Critical Media Studies: An Introduction (2014) PDF

0002069889.INDD 8 10/28/2013 9:02:24 PM Critical Media Studies About the Authors Elinor Christopher Light Brian L. Ott (right) is Associate Professor of Media Studies at the University of Colorado Denver. He is the author of The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Informatio...

0002069889.INDD 8 10/28/2013 9:02:24 PM Critical Media Studies About the Authors Elinor Christopher Light Brian L. Ott (right) is Associate Professor of Media Studies at the University of Colorado Denver. He is the author of The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Information Age (Wiley Blackwell, 2007) and co-editor of It’s Not TV: Watching HBO in the Post-Television Era (Routledge, 2008). Brian enjoys all things sci-fi and was a huge fan of Breaking Bad. His favorite film is Lost in Translation, which he believes perfectly captures life in the contemporary moment and, as such, provides the inspiration for the book’s cover art. Robert L. Mack (left) is a Ph.D. candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Texas, Austin. His scholarship concerns the text-audience interface with a focus on the medium of television. Rob enjoys tabletop board games and passionately believes that Janeway was the best Star Trek captain. His favorite subgenres of film include class warfare period pieces, films that attempted to introduce computers to the masses before the technology was widely available, and movies where Whoopi Goldberg evades danger in large, metropolitan cities. Brian L. Ott and Robert L. Mack Critical Media Studies An Introduction Second Edition This second edition first published 2014 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc Edition history: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1e, 2010) Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Brian L. Ott and Robert L. Mack to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data is available for this book. 9781118553978 (paperback) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: Wet evening in Shinjuku © Jon Hicks / Corbis Cover design by RBDA Studio Set in 10.5/13pt Minion by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2014 Contents Preface vi 1 Introducing Critical Media Studies 1 Part I Media Industries: Marxist, Organizational, and Pragmatic Perspectives21 2 Marxist Analysis 23 3 Organizational Analysis 56 4 Pragmatic Analysis 81 Part II Media Messages: Rhetorical, Cultural, Psychoanalytic, Feminist, and Queer Perspectives107 5 Rhetorical Analysis 109 6 Cultural Analysis 134 7 Psychoanalytic Analysis 162 8 Feminist Analysis 193 9 Queer Analysis 214 Part III Media Audiences: Reception, Sociological, Erotic, and Ecological Perspectives243 10 Reception Analysis 245 11 Sociological Analysis 266 12 Erotic Analysis 285 13 Ecological Analysis 312 14 Conclusion: the Partial Pachyderm 335 Appendix: Sample Student Essays 351 Glossary375 Index382 Preface To our billions of readers, welcome to the second edition of Critical Media Studies: An Introduction! Okay, we recognize that is an optimistic first sentence, but it sounds more impressive than, “Hey, Ian, Gordana, and crazy Uncle Carl, thanks for reading our book.” Besides, who knows how many readers we have on Kobol (hello, fellow fans of Battlestar Galactica!). When we began work on the first edition of the book nearly five years ago, it was tentatively titled Critical Media Studies: An Interstellar Guide to Fabulous Dinner Conversation. In the ensuing time, the book has undergone numerous changes, not least of which was a rethinking of its title. Apparently, “some” (who shall remain nameless, Elizabeth!) thought that the reference to dinner conversation might be confusing and misleading. We remain convinced, however, that it would have been an effective way to target fans of the Food Network – a demographic that has, in our opinion, been ignored by academic publishers for far too long (hello, fellow fans of Iron Chef America!). Although we harbor no hard feelings about this change, we nevertheless hope that readers will discuss the book over dinner (or any meal-like activity, including tea time: hello, British readers!) and that the ensuing conversation will be fabulous. Another significant development has been the book’s cover art. Initially we wanted an image of two squirrels “doing it”... a metaphor, of course, for the frenzied but emotionally hollow exchange that occurs between media producers and consumers. But as with the title, more sensible heads prevailed, resulting in the equally enticing image of Tokyo at night. We, nevertheless, would like to thank our friend, Greg, for bravely approaching said squirrels, snapping a picture, and almost losing a finger in the process (hello and apologies, Greg!). Despite our disappointment that the squirrel-on-squirrel image was not selected, we believe that the existing cover is equally appropriate to the themes raised in the book. The rain symbolizes the steady stream of media messages that relentlessly pour down upon us each day. Meanwhile, the unfamiliar signs of the cityscape invite readers to wonder about their mean- ings just as Critical Media Studies asks readers to wonder about the role of media in their lives. Finally, the array of brilliant colors that comprise the image reflects the array of critical perspectives contained in the book, each shedding its own light on the media. In closing, we wish to acknowledge our debt to the sensible heads mentioned above. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude to the team at Wiley- Blackwell, especially Elizabeth P. Swayze, Senior Editor, and Julia Kirk, Senior Project Editor. Their guidance and support has been invaluable. We feel fortunate to have had such a dynamic, creative, and thoughtful team guiding us. We also wish to thank Dave Nash for his persistence and good humor in securing various copyright permissions. Finally, we extend a very special thanks to Kathleen McCully, who copy-edited the manuscript, and Nora Naughton, who oversaw the manuscript through its copy-editing, typesetting, proofreading and indexing stages (Kathleen and Nora, thank you for your tireless efforts to correct our many mistakes!). Since it is cliché to say that any remaining mistakes are solely our own, we instead locate the blame squarely with the Illuminati (hello, Illuminati!). Cheers, Brian and Rob October 14, 2013 0002069889.INDD 8 10/28/2013 9:02:24 PM 1 Introducing Critical Media Studies Key concepts convergence critical media studies mobility postmodernity fragmentation globalization socialization mass media theory medium simulation How We Know What We Know Everything we know is learned in one of two ways.1 The first way is somatically. These are the things we know through direct sensory perception of our e­ nvironment. We know what some things look, smell, feel, sound, or taste like because we person- ally have seen, smelled, felt, heard, or tasted them. One of the authors of this text knows, for example, that “Rocky Mountain oysters” (bull testicles) are especially chewy because he tried them once at a country and western bar. In short, some of what we know is based on first-hand, unmediated experience. But the things we know through direct sensory perception make up a very small percentage of the total things we know. The vast majority of what we know comes to us a second way, symbolically. These are the things we know through someone or something such as a parent, friend, teacher, museum, textbook, photograph, radio, film, television, or the internet. This type of information is mediated, meaning that it came to us via some indirect channel or medium. The word medium is derived from the Latin word medius, which means “middle” or that which comes between two things: the way that television and the Discovery Channel might come between us and the animals of the Serengeti, for instance. Critical Media Studies: An Introduction, Second Edition. Brian L. Ott and Robert L. Mack. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2 Introduction In the past 30 seconds, those readers who have never eaten Rocky Mountain ­ ysters now know they are chewy, as that information has been communicated to o them through, or mediated by, this book. When we stop to think about all the things we know, we suddenly realize that the vast majority of what we know is mediated. We may know something about China even if we have never been there thanks to Wikipedia; we may know something about King George VI even though he died long before we were born thanks to The King’s Speech (2010); we may even know something about the particulars of conducting a homicide investigation even though we have likely never conducted one thanks to the crime drama CSI. The mass media account, it would seem, for much of what we know (and do not know) today. But this has not always been the case. Before the invention of mass media, the spoken or written word was the primary medium for conveying information and ideas. This method of communication had several significant and interrelated limitations. First, as the transmission of infor­ mation was tied to the available means of transportation (foot, horse, buggy, boat, ­locomotive, or automobile depending upon the time period), its dissemination was extraordinarily slow, especially over great distances like continents and oceans. Second, because information could not easily be reproduced and distributed, its scope was extremely limited. Third, since information often passed through m ­ ultiple channels (people), each of which altered it, if only slightly, there was a high p ­ robability of mes- sage distortion. Simply put, there was no way to communicate a uniform message to a large group of people in distant places quickly prior to the advent of the modern mass media. What distinguishes mass