway, J. (1984) Reading the Romance , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Regoli, R., Hewitt, J. and DeLisi, M. (2011) Delinquency in Society: The Essentials , London: Jones and Bartlett.

Reiner, R. (2007) ‘Media-made Criminality: The Representation of Crime in the Mass Media’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Fourth Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 302–340.

Robson, G. (2004) “No One Likes Us, We Don’t Care”: The Myth and Reality of Millwall Fandom , Oxford: Berg.

Schirato, T. and Yell, S. (2000) Communication and Culture: An Introduction , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Schissel, B. (1997) Blaming Children: Youth Crime, Moral Panics and the Politics of Hate , Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Schissel, B. (2006) Still Blaming Children: Youth Conduct and the Politics of Child Hating , Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Schissel, B. (2008) ‘Justice Undone: Public Panic and the Condemnation of Children and Youth’, in C. Krinsky (ed.) Moral Panics Over Contemporary Children and Youth , Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pages 15–30.

Schlesinger, P. (1987) Putting ‘Reality’ Together: BBC News , London: Methuen and Company.

Schlesinger, P. and Tumber, H. (1994) Reporting Crime: The Media Politics of Criminal Justice , Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Schlesinger, P. and Murdock, G. (1991) ‘The Media Politics of Crime and Criminal Justice’, British Journal of Sociology , Volume 42, Number 3, pages 397–420.

Scraton, P. (2004) ‘Streets of Terror: Marginalisation, Criminalisation and Moral Renewal’, Social Justice , Volume 3, Numbers 1–2, pages 130–158.

Scraton, P. (2008) ‘The Criminalisation and Punishment of Children and Young People: Introduction’, in P. Scraton (ed.) Current Issues in Criminal Justice , Volume 20, Number 1, pages 1–13.

Shawcross, W. (1992) Rupert Murdoch: Ringmaster of the Information Circus , London: Random House.

Sheptycki, J. (2003) ‘Against Transnational Organized Crime’, in M. E. Beare (ed.) Critical Reflections on Transnational Organized Crime, Money Laundering and Corruption , Canada: University of Toronto Press, pages 120–144.

Shipman, M. (2002) ‘The Penalty Is Death’: US Newspaper Coverage of Women’s Executions , Missouri, USA: University of Missouri Press.

Silverstone, R. (1999a) Why Study the Media? London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Silverstone, R. (1999b) Television and Everyday Life . London: Routledge.

Simpson, B. (1997) ‘Youth Crime, the Media and Moral Panic’, in J. Bessant and R. Hil (eds.) Youth Crime and the Media: Media Representations of and Reactions to Young People in Relation to Law and Order , Hobart, Australia: Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, pages 9–16.

Slattery, M. (2003) Key Ideas in Sociology , Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Limited.

Springhall, J. (2008) ‘“The Monsters Next Door: What Made Them Do It?” Moral Panics Over the Causes of High School Multiple Shootings (Notably Columbine)’, in Krinsky, C. (ed.) Moral Panics Over Contemporary Children and Youth , Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pages 47–70.

Surette, R. (1998) Media, Crime and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities (Second Edition), California, USA: Wadsworth.

Tait, R. (2012) ‘Never Waste a Good Crisis: The British Phone Hacking Scandal and Its Implications for Politics and the Press’, in H. A. Semetko and M. Scammell (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication , London: SAGE Publications Limited, pages 518–527.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Tannebaum, F. (1938) Crime and the Community , New York: Columbia University Press.

Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (1973) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul plc.

Thompson, K. ed. (1997) Media and Cultural Regulation , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Thompson, K. (1998) Moral Panics: Key Ideas , London: Routledge.

Tierney, J. (2010) Criminology: Theory and Context (Third Edition), Harlow: Longman.

Tolson, A. (1996) Mediations: Text and Discourse in Media Studies , London: Arnold Publishers.

Unger, S. (2001) ‘Moral Panic Versus the Risk Society: The Implications of the Changing Sites of Social Anxiety’, British Journal of Society , Volume 52, June, pages 271–291.

van Dijk, T. A. (1991) Racism and the Press: Critical Studies in Racism and Migration , London: Routledge.

van Zoonen, L. (1996) Feminist Media Studies , London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Waddington, P. A. J. (1986) ‘Mugging as a Moral Panic: A Question of Proportion’, British Journal of Sociology , Volume 37, June, pages 245–259.

Waiton, S. (2008) The Politics of Antisocial Behaviour: Amoral Panics , London: Routledge.

Watson, T. and Hickman, M. (2012) Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain , London, UK: Penguin.

West, D. J. (1976) The Young Offender , Middlesex: Penguin Books Limited.

Whale, J. (1980) The Politics of the Media (Revised Edition), Glasgow: William Collins Sons and Co. Limited.

White, R. (2002) Understanding Youth Gangs , Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Wilkins, L. T. (1964) Social Deviance: Social Policy, Action, and Research , London: Tavistock.

Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, P. and Dickinson, J. (1993) ‘Fear of Crime: Read All About It? The Relationship Between Newspaper Crime Reporting and Fear of Crime’, British Journal of Criminology , Volume 33, Number 1, pages 33–56.

Wright Mills, C. (1976) The Sociological Imagination , New York: Oxford University Press.

Wykes, M. (2001) News, Crime, and Culture , London: Pluto.

Young, J. (1971) The Drugtakers: The Social Meaning of Drug Use , London: McGibbon and Kee.

Young, J. (2008) ‘Moral Panics’, in L. Kontos and D. C. Brotherton (eds.) Encyclopedia of Gangs , California, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, pages 174–176.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Westminster History, Sociology and Criminology, London, UK

Faith Gordon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Gordon, F. (2018). The Significance and Impact of the Media in Contemporary Society. In: Children, Young People and the Press in a Transitioning Society. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60682-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60682-2_2

Published : 10 March 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-60681-5

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-60682-2

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Free Media and Society Essay Examples & Topics

The role of media in society becomes more crucial with each day. We associate it not only with popular culture but also with receiving news and updates. The term “media” can have many meanings. In this article, we will refer to it as the communication channels through which we consume information. It can take many forms, such as music, television, books, games, etc.

The purposes of media vary. It is a source of information and education but also entertainment and fun. We use it to connect with our peers and as a gateway to explore the world. In many ways, media mirrors our society and reflects our cultural values.

