Media (35 marks essay questions)

1 Media is controlled in the interest of the ruling class. Assess this view.

According to traditional Marxism, Ruling Class owns and controls ideological institutions which give
them the power to shape how people view the social world. In contemporary Societies, Media is the
most important and influential ideological institution. Whoever owns the media, exercises a great deal
of power. The media is a powerful agency that can shape and in some instances fully decide people’s
general thoughts and behaviors. Media is Part of the political and ideological superstructure in Capitalist
societies.

Media is controlled in the interest of the ruling class. Its role is to propagate values that support the
status quo, shaping how people see the world through a range of legitimizing ideas which may include
Support for capitalist, Rationalizing & justifying social inequalities, Defending the concept of private
property, The private ownership of profits, Negatively labeling alternatives to Capitalism. Media is a
tool/ instrument controlled by the Ruling Class to teach an ideology that favors their interests. According
to Miliband, members of the Ruling Class share a common economic and cultural background which is
created and reinforced through educational and family networks.

Ownership & control are part of a Hierarchal system; both are necessary features of Capitalist
corporations. Owners & Controllers use the media to manipulate how subject classes see the world to
create the belief that societies work in the interests of all rather than the interests of a few. In this way
the media creates a “False Consciousness”, Lower social classes cooperate with the ruling class in their
own exploitation and against their own interests. E.g. In the UK, following the Global Financial Crisis in
2008, the media has characterized recovery in terms of “Austerity” and the need for everyone to work
together to make sacrifices to pay off the National Debt. The ability to control the type and quality of
info people receive means a Ruling Class controls and broadly determines how people think.

(2nd side)

However, traditional Marxism is criticized as it reflects a conspiratorial approach to the relationship b/w
a ruling class & the media, in which Media is a “willing tool” in the hands of the Elite. The usefulness of
concepts like “Dominant Ideology” and “False consciousness” has been questioned. People today have a
lot of choices that offer access to different economic, political and ideological viewpoints. The
development of New Media makes it difficult to see how the flow of info can be tightly controlled by a
Ruling Class. Traditional Marxist Approach also tends to portray Media Consumers as passive recipients
of whatever owners want to publish. Similarly, according to the Hegemony concept of Neo Marxism,
media is not controlled in the interest of solely ruling class rather, owners and controllers in Modern
Capitalist societies are locked into a mutually beneficial structural relationship based around economic
profit. Owners must make profits if their business wants to survive. Managers rely on profits for their
jobs, salaries and lifestyles. This approach questions the idea that the behavior of subject classes is
directly manipulated through the media. For this to happen, Ruling class would need a level of cohesion
(unity) that they simply don’t have.

Similarly, Pluralist approach stresses on how social groups compete against one another in the Economic
marketplace as they pursue their own interests. According to Burnham, in a competitive world, the
consumer exercises a huge (collective) influence over organizational behavior. If consumers don’t like
what they are being offered, then an organization must respond to consumer’s demands or risk being
driven out of biz by other companies who are more willing to adapt. In this situation, media is not
controlled in the interest of the ruling class and the ideological content of media messages is less
important than profit. Media companies are forced to compete for customers; power really lies in the
hands of the consumers. Even an organization such as Facebook originally developed and owned by a
very small group of employees including the creator Mark Zuckerberg is now owned by a wide group of
institutional and individual shareholders. Wide range of information is shared on a global platform
which shows that media is not controlled in the interest of small groups of elite class.

According to Jones, Media is not controlled by the ruling class but media has a tradition of strong
investigative journalism which often targets those in power. Two reporters on the Washington Post
forced the president of the USA Richard Nixon to resign after they exposed him for authorizing the
bugging of his opponent’s offices. Similarly, Newspapers in the UK have also uncovered corruption in
high places e.g the Parliamentary Expense Scandal was exposed by journalists from the Daily Telegraph
which led to imprisonment of many members of the parliament.

In conclusion, to some extent, media is a tool of ideological control where ruling class uses media to
their own interest and manipulates the thinking of people to preserve the capitalist system. Media’s
content is presented to benefit the ruling class and create false consciousness but to a great extent,
media has become a very influential instrument to question and overthrow the ruling class and capitalist
system in modern society. Journalists challenge and question the personalities in power. Media has also
become a major source of income. Demand and taste of consumers is given much importance by the
media channels to earn more profits which shows that control of the ruling class has declined to control
and influence the media.

2 Media directly influences the way people behave. Assess

According to Marxism, Media directly influences the way people behave. Important dimension of
Media’s Role is to shape how people think by controlling the nature, extent and type of information on
which they make judgments. It’s a manipulative model in which owners and controllers use the media as
a tool to influence public opinion. They promote a particular ideological world view that openly favors
the interests of the Ruling class. Ideas favorable to the Ruling Class are continually highlighted and
promoted whereas opposing views are ignored, misrepresented or marginalized (cornered).
Oppositional ideas are represented in ways that suggest that they are not to be taken seriously.