media like print, radio, and television from individual media like human speech and hand-written letters, then, is precisely their unique capacity to address large audiences in remote locations with relative efficiency. Critical Media Studies is about the social and cultural consequences of that ­revolutionary capability. Recognizing that mass media are, first and foremost, ­communication technologies that increasingly mediate both what we know and how we know, this book surveys a variety of perspectives for evaluating and assessing the role of mass media in our daily lives. Whether listening to an iPod while walking across campus, sharing pictures with friends on Facebook, receiving the latest sports scores via your smartphone, sharing your favorite YouTube video over email, or ­settling in for the most recent episode of The Big Bang Theory or Downton Abbey, the mass media are regular fixtures of everyday life. But before beginning to explore the specific and complex roles that mass media play in our lives, it is worth looking, first, at who they are, when they originated, and how they have developed. Categorizing Mass Media As is perhaps already evident, media is a very broad term that includes a diverse array of communication technologies such as cave drawings, speech, smoke signals, letters, books, telegraphy, telephony, magazines, newspapers, radio, film, television,  Introducing Critical Media Studies 3 smartphones, video games, and networked computers to name just a few. But this book is principally concerned with mass media or those communication ­technologies that have the potential to reach a large audience in remote locations. What distinguishes mass media from individual media, then, is not merely audience size. While a graduation speaker or musician may address as many as 40,000 people at once in a stadium, for instance, neither one is mass mediated because the ­audience is not remote. Now, of course, if a Lady Gaga concert is being broadcast live via ­satellite, those watching at home on their televisions or streaming it live over the internet are experiencing it through mass media. Mass media collapse the distance between artist and audience, then. Working from this definition, we have organized the mass media into four sub-categories: print media, motion picture and sound recording, broadcast media, and new media. These categories, like all acts of classi- fication, are arbitrary, meaning that they emphasize certain features of the media they group together at the expense of others. Nonetheless, we offer these categories as one way of conceptually organizing mass communication technologies. Print media In an electronically saturated world like the one in which we live today, it is easy to overlook the historical legacy and contemporary transformations of print media, the first mass medium. German printer Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press in 1450, sparking a revolution in the ways that human beings could disseminate, preserve, and ultimately relate to knowledge. Printed materials before the advent of the press were costly and rare, but the invention of movable type allowed for the (relatively) cheap production of a diverse array of pamphlets, books, and other items. This flourishing of printed materials touched almost every aspect of human life. Suddenly knowledge could be recorded for future generations in libraries or religious texts, and social power increasingly hinged upon literacy and ownership of printed materials. Most importantly, the press allowed for an unprec- edented circulation of knowledge to far-flung cities across Europe. Although still limited by class distinctions, access to information from outside of one’s immediate context was a real possibility. Mass media was born. Not long after the settlement of Jamestown in the USA in 1607, the colonies ­established their first printing press. Located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the press was printing popular religious tracts such as the Bay Psalm Book, a 148-page ­collection of English translations of Hebrew, by 1640.2 Although much of the early printing in the colonies was religion-oriented, novels such as Robinson Crusoe (1719) and Tom Jones (1749), imported from England, were also popular. Religious tracts were eventually followed by almanacs, newspapers, and magazines. The most well-known early almanac, Poor Richard’s Almanac, which included information on the weather along with some political opinions, was printed from 1733 to 1757 by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. Although various cities had short-lived or local non-daily newspapers in the 1700s, the New York Sun, which is considered the first 4 Introduction Table 1.1 Number of consumer magazine titles in the USA 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Number of titles 587 668 836 718 628 Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations. successful mass-circulation newspaper, did not begin operations until 1833.3 The failure of earlier newspapers is often attributed to the fact that they were small operations run by local printers. It was not until newspapers began using editors and receiving substantial financial backing – first from political parties and later from wealthy elites like Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst – that the ­newspaper industry mushroomed. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the newspaper industry experi- enced rapid growth. This trend continued until 1973, at which point there were 1,774 daily newspapers with a combined circulation of 63.1 million copies.4 This meant that about 92 percent of US households were subscribing to a daily news- paper in 1973. Since then, however, newspaper production and circulation has steadily declined. In 2011, the total number of daily newspapers printed in the USA was 1,382 and they had a combined circulation of 44.4 million copies or less than 40 percent of US households. In many ways, the history of the magazine industry in the USA closely mirrors that of the newspaper industry. It began somewhat unsteadily, underwent ­tremendous growth, and is currently experiencing a period of considerable ­instability. The first US magazine, American Magazine, was published in 1741. But the magazine boom did not really begin until the mid-nineteenth century. And though the industry con- tinued to experience growth throughout the twentieth ­century, more recently it has suffered a decline in both the total number of titles (Table 1.1) and paid circulation (Table 1.2). Table 1.1 illustrates that the number of consumer magazine titles in the USA grew by 30 percent from 1990 to 2000 before declining by nearly 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. Moreover, as Table 1.2 shows, the total paid circulation of the top 10 magazines in 2012 is more than 30 million less than the total paid circulation of the top 10 ­magazines 20 years earlier. Interestingly, the highest circulating magazine in 2012, Game Informer Magazine, had existed for only 1 year in 1992, while the ­second highest circulating magazine in 1992, TV Guide, no longer exists. The book publishing industry has, until very recently, not experienced the deep losses occur- ring in the newspaper and magazine industries over the past two decades. But in 2012, unit sales of traditional paper books fell by about 9 percent for the third year in a row; adult non-fiction was the hardest hit, falling 13 percent.5 Despite declining circulation and unit sales in the newspaper, magazine, and book industries, Americans are still reading. But how they are reading – thanks to e-books and online newspapers and magazines – is changing both rapidly and dramatically.  Introducing Critical Media Studies 5 Table 1.2 Top 10 US consumer magazines by paid circulation in 1992 and 2012* 1992 2012 Rank/Publication Circulation Rank/Publication Circulation 1. Reader’s Digest 16,258,476 1. Game Informer Magazine 7,864,326 2. TV Guide 14,498,341 2. Better Homes and Gardens 7,621,456 3. National Geographic 9,708,254 3. Reader’s Digest 5,527,183 4. Better Homes and Gardens 8,002,585 4. Good Housekeeping 4,354,740 5. The Cable Guide 5,889,947 5. Family Circle 4,143,942 6. Family Circle 5,283,660 6. National Geographic 4,125,152 7. Good Housekeeping 5,139,355 7. People 3,637,633 8. Ladies’ Home Journal 5,041,143 8. Woman’s Day 3,374,479 9. Woman’s Day 4,810,445 9. Time 3,281,175 10. McCall’s 4,704,772 10. Taste of Home 3,268,549 Total circulation of top 10 79,336,978 Total circulation of top 10 47,198,635 Source: Adweek, March 29, 1993; Alliance for Audited Media, February 7, 2013. *Data exclude magazines whose circulation is tied to membership benefits (i.e. AARP The Magazine [formerly Modern Maturity] and AARP Bulletin). Motion picture and sound recording Sound recording and motion pictures may seem like an odd pairing at first, but their histories are deeply intertwined thanks in large part to Thomas Edison. In the span of 15 years, Edison and his assistant, William Kennedy Laurie Dickson, ­created what would later develop into the first two new mass media since print. Edison’s first invention, of the phonograph in 1877, was a device that played recorded sound, and his second, the kinetoscope in 1892, was an early motion ­picture device that showed short, silent films in peep-show fashion to individual viewers. But Edison’s goal was to synchronize audio and visual images into a film projector that would allow for more than one viewer at a time. Although sound film did not become possible until the early 1920s, improvements in film projection, namely the development of the vitascope, gave rise to the silent film era in the meantime. The eventual synchronization of sound and film launched talking ­pictures, or “talkies.” The first commercially successful, feature-length talkie was a musical film, The Jazz Singer, in 1927. Hollywood was about to enter its Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s, in which “the studios were geared to produce a singular commodity, the feature film.”6 With the motion picture industry firmly established, sound recording was now receiving independent attention and the record industry began to dominate the music industry, which had previously been involved primarily in the pro- duction of sheet music. By the start of the twentieth century, profits from the sale of sound recordings quickly eclipsed profits from the sale of sheet music. 