If you are writing a media and society essay, you can address many problems and ideas. Here, our team has prepared advice that will help in writing your paper. You will also find essay topics on media and links to free samples.

The whole point of media is in relaying well-argued ideas. So, your academic paper is just another form of communication. That is why it is necessary to understand how to structure your media and society essay properly. Over here, we came up with some advice that will help you accomplish this goal.

• Concentrate on your task.

Finding your focus is an essential aspect of your work. Your topic is the crux of your essay, so choosing one that you can delve into is imperative. If what you’re writing about is interesting to you, the work process will be smoother and faster.

• Research & collect references.

It is best to begin research as soon as possible. Keep your sources organized by noting them down as you go along. It will ensure that you won’t be at a loss when the time comes to craft up a bibliography.

• Outline your paper.

Creating a structure beforehand is a handy way of cutting down the time. When you have a plan in front of you, writing becomes more manageable. Make sure to jot down ideas for your introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.

• Stay on topic.

If you have created an outline for your essay, keeping on track shouldn’t be a problem. Remember that all your points and arguments should connect back to your thesis statement . Keep it short and exclude irrelevant information from your word count.

• Cite sources.

When you make a claim in your essay, it is vital to back it up with evidence. Citing your sources lets your professors see that you haven’t pulled your arguments out of thin air. Keep a good balance of quotes, facts, and personal opinions for an effective paper.

The choice of mass media essay topics is as expansive as the source material. You can choose to look at the newest social networking sites or explore how communication has evolved in recent years. You can check social media topics as well.

To make your life easier, we came up with a list of ideas for you:

• An analysis of the positive effects of social media in our life.
• How do we account for partiality in the news industry in a democratic society?
• The impacts of media on society in forging and maintaining long-distance relationships.
• War on Drugs : how journalism and media coverage shaped American mass panic.
• How do governments utilize popular entertainment media as a tool of propaganda?
• Navigating call-out culture and its development on Twitter and Facebook.
• The evolution of technology and the transformation of mass media in the modern world.
• How did TikTok become the fastest-growing social media website?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of realistic violence depiction in popular media?
• Exploring the world of Instagram influencers and their impact on today’s youth.
• How did advertising change the digital media landscape in the last ten years?
• The negative impact of mental health portrayal and their inaccuracies in Hollywood films.
• What constitutes media literacy, and how can it be promoted?
• Is there a correlation between video game violence and real-life crime?
• The role of journalists and media in the Black Lives Matter movement.
• Did video really kill the radio star? Discussing the popularity of podcasts as a form of radio renaissance.
• A critical analysis of Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent .
• Who controls the mass media, and what does this tell us about media bias?
• Exploring the meaning and execution of the indie genre in media.
• Lil Nas X – music industry revolutionary or yet another pop star?
• How does the prevalence of media in our lives violate social rights and individual freedom?

Hopefully, you managed to find something that caught your eye. If not, our topic generator can craft some new ideas for you.

Thanks for reading the article! We wish you the best in your future exploits. Now, feel free to browse through our essay on media and society examples found below.

318 Best Essay Examples on Media and Society

The impact of media on society, how does media influence culture and society.

• Words: 1683

Role of Media in Society

• Words: 2586

Gill’s Representation of Disney Princesses in the Media

Is it fair to cover famous people’s private lives in mass media.

• Words: 1397

The Medium Is the Message Essay

• Words: 2511

Radio and Information, Technology and Society

• Words: 3683

Celebrity Culture Is Harmful to Society

• Words: 1001

Movies as a Medium of Mass Communication

Media role in social construction of reality.

• Words: 9799

Beyoncé and Social Media: Authenticity and the Presentation of Self

Social media and democracy, sociological perspectives on the mass media.

• Words: 1765

Television Effects on Society

• Words: 1123

Media Violence Effect on Youth and Its Regulation

Media ethics in the united arab emirates.

• Words: 1105

Theatre and Society Symbiotic Relationship

• Words: 1219

Concentric Circles Model in Mass Media

• Words: 1517

Mass Media Impact on Society

• Words: 1046

“Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse” Book by Stuart Hall

The role of television and movies in our life, importance of communication with media, investigating edward said’s claim that orientalism is dominating the media.

• Words: 1450

Agenda-Building, Agenda-Setting, Framing, and PR

• Words: 1241

Conglomerates within the Media Industry

• Words: 1965

What Is the Power of Big Media?

• Words: 2805

Fake News and Its Impact on Society

Jewwatch.com: the anti-semitic website.

• Words: 1417

Mass Society and Popular Culture Theories

• Words: 1684

Public Relations and Cultural Intermediation

• Words: 1989

Broadcast Culture Development: Participatory Culture

• Words: 1202

Envisioning the media ten years from now

Entertainment types in western culture, media portrayal of youth in australia, bernie hogan: the presentation of self in the age of social media.

• Words: 1195

Government Control of Media in Different Countries

• Words: 1399

Newspapers, Books, Magazines as Media Forms

• Words: 3167

Post-Feminism in the Wonder Bra Commercial

Newspaper readership decline factors.

• Words: 3334

Americanization of Global Media

• Words: 1988

“Mind over Mass Media” Steven Pinker Article in New York Times

Media and celebrity influence on society.

• Words: 1342

The Labeling Theory: Role of Media

Checking the information: credibility, accuracy, reasonableness, and support.

• Words: 1112

The Selfie Definition as an Art Form

Traditional journalist and citizen journalist, mp3 vs satellite radio in the united states.

• Words: 5369

Values Portrayed in Popular Media

• Words: 2245

Is It Effective to Censor Parts of the Media?

Ethics in mass media regarding pepsi’s commercial.

• Words: 1659

Communication as a Social Force

• Words: 2205

Digital Media Impacts on Television

• Words: 1093

The Impact of New Technology in “Mind Over Mass Media”

Story of media literacy overview, hypodermic syringe model and media literacy.

• Words: 1374

Content Creation: Reconstructing the World, Reimagining the Self

Analysis of dan ariely’s speech at the ted conference, interrogating cultural hybridities in jamaican dancehall.

