Political-Economic Theory and NASCAR

McQuail explains on page 219 that the perspective of the political-economic theory, “provides concepts derived especially from the critique of capitalism, with reference to processes of concentration and commercialization.” He continues to explain on page 255, “The (critical) political economy theorists emphasize the economic dynamics of global media markets that work blindly to shape the flows of media commodities. Not surprisingly, such dynamics favor the free-market model and in general promote western capitalism.”
The following concepts are critical to understanding the political-economic theory (page 100):
• Economic control and logic are determinant
• Media structure tends towards concentration
• Global integration of media develops
• Contents and audiences are commodified
• Diversity decreases
• Opposition and alternative voices are marginalized
• Public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.racing.si/index.html

This article, on the “future” of NASCAR illustrates the idea of political-economic theory. In order to expand NASCAR’s fan base, the executives believe having a more diverse group of drivers will appeal to a more diverse group of fans, therefore creating a larger supporter group for the sport.
Do you believe that by adding drivers to NASCAR with different nationalities this will in turn grab the attention of these nationalities as a fan base and thus create a larger profit potential for the executives of NASCAR?
NASCAR promotes speed, because that is what they think the public wants. Do you think this is what the public really wants? Or is it merely going to create more deadly accidents? What else could NASCAR promote that would perhaps make the sport less dangerous?

-Cara Schultz-

Media Accountability

Here's another article, focusing more on accountability as a whole, not just minority group coverage. This is one of those pieces that looks at what the media isn't saying as opposed to what it is saying. Molly Ivins is accusing media outlets of being more lazy than biased. It's a classic argument, but Ivins looks at it from different angles, with actual specifics of what needs to be changed.

Do you think Ivins left out some crucial topics at the end of her piece? Do you agree that it's more laziness and lack of aggressiveness mixed with bad judgement, or is it truly bias and agenda setting?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-33.htm

Minority Reporting, or a LACK OF Minority Reporting?

Media are supposed to reflect society, in terms of coverage and real-life depictions of how life is. Filmmaker Ken Burns recently made a World War II documentary called "The War", which some say excludes minority groups like Latinos and Native Americans. Over half a million Latin Americans served in World War II, yet these groups say none of those 500,000 were even mentioned in the documentary, despite the wide range of interviews Burns did with people all over the country (a family from Waterbury was even featured in it). Burns is being accused of having malicious intentions by not honoring these groups as much as the more prominent ones. Do you think he, or any media commander, is purposely excluding certain minority groups in some forms of media? If so, is there an ulterior motive or just an agenda-less lack of recognition?

That's an issue in itself, but a second layer comes from Burns now announcing he will not change the original documentary, but add extra footage specifically focusing on Latino and Native American contributions to the war. This, I feel, is the biggest part of the minority issue, not whether they're properly covered in the original form--is Burns adding on to the documentary because he feels not all groups were given equal respect, or is he adding on simply to quell the protestors? An even more current example of that similar problem is the Don Imus controversy. Is Imus apologizing for racist comments made on his show because he feels bad, or because he got in trouble and wants to cover his a**?

This article is actually the transcript of a conversation between Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, who led some of the protests against Burns, and the host of radio program "Democracy Now!" They discuss the bigger picture of minority coverage, not just in the Burns documentary.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421225

Political-Economic Theory

According to Wikipedia, political economy was the original term for the study of production, the acts of buying and selling, and their relationships to laws, customs and government. However when applying that idea to communications it changes just a little bit. In the present, political economy refers to a variety of different, but related, approaches to studying economic and political behavior, which range from combining economics with other fields, to using different fundamental assumptions which challenge those of orthodox economics

According to McQuail “Political-economic theory identifies a socially critical approach that focuses primarily on the relation between the economic structure and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media. It directs research attention to the empirical analysis of the structure of ownership and control of media and to the way media market forces operate. From this point of view, the media institution has to be considered as part of the economic system, with close links to the political system" (McQuail 99)

So how does a communication theory help the world of politics?

Its simple, the basis of politics comes from the people, just as Smith and Marx believed. In order to keep the people informed, politicians need communication.

My article was taken from Newsweek.com. It is about the political economy of China. Fareed Zakaria, the author, believes that China is growing everyday and their economy continues to prosper. From a poor nation years ago, they now are slowly becoming a superpower among the worlds resources.

Although the article does not go directly into the meaning of the theory, it does directly show how the political economy of both the United States and China use communication to get their information to the public … through articles like this.