6 Introduction This shift was fueled in large part by the continuous development of cheap and easily reproducible f­ormats such as magnetic tape in 1926, long-playing (LP) records in 1948, compact or audio cassettes in 1963, optical or compact discs (CDs) in 1982, and lossy ­bitcompression technologies such as MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP3s) in 1995. With the exception of magnetic tape for sound record- ing, which was invented by German engineer Fritz Pfleumer, and Columbia Records’ LP, Sony and Philips are ­responsible for the previously mentioned recording formats, as well as the Betamax (1975), LaserDisc (1978), Video2000 (1980), Betacam (1982), Video8 (1985), Digital Audio Tape (1987), Hi8 (1989), CD-i (1991), MiniDisc (1992), Digital Compact Disc (1992), Universal Media Disc (2005), Blu-ray Disc (2006), and DVD (as part of the 1995 DVD Consortium) formats. Several of these more recent formats have had implications for the motion picture industry, as they allow for the playback and recording of movies on DVD players and computers at home. Broadcast media The development of broadcast technologies changed the media landscape once again. Instead of media physically having to be distributed to stores or shipped to audiences as books, magazines, and newspapers are, or audiences physically having to travel to the media as in the case of film, media could now be brought directly to audiences over public airwaves. This was an important development because it freed mass media from transportation for the first time in history. We have excluded the electrical telegraph (1830s) because, like the telephone (1870s), it is better classified as a personal medium than a mass medium. Radio came on the scene first, ­experimenting with transmissions as early as the 1890s and making scheduled broadcasts in the 1920s. But television followed shortly thereafter with Philo T. Farnsworth, a Mormon from the small farm community of Rigby, Idaho, applying for the first television patent in 1927 and CBS l­ aunching the first television schedule in 1941. Not only do radio and television share an overlapping technological history, but they also share an overlapping profes- sional h ­ istory, as many of television’s early stars came from radio. After the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sorted out broadcast frequencies for radio in 1945 and television in 1952, commercial ­broadcast stations spread rapidly (see Table 1.3). The tremendous growth in the number of commercial radio and television ­stations since 1950 suggests strong consumer demand for their content. This ­perception is ­confirmed by the data on radio and television ownership and usage. As of 2011, 99 percent of US households had at least one radio and 96.7 percent of US households had at least one television set (the lowest percentage since 1975 and down from 98.9 percent at the height of television’s penetration).7 The average US home, however, is equipped with 8 radios and 2.93 television sets.8 And by all accounts, these devices garner substantial use. While radio usage is difficult to  Introducing Critical Media Studies 7 Table 1.3 Number of commercial broadcast stations in the USA* 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 AM radio stations 2,118 3,539 4,323 4,589 4,987 4,685 4,790 FM radio stations 493 815 2,196 3,282 4,392 5,892 6,479 Television stations: 47 515 677 734 1,092 1,288 1,392 UHF and VHF Source: The Federal Communications Commission; US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Table 1126; and US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, Table 1132. *Data exclude educational broadcast stations. measure, as we listen to the radio at work, at home, in cars, and in a variety of other contexts, ­industry experts estimate that the typical American listens to about 1 hour and 30 minutes of radio per day. But television is still, far and away, the dominant medium in terms of usage. The Nielsen Company estimates that, in 2010, the ­average American watched more than 35½ hours of television per week.9 Suffice to say, Americans spend a significant amount of time with radio and television. Before turning to the fourth and final category of mass media, two recent devel- opments with regard to radio and television need to be addressed: satellite radio and cable and satellite television. In many ways, these developments are analogous. Both technologies charge for content, include some content that cannot be broadcast over public airwaves, and trouble the traditional understanding of broadcast media. Satellite radio and television and, increasingly, cable television employ a digital signal, which qualifies them for inclusion in the category of new media. That having been said, not all cable television is digital, and satellite radio and television, which use a digital signal, are broadcast. As such, neither cable nor satellite technology fits neatly into the category of broadcast or new media. Confusion over how to catego- rize satellite radio and cable and satellite television has not stopped either one from being successful, however. Sirius XM Radio Inc, the sole satellite radio provider in the USA, has 21 million paying subscribers and made $763 million in 2011.10 Meanwhile, from 1970 to 2011, the number of US households with either cable or satellite television has grown from 7 to over 85 percent.11 As these data suggest, satellite radio and cable and satellite television are growing rapidly, though even their success is threatened by the proliferation of new media. New media New media is the broadest and, hence, the most difficult of the four categories of mass media to delimit and define. Though we offer a definition from Lev Manovich, even he is aware of its problematic nature: “new media are the ­cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and circulation.”12 One difficulty with this definition is that what it includes must continuously be revised as computing 8 Introduction technology becomes a more common mode of distribution. The d ­ evelopment of digital television, film, photography, and e-books, for instance, would place them in the category of new media along with the i­ nternet, w ­ ebsites, online ­computer games, and internet capable mobile telephony. The ever-expanding character of this ­category raises a second problem, which can be posed as a question; will it eventually come to include all media and ­therefore be a meaningless category? The likely answer is yes, for reasons we will discuss later under the topic of con- vergence. But for the time being, it remains a helpful way to differentiate it from traditional print, ­celluloid film, and broadcast radio and television. As long as there are mass media that exist as something other than 0s and 1s, new media will remain a useful and m ­ eaningful category. The history of new media begins with the development of the microprocessor or computer chip. Introduced in 1971, the world’s first commercial microprocessor, the 4-bit Intel 4004, executed about 60,000 calculations a second. By the early 1990s, the 486 microprocessor, which was typical of computers at the time, could perform 54 ­million calculations per second. Intel’s Pentium Pro, introduced in 1995, increased performance yet again to roughly 250 million calculations per second. But ­computers were not only rapidly becoming more powerful, they were also rapidly becoming more connected. Developed initially as a communication technology for the US Department of Defense, the internet began to catch the public’s attention in the 1970s when its potential for sending personal electronic messages (emails) became evident. But it was the development of a graphic-based user interface and common network protocols in the early 1990s that popularized the internet by transforming it into the hypertextual platform we know now as the World Wide Web. At the turn of the millennium, experts estimated that there were more than 8 billion web pages, a number that was doubling at the time every 6 months.13 With the infrastructure in place, the cost of computing ­technology declining, and the ability of ordinary people to become mass producers of information, the adoption of new media in the USA is growing exponentially. Let us consider the rate at which a few of these technologies have invaded our lives. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that only 10 percent of American adults were using the internet in 1995. By August 2011, however, that number had grown to 78 percent of adults and 95 percent of teenagers.14 Today, millions of people use the internet for everything from online banking and bill ­paying to job searching and social networking. Indeed, the social networking site Facebook, which did not even exist until 2004, attracted more than a billion active users worldwide in less than a decade. Other new media technologies, like cell phones, MP3 players, and digital games, have also experienced staggering adoption rates. Though cell phone adoption in the USA lags behind many European countries, mobile telephony still boasts one of the fastest penetration rates of any communication technology in history. In 2004, only about 39 percent of youth ­(8- to 18-year-olds) owned a cell phone, but that number jumped to 66 percent in just 5 years. In that same time span (2004 to 2009), the percentage of youth who owned an MP3 player skyrocketed from 18 percent to 76 percent.15 As of 2012, 46 percent of US households (roughly 162 million people) owned a gaming console  Introducing Critical Media Studies 9 Table 1.4 Projected use of select new media for 2013 in the USA Users in millions 2013 % increase over 2012 % of US population Internet use Internet users 245.2 2.6% 77.6% Social network users 146.7 3.9% 46.4% Online video viewers 178.7 5.6% 56.6% Online television viewers 110.4 12.8% 35.0% Online casual gamers 87.6 15.8% 27.7% Online movie viewers 97.3 3.9% 30.8% Online console gamers 44.0 9.7% 14.0% Mobile phone use Mobile phone users 247.5 2.0% 78.3% Mobile internet users 143.8 18.0% 45.5% Smartphone users 137.5 18.8% 43.5% Mobile gamers 121.3 19.0% 38.4% Smartphone gamers 97.6 27.8% 30.9% Source: eMarketer, US Digital Media Usage: A Snapshot of 2013, November 2012. and 39 percent owned a 7th generation console (Wii, PS3, or Xbox 360).16 Table 1.4 shows the projected use of select new media technologies in 2013. Living in Postmodernity As the previous section illustrates, the mass media develop and change over time. It is important, therefore, to study them in historical context. Since the focus of this book is on contemporary mass media, this section reflects on the character of the contemporary historical moment. The present moment has variously been described as the information age, the network era, the third wave, post-industrial society, the digital age, and postmodernity. While none of these labels is without its shortcom- ings, we prefer the term postmodernity to refer to the contemporary moment given its widespread adoption by media scholars. Postmodernity describes the historical epoch that began to emerge in the 1960s as the economic mode of production in most Western societies gradually shifted from commodity-based manufacturing to information-based services. Postmodernity should not be confused with ­postmodernism, an aesthetic sensibility or “style of culture which reflects something of this epochal change, in a... self-reflexive, playful, derivative, eclectic, pluralistic art.”17 In the transition from modernity to postmodernity, the mass production of standardized, durable goods such as automobiles and toasters has steadily given way to the reproduction of highly customizable soft goods such as iTunes libraries and cell phone plans. Table 1.5 highlights some of the key differences between m ­ odernity 10 Introduction Table 1.5 Comparison of modernity and postmodernity Modernity Postmodernity ~1850s to 1960s ~1960s to present Monopoly (imperial) capitalism Multinational (global) capitalism Industrialism Informationalism Fordism Flexible accumulation Manufacturing and production Marketing and public relations Mechanization Computerization Standardization Customization Heavy industries Image industries Durable goods Information and ideas Product-based Service-oriented Mass markets Niche markets Economies of scale Economies of speed Nation-state Global corporation State macro-economic regulation Free-market neoliberalism and postmodernity. As the mass media have both contributed to and been ­transformed by this historical transition, the remainder of this section explores five key trends driving the mass media in postmodernity: convergence, mobility, ­fragmentation, globalization, and simulation. Convergence The previous section organizes the media into four categories as a way of sketching a brief history of mass communication technologies. Ironically, the first major trend in the mass media today involves the erasure of such boundaries. Increasingly, ­contemporary media reflect convergence, the tendency of formerly diverse media to share a common, integrated platform. As strange as it may seem today in light of the prevalence of streaming video, internet radio, and online newspapers, conver- gence is a relatively recent phenomenon that was considered visionary in the early 1980s when Nicholas Negroponte and others at the MIT Media Lab began exploring multimedia systems. Before media convergence could become a reality, it had to overcome two major obstacles. First, the noise associated with analog signals such as those used in television and radio broadcasting generated message distortion and decay over long distances. This problem was solved through digitization, which reduces distortion by relying on bits rather than a continuous signal. Second, band- width limitations prevented large data packets involving images and video from being transmitted quickly and easily over a communication channel. But improved data-compression techniques along with bandwidth expansions have made possible the real-time transmission of large data packets over communication channels. As these technical hurdles have been overcome, convergence has accelerated.  Introducing Critical Media Studies 11 Mobility Historically, mass media have not been very portable. If you wanted to see a film, you had to go to the theater. If you wanted to watch your favorite television show, you had to do so in the privacy of your own home. Even print media such as books, magazines, and newspapers were limited in their mobility, as their size and weight significantly restricted the amount of printed material one was likely to carry around. But the devel- opment of powerful microprocessors and wireless technology is ­rapidly changing all this, and today, instead of us going to places for media, media can increasingly go places with us. Mobility refers to the ease with which an object can be moved from place to place. As one of the book’s authors typed this ­paragraph, for instance, he was sitting in his favorite café, listening to music on his iPhone, and working on his laptop. In addition to being able to take his whole music library with him, much of the research for this book is stored on his ­computer. When he needed to locate information not on his computer, he simply connected wirelessly to the University library and down- loaded the necessary research. In fact, in the past few years, this author has pretty much stopped going to the library altogether. Even when he requires a book that does not exist electronically (yet!), he simply logs into the library website and arranges for delivery to his office. As technology becomes more and more mobile, media are being transformed from generic home appliances into highly personal (often fashion) acces- sories. In light of the drive toward ­mobility, the next evolutionary stage is likely to see media go from being something we carry around or wear to something we embody or become in the form of ­cybernetic implants. Fragmentation Despite its continued use, the phrase mass media is rapidly becoming a misnomer. The mass in mass media has traditionally referred to the large, undifferentiated, anonymous, and passive audience addressed by television, radio, and print’s stand- ardized messages. But the explosion of information in postmodernity has given way to cultural fragmentation, a splintering of the consuming public into ever more spe- cialized taste cultures. This, in turn, has resulted in a tremendous proliferation of media content, if not media ownership, along with niche marketing. What Alvin Toffler has called the “de-massification” of media has been underway since at least the early 1970s.18 Decreasing production costs have greatly altered the economics of the media industry, reducing the necessity for standardization. The result has been a dra- matic increase in media output that caters to specific interests and tastes. Long gone are the days of only three television networks, which could not fill 24 hours of pro- gramming. Today, there are hundreds of networks, as well as premium cable s­ ervices, with around-the-clock programming. Nor is television unique; the print media and radio have witnessed a similar proliferation of specialty outlets. General-purpose magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post and Life that dominated the magazine industry in the 1960s had been replaced by 4,000 special-interest m ­ agazines by 1980.19 12 Introduction The internet, of course, reflects the most diversified medium, delivering a dizzying array of content. Even an online bazaar like Amazon.com has country-specific por- tals and employs tracking software, or so-called cookies, that record user preferences to create a highly customized shopping experience. As this technology improves, we can count on media becoming more and more tailored to individual tastes. Globalization Globalization is the buzzword of the moment, having captured the attention of ­academics, business leaders, and politicians alike.20 Even as the world has become increasingly fragmented by specialized interests, it has simultaneously become more global as well. Globalization is a complex set of social, political, and e­conomic ­processes in which the physical boundaries and structural policies that previously reinforced the autonomy of the nation state are collapsing in favor of instantaneous and flexible worldwide social relations. While globalization is multidimensional, we wish to focus chiefly on economic globalization. In the past few decades, the spread of capitalism has fueled the rise of multinational corporations that wish to profit from untapped “global markets.” Hence, these corporations aggressively support free-trade policies that eliminate barriers such as trade tariffs between national and international markets. For the mass media, which are owned and controlled almost exclusively today by multinational corporations, globalization creates opportunities to bring their cultural products to distant local markets. This fact has raised