Media in a market economy

[Trond Andresen <trond.andresen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

(I said I would send this in a separate message:)

Trond

************************************************

The inherent and harmful dynamics of
media in a market economy

by Trond Andresen, September 1996, updated May 1998

(This may be copied and freely distributed, but source must be given)

Below is a compressed presentation (it is based on slides from a lecture) of
what I consider to be facts relating to the
importance of media in a modern society, and mechanisms ("natural laws") at
work which decide the character of media in a
market economy.

I am grateful for any response.


A. Society as a complex organism - a metaphor

1) Modern society, as opposed to primitive self-sufficient hunting and
farming communities, is specialized through parts or
sub-units which interact and are very interdependent. In this sense modern
society is a complex organism, as opposed to a
one-cell "primitive" organism. Any complex organism needs a nervous system
and a brain for survival.

2) Media constitute an important part of the modern society organism's
nervous system and brain.

3) The first role of media - as nervous system - is to inform the organism
as a whole what is going on in the different parts of it.
This is of crucial importance to insure well-being and even survival.

4) The second role of media is to be part of society's "brain" (other parts
of the brain are organizations, research, academia,
culture) The media part of the brain processes information flowing from the
nervous system by holding debates, digging up facts,
confronting the responsible persons in power, etc.

5) The third role is again as nervous system: Sending out signals that
ensure that the organism takes appropriate action.

6) It is obvious that false information flowing in, wrong priorities or
distortion in the processing with ensuing uncorrect signals
being sent out again, is harmful.

7) It is maybe not so obvious that "innocent" soap and entertainment may
also do harm. But in such a situation, neccessary
information gathering, processing and action is crowded out, does not occur
or is delayed. Then we have an organism who is
"happy" for the moment, but whose brain and nervous system are dulled by
permanent "intoxication".

8) If the extent of intoxication is such that problems threatening the
continued existence of the organism are not solved, even if
such dangerous problems are recognized in sober moments, we have
self-destructive dope addiction.

9) For the societal organism the addiction mechanism is the profit motive
driving the media industry. And since soap and trivia
give the largest income with the smallest costs, this will dominate.

10) A final analogy: A dope addict is masterful at self-deception, telling
himself and his surroundings that he is more or less OK;
this is a natural psychic defense mechanism. The media profiteers, and their
apologists at the editorial level are just as good at
deception and self-deception, defending the status quo.


B. Media "dynamic laws" (mostly economic)

1) Given no other restriction, any medium (broadcast or paper) will tend
towards an editorial policy which gives the maximum
revenue for the minimum cost.

2) Economies of scale both in broadcasting and the printed press are
extreme. The acquistion and processing of information
demands an expensive infrastructure, and skilled and expensive personnel. On
the other hand, the marginal cost of reaching one
person more is practically zero for broadcast media, and practically equal
to the paper + distribution cost for one extra sample in
the case of paper media.

3) Due to these extreme economies of scale, small setbacks can lead to
catastrophic consequences for a medium which is not firmly
established at the top. This makes for strong susceptibility to
owner/advertiser pressure. It is also conducive to self-censorship.

4) Advertising-dependence is a worse way of ensuring audience influence on
the character of media compared to direct audience
influence, since advertisers and audiences do not have do not have similar
objectives. The same holds for
investor/owner-dependence.

5) Other things being equal (f.inst. equal audience), advertisers (and
investors) will favour the media which is the more editorially
friendly to business interests.

6) Journalists/editors will, when conflicts arise, usually and in the final
instance yield to the demands of media owners.


C. More media "dynamic laws"
(economic/psychological, concerning media personnel)

1) Wage size is an especially dangerous incentive for a journalist, since
wage size will colour the product he delivers, as opposed
to wage size for f. inst. an electrician or a carpenter. The largest media
are able to pay the highest wages, due to the extreme
economies of scale in media.