• Words: 1104

Autistic Community: Media Representation

• Words: 1437

Corporate Media Consolidation: Everyday Media Literacy

• Words: 1725

Digital Media and Society

• Words: 2648

The United Kingdom Media Trends

• Words: 1442

Television Desensitizing of Modern Children

• Words: 1395

Aspects of Social Media Analytics

Saga communications and hearst corporation analysis, protecting online privacy: new york times article review, changes in media formats and their impact on bias, using social media at an early age, disabled people as represented in media, social problems related to the “gone girl” movie, the gone girl film: media impact on public opinion, does the media show bias, the role of bias in media sources, “super bowl lvi today: day 1” media analysis, sociological media analysis: “the bachelor” and “one day at a time”.

• Words: 1116

Issues in Contemporary Media and Culture

• Words: 2278

The YouTube Video “How to Choose Your News” by Damon Brown

Podcasting: “this american life” and other shows in chicago, the latino image in american media, indigenous peoples of canada in mainstream media, media bias in reporting: the world’s progress vs. negative news, aspects of media integration in design, government’s role in regulating internet content, mass media’s role in communication.

• Words: 1200

Social Media and Its Effects: Mending One Rift While Creating Another

The magazine “pc world” from january 1990 vs. january 2022.

• Words: 1763

Media Literacy Amongst Children

The media and the police: interactions analysis, a society and technological change article review, historical components of media analysis, data visualization of teen social media abuse.

• Words: 1285

Political Discourse in the Modern Age

• Words: 1187

Instagram Influence on Child Development

• Words: 1020

50 Cent: Hip-Hop Violence in Modern Media

Importance of media sources’ credibility, indigenous mass media and their peculiarities.

• Words: 1549

Credibility of Online Articles on American Daycares

• Words: 2248

Inoculation Theory, Misinformation, and Fake News

Crime reporting in irish media.

• Words: 1221

“Truth” Represented or Disrupted in Media or Politics

• Words: 1129

Racial Diversity in Magazines “Bazaar” and “Latina”

Copyright and piracy in information control, the discrepancy between an original psychological article and its representation, “changing media representations…” by levinsen & wien, editorial independence in kuwaiti legislation.

• Words: 4745

How Does the Media Affect Politics?

Spotify’s response to the joe rogan situation.

• Words: 1182

The Crime and Justice Impact on New Media

The new media role in modern society, representation of people of color in film and television, international broadcasting and commercialization, representation of older adults in the media, ageism against older adults in the media, multimedia and sports journalism, comparing and contrasting lectures by dr. scott and dr. patterson, media presentation and influence on minority members, is online communication more helpful or harmful.

• Words: 2535

Ways and Strategies in Which Bias Enters the News

United states news event analysis, relation between covid-19 and media.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation ? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

Current Issue

• January 30, 2017

The Problem With Our Media Is Extreme Commercialism

For over a century the us has conducted an experiment in commercialized journalism by treating news as both a commodity and a public service., as homelessness spikes in new york city, eric adams is trying to close a homeless shelter as homelessness spikes in new york city, eric adams is trying to close a homeless shelter.

Xenia Gonikberg

Trump and Vance Are Using One of America's Oldest Racist Playbooks Trump and Vance Are Using One of America's Oldest Racist Playbooks

Gregg Gonsalves

The GOP Effort to Disrupt the Election Has Already Begun The GOP Effort to Disrupt the Election Has Already Begun

Elie Mystal

The Enduring Influence of Marx’s Masterpiece The Enduring Influence of Marx’s Masterpiece

Books & the Arts / Wendy Brown

Latest from the nation

For harris, housing takes center stage, but tenants are not the audience, bosses want us to work in our sleep, arts and entertainment, spirit of harlem, the gop effort to disrupt the election has already begun, as homelessness spikes in new york city, eric adams is trying to close a homeless shelter, editor's picks.

VIDEO: People in Denmark Are a Lot Happier Than People in the United States. Here’s Why.

Historical Amnesia About Slavery Is a Tool of White Supremacy

Special Issue: Propaganda

This essay was published as part of the Special Issue “Propaganda Analysis Revisited”, guest-edited by Dr. A. J. Bauer (Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism and Creative Media, University of Alabama) and Dr. Anthony Nadler (Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Media Studies, Ursinus College).

Unseeing propaganda: How communication scholars learned to love commercial media

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

A new disinformation age is upon us—or so it seems. But much of what appears to be unprecedented isn’t new at all. Concerns about misinformation’s effects on democracy are as old as media. The many systemic failures abetting Trump’s ascendance—as well as more recent election- and pandemic-related conspiracies—were decades in the making. Yet our degraded information systems escaped sufficient scrutiny for so long. Why? 

Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Early depoliticization in the field of communication

In the communication field’s earliest days, scholars devoted much attention to systemic problems, including propaganda-related issues. But curiously, a renewed focus on misinformation notwithstanding, even the general area of propaganda studies has waned since the field’s origins. One cause for this erasure, I argue, is that communication scholarship has for many decades largely avoided assailing the  structural  roots of misinformation in  commercial  media systems, especially problems pertaining to monopoly power, systemic racism, and capitalism’s effects on news and information systems. 

Recalling a time when structural analyses were more central to the communication field—and considering why they receded—might offer insights as to why it was largely ill-prepared for recent crises afflicting news and information systems, from the proliferation of disinformation to the collapse of commercial journalism. Multiple factors have contributed to this intellectual disengagement, including definitional confusion, methodological shifts in research, and technological changes in media systems. But it also stems more broadly from the field’s gradual depoliticization and its accommodation of capitalist logics vis-à-vis media institutions. Shaping the enterprise of communication research in profound ways, these processes trace back to an early pivotal moment when the communication field elevated administrative research—especially its “limited effects” model—and turned away from more critical and structural analyses of commercial media. 

The limited effects model—what Todd Gitlin (1978) referred to as the “dominant paradigm”—assumed media were relatively impotent in changing public opinion. This shift was bound up in a growing liberal consensus that overshadowed more critical and radical approaches to studying (and questioning) media systems’ core structures. Historicizing the communication field’s retreat from structural analysis, this essay situates the rise of the limited effects paradigm within a broader context, one marked by depoliticization and a rightward turn in the American academy and political landscape. These shifts diminished communication scholars’ ability to critique the threats to human freedom posed by media’s capitalist structures.