fears about cultural imperialism, the imposition of one set of cultural values on other c­ ultures. The process is dialectical or bidirectional, h ­ owever. Local m­ arkets are influencing the products and thinking of the very ­companies targeting them, ­leading to concern that cultural difference is being eradicated in favor of one large ­hybridized culture. Simulation Although the concept of simulation can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, its current cultural cachet is due principally to the French theorist Jean Baudrillard and his book Simulacra and Simulation. “Simulation,” Baudrillard writes, “is the ­generation by mod- els of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.”21 According to Baudrillard, Western societies, and “America” in particular, are increasingly characterized by ­simulation, an implosion of the image (i.e. representations) and the real. This ­argument is premised on, in Baudrillard’s words, the precession of simulacra, which suggests that the image has evolved from being a good representation of an external reality, to a ­distorted ­representation of an external reality, to a mask that conceals the absence of a basic ­reality, to bearing no relation to any reality at all.22 The matter of simulation is an ­important one, as the mass media are the key social institutions fueling this social ­phenomenon. The media, for instance, endlessly ­produce and reproduce images of love, violence, and family (to name only a few) that no longer point or refer to some  Introducing Critical Media Studies 13 external reality. Rather, they exist only as images of images for which there is no o ­ riginal. Simulation suggests that the media no longer represent, if they ever did, our social world; they construct a realer-­than-real space that is our social world. Why Study the Media? Perhaps the most important reason to study mass media today is because of their sheer ubiquity. In the transition to postmodernity, mass media have gone from being one insti- tution among many within our cultural environment to being the very basis of our cul- tural environment. The further back in history one travels, the less central mass media are to social life and the more central are other social institutions such as the family, the church, the school, and the state. But today, these social institutions have been subsumed by, and are largely filtered through, the mass media. More than ever before, the mass media have replaced families as caretakers, churches as arbiters of cultural values, schools as sites of education, and the state as public agenda-­setters. In this introduction, we explored the two ways we know things, somatically and s­ ymbolically (i.e. directly and indirectly). Not only do we know most things s­ ymbolically, but the media represent an ever-expanding piece of the total symbolic pie of social mediators. Table 1.6 illustrates the expanding number of hours the ­average American spends per day with select media. As Table 1.6 indicates, though we may gradually be changing which media we use, the mass media remain a significant socializing force in contemporary ­society. Socialization describes the process by which persons – both individually and c­ ollectively – learn, adopt, and internalize the prevailing cultural beliefs, v­ alues, and norms of a society. Because all social institutions are mediators, they all contribute to socialization. When information passes through a channel or medium, it is ­translated from direct sensory experience into a set of symbols. Since symbols are selective, privileging some aspects of Table 1.6 Average time (in hours) spent per day with select media in the USA Medium 2008 2009 2010 2011 Television and video 4:14 4:27 4:24 4:34 Internet 2:17 2:26 2:35 2:47 Radio 1:42 1:38 1:36 1:34 Mobile 0:32 0:39 0:55 1:05 Newspapers 0:38 0:33 0:32 0:26 Magazines 0:25 0:22 0:20 0:18 Other 0:48 0:46 0:46 0:48 Total hours 10:35 10:50 11:00 11:33 Source: eMarketer, Time Spent with Media: Consumer Behavior in the Age of Multitasking, 2012. Note: many of these hours are spent multitasking; numbers may not add up to total due to rounding. 14 Introduction the thing being represented at the expense of others, they function as filters. Language is perhaps the most obvious example of how symbols operate as filters. When you listen to a friend tell a story or read about history in a textbook, you are not experiencing the events being described directly. You are only experiencing them symbolically. The words you hear or read are ­representations of the event you are learning about, not the actual event itself. This is why two accounts of the same event, while potentially very similar, are never identical. Stories are inevitably filtered through the symbols, and therefore the ­perspective, of the storyteller. As society’s main storytellers, the mass media filter ­virtually every aspect of our world, s­ haping both what we learn and how we learn. What we learn Mediated messages are comprised of content and form. Broadly speaking, the c­ontent influences what we learn and the form influences how we learn. Both content and form are central to the socializing function of the mass media, though content has typically been given more attention. Content refers to the informational component of a message, to the specific details, facts, ideas, and opinions communicated through mass media. Audiences are often consciously aware of the content of mediated mes- sages. We know, for instance, that when we read the news we are learning specifics about our world. After just briefly ­scanning USA Today online, one author learned that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to prevent an Iowa law that would make it easier for the state to remove voters from its voter registration lists, that Facebook is launching a smartphone that showcases its social networking site, and that Justin Bieber is facing fines in Germany for sneaking a monkey named Mally onto a private jet without the proper documentation. It should probably be noted at this point that the content of a message need not have use-value or truth-value to be ­classified as informational. As both misinformation and disinformation would ­suggest, fairness and accuracy are not defining attributes of information. Information need only be meaningful, as opposed to gibberish, to count as information. The content of the mass media matters for several reasons. First, by choosing to include or cover some topics and to exclude or ignore others, the media establish which social issues are considered important and which are considered unimportant. Simply put, the mass media largely determine what we talk and care about. Second, content lacking a diversity of views and opinions significantly limits the scope of pub- lic debate and deliberation on matters of social importance. Unpopular and ­dissenting viewpoints are essential to a healthy democracy, however, as they often reframe issues in fresh, productive ways. Third, because media content is ­communicated using ­symbols and all symbols are selective, media content is ­necessarily biased. The ­language and images used to inform, educate, and entertain you also convey selective attitudes and beliefs. In short, the content of the mass media socializes us to care about some issues and not others, to see those issues from some perspectives and not others, and to adopt particular attitudes toward the p ­ erspectives it presents.  Introducing Critical Media Studies 15 How we learn Whereas content refers to the informational component of a message, form describes the cognitive component of a message. Form can be thought of as the way a message is packaged and delivered. The packaging of a message is a consequence, first, of the medium and, second, of the genre or class. Every medium or communication ­technology packages messages differently.23 The unique ways that a message is pack- aged influence how we process it. In other words, communication mediums train our conscious to think in particular ways, not what to think, but how to think. Media scholars generally agree, for instance, that the way we interpret and make sense of language differs radically from the way we interpret and make sense of images. Whereas language is highly temporal and thus favors a sequential or linear way of knowing,24 images are decidedly spatial and hence privilege an associative or non- linear way of knowing. A simple way to confirm this difference is to place a page of printed text next to an image. While the printed text only makes sense when the words are read in succession, the elements within the image can be processed simultaneously. Because the medium of a message conditions how one processes the informa- tional elements within a message, some media scholars contend that message form is a more fundamental and important socializing force than message content. This position is most famously associated with Marshall McLuhan, who succinctly claimed, “The medium is the message.” Given the transition to postmodernity, in which the image has steadily replaced the word as the prevailing form in mass media (even print media such as magazines and newspapers are increasingly filled with pictures), the belief that young people today are cognitively different than their par- ents is rapidly gaining adherents. If media guru Douglas Rushkoff is ­correct, then television and MTV along with video games and the internet may account for eve- rything from the invention and popularity of snowboarding to the emergence and spread of attention deficit disorder. As such, critical media scholars must attend not only to what the mass media socialize us to think, but also to how they socialize us to think. Doing Critical Media Studies As powerful socializing agents that shape what and how we know ourselves and our world, it is vital that we analyze and evaluate the mass media critically. Critical media studies is an umbrella term used to describe an array of theoretical perspec- tives which, though diverse, are united by their skeptical attitude, humanistic approach, political assessment, and commitment to social justice. Before turning to the ­individual perspectives that comprise critical studies, let us examine the four key characteristics they share in greater detail. 