The question I pose to you as you read the article is, does the article do a good job of explaining the political economy of both the U.S. and China?

Finally, after you finish the article I ask, does the political economy of the United States seem weaker than that of China, a growing superpower?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693580/site/newsweek/

Media Audience Research (And The Power Of South Pak)

To the class...

I am sorry to anyone I inconvienienced by posting this a few hours late. I have literally been sitting here for 2+ hours trying to get my internet to work (thanks quinnipiac), and once I fixed that, I couldn't figure out how to post on the blog page. So if I hampered anyone's plans by not enabling them to respond to a blog earlier today, I apologize, and feel free to punch me in the mouth in class on Tuesday...

In chapter 15, we are introduced to a plethora of different ways to interpret media audiences. I feel the most important part of the chapter is “Questions of Audience Reach.” At this stage in understanding media audiences, it is obvious that there are both “passive” and “active” media consumers. There are also examples of polysemy and intertextuality (making sense of one media text through its use in another text), that seem to reward active media consumers. McQuail called this “the attentive audience; those that actually read, watch, listen, etc., to particular content. With this in mind, we do not have to address the “mindless television” issue. There are people that will actively watch anything. People not only watch American Idol, but hen text message the “star?” they want to see move on to the next round. With the breakthrough of technology that allowed an active attentive audience to really flap their wings, it was only a matter of time until this happened…

http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/537/73h2810131774057.html

CBS has gotten the head start in the race for what in the next 5 years will become active audience research. Streaming video is indeed everywhere, but CBS’s plans show a great enhancement to the internet mainstay. CBS, with this campaign is empowering the audience a an entire new level. While reality shows promote and active audience by promising that the audience can help dictate a contest winner, CBS is now promising that an active audience can dictate the programming of an entire network…Power to the people.

While we are talking about the attentive audience however, I think it is important to examine some television shows that reward an attentive audience, not for using another media outlet to be active, but instead for using other media outlets to become more attentive. Parodies like South Park reward people for paying attention to other television shows. Just for kicks, here is a link to a recent South Park episode, shot as if it were an episode of 24.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5814476104452143572&q=south+park+24

Audience Theories

Chapter 15 in the McQuail text focuses on ‘Audience Theory and Research Traditions.’ The chapter goes on to state “Audiences are both a product of social context (which leads to shared cultural interests, understanding and information needs) and a response to a particular pattern of media provision” (McQuail, 396). Audience consumption of media outlets often has some type of personal impact on their lives in one way or another. These similarities can group these individuals together in communities. The chapter talks about the media when they set out to appeal to a certain social group, gender, political or religious belief, etc.
Though the media may set out to appeal to its viewers, they have on many occasions been accused of being biased towards a particular group of people within their audience. An example of this comes from the radio station that produces the ‘Don Imus’ talk show:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=257556>1=7703.

He is under fire for his racial slur he used while on air about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team. I found this article to be very interesting because we see how audience voices are just as powerful as media personalities. From this story viewers have the chance to see how this host could have possibly lost some of his female audience as well as portion of his minority audience. Don Imus and the radio network gave a much need apology, but I am certain his audience will have somewhat of a different outlook on him from now on. The McQuail chapter states, “It is plausible to suppose that the media need their audience more than audiences need their media…” (McQuail, 401). How do you think such incidents like this one could have been avoided? To what extent do the media have to consider their audience and their feelings and beliefs?

Fans and Fanatics...and are we too Obsessed?

McQuail gives us the roots of the term 'audience' as a collective term that was deployed by the pioneers in the field of media research. He defines it as "all those who are actually reached by particular media content or media 'channels.'"

But audience is a VERY large topic to touch upon, so I'd like to focus on one element of audience studies. Fans and fanatics.

It is believed that audiences can go from being pure innocent bystanders, to utterly obsessed. Take a look at this website I found posted by a person who seemed fed up about obsessed fans and fanatics. http://www.ggower.com/fans/. Glen Gower linked his site to a multitude of fan sites I didn't even know existed, and it makes you think when you see all that are out there.

Also if you have time take a look yourself...Google any actor/actress/athlete and see how many hits you get for fan sites. (That's how I found the one above.) Is this too much?

Here is an article I found written by a BBC reporter who writes about the lowdown on celebrity fanatics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1408843.stm. I think it sums it up too.

So after reading the article, maybe browsing the web yourself, what do you think about fandom. Is today's society too caught up in a celebrity framed world? Or is the way we idolize celebrities okay?