This intellectual and ideological formation in the communication field is part of a larger story—one I’ve touched on elsewhere but I continue to develop (Pickard, 2013, 2015, 2016)—that favored particular trajectories while foreclosing on others. Revisiting this paradigmatic shift away from critical frameworks can help us think differently about the dis/misinformation we face today. Confronting the field’s history might deepen critical reflexivity in communication research—and even, perhaps, help prevent us from recapitulating similar errors. An honest engagement may lead to a renewed focus on structural problems in our communication systems. Recentering a critique of social harms caused by profit-driven communication systems provides purchase for studying capitalism’s relationship to American media (especially its legacy of racial capitalism), alternative imaginaries for what news and information systems could look like, and political programs for structural reform.

A convenient turn: The dominant paradigm of limited media effects

Political scientists and sociologists began studying in earnest propaganda-related issues in the 1920s—interests also taken up by the still-inchoate communication field. Beginning in the late 1930s and ’40s, early critical communication researchers studied various kinds of propaganda and their connection to commercial media. Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School—having fled Nazi Germany—advanced incisive critiques of fascistic tendencies in American media and commodified culture (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972). In the postwar 1940s, a similar commitment to anti-fascism and strengthening democracy animated policy scholars and political economists such as Charles Siepmann and Dallas Smythe, teaching at the nation’s first communication departments at New York University and the University of Illinois, respectively. These scholars were especially concerned about monopoly power and commercialism’s effects on media systems’ democratic potential (Pickard, 2015, 2016). Even noncritical scholars identified media’s potentially negative effects, including “status conferral,” “enforcement of social norms,” and the “narcotizing dysfunction” (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1948). 

Yet, despite figuring centrally within the early communication field in the 1940s, by the 1950s such critique had dissipated. The field’s pro-market, rightward turn pushed critical and structural analyses to the margins. In describing the early field, Lazarsfeld (1941) famously dichotomized two trends within communication research, one that scrutinized media systems’ structural bases according to normative concerns (critical) and one that worked toward evaluating and improving media’s effectiveness (administrative). Scholars have long debated and contested this imperfect binary, but it approximates key differences separating the academic research that attracted foundation and corporate underwriting from the more normative-focused scholarship that did not. 

A significant if under-appreciated consideration is that these distinctions weren’t merely theoretical and methodological, but deeply  ideological  (Jones, 2019; Smythe & Van Dinh, 1983), playing a formative role in shaping the field’s early contours. In the late 1960s, Smythe looked back to observe that, for an entire generation of communication students and scholars, critical research had been “undersupplied” and administrative research “oversupplied” (Schiller, 1969, p. ix). This imbalance led U.S. scholars to take media’s commercial nature for granted and, as Smythe put it, uncritically adopt the “frame of reference laid down by the mass media themselves” (ibid.).

The field’s pivot from analyzing the structural roots of power did ideological work with significant material consequences. Disproportionate funding for administrative research uninterested in power relationships obscured American media’s systemic problems—especially related to commercialism—and pushed critics of American imperialism and corporate power to the intellectual margins (Lent, 1995). Ultimately this conditioned mainstream communication research to de-emphasize structural problems endemic to unregulated, commercial media systems. Today we reap the consequences of this decades-long accommodation to corporate power. 

This key juncture in the communication field’s intellectual formation reflected a broader ideological struggle throughout society over whether American news media should amplify commercial propaganda or serve a more democratic purpose (Pickard, 2015). Intellectual trends in the 1930s also contributed to orienting communication research around noncritical analyses, such as internalizing values that good social science is politically neutral and quantitative. According to one leading historian of the early communication field, research that “raised questions pointing to possible reform,” increasingly was deemed “nonscientific and academically peripheral” (Sproule, 1987, p. 70). The Rockefeller Foundation even stipulated that its funding for the Princeton Radio Project—established to study media’s social effects—couldn’t be used to question the private/commercial ownership of broadcast stations (a system markedly different from most others around the world such as the publicly funded British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC]). 

In such subtle but significant ways, critiquing the American media system’s commercial nature—and its effects on media content and people—increasingly fell beyond the bounds of acceptable academic discourse. These changes within the academy coincided with a period of vicious red-baiting across the U.S. that undercut media reform efforts and marginalized left-leaning scholars (Pickard, 2015). To take one example, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), a respected reform-minded research institution that studied disinformation in the late 1930s from a critical perspective, increasingly struggled to procure funding and find venues for publishing its work. Red-baited by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) for being allegedly unpatriotic, it ultimately ceased operation altogether due to insufficient support (Sproule, 1987). 

Interrogating how media propagandize and mobilize people further receded as what later became known as the “limited effects” model ascended. Katz and Lazarsfeld’s (1955) seminal book  Personal Influence  concluded that media messages had relatively little impact on people’s thinking and behavior, but instead were socially mediated by “opinion leaders” in a two-step flow process through interpersonal networks. Their findings left lasting imprints on how we understand media’s social influence. Often seen as replacing the much-ridiculed “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” model—assuming media messages immediately altered audience’s thoughts and behavior—these accounts rely on fictitious, strawman arguments. In fact, relatively few people (especially scholars) ever promoted such caricatures of powerful media zapping people’s minds (Sproule, 1989; Lubken, 2008). Meanwhile, generations of communication graduate students have received and rehearsed such historical narratives. 

Such behavioral conceptions of media effects tracked with a broader political shift in communication research. By sidelining critical research, the dominant paradigm’s ascendance also  depoliticized  the communication field. After all, if news media had only minimal effects on society, why bother critiquing or reforming these institutions? And yet, although deeply wired into the field’s DNA, the limited effects model wasn’t inevitable. This historical contingency comes into focus when we consider that the initial lead researcher for the “Decatur study”—which surveyed hundreds of women to ascertain what influenced their decision-making, ultimately producing the limited effects model—was the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills. 

At various points before Lazarsfeld fired him from the project, Mills had expressed reservations about the study’s lack of class analysis of social stratification (Sterne, 2005; Summers, 2006). Inspired by some of the same data that generated Katz and Lazarsfeld’s conclusions in  Personal Influence , Mills would go on to author more critical analyses, including his 1956 book  The Power Elite,  which emphasized concentrated, hierarchical power in American society. Mills argued that “[a]s the means of information and of power are centralized, some men will come to occupy positions in American society from which…their decisions mightily affect the everyday worlds of ordinary men and women” (Mills, 1956, p. 3). Had it become the dominant paradigm, this framework could have inspired a different view of media effects—and perhaps a different communication field. 