16 Introduction Attitude: skeptical The theoretical perspectives that comprise critical studies all begin with the ­assumption that there is more at stake in mass media than initially meets the eye. To a l­ay-person, for instance, what gets reported on the evening news may appear to be an objective retelling of the day’s major events. But to the critical scholar, the p ­ roduction of news is a complex process shaped by the pragmatic need to fill a one-hour time block every day, as well as to garner high ratings. These factors, in large part, determine what counts as news, how the news is produced, and what the news looks like. Just as there is value in looking more closely at the news, there is value in looking more closely at all media. Thus, the various perspectives within the field of critical media studies adopt an attitude of skepticism, not as a way of rejecting media, but as a way of understanding how they work and what they do. Some critics refer to this skeptical attitude as a “hermeneutics of suspicion.”25 Hermeneutics describes a mode of inter- pretation grounded in close analysis. So, a hermeneutics of suspicion would be a mode of close analysis with a deep distrust of surface appearances and “common- sense” explanations. Approach: humanistic Universities, like many other cultural institutions, are divided into various departments and units. Though the precise character of such divisions varies from one institution to the next, one common way of organizing disciplines and departments is according to the categories of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. These categories, while neither rigid nor entirely discrete, reflect a set of general distinctions concerning subject matter, outlook, and method (i.e. procedure of investigation). Whereas the ­natural sciences seek to understand the physical world by empirical and “objective” means, for instance, the humanities aim to understand cultural and social phenomena by interpretive and analytical means. To say that critical media studies is humanistic, then, is to associate it with a particular set of intellectual concerns and approaches to the discovery of knowledge. Adopting a humanistic approach to the social world and our place in it, critical media studies emphasizes self-reflection, critical citizenship, demo- cratic p ­ rinciples, and humane education.26 It is an approach that entails “thinking about freedom and responsibility and the contribution that intellectual pursuit can make to the welfare of society.”27 Because of the subjective element of humanistic ­criticism, the knowledge it creates is never complete, fixed, or finished.28 Assessment: political In many scholarly arenas, the final step in research is the objective reporting of one’s findings (usually in an academic journal). But critical media studies is interested in the practical and political implications of those findings and, thus, entails judgment.  Introducing Critical Media Studies 17 Although there is no universal criterion for leveling political judgments across i­ ndividual studies of the mass media, critical studies are generally concerned with d ­ etermining whose interests are served by the media, and how those interests ­contribute to domina- tion, exploitation, and/or asymmetrical relations of power. Research in this tradition interrogates how media create, maintain, or subvert ­particular social structures, and whether or not such structures are just and e­ galitarian. A Feminist study of television sitcoms, for instance, would examine how the ­representation of male and female ­characters in such programs functions to ­reinforce or challenge gender and sexual ­stereotypes. Critical studies view society as a ­complex network of interrelated power relations that symbolically privilege and materially benefit some individuals and groups over others. The central aim of c­ ritical ­scholarship is to evaluate the media’s role in constructing and maintaining ­particular relationships of power. Ambition: social justice One of the most unique and, at times, controversial characteristics of critical media studies is its desire to better our social world. While scholars in many fields believe that research should be neutral and non-interventionist, critical media studies aims not only to identify political injustices but also to confront and challenge them. Critical media studies is premised on a commitment to social justice and maintains that scholars should “have as their determinate goal the improvement of society.”29 Many media scholars who work within the critical media studies paradigm belong to media-reform organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the Media Education Foundation, Media Democracy in Action, Free Press, the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Creative Voices in Media, and countless others. Critical media studies scholars believe that it is incumbent upon citizens and not just their governments to hold big corporate media accountable. Social activism can take many forms, from boycotts and culture jamming to produc- ing alternative media and supporting independent media outlets. Key Critical Perspectives In an effort to assist students in evaluating the media critically, this book examines, explains, and demonstrates 12 critical perspectives, each of which is rooted in a ­different social theory. Theory is an explanatory and interpretive tool that simulta- neously enables and limits our understanding of the particular social product, ­practice, or process under investigation. The term theory derives from the Greek word theoria, which refers to vision, optics, or a way of seeing. Since, as Kenneth Burke notes in Permanence and Change, “Every way of seeing is also a way of not seeing,”30 no theory is without ­limitations. We believe that since every theory has biases and blind spots, no theory ought to be treated as the final word on any subject. 18 Introduction Theory is most useful when it is used and understood as a partial explanation of the phenomenon being studied. Students are strongly encouraged to take each perspec- tive seriously, but none as infallible or universal. We have grouped the 12 critical perspectives in this book into three clusters based upon whether their primary focus is on media industries, messages, or audiences. A brief examination of those three theory clusters provides a chapter overview of the book. Media industries: Marxist, Organizational, and Pragmatic Part I of Critical Media Studies examines media industries and their practices of ­production, paying particular attention to the economic, corporate, and governmental structures that enable and constrain how mass media operate. Chapter 2 explores the media from a Marxist theoretical perspective by examining the ways that c­ apitalism and the profit-motive influence media-ownership patterns and c­ orporate practices. Chapter 3 approaches the media from an Organizational perspective by focusing on the work routines and professional conventions within media industries. Chapter 4, the final chapter in the first part, investigates media industries from a Pragmatic ­perspective, exploring how government laws and ­regulations impact media products. Media messages: Rhetorical, Cultural, Psychoanalytic, Feminist, and Queer Part II of the book centers on media messages, and concerns how the mass media convey information, ideas, and ideologies. Chapter 5 utilizes a Rhetorical perspec- tive to illuminate how the various structures within media texts work to influence and move audiences. Chapter 6 reflects a Cultural perspective and investigates how the media convey ideologies about matters such as class and race that, in turn, shape cultural attitudes toward various social groups. Chapter 7 adopts a Psychoanalytic perspective, considering parallels between media messages and the unconscious structures of the human psyche. Chapter 8 approaches media from a Feminist perspective, highlighting the complex ways that media influence our cultural ­ ­performances of gender, whereas Chapter 9 adopts a Queer perspective to illustrate how media contribute to our attitudes about sexuality. Media audiences: Reception, Sociological, Erotic, and Ecological In Part III, Critical Media Studies turns to media audiences, attending to the diverse ways that audiences interpret, negotiate, and use media to create meanings, ­pleasures, and identities. Employing a Reception approach, Chapter 10 explores the various meaning-making practices in which audiences engage. Chapter 11 adopts a Socio­ logical approach to media, exploring how audiences use media to negotiate the s­ ymbolic and material demands of their everyday lives. Chapter 12 employs an Erotic perspective  Introducing Critical Media Studies 19 to understand the transgressive pleasures that audiences experience as they ­increasingly become active producers as well as consumers of media. Chapter 13 concludes Part III by offering an Ecological perspective, which concerns the ways media technologies dominate our social environment and shape human consciousness. Suggested Reading Allen, R.C. (ed.) Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criticism, 2nd edn. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. Berger, A.A. Media Analysis Techniques, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2012. Berger, A.A. Media and Society: a Critical Perspective, 3rd edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012. Devereux, E. Understanding the Media, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007. Durham, M.G. and Kellner, D.M. (eds) Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks, revised edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Gripsrud, J. Understanding Media Culture. London: Arnold, 2002. Grossberg, L., Wartella, E.A., Whitney, D.C., and Wise, J.M. MediaMaking: Mass Media in a Popular Culture, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Hodkinson, P. Media, Culture and Society: an Introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2011. Laughey, D. Key Themes in Media Theory. London: Open University Press, 2007. Marris, P. and Thornham, S. Media Studies: a Reader, 2nd edn. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Stevenson, N. Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002. Storey, J. An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 2nd edn. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1998. Strinati, D. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994. Taylor, L. and Williams, A. Media Studies: Texts, Institutions and Audiences. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Tebbel, J. Between Covers: the Rise and Transformation of Book Publishing in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Tebbel, J. and Zuckerman, M.E. The Magazine in America 1741–1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Williams, K. Understanding Media Theory. London: Arnold, 2003. Notes 1. S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action Numbers/Circulation-Volume/Newspaper- (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1941), Circulation-Volume.aspx (accessed August 18, 2013). 31–3. 5. M. Driscoll, Print Book Sales Fell in 2012 – But No 2. J. Cullen, The Art of Democracy: a Concise History Faster Than They Did in 2011, Says Nielsen, of Popular Culture in the United States (New York: The Christian Science Monitor, January 8, 2013, Monthly Review Press, 1996), 23–4. http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-­and- 3. Cullen, 48. verse/2013/0108/Print-book-sales-fell-in-2012-but- 4. Newspaper Association of America, last updated no-faster-than-they-did-in-2011-­s ays-Nielsen September 4, 2012, http://www.naa.org/­­Trends-and- (accessed March 31, 2013). 20 Introduction 6. T. Schatz, The Return of the Hollywood 2012), 4. See also State of the Media: Consumer Studio System, in Conglomerates and the Media, Usage Report 2011 (The Nielsen Company, E. Barnouw et al. (eds) (New York: The New 2012). Press, 1997), 73–106. 17. T. Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism 7. B. Stelter, Ownership of TV Sets Falls in U.S., The (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), vii. New York Times, May 3, 2011, http://www.nytimes. 18. A. Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random com/2011/05/03/business/media/03television. House, 1970), 249. html (accessed March 31, 2013). See also Nielsen 19. J. Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Estimates Number of U.S. Television House­ Transforming Our Lives (New York: Warner Books, holds to be 115.7 Million, The Nielsen Company, 1982), 99–100. This number includes industry May 3, 2011, http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/ and trade publications, as well as commercial or newswire/2011/nielsen-estimates-number-of- consumer magazines. u-s-television-homes-to-be-114-7-million.html 20. M. Waters, Globalization, 2nd edn (New York: (accessed October 14, 2013). Routledge, 1995), 1. 8. U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 21. J. Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, trans. 2010, The Nielsen Company, April 28, 2010, S.F. Glaser (Ann Arbor, MI: University of http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2010/u-s- Michigan Press, 1994), 1. homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010.html 22. Baudrillard, 6. (accessed October 14, 2013). 23. J.W. Chesebro and D.A. Bertelsen, Analyzing 9. Snapshot of U.S. Television Usage, The Nielsen Media: Communication Technologies as Symbolic Company, September 23, 2010, http://www.nielsen. and Cognitive Systems (New York: The Guilford com/us/en/newswire/2010/snapshot-of-u-s-­ Press, 1996), 22. television-usage-what-we-watch-and-how.html 24. M. Stephens, The Rise of the Image the Fall of the (accessed March 31, 2013). Word (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 10. K.M. Mendolera, State of the Media Report 2012: 78–9. Emerging and Evolving (Vocus Media Research 25. According to Paul Ricoeur, the hermeneutics of Group, 2012), 11. suspicion is “a method of interpretation which 11. S. Donohue, LRG: 87% of Households Subscribe assumes that the literal or surface-level meaning to Cable or Satellite TV, FierceCable, July 5, 2012, of a text is an effort to conceal the political i­ nterests http://www.fiercecable.com/story/lrg-87-­households- which are served by the text. The ­purpose of subscribe-cable-or-satellite-tv/2012-07-05 (accessed interpretation is to strip off the concealment, ­ March 31, 2013). unmasking those interests.” Quoted in Philosophy: 12. L. Manovich, New Media from Borges to HTML, the Classic Readings, D.E. Cooper and P.S. Fosl in The New Media Reader, N. Wardrip-Fruin and (eds) (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 184. N. Montfort (eds) (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Ricoeur writes, “Hermeneutics seems to me to be Press, 2003), 16–17. animated by this double motivation: ­willingness 13. F. Biocca, New Media Technology and Youth: to suspect, willingness to listen; vow of rigor, vow Trends in the Evolution of New Media. Journal of of obedience” [P. Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: Adolescent Health 27, 2000, 23. an Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale 14. K. Zickuhr and A. Smith, Digital Differences University Press, 1970), 27; see also pp. 32–3)]. (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s 26. E.W. Said, Humanism and Democratic Criticism Internet & American Life Project, April 13, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). 2012), 4. 27. H. Hardt, Critical Communication Studies: 15. V. Vahlberg, Fitting into Their Lives: a Survey of Communication, History and Theory in America Three Studies about Youth Media Use (Arlington, (New York: Routledge, 1992), xi. VA: Newspaper Association of America Foundation, 28. Said, 12. 2010), 5. 29. Hardt, x. 16. State of the Media: The Cross-Platform Report, 30. K. Burke, Permanence and Change, revised edn Quarter 1, 2012 – US (The Nielsen Company, (Los Altos, CA: Hermes Publications, 1954), 49. Part I Media Industries: Marxist, Organizational, and Pragmatic Perspectives 2 Marxist Analysis Key concepts advertising conglomeration multinationalism base historical materialism planned obsolescence joint ventures profit-motive integration spectacle logic of safety celebrity superstructure concentration Marxism synergy The Secret Circle, a supernatural drama about a coven of teen witches in the fictitious community of Chance Harbor, WA, debuted on the CW television network in September 2011 with many indicators of success. In addition to deriving its source material from a popular series of young adult novels by author L.J. Smith, the new series scored a coveted broadcast slot following the network’s most popular program, The Vampire Diaries (another show sourced from Smith’s literary work). Moreover, the paranormal juggernaut Supernatural was entering its seventh season on the CW at the same time, suggesting that its dedicated audiences might also be open to adopting the spellbinding The Secret Circle as well. To some degree these strategic overlaps paid off. The Secret Circle’s viewership fluctuated throughout its nine-month run, but the program managed to conclude the 2011–12 season as the CW’s most watched new series, making it the third most watched series overall for the network (ahead of more proven performers like One Tree Hill and Gossip Girl).1 Fans of the show were understandably puzzled, then, to learn in May 2012 that the CW had decided not to renew The Secret Circle for a second season. Why would the network cancel something so popular, especially when it appeared to fit so well with its brand? One likely answer is cost; The Secret Circle was tremendously expensive to produce when compared to other new CW series.2 While fellow fledgling programs like Hart of Dixie and Ringer could be filmed in hotspots like New York and Los Angeles, The Secret Circle required more expensive, on-location shoots in and around the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Furthermore, no other new series on the ­network required the costly special effects that The Secret Circle’s witches necessitated. Despite Critical Media Studies: An Introduction, Second Edition. Brian L. Ott and Robert L. Mack. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 24 Media Industries these practical concerns, fans of the program launched an online campaign called “Save The Secret Circle,” encouraging the CW or other sympathetic networks (ABC Family, MTV, Syfy, etc.) to renew the series.3 Although fans circulated online ­petitions, wrote letters to television executives, and inundated the offices of Warner Bros. with 2,500 postcards and ABC Family with 300 lbs of plastic gold coins, no network picked up the series for a second season. The cancellation of The Secret Circle is as an important reminder to media ­consumers about the powerful role that economic factors play in shaping our media landscape. Though the program had strong ratings and a dedicated audience, its high production costs prevented it from being profitable enough to renew. In many ways, this case study illustrates the critical perspective in media studies commonly referred to as Marxist analysis. Generally speaking, Marxist media scholars are interested in how economic contexts and imperatives impact the production and distribution of media content. Books, films, and television shows do not just spon- taneously occur: all are created as products to be bought and sold in a greater system of commodity exchange. Marxist scholars are concerned with how the idea of media content as product, in turn, shapes the way it looks and circulates. We begin this chapter with an overview of Marxist theory before turning our attention to patterns of media ownership, focusing on how concentration, conglom- eration, integration, and multinationalism diminish competition, maximize profits, and exploit foreign markets. In the next portion of the chapter, we explore several of the key strategies of profit maximization utilized by multinational media conglom- erates to increase their bottom line and maintain their economic dominance. Then, we examine the role that advertising plays in the media industry, looking at its changing dynamics over time. We conclude the chapter by considering how media ownership patterns and strategic practices reduce diversity in media content, limit the breadth of voices and ideas found in media, and fuel cultural imperialism. Marxist Theory: an Overview Marxism is both a social theory and a political movement rooted in the idea that “society is the history of class struggles.” Its origins lie in the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who collaborated on The German Ideology in 1845 (though it was not published until long after their deaths) and the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx, who was born in Prussia in 1818, is the more well known of the two due, in part, to his single-authored works, including The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), Theories of Surplus Value (1860), Capital (1867), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), and Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which was published posthumously in 1930. The central premise of Marxism is that the mode of production in society (i.e. its underlying economic structure and practices) determines the social relations of production (i.e. its class structure). This theory understands and makes sense of the world through the perspective of historical materialism, which regards the character of social life to be a reflection of the ­material conditions that exist at a particular historical juncture.  Marxist Analysis 25 (Cultural) Social institutions Superstructure Family structures, religion, politics, government, law, education, arts, media, etc. (Economic) Mode of production Base Forces of production Natural resources, land, factories, technologies of production, labor power, etc. Relations of production Labor practices and ownership (of property, company shares, and Figure 2.1 Marx’s modes of distribution) base/superstructure model. Marx believed that the material world (i.e. natural phenomena and processes) ­precedes human thought: that the external, concrete, material conditions of social existence ­determine or ground human consciousness. As such, Marxism is considered a m ­ aterialist philosophy rather than an idealist philosophy; idealists maintain that ideas, not material conditions, determine social existence. Marx also believed that the material conditions of societies change over time and must, therefore, be viewed in historical context. As he explains in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: In the social production of their existence, men [sic] inevitably enter into definite r­ elations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these ­relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that ­determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.4 Marxism, then, holds that social consciousness, as encoded in institutions such as religion, politics, government, education, law, and art and media, which Marx ­collectively referred to as the cultural superstructure, reflects or mirrors the ­material conditions of society, which he termed the economic base. Figure 2.1 represents Marx’s famous base/superstructure model. For Marx, the cultural superstructure and the social institutions that comprise it operate in the realm of ideas or ideology. Thus, to understand the ruling ideas or dominant ideology in society, one needs to attend to the material mode of production in that society. As Marx and Engels explain in The German Ideology: The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of a society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class 26 Media Industries which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production. … The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expres- sion of the dominant material relations, the dominant material ­relations grasped as ideas.5 The mode of production within any society is characterized by two elements: its forces of production such as the land, natural resources, and technology needed to produce material goods, and its relations of production such as labor practices and ownership (of property, company shares, or the ways goods are distributed). According to Marx, a society based on a capitalist mode of production is inherently exploitive because it creates two classes, a working or proletariat class and a ruling or bourgeois class. Since the bourgeoisie owns and controls the means of production in society, the only commodity that the proletariat has to sell is its labor. For Marx, the ruling class exploits the economic value (i.e. labor) of the working class to increase surplus value or profits. But the capitalist system in many countries has changed dramatically since Marx devel- oped his Labor Theory of Value, and the division of labor that p ­ roduced such a harsh divide between the haves and the have-nots in the past has been replaced by a system that sustains a large middle class, the petty or petite ­bourgeoisie, of small business ­owners and white-collar workers (i.e. lawyers, ­doctors, professors, etc.). Their ideologi- cal domination – and it is domination (e.g. the ­middle class still behaves in a manner that sustains the ruling elite) – appears to be less grounded in their working conditions. This has led many contemporary Marxist scholars to reject deterministic models, which they label “vulgar Marxism,” that see the superstructure as having no auton- omy from the economic base. While Marxist critics are still interested in who owns and controls the means of production in ­society, they also recognize that ideology can and does influence modes of production. Thus, for them, the process is much more dialectical than unidirectional, and it is this dialectic which they wish to understand. Capitalism is driven by the continuous desire to increase capital, an ideology known as the profit-motive. Contemporary Marxist critics, many of whom adopt the label political economists, investigate both the prevailing patterns of media ­ownership and how the logic of capital, or profit-motive, influences media busi- ness practices. There is good reason to do so, as the media are big business … very big ­business! According to the professional services firm PwC (formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers), in 2011, entertainment and media was a $1.6 trillion a year global business, involving internet access ($317 billion), advertising ($486 ­billion), and consumer spending ($802 billion).6 PwC projects that, by 2016, entertainment and media will have grown into a $2.1 trillion business. Of the $802 billion in consumer spending on media globally in 2011, $265 billion was spent in North America alone. Table 2.1 breaks down these numbers by media industry. Given the staggering size of these numbers, it is useful to consider media con- sumption on a more personal level. Table 2.2 summarizes how much money the typical US consumer has spent on select media since 2004. These data suggest that in 2012, the average American consumer spent more than $1,000 a year reading, viewing, listening to, and downloading media content.  Marxist Analysis 27 Table 2.1 Consumer spending by media industry in 2009 and 2011 (in billions of dollars) Globally North America 2009 2011 2009 2011 Media industry TV subscriptions and fees 191 216 75 80 Music 53 50 18 17 Filmed entertainment 81 83 34 33 Video games 54 57 15 14 Consumer magazines 46 44 10 9 Newspapers 77 77 11 10 Radio 15 15 2 3 Consumer books 114 112 33 32 Business-to-business 146 148 66 67 Total consumer spending 776 802 264 265 Source: PwC, Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2012–2016, June 2012. Note: numbers may not add up to total due to rounding. Table 2.2 US consumer spending on select media per person per year (in dollars) 2004 2006 2008* 2010* 2012* Publishing industry Newspapers 51.92 49.23 45.78 43.85 44.41 Consumer books 94.60 99.56 105.52 110.75 117.45 Consumer magazines 47.33 44.46 44.42 44.31 43.49 Motion picture and sound recording Box office 37.50 36.38 38.16 38.18 39.66 Recorded music 51.97 49.48 43.11 42.63 43.33 Broadcast industry Cable and satellite TV 256.30 306.60 354.51 400.78 443.61 Broadcast television.09.90 3.16 6.81 11.06 Broadcast and satellite radio 1.19 5.76 9.31 12.25 14.26 New media Internet services 60.31 54.06 59.53 67.42 73.48 Home video 125.36 114.12 107.24 105.93 105.22 Video games 33.61 33.91 55.77 75.36 90.59 Source: US Census Bureau, The 2010 Statistical Abstract, Table 1094, Media Usage and Consumer Spending: 2004 to 2012. *Projected numbers. 28 Media Industries Patterns of Media Ownership Adopting a historical materialist perspective, Marxist analysis of mass media begins by examining the means and relations of production under contemporary capital-