the media theorists

·       Bauman (2007) – last 30 yrs = more info produced globally than previous 5000 yrs – 1 NY Times edition = more info than 1 cultivated 18^th century citizen

·       Bagdikian (1989) – ‘Lords of Global Village’ – handful companies/moguls control all info, delivering message – 2011 Fortune 500: 5 global firms (Walk Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS, Viacom) own most US media – entire country – prefer mass appeal stories – ‘more communications power than was exercised by any despot or dictatorship in history’

theorists:

·       Morley (1980) – preferred/ dominant reading (Stuart Hall’s 1980 ‘Reception Model’)

·       Althusser – ideological state apparatus

·       Miliband (1973), Glasgow Media Group – Marxist: media = important in spreading dominant ideology – control access to info – legitimises inequalities – promotes preferred readings – consensus on ‘reasonable’/’unreasonable’ – challenge = unreasonable – incomplete/distorted – attack opposition – climate of conformity

·       Curran & Seaton (2010) –evidence suggests owner/paper interference – expense of individual journalists – protect own interests/gov

·       GMG – white, male, m/c journalists – socialisation into dom class view as common sense – attack or mocking of anything against status quo. Excluded from reports – think of other events over others

·       David Gauntlett – ‘pick and mix’ theory – audiences selective with media – pick some parts/values, ignore others (e.g. read stories in Sun, ignore page 3)

·       McLuhan (1962) – ‘global village’ – media/electronic communication operates globally – shrinks space/time barriers – world = village

·       Sklair (2012) – (largely) American media – spreads culture to global market – blurs differences between info/entertainment/ads – sells idealised Western/American lifestyle – dom ideol of Western capitalism – ‘culture-ideology of consumerism’ (e.g. American companies dominating web growth)

·       Fenton (1999) – ‘cocacolanisation’ – domination of Western culture over others

·       Compaine (2005) – pluralist: global competition = expanding products not dumbing down

·       Tomlinson (1999) – no forced imposition – ‘hybridisation’ – hybrid cultures/glocalisation – e.g. local versions of global TV formats

·       Thussu (2007) – globalisation + competition = tabloidisation & global infotainment – emphasis on celeb, crime, etc – expense of public affairs/serious issues – false global ‘feel good factor’ based on US/Western lifestyles 

·

·       Baudrillard (1988, 2001) – ‘media-saturated society’ - distorts view – e.g. images of war sanitised, media-constructed, Hollywood-esque

·       Garrod (2004) – reality TV/social media blur distinction between reality & hyperreality – what is real? What is created?

·       Strinati (1995) – media shapes consumer choice – daily bombardment – forms sense of reality/self

·       Glasgow Media Group – selection/presentation = biased – manufactured messages produced in dominant ideology

·       Bagdikian (2004) – news presented as to not offend advertisers

·       Barnett & Gaber (2001) – market pressures = more conformist, less critical/informed political reporting

·       Bivens (2008) – citizen journalism (phone/photo/reports/criticisms) = transform traditional journalism

·       Cohen (1963) – media succeeds in telling us what to think about, if not how

·       McCombs (2004) – news media tells us what to think

·       GMG – agendas are within dominant ideology

·       Galtung & Ruge (1970) – news values = composition, continuity, elite nations/people, frequency, meaningfulness, negativity, personalisation, proximity, threshold, unambiguity, unexpectedness

·       GMG – importance of assumptions in forming content – key features: Becker, moderate/centre politics, white/male/m/c journalists, simple work

·       Becker (1967) – ‘hierarchy of credibility’ – most powerful = greatest importance in media

·       Hall et al (1978) – powerful = ‘primary definers’ – more access to media/influence over news definitions – ‘experts’ – ‘reasonable’ views

·       Manning (1999) – competition = use primary definers – cheap and available – gov/businesses manipulate media via press/PR deps

·       Waseem Zakia (BBC journalist) – ‘churnalism’ = second hand stories, not doing ‘digging’/fact checking

·       Jewell (2014) – ‘advertonals’ – branded content (ads) masquerading as journalist articles – increasingly mainstream

·       Herman & Chomsky (2002) – propaganda model – mainstream media shaped to propagandise on behalf of powerful

·       Edwards & Cromwell (2009) – leading journalists serve powerful – support gov/business/war – ‘dark art’ of smearing dissidents

·       McRobbie & Thornton (1995) – media generated moral panics less common due to new media, rolling news, competition – changed reporting/responses/reactions to what would have caused one before