In his deconstruction of the limited effects paradigm, Gitlin (1978) argued that subsequent communication scholars, trained to see only minimal media effects, ultimately helped reproduce status quo relationships. Mainstream communication scholarship, characterized by positivist, quantitative methods, diverted attention from media’s discursive power to naturalize and legitimize existing power structures through predictable patterns of selection, emphasis, and omission. By suggesting that audiences were largely impervious to media-generated messages, Gitlin argued, mainstream communication scholars typically framed their analysis in a “behaviorist fashion, defining effects so narrowly, microscopically, and directly as to make it very likely that survey studies could show only slight effects at most” (p. 206). Fixated on discretely measurable, “short-run effects,” researchers often ignored media’s ideological effects over extended periods of time, rendering such power relationships invisible and beyond the scope of permissible study. K. Lang and G. E. Lang (2006) similarly observed that  Personal Influence’s  success permanently altered academic discourses describing media’s societal role, effectively diverting media sociology from studying long-term effects. 

Noting how such narrow foci cast criticism of core power relations outside the parameters of legitimate research, Herb Schiller observed that the limited effects model’s “usefulness to existing power is obvious” (1991, p. 146), especially in absolving media owners from accountability: “[T]heories that ignore the structure and locus of representational and definitional power and emphasize instead the individual message’s transformational capability present little threat to the main­tenance of the established order” (H. Schiller, 1991, p. 156). Likewise, Dan Schiller observes that media’s purportedly limited effects arose as the standard explanation “only as the structural underpinnings of institution­alized communication were willed off limits” (D. Schiller, 1996, p. 59). Critical scholars have long noted the supreme irony that this model ascended within the U.S. academy just as the American government and its military apparatus were heavily investing in propaganda operations overseas (Pooley, 2008).

Meanwhile, many leading communication scholars benefitted handsomely from these government propaganda efforts. From Brett Gary’s (1999) “nervous liberals” (intellectuals who kept the propaganda appa­ratus intact after World War II) to Christopher Simpson’s (1994)  Science of Coercion  (describing how government funding for propaganda efforts helped expand and institutionalize the communication field), academics and intellectuals learned to overlook or even promote propaganda, but were less likely to critique it, especially the corporate variety. In the 1950s, as the U.S. promoted a “free flow of information” doctrine around the world (Pickard, 2007), key scholars, including foundational figures such as  Wilbur Schramm, aided the government’s propaganda war against communism . Paradoxically, concerns about domestic propaganda—particularly advertising and public relations amplified by commercial media—faded from the field. Over the ensuing decades, such critical research usually occurred outside the field if conducted at all (e.g., Herman & Chomsky, 1988). 

Accommodating commercialism, then and now

Accommodating capitalist relations in news and information systems rendered the field ill-equipped to diagnose contemporary structural crises. Media scholars typically took the commercial system as a given that, if not celebrated, was accepted as part of the natural order. Even those of a more critical bent often limited their research to micro-phenomena and evaded structural criticism—otherwise risking charges of being alarmist, hyperbolic, pessimistic, reductionist, over-determined, or, worst of all, Marxist. Nonetheless, threads of critical research from the field’s origins to the present day have persisted. While many scholars within critical/cultural studies have trenchantly dissected race, gender, sexuality, and other power hierarchies, quantitative social scientific research also has proven capable of advancing critical work, such as George Gerbner’s (1970) “cultivation analysis” of commercial television’s long-term effects. 

Another steady stream of critical research stems from the often-neglected subfield of political economy, whose practitioners long decried that corporate capture and hyper-commercialization squandered digital media’s democratic potential. If society had heeded their warnings, perhaps we could’ve avoided the scourge of unregulated digital monopolies. Decades ago, Oscar Gandy (1993) exposed corporate surveillance and discriminatory practices against social groups, arguing that not just government—but also private commercial power—threatened our freedom. Others raised alarms about encroaching forms of “digital capitalism” (Schiller, 1999), warning that an increasingly privatized and commercialized internet won’t “set us free” unless embedded in democratic social relations (McChesney, 1999). Nonetheless, having naturalized a commercial system whose sole criterion for success is making profit, democracy be damned, many scholars were disinclined to promote policy reforms that could minimize the negative externalities of run-amok commercialism. Noting this remarkable naivete toward such predictable harms, Des Freedman (2014) muses that, after all, “this is how capital–whether in the shape of the car industry, oil, pharmaceutical, or even social media—operates.”

Instead of calling out capitalism’s corrosive effects on news and information, many were celebrating the affordances of new digital technologies and belittling concerns about monopoly power. Henry Jenkins (2006), for example, dismissed media reformers as “critical pessimists” for treating audiences as passive dupes and relying too much on “melodramatic discourse about victimization and vulnerability” (pp. 247–248). Over the years, strands of cultural studies (ironic, given their Marxist roots) joined positivist social scientists in privileging descriptive over prescriptive analyses and, at least by implication, dismissing reformist and normative concerns. This long-term marginalization of structural and critical approaches to communication research made identifying potential harms and necessary reforms less likely. 

Today, as in the 1940s, communication scholars are scrutinizing monopolistic firms and their social roles. Using terms like dis- and misinformation, we too rarely acknowledge the unbridled commercialism driving these propaganda machines, from Facebook to Fox News. There’s less evasion now, but we still face a crossroads. Scholars who study these issues can once again travel the path that ultimately reaffirms existing power structures—perhaps through some “social responsibility” arrangement for platforms and media outlets. Or we can advocate for radically reforming and democratizing information and communication infrastructures. The choice is ours.

Fortunately, positive signs suggest we’re doing better this time. A new generation of critical scholars, many of whom are women and people of color, are connecting dis/misinformation and systemic racism to structural failures such as illegitimate business models, monopoly power, and capitalism writ large (e.g., Cottom, 2020; Noble, 2018), and media reform activists are centering critiques of racial capitalism in their calls for “media reparations” (Free Press, 2020). However, other analysts are contending there’s an overemphasis on such structural factors, denouncing it as so much social hysteria and moral panic. While some concerns about overreactions and misdiagnosing problems are legitimate, they run the risk of reinscribing a limited effects framework that de-emphasizes harms posed by commercial media institutions and implicitly pooh-poohs reform efforts.