The Glasgow Media Group showed how UK TV news broadcasts portrayed owners positively and Trade
Unions negatively during Industrial Actions in the 1980’s. Hussain shows how in Denmark, Ethnic
Minority Groups suffered exclusion and marginalization in the mainstream media that used Openly Anti-
Immigrant and Anti-Muslim language. The “scapegoating” is designed to create divisions within and b/w
groups and to deflect (turn aside) the blame for social problems away from the behavior of the Elite. In
this way, media directly influences the behavior of the people. General role of Media is to ensure that
the views & interests of the Elite are presented in ways that encourage people to accept social and
economic inequality as “normal” and “right”.

Capitalists use false but influential ideas, values and norms to influence people behavior and ensure that
W.C conforms and doesn’t threaten their stability. They use their cultural power to dominate
institutions/superstructures such as education system, Religion and the Mass Media etc. These
superstructures help in transmitting the Ruling class Ideology e.g. ensuring that people finds capitalism
fair and just etc. They convince people of the benefits of Capitalism. According to Ross when societies
are demographically heterogeneous (mixed) but behaviorally homogenous (similar), the media is used
by both individuals and powerful elites to create a sense of community and culture, this is called Mass
culture.

Mass Culture joins together Mass Society because it provides “the things in common” such as values and
beliefs that socially isolated individuals share. However, because mass culture is created through the
media it can be manipulated to reflect the interests of a Ruling Class thus directly influencing people’s
behavior. According to Lang and Lang, it was difficult to directly influence a socially isolated mass of
individuals in the past but now, due to internet, people are open to various form of media manipulation
through their involvement in new media networks which can influence the thinking and behavior of
people.

(2nd side)

However, some theories criticize Marxism for oversimplifying media’s influence on people behavior.
According to Neo Marxism Media’s ideological role is considered in terms of how it creates and sustains
a broad political consensus around a set of core values, rather than how it manipulates people’s
behavior directly. Neo Marxists don’t believe that Media’s ideological role is to provide a common
culture for the masses. The concepts of both mass society and mass culture are unrealistic and over
simplified because in contemporary societies the range of behavioral choices is too great to be simply
and easily manipulated. Media’s role is considered in terms of how it helps to maintain the status quo by
policing and protecting core social values.

Similarly, Pluralists reject Marxist interpretations. They believe that Modern Capitalist Societies are
Democratic, all interest groups are given a platform to express their views to the electorate and only
those people will be voted in power whose arguments are the most persuasive and convincing. People
obtain most of their knowledge about politics from newspapers and TV. According to the Pluralists,
Media owners are Objective, Responsible & Impartial facilitators of this political process. They place a lot
of emphasis on Info Diversity. Even where old media forms are highly concentrated, Pluralists believe
there is still a range of views available. Diversity of information makes it nearly impossible to influence
the behavior of people in a particular way.
Diversity is also related to choice, not just in the range of different Media and views, but also in terms of
consumers. Its media consumers, not producers who are central to the relationship b/w Media &
Ideology. If a producer doesn’t provide the content that people demand, then the company will go out
of business. If some content gets more media coverage than others, this doesn’t necessarily mean that
it’s biased or influencing people’s behavior directly. It means that media outlets are providing what the
audiences demand. E.g. women magazines focus too much of beauty, slimming, babies and weddings
because that’s what the majority of women want to read about. Media audiences aren’t passive but are
actually active.

Pluralist Perspective reverse the Traditional Marxist Argument that audiences consume whatever
owners decide to give them. Instead media owners demand from their employees whatever consumers
want. This places Media owners in a unique and potentially powerful position. Owners get profits and
consumers get entertainment and information. The overall role of the Media is to provide consumers
with information and services that they demand. A Diverse range of Media exists and people can choose
from different sources of information. A variety of Media reflecting a range of views also means that
some sections will represent the interests of “Ordinary People” and the activities of the powerful can be
scrutinized, exposed and criticized. Thus media cannot directly influence people behavior.

So, to some extent, media can influence people’s perspective and behavior as described by Marxists.
People’s opinion can be manipulated to benefit the ruling class and capital system but to a great extent,
media provides diverse information to people and also comments negatively on elite group and
capitalist system which makes it difficult to directly influence people’s behavior. Modern efficient media
has further provided diverse information to people and consumers also hold a significant position for
the marketing value and profit earning of media channels which suggest that they are aware and active
consumers of the media content and their behavior cannot be influenced or manipulated directly.

3 Assess this view, watching violent media causes violent behavior.

According to a lot of psychologists and pressure groups, there is direct causal link b/w violence in Media
(e.g. films, games) and everyday real life violence. Violent and immoral media is responsible for
negatively affecting audience especially young people. As a result of which, government tries to control
and censor particular types of media. Sociologists say that media content can have a direct effect on
audience and trigger certain types of behaviors and attitudes. Gerbner focused on representations of
violence in certain types of media, they lead to violent crime and antisocial behavior in real life (usually
in young people). Similarly, some Feminist Sociologists E.g. Dworkin & Morgan say that consumption of
pornography via newspapers, magazines and internet encourages sexual violence and negative
attitudes.