·       Richard Dyer – ‘stereotypes legitimise inequality’

·       McRobbie – rep = ‘site of power & regulation as well as a source of ID’

·       Mulvey (1975) – ‘the male gaze’

·       Tuchman et al (1978), Gerbner & Gross (1976) – distorted view of groups/erases from public consciousness

·       Gauntlett (2008) – diversity of representation – not all reps or reactions the same, e.g. POC rep will mean different things to real world POC with personal experience

·       GMG  - rep/stereotypes – reinforce cultural hegemony/dom ideol

·       Women In Journalism (2009) – study – teen boys = crime stories – ‘thugs’, ‘feral’, ‘hoodie’, ‘heartless’, ‘frightening’

·       Cohen (2002) – youth powerless – easy to blame social ills on – scape goats & folk devils (esp. black boys)

·       White et al. (2012) – survey of viewers & industry experts – neg stereotypes of youth, 40% youth dissatisfied with rep as ‘disrespectful’ (unproductive and vacuous lives’) – older views think they’re stereotyped also – lack of rep for m aged/older women – ‘insulting’, ‘out of step’ – portrayed as reluctant to modernise, moaning

·       Cuddy & Fiske (2004) – 1.5% TV characters elderly (most minor) – comic relief – impaired

·       Szmigin & Carrigan (2000) – study of ad execs – 19 London agencies – products.& services appropriate for older rep – feel older models will alienate younger consumers

·       Jones (2011) – media impression ‘we are all middle class now’ – m/c values norm/aspirational, celebrating m/c and u/c interests = important to all – w/c = deviant or ‘fun’. Romanisation of w/c in media gaze – Yallop – 2000 = patronised to despised

·       Weltman (2008) – range of entertainment – w/c = devalued vs m/c – chav stereotype

·       GMG – little content dismisses class privilege/inequality, conceal tensions – neg rep acts against groups challenging hegemony

·        Lawler (2005) – stereotype w/c as ‘worthless, disgusting, frightening & threatening chavs…bad clothes/food/behaviour/taste’ – secures m/c ID & sense of superiority

·       Shildrick et al. (2007) – ‘chav’ qualities presented as from individual failings/depravity, not structural wealth inequality – ‘undeserving poor’ – neutralises sympathy – laughter over understanding – hegemony of dom class & normality of m/c

·       Hall (2003) – ‘the white eyes through which they are seen’

·       Malik (2012) – A Carib = more likely to be in social issue/music/sport/comedy over political or serious topics

·       Beattie et al. citing Naomi Campbell: ‘this business [ads] is about selling & blonde & blue-eyed girls are what sells’

·       Hargrave (2002) – e minorities concerned re portrayals – Asians feel stereotyped as ‘all the same’ – cultural differences ignored – neg stereotypes, simplistic/unrealistic, neg images of country, tokenism

·       Hall (2003) – rep black/asian – cheating, cunning, nasty

·       Cottle (2000) (and others) – limited/degrading/unsympathetic reps

·       REACH (US media group) (2007) – black male youth = rep as dangerous, threatening, surrounding crime – black crime reported more than black victimhood – ignores hate crime

·       Dowling (2007) – 2000s – Eastern European immigrants blamed for by media: benefit cheating, lone parenting, stealing, taking jobs, foreign language signs, drink driving, lower wages, groping women, etc etc

·       Baroness Warsi

·       Phillips

·       Hargrave – Muslim concern re rep – only certain aspects of faith (e.g. fundamentalism) depicted – causes harassment and fear – mainstream NOT fundamentalist

·       Cottle (2000) – media rep – encourages construction of ID – who ‘we’ are comp to ‘who’ are not – ‘us’ vs ‘them’ – neg rep secures white ID as ‘different’ & ‘superior’

·       International Women’s Media Foundation (2010) – marginalisation of women in UK news rooms – glass ceiling fixed @ junior professional – shapes reporting

·       Mulvey – ‘the male gaze’

·       Martinson (2014) – of all 50+ on BBC (TV) – 82% male – on all major broadcasters – 50+ female presenters = 5% of demographic

·       Tuchman et al (1978) – feminist – symbolic annihilation of women – trivialisation, omission, condemnation

·       Connell (2005) – gender IDs constructed via hegemonic/dominant gender roles in media – ‘hegemonic masculinity’