Of course, misinformation alone doesn’t cause social pathologies, but it helps prolong and exacerbate them, from hardening distrust toward public institutions to promoting outright fascism. Falsehoods circulating through media don’t always produce dangerous mythologies and behaviors, but they can legitimate, reinforce, and amplify them. Media serve as ideological glue for keeping long-standing narratives intact. Studying political elites and social groups in disinformation campaigns—and cultural and psychological factors that comprise audiences’ affect and identity—is certainly important. But if we fail to acknowledge the structural enablers that make malignant communicative behavior possible in the first place, we doom ourselves to perpetuating it. 

Ultimately, we should heed earlier critical scholars’ insights that structural problems require structural reform. These reforms should remove or reduce commercial logics incentivizing corporate behavior that hurts democracy. More than simply placing regulatory patches on broken commercial systems, we must intervene at media’s very foundations via a two-pronged strategy of breaking-up and/or aggressively regulating corporate monopolies while building out non-commercial, democratic alternatives. This approach recognizes that we need not only a  negative  program that aims to snuff out fascistic propaganda, but also a  positive  program that provides robust, diverse, and reliable news and information to  all  communities—and these communities should be centrally involved in governing and making their own media. 

Trustbusting information monopolies always should be on the table, but we also must address systemic market failures that aren’t solvable by simply enhancing competition between media outlets. In other words, these aren’t just monopoly problems; they’re capitalism problems. In some cases, we should remove news and information from the commercial market entirely and treat them as the public goods they are. For example, it’s now abundantly clear that the market won’t support the local journalism that democracy requires. Therefore, we should bring local news media under public ownership and democratic governance (Pickard, 2020). Accordingly, we could treat platforms like public utilities, enforce strong public interest requirements, build out public media infrastructures, municipalize broadband services, and subsidize local journalism. 

Our window for meaningful reform might be short. A backlash against the so-called “techlash” is growing and history suggests that opportunities for structural change are fleeting. While immediate reforms are needed to prevent dangerous propaganda, ultimately dis/misinformation will continue to flourish until we confront their systemic roots, including the capitalist logics that incentivize them. Eliminating the sources of misinformation won’t solve deeply entrenched maladies and inequities overnight. No magic wand can immediately reverse the damage. But without structurally reforming our news and information systems, the myriad problems facing society today are insurmountable. 

• Disinformation
• / Mainstream Media
• / Political Economy
• / Propaganda

Cite this Essay

Pickard, V. (2021). Unseeing propaganda: How communication scholars learned to love commercial media. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-66

Bibliography

Cottom, T. M. (2020). Where platform capitalism and racial capitalism meet: The sociology of race and racism in the digital society.  Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 6 (4), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220949473

Freedman, D. (2014). The contradictions of media power . Bloomsbury.

Free Press. (2020). Media 2070: An invitation to dream up reparations. https://mediareparations.org/essay/

Gandy, O. (1993). The panoptic sort . Westview.

Gary, B. (1999). The nervous liberals: Propaganda anxieties from World War I to the Cold War . Columbia University Press.

Gerbner, G. (1970, March 1). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 338 (1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627038800108

Gitlin, T. (1978, September). Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society , 6 (2), 205–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01681751

Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment . Seabury.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide . New York University Press.

Jones, D. (2019). Paul Lazarsfeld and media reform at the Ford Foundation . Rockefeller Archive Center Research Reports. https://mediaimpact.issuelab.org/resources/35475/35475.pdf

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications . Free Press.

Lang, K. & Lang, G. E. (2006). Personal Influence and the new paradigm: Some inadvertent consequences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 608 (1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206292614

Lazarsfeld, P. (1941). Remarks on administrative and critical communications research. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science , 9 (1), 2–16. https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lazarsfeld_1941_admin_critical_communication.pdf

Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. (1948). Mass communication, popular taste and social action. In L. Bryson (Ed.), Communication of Ideas (pp. 95–118). Institute for Religious and Social Studies.

Lent, J. (1995.) A different road taken: Profiles in critical communication . Westview Press.

Lubken, D. (2008). Remembering the straw man: The travels and adventures of hypodermic. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 19–24). Peter Lang.

McChesney, R (1999). Rich media, poor democracy . University of Illinois.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

Noble, S. (2018).  Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press.

Pickard, V. (2007). Neoliberal visions and revisions in global communications policy from the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31 (2), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859906298162

Pickard, V. (2013). Mending the gaps: Reconnecting media policy and media studies. In K. Gates (Ed.), Media studies futures (pp. 404–421). Blackwell Publishing.

Pickard, V. (2015). America’s battle for media democracy. The triumph of corporate libertarianism and the future of media reform . Cambridge University Press.

Pickard, V. (2016). Charles Siepmann’s forgotten legacy for communication research and media policy. In D. Park & P. Simonson (Eds.), International histories of communication study (pp. 256–275). Routledge.

Pickard, V. (2020).  Democracy without journalism? Confronting the misinformation society . Oxford University Press.

Pooley, J. (2008). The new history of mass communication research. In D. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 43–69). Peter Lang.

Schiller, D. (1996). Theorizing communication: A history . Oxford University Press.

Schiller, D. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system . MIT Press.

Schiller, H. (1991). Culture, inc.: The corporate takeover of public expression . Oxford University Press.

Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945–1960 . Oxford University Press.

Smythe, D. (1969). Foreword. In H. Schiller, Mass communications and American empire (pp. ix–x) . Westview Press.

Smythe, D., & Van Dinh, T. (1983). On critical and administrative research: A new critical analysis. Journal of Communication , 33 (3), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02413.x

Sproule, J. M. (1987). Propaganda studies in American social science: The rise and fall of the critical paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 73 (1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383794

Sproule, J. M. (1989). Progressive propaganda critics and the magic bullet myth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication , 6 (3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038909366750

Sterne, J. (2005). C. Wright Mills, the Bureau for Applied Social Research, and the meaning of critical scholarship. Cultural Studies « Critical Methodologies , 5 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708604268210

Summers, J. H. (2006, November 1). Perpetual revelations: C. Wright Mills and Paul Lazarsfeld. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 608 (1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206292374

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Oscar Gandy, Sanjay Jolly, John Nerone, Jeff Pooley, Dan Schiller, and the editors of this special journal issue for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this essay.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Chuck Norris counted to infinity... twice.

