Page Against The (Culture) Machine

Chapter 17 : The Sociology of the Mass Media


In essence this chapter is trying to address the key question of whether the mass media, and newspapers, can really influence the public? Does it even have an important role in society?
Curran & Seaton draw on the ideas of the Frankfurt school, whose first hand views of the rise of fascism influenced their views on the media, specifically the propaganda power of the media.
Why did people blindly believe this information that was so clearly biased?

"The Frankfurt school saw the loss of individuality as the cause of dependence on great mass organisations... The interdependence of highly specialised individuals, or what Durkheim called 'organic solidarity' had been succeeded by a new and barbarous homogeneity," (pg266)

On digging deeper, it was the presentation of 'normalcy' or a representation of an authentic real world within the propaganda that was perhaps so divisive.

Adorno, in a book called 'The Jargon of Authenticity', explains how the 'mass media can create an aura which makes the spectator seem to experience a non existent actuality'... The easiest way to do this, he argued, was to substitute new meanings for familiar and respected values, like liberty and freedom." (pg266) 

This makes sense up to a point, its the basis of nearly all advertising, which seeks to blend consumer products into a constructed actuality. It does take however an extremely top down approach to media creation and consumption in which the media's sole purpose seems to be the manipulation of the masses. There isn't much room in this analysis for media created outside of state control or media made by smaller grass roots organisations. This example seems to work for Nazi Germany but not so well for other eras of history, especially the internet age. Even the effect of propaganda has been disputed:

"Early surveys seemed to show that the media did not change people's minds. 'Paradoxically campaign propaganda exerted one major effect - by producing no overt effect on voting behaviour at all - if by the latter "effect"we naively mean a change in vote,' wrote Lazarfield in 1944. In fact the media confirmed people in the opinions which they already held. Propaganda marshalled the faithful. It did not 'win over' the wavering or the opposed." (pg 271)

These are strong counter arguments to the ideas of the Frankfurt school and ones that start to put the idea of an 'active audience' forward. Its possible here to expand this argument into an all encompassing discussion around the nature of audiences and ideology in the 21st century. To save us all a lot of time its probably best to turn to some Stuart Hall for guidance. He explains in his analysis how ideas and ideology must be formed somewhere outside of the media before they are picked up and propagated by the 'very few groups who do have any real control over the media'. He shows us that the Media are indeed independent and genuine at various times. Interestingly he points to this apparent independence, and the trust we place in it, that is the real problem. It seeks to fool the audience into passive acceptance.

"In this way the apparent autonomy of organisations like the BBC 'veils and mystifies the structure of constraints'. Independence, Hall argues, is not 'a mere cover, it is central to the way power and ideology are mediated in societies like ours'. Thus we seem to have a more sophisticated instance of 'false consciousness'. The public are bribed with good radio, television, and newspapers into an acceptance of the biased and the misleading, and the status quo." (pg 281)

So it turns out Adorno was right after all! We are all being mislead by the great culture machine in the bourgeoisie sky. Sort of. Stuart Hall's analysis is strong here because it allows for an intelligent consumer but also explains how the clear influence from the capitalist elite can exert itself.