·       Wolf (1991) – ‘beauty myth’ - profit

·       Tebbel (2000) – women more preoccupied with ‘shape’ than ever – media promoting ‘ideal’ body – symbolic annihilation of realistic bodies - skinny, white, hairless, young

·       Children Now (2001) – female underrep in computer games (16% characters) – objectified, stereotyped gender behaviour (passive women, active men) – violence against women (GTA)

·       Ferguson (1983) – teenage girl mags prepare girls for feminise adult roles – ‘cult of femininity’ – getting partners, being a good wife, pleasing, clothes, cooking – socialised into roles then seen in adult female mags

·       Judith Butler (see essay)

·       The Bechdel Test (see essay)

·       bell hooks (see essay)

·       Gilmore (1991) – ‘the provider, the protector, & the impregnator’

·       US reports (e.g. Children Now (1999) – ‘masks of masculinity’ – ‘the joker’, ‘the jock’, ‘the strong silent type’, ‘the big shot’, ‘the action hero’, the buffoon’

·       McRobbie (1994) – postmodernist – more fluidity of rep to reflect society – new form of popular feminism in preteen/teen mags – promotes assertiveness, sexuality, seld-awareness, confidence, ambition, independence – ‘girl power’ + ‘the beauty stakes have gone up for men….women takien up position of active viewers’

·       Gauntlett (2008) – growing expectation of equal treatment – wider range of ID – new choices. Range of masc ID – mags = ‘overboard with macho excess…encourage men to understand women and face up to modern realities’

·       Innes (1999) – study of TV drama/film women – ‘tough girls’

·       Knight (2010) – independent women portrayals subvert tradit roles but underlying conventional femininity – always attractive, never unfeminine

·       Gross (1991) – symbolic annihilation of gay people – excluding, trivialising, condemning, & mocking

·       Gauntlett (2008) – LG still under/mis represented in mainstream, despite changes

·       Cowan (2007) – nearly 1/5 believe media responsible for homophobia

·       Gill (2007) – gay sexuality ‘sanitised’ (men rarely portrayed kissing/having sex) – gay men to attract women & sexualisation of queer women to appeal to hetero male fantasies – appeals to LGB audience without offending hetero/homophobic viewers/advertisers

·       Philo et al (2010) (GMG) – neg stereotypes of disabling mental illness in TV drama – ½ peak time mental illness stories – threat – 63% rep critical, flippant, unsympathetic – easy source of humour or tragedy

·       Barnes (1992) – ‘disabling stereotypes which medicalise, patronise, criminalise, and dehumanise disabled people’ – ‘mentally ill sex pervert’ exception to desexualisation – 10 stereotypes: pitiable, element of atmosphere/curiosity, object of violence (victims), sinister, ‘super cripple’, laughable, own worst enemy, burden, non-sexual, unable to participate

·       Shakespeare (1999) – use of disability as trait/device/atmospheric = ‘a lazy short cut’ to hook audience with sympathy/revulsion – not accurate or fair, reinforces ignorance

·       Katz & Lazarsfield (1955) – ‘the two-step flow model’ – audiences = variety of responses to media – key influence on responses = ‘opinion leaders’ – respected, get info/views from media, lead discussion – 1) opinion leaders select & interpret texts prior, form own opinions; 2) selectively pass on messages ft. own opinions – audiences receive mediated messages – chain reaction

·       Stuart Hall (1980) – Neo-Marxist – TV news/current affairs = encoded with preferred reading/dominant hegemonic viewpoint – held by industry, ads/competition – audiences decode texted in intended way mostly, OR differently

·       Klapper (1960) – 3 filters applied to approaches to media – selective exposure, selective perception, selective retention  

·       Philo (2008) (GMG) – audiences capable of being critical but research shows significant media influence + most accept dominant media accounts unless they have access to alternative info

·       Blumler & Katz (1974) – uses & grats - information & surveillance, personal ID, social interaction, entertainment

·       Newson (1994) – re. Bulger case – violent videos = violent actions – children’s exposure = ‘drip drip’ long term effects – socialised into culture of violence – norm, solution to problems, desensitised to real life violence – less victim sympathy, increased risk of aggression in adults

·       Cumberbatch (1994) – Newson’s findings speculation fuelled by press – 2004 for Video Standard’s Council – review of research evidence – evidence supporting correlation = weal – only 200 scientific studies directly assess effects & they do not support correlation

·       Broadcasting Standard’s Commission (2003) – children sophisticated media users – know TV not reality – ‘they are able to make judgements…they are not blank sheets of paper on whom messages can be imprinted’

·       Gerbner (1988) – watch more TV + exposed to more media violence = exaggerated fears of crime – overestimate risk of victimisation – believe unsafe neighbourhoods – crime = serious personal problem, assume crime rates increasing (isn’t)

·       Livingstone (1996) – link between media/real violence does not mean media caused behaviour – audiences views different types/channels/bits of programmes – the causes and punishments for violence is not seen – difficult to know what is watched, exposed to, context/meanings. Livingstone & Ferguson (2014) – effects models try to resolve issues using experimental methods – samples in lab conditions

·       Gauntlett (1998) – criticising experimental studies – people behave differently in real life – may alter behaviour/attitudes when observed, esp. children… + failure to identity direct links despite mass research = no effects to be found

·       Ferguson (2014) – experimental conditions – aggressive behaviour in participants seeking researcher approval – researchers provide opportunity for aggression

·       Livingstone & Bovill (1999) – converging screen tech = blurring boundaries between traditionally distinct activities

·       Jenkins (2008) – multiple media – one device = cultural convergence. Interactivity = participatory culture, collective intelligence (‘put the pieces together if we pool our resources’)

·       Lister et al (2003) – 5 concepts distinguishing old from new media: digitality, interactivity, hyper textuality, dispersal, virtuality

·       Jones (2010) – patterns in internet use reflect/amplify existing inequalities – vulnerable groups: poor with young children, unemployed, physically/socially isolated, elderly, disabled, rural

·       Dutton & Blank (2011) – 91% with higher education use internet, 34% with no qualifications

·       Helsper (2011) – users = healthy, young, educated, high income + professionals. Non users = health problems, elderly, no quals, low income, manual workers

·       Jones (2010) – around 1/3 pop (socioeconomically disadvantaged/aged) – more digitally excluded – poorest = least access (can’t afford) – 65% not online in bottom 2 classes

·       Helsper (2011) – ‘digital underclass’ – lack access/skills

·       Livingstone & Wang (2011) – above situation worsening, incl. acquiring skills

·       Boyle (2007) – younger gen grown up with new media developments -learnt @ home, school, peers – media-savvy – more likely to consume media in variety of formats – youth = highest internet use, decline with age

·       Jones (2010) – STILL 10% 16-24 yr olds from most disadvantaged classes = infrequent use

·       Ofcom (2012,14) – 16-24 comp to older = greater use/time, web @ home, use smartphone, use web on phone, attached/confident using new media, uses as form of fun, news on phones over traditional media

·       Ofcom (2011,12,14) – consoles/tablets – men, e-readers – women, men 3x more likely watch videos, use smartphones – female ‘high addiction’ to phones – more calls/texts, less likely to use web (3 month period) – more likely to use social media, less likely to use for relaxation/news

·       Bivens (2008) – development = 3 signif changes to traditional journalism: shifts in traditional news flow cycles, heightened accountability, evolving news values (immediacy). New media shift in power only slight – elite adapting, continue to shape output, retain power to limit debate/narrow agendas

·       The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2015) – new media tech use growth = struggle for traditional to make profit – access news via social media – concentration of power in new tech platform providers (Facebook, Google) – control over agendas. Newman & Levy (2014) – over 1/3 18-24 yr olds, 10 developed countries - smartphones primary means of accessing news

·       McNair (2006) – new media = elite have less power over agendas – ‘cultural chaos’ – citizen journalists

·       Curran & Seaton (2010) – 2 general views: cultural optimist view (neophiliacs), cultural pessimist view. ‘Sovereigns of cyberspace’ have ‘power without responsibility’

·       McNair (2006) – cultural optimist: ‘information, like knowledge, is power’ – internet access to more info/POVs. ’Neither editors nor proprietors call the shots on content anymore’

·       McLuhan (1962) – ‘global village’

·       MacKinnon (2012) – cultural pessimist: ‘sovereigns of cyberspace’ – power of multinational corps (Amazon etc) – control web access, satellite channels, social networking, tech – hold power of government/effectively part of political system – not elected/accountable

·       Reuters Institute (Newman & Levy, 2014) – majority news consumed online from established companies – conversation on social media driven by mainstream journalists – sites criticising status quo/calling for change = understated, no ads, marginalised – swamped by well-resourced corp run sites maintaining interests.

·       Preston (2012) – digital media offers choice but no attention to stories they didn’t know they’d be interested in like TV or paper news would – reliance on recommendations from like-minded circle = less exposure to broader news