Hypodermic Syringe model also known as Magic Bullet models is a type of Media Effects Theory which
argues that media messages are like a drug injected directly into the audience’s mind in ways that
change their behavior. According to this theory, messages are transmitted and received by an audience
in ways that change or reinforce their ideas and behavior. Audience is seen as passive receivers rather
than active interpreters of media messages. Audience is receptive to whatever the Media transmits.
Prolonged exposure to violent films or games can result in changed behavior and Desensitization, so the
more you are exposed to media violence; the less likely you are to be shocked by real violence.
According to Hypodermic model of media violence, there is a direct correlation between violence and
antisocial behavior portrayed in films, games, rap lyrics. Violence and antisocial behavior such as using
drugs or teenage gun/knife crime. Young people are vulnerable to media content because they are in
their early stages of socialization and hence are very impressionable; they need protection from Media
which is a very strong secondary agent of socialization. People who support the Hypodermic syringe
model quote some examples as evidence. E.g. on April 1999, “Columbine High School Shooting in
Colorado, 2 boys took guns and bombs to school and killed 13 students and 1 teacher and wounded
many students, then killed themselves. Supporters of the Hypodermic Syringe model present such
examples as a straightforward illustration of the relationship between screen violence and violence in
real life.

Earlier studied explored the relationship b/w media and violence by conducting experiments in
laboratories. Bandura et al explored a direct cause and effect relationship media content and
violence “the Bobo Doll Experiment”. The 3 groups who were exposed to violent activities behaved a lot
more aggressively than the 4th group. Bandura et al concluded that violent media content could lead to
imitation or “copycat” violence. Newson (most influential supporter of the hypodermic model and
psychologist) commissioned to investigate the effect of violent films and videos after the James Bulgar
murder. According to him, prolonged media exposure has a ‘Drip drip effect” on young people and
eventually makes them Desensitised to violence. They become socialized into accepting violent
behavior as normal and as a problem solving device, due to this newer generations have weak moral
codes and behave in antisocial ways more than the previous generations.

Moreover, According to Chandler, heavy media consumption cultivates attitudes that are more
consistent with the content being consumed than the reality of everyday life. Those who heavily
consume violent films or spend a lot of time playing violent games develop a violent mindset. According
to Gerbner, powerful and pervasive media in Global societies creates mythical realities for audiences
and audience finds it difficult to distinguish myth from reality. They are sucked into a world where
reality is distorted and violence is presented as a glamorous solution to all problems.

(2nd side)

However, according to some Media sociologists media violence can actually prevent real life violence
because they have Catharsis effect. According to Fesbach & Sangar, screen violence provides a safe
outlet for people’s aggressions which is known as catharsis. In a certain experiment, groups of teenagers
were shown TV for 6 weeks. Some groups were only shown aggressive content whereas some were only
shown non aggressive content. Groups that were shown aggressive content was actually less aggressive
in their behavior than other groups, so basically by watching aggression, teenagers release their
aggressive energy into these safe media outlets as they feel involved it (e.g. an action movie). This
experiment supports that media violence has Cathartic effect.
Gauntlett argues that Hypodermic Syringe studies are conducted in artificial conditions like laboratories,
this questions the validity and reliability of the study because people don’t act naturally when they know
they are being observed. Furthermore, there are so many different types of violence, these studies
aren’t clear about how violence should be defined, whether every type of violence has the same or
different effect on audience and how do they react to it, they usually focus just on particular types of
fictional violence. According to some sociologists, children aren’t as vulnerable as the Hypodermic
Syringe Model implies. Most children can distinguish b/w Fictional Violence and Real Violence from very
early on and they also know that they shouldn’t copy it.

Rhodes says that violent crimes in Europe and Japan either stayed the same or declined after the advent
of TV. According to Gauntlett, empirical Evidence for Direct Media Effects is weak, partly because most
research takes place under artificial conditions such as a laboratory, they don’t adequately represent
real situations and contexts in which people use the Media. Evidence for Direct Effects tends to be
Anecdotal, the media claims, rather than proves, a relationship b/w violent behavior and violent play.
Gauntlett says that Very young children may be Media Liberate, they have an understanding about the
Media and how it works. Most children can distinguish b/w factual and Fictional representations of
violence.

In conclusion, audience can be affected directly by consuming violent media to some extent. Children
may copy the violent behavior shown in media or it violent media may also provide different violent
criminal ideas to criminals but to a great extent, audience can distinguish between the screen violence
and reality. Violent media does not manipulate the behavior of people severely because people are
conscious and aware that they should not commit such violent acts in real life.

4 Power of the media to shape the way people behave has been exaggerated. Assess this