Commercialisation of Media

Commercialisation and the process of constructing representations .

The process of creating representations in media work is indeed directly influenced by the role a producer takes in the commercialization of that work. The producer plays a crucial role in overseeing the production, distribution, and marketing of media content, and their decisions significantly impact the construction and portrayal of representations within that content.

When a producer takes on the responsibility of commercializing media work, they must consider various factors to ensure its marketability and profitability. This involves understanding the target audience, market trends, and industry demands. In the process, the producer may make decisions that directly influence the representations depicted in the media work.

Target Audience and Market Preferences

The producer's understanding of the target audience and market preferences plays a pivotal role in shaping the choices made regarding the content's themes, characters, and storylines. By delving into market research, audience demographics, and cultural trends, producers gain valuable insights into the preferences and expectations of the viewers they aim to engage.

The primary goal of a producer is to create media content that resonates with the intended audience and generates commercial success. To achieve this, they analyze market data and audience feedback to identify emerging trends and popular genres. For instance, if superhero films are experiencing a surge in popularity, the producer may recognize the demand for representations of powerful and heroic characters.

In response to these insights, the producer will make decisions that align with the audience's expectations. They may collaborate with writers, directors, and creative teams to develop narratives that embrace the superhero genre, crafting compelling stories that feature characters with extraordinary abilities and courageous endeavors. By prioritizing these representations, the producer taps into the audience's enthusiasm for larger-than-life figures and their desire for thrilling and visually captivating storytelling.

Moreover, the producer's understanding of specific demographic preferences can shape the choices made in content creation. They may recognize distinct audience segments with unique tastes and interests. For instance, if there is a significant demand among young adults for stories of personal growth and self-discovery, the producer may commission projects that explore coming-of-age narratives or depict characters navigating the complexities of young adulthood.

Catering to specific demographic preferences goes beyond surface-level representation. Producers aim to create characters that reflect the experiences, values, and aspirations of the target audience. By incorporating diverse perspectives and relatable storylines, the producer enhances the audience's emotional connection to the content, fostering a sense of identification and empathy with the characters.

Furthermore, the producer's understanding of the target audience's cultural context and social dynamics plays a crucial role in shaping representations. They consider the prevailing cultural norms, values, and sensitivities to ensure that the content is both engaging and respectful. Producers strive to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes or misrepresentations that may alienate or offend the audience.

In summary, the producer's understanding of the target audience and market preferences is instrumental in shaping the choices made regarding the content's themes, characters, and storylines. By staying attuned to emerging trends, demographic preferences, and cultural dynamics, the producer can create representations that align with popular genres, cater to specific audience expectations, and foster a strong connection between the content and its viewers. This understanding ensures that the content remains relevant, engaging, and commercially successful, while simultaneously respecting the diverse perspectives and cultural sensitivities of the audience.

Investment vs Return

The commercialization process of media work encompasses a range of financial considerations that profoundly influence the representations created within the content. Producers, driven by the need to secure funding and achieve favorable returns on investment, navigate a complex landscape of financial decisions, distribution strategies, and marketing campaigns to ensure the success of their projects.

One critical aspect of commercialization is securing financial investment for the production of the media work. Producers often seek funding from various sources, such as studios, production companies, or independent investors. These financial stakeholders typically evaluate the potential profitability of the project, and their investment decisions can significantly impact the representations within the content. To attract financial support, producers may need to align the content with market trends and proven formulas that have yielded commercial success in the past. As a result, there is a tendency to replicate certain stereotypes or rely on familiar, formulaic narratives that are perceived as safe bets for profitability.

Moreover, negotiations for distribution deals play a significant role in the commercialization process. Producers aim to secure distribution agreements with platforms, networks, or studios that can effectively bring the content to the intended audience. These distribution partners often have specific expectations based on their understanding of audience preferences and market trends. In order to strike favorable deals, producers may be compelled to shape the representations in a way that aligns with the distribution partners' vision or requirements. This can involve making adjustments to characters, storylines, or thematic elements to enhance marketability and broaden potential viewership.

Marketing strategies also heavily influence the representations created and how they are presented to the audience. Producers work closely with marketing teams to develop campaigns that generate awareness, anticipation, and audience engagement. In this process, the marketing considerations can impact the representations by highlighting specific aspects or themes that are deemed more marketable or appealing to a broader audience. This can sometimes lead to the amplification of certain stereotypes, the simplification of complex narratives, or the emphasis on familiar tropes that are believed to resonate with the target demographic.

The pursuit of financial success in the commercialization process can inadvertently reinforce existing market trends and perpetuate certain representations that have proven to be commercially viable in the past. This can lead to the replication of stereotypes or the reliance on formulaic narratives that may limit the diversity of voices and perspectives portrayed in media content.

However, it is important to note that financial considerations do not solely dictate the representations created. Producers, along with creative teams, may navigate the delicate balance between commercial viability and artistic integrity. They strive to create compelling and authentic representations that resonate with audiences while challenging conventions and offering fresh perspectives. The commercialization process involves careful decision-making, weighing financial considerations with the desire to produce content that is both commercially successful and artistically meaningful.

In summary, the commercialization process of media work involves navigating financial investments, distribution deals, and marketing strategies. These considerations have a profound impact on the representations created within the content. Producers may opt for representations that align with proven commercial success or that have a higher likelihood of appealing to a broad audience. While financial considerations can sometimes lead to the replication of certain stereotypes or formulaic narratives, producers also strive to strike a balance between commercial viability and artistic integrity to deliver content that is engaging, meaningful, and resonates with diverse audiences.

Marketing and Representation

The producer's role in marketing and promoting media work plays a pivotal role in shaping how representations are framed and presented to the audience. Marketing strategies are designed to generate interest, create anticipation, and attract viewers, and they have a significant influence on audience expectations and perceptions of the content.

Through marketing, the producer works closely with advertising agencies, public relations teams, and other marketing professionals to craft compelling campaigns that effectively communicate the unique selling points of the media work. This involves strategically highlighting specific aspects of the representations to capture the audience's attention and generate intrigue.