2) Wage differentials between the largest and the smaller media are thus
large. In fact, few other highly qualified categories of
employees have higher wage differentials in spite of similar work and level
of competence, than journalists. Journalists are very
aware of this and plan their career accordingly. This means rich and large
media receiving experienced personnel who have been
"educated" and trained in the poorer media.

3) Access to and friendly relationships with persons in power and
celebrities are other dangerous incentives for a journalist. The
largest media ensure the best access. Journalists are very aware of this and
plan their career accordingly. See also point (5) and (6)
below.

4) Persons in power are very aware of this and mete out access and news
tidbits as a reward to non-critical or powerful journalists.

5) The journalist profession is for good or bad, exhibitionist: What you
produce is there for everyone to evaluate, the public and
your colleagues. This is an incentive for development of narcissism and
self-importance, and must therefore be deliberately
resisted to be avoided. It is also an incentive for competitiveness and
individualism between colleagues, against solidarity in the
media workplace.

6) The incentive for narcissism and self-importance has been greatly
strengthened with the increasing dominance of television and
other visual media (glossy magazines etc.). This also feeds back to the
written media, with newspapers promoting certain
journalists resembling the way the entertainment industry promotes their
celebrities (bylines with pictures of the journalist is just
one trivial example). Thus journalism's traditional ideal motive of genuine
interest in the issues and problems of society is to an
increasing degree being substituted with a new motive: "Journalism" as
posturing, in the sense of being a celebrity and being one
of the select on an exclusive "scene" in front of a large audience. This
trend among other things leads to airheads from the
modeling and "beauty" industry getting jobs as TV "news" presenters.

6) Journalists - like advertising people - have rhetorics as one tool of
their trade. Thus they are very good at convincing both
themselves and their surroundings that their practice is always, regardless
of outside criticism, justified.


D. Still more media "dynamic laws"
(psychological, concerning the public)

1) Due to their nature and socialization, a significant part of the public
(for convenience grouped in a crude category here labeled
"type 1") will prefer entertainment over news and current affairs.

2) Furthermore, the type of news and current affairs most popular with them
will be about events, not issues, i.e.
news-as-entertainment, before insight.

3) Thirdly, concerning the type of news and current affairs intended to give
insight, type 1 of the public will prefer the category
that confirms, not questions, their attitudes and world view.

4) Type 1 is - as a general rule - not interested in active participation in
a democratic process. Either they don't see the need for it,
or they feel such endeavor is futile.

5) The above four points indicate that the traits of the public itself, and
not only economic mechanisms and motivation of media
personnel, must be considered in a critical analysis of media in a
capitalist economy.

6) Another significant part of the public (here crudely grouped as "type 2")
is not as described above. They are actively interested
in news and current affairs pertaining to insight and change, and wish to
participate actively in a democratic process.

7) The relationship between the media and the two defined types of public is
interactive: The media shape (socialize) the public,
and public preferences and response influence the media. Furthermore, the
two categories of public interact with each other.

8) These relationships are dynamic, i.e. things will change with time. And
since they are very complex and non-linear, we may
predict that there is more than one possible state of equilibrium. This
again means that other states of affairs than today's are
feasible.

9) One feasible future transition scenario is a positive feedback (a "good
spiral") initiated by the media gradually moving in a
"type 2" direction in their editorial policy. This increases the size and
vigour of the "type 2" public category and correspondingly
reduces the "type 1" group. It also sets into motion positive feedback
processes within the public, increasing democratic
participation and general political activity. This again feeds back to the
media and reinforces the process.

10) Another factor which may initiate the same process is a backlash
reaction from the type 1 public due to accumulated disgust
with a media system turning too blatantly commercial.
This may contribute to a process similar to that described in (9).

11) But opposite future scenarios - also incorporating positive
(self-reinforcing) feedback
processes - are possible; characterized by weakening and depletion of the
type 2 public category, increasing public
non-participation and apathy, and media commercialism.

12) A "good spiral" as in (9) - (10) is (while not sufficient) a neccessary
prerequisite for true democracy to emerge - and, based on
the analysis in subsection A,

- also neccessary for the (literal-sense) survival of modern, complex societies!