One way marketing strategies shape audience expectations is through the selection and emphasis of key visuals, such as posters, trailers, and promotional materials. These visuals often showcase the most captivating or visually stunning elements of the content, creating a visual narrative that sets the tone and establishes certain expectations about the representations portrayed. By carefully selecting and presenting these visuals, the marketing team influences how the audience perceives the content and its representations even before they have had the opportunity to engage with it.

Furthermore, marketing strategies often leverage storytelling techniques to create compelling narratives around the media work. These narratives may focus on specific themes, characters, or unique selling points that are designed to resonate with the target audience. By crafting these narratives, the marketing team shapes the audience's understanding of the content and directs their attention towards specific representations that align with the desired perception of the work. This can influence how the audience interprets and engages with the representations portrayed, as their initial expectations and perceptions are shaped by the marketing campaign.

Additionally, marketing strategies employ various communication channels, such as social media, advertising platforms, and public relations efforts, to reach the target audience. Through these channels, the marketing team disseminates messaging that reinforces specific aspects of the representations. For example, if a media work aims to highlight diversity and inclusivity, marketing efforts may emphasize the diverse cast, behind-the-scenes talent, or inclusive storylines to signal the representation of diverse voices. This deliberate framing through marketing channels can shape the audience's perception of the content and influence their reception and interpretation of the representations.

It is important to acknowledge that while marketing strategies play a significant role in shaping audience expectations and perceptions, they do not solely define the content's meaning or representation. The creative vision of the filmmakers, writers, and other contributors also shapes the representations within the media work. However, the marketing efforts guide and influence how these representations are presented to the audience and how they are initially perceived.

In conclusion, the producer's role in marketing and promoting media work has a profound impact on how representations are framed and presented to the audience. Marketing strategies shape audience expectations and perceptions by strategically highlighting specific aspects of the representations to generate interest and attract viewers. By leveraging key visuals, crafting compelling narratives, and utilizing various communication channels, marketing efforts influence the overall reception and interpretation of the representations by the audience.

It is important to note that the influence of producers on representations does not solely stem from commercialization. Producers may also have creative input, working closely with writers, directors, and other creatives to shape the representations in alignment with their vision and goals for the project. However, the commercial aspects of media production often impose certain considerations and constraints that can influence the final representations depicted in the work.

Overall, the role a producer takes in the commercialization of media work directly influences the process of creating representations. Their decisions regarding target audience, market trends, financial considerations, and marketing strategies can shape the themes, characters, and overall portrayal of representations within the content. Balancing commercial considerations with creative integrity is an ongoing challenge for producers in the media industry.

• DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2020.1836925
• Corpus ID: 228980114

The commercialization of social media stars: a literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers

• L. Hudders , Steffi De Jans , Marijke de Veirman
• Published in International Journal of… 28 October 2020

326 Citations

The power of influence: how social media influencers are shaping consumer decision making in the digital age, trends in influencer marketing: a review and bibliometric analysis, social media influencers: literature review, trends and research agenda, a systematic literature review of predictors of social media popularity, exploring the influence of social media influencers’ (smis) traits on consumer purchasing behavior for online products on the tiktok platform: the mediating effect of trustworthiness, social media stars: how influencers shape consumer’s behavior on instagram, influencer marketing on social media: how different social media platforms afford influencer–follower relation and drive advertising effectiveness, beyond influencer credibility: the power of content and parasocial relationship on processing social media influencer destination marketing campaigns, mapping the influence of influencer marketing: a bibliometric analysis, impact of the pandemic on social media influencer marketing in fashion: a qualitative study, 174 references, users’ perspective on the credibility of social media influencers in romania and germany, strategic communication through social media influencers: current state of research and desiderata, social media celebrities as influencers in brand communication: an empirical study on influencer content, its advertising relevance and audience expectations, social media influencers in strategic communication: a conceptual framework for strategic social media influencer communication.

• Highly Influential

How to quantify social media influencers: An empirical application at the Teatro alla Scala

The influence of social media influencers: understanding online vaping communities and parasocial interaction through the lens of taylor’s six-segment strategy wheel, what kpis are key evaluating performance metrics for social media influencers, influencer marketing: how message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media, identification of influence in social media communities, the ethical standpoint of social influencers on hotel eservicescape: a theoretical perspective on the existing literature., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese Deserve Better

By Esau McCaulley

Contributing Opinion Writer

The Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese rivalry has been a central W.N.B.A. story line this season. The two most-watched games have been between Clark’s Indiana Fever and the Chicago Sky, Reese’s team, even though both players are rookies. And they’ve received a tremendous amount of media coverage and discussion on sports media shows.

Much of that conversation has focused on whether the W.N.B.A. has been sufficiently grateful for the attention Clark has brought to the league or if Reese and others are jealous of her blossoming stardom. The attention echoes the Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson rivalry that helped spur the growth of the N.B.A. in the 1980s.

The clashing of great players is essential to sports and has defined the men’s game for decades: Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O’Neal vs. Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan vs. Isiah Thomas, LeBron James vs. Stephen Curry. Rivalries can often involve a bit of class, region and race. Nonetheless, they usually come down to the one-on-one competition itself.

This is what makes the Clark-Reese comparisons so odd. Many basketball rivals play the same position or at least inhabit similar parts of the court. To oversimplify, post players who stay closer to the basket are usually compared to other post players. Those who run the offense are often pitted against others who do the same. Shaq and Hakeem, for example, were both centers. But Clark plays a perimeter game, and Reese plays in the post. Clark at last count had made 120 3-pointers. Reese had attempted 16, and she had 446 rebounds to Clark’s 222.

And so instead of a conversation about the differences in their play, race has come to dominate the chatter surrounding these women. Some of the talk has been both racist and sexist, trading in stereotypes about Black and white women. Reese has often been cast as the angry Black woman while Clark has been portrayed as the innocent victim needing protection.

It can be traced back to the 2023 N.C.A.A. tournament. Clark’s brashness had become the subject of some conversation. It reached an even higher level in the semifinals when Clark, playing for the University of Iowa, made a dismissive gesture toward the University of South Carolina’s Raven Johnson, not bothering to guard her at the three-point line. In the final game, in which Louisiana State University beat Iowa, Reese celebrated at Clark’s expense — waving her hand in front of her face — a move that Clark herself has made, perhaps to mean that her opponent couldn’t see her. Reese also pointed to her ring finger, seemingly signifying the championship ring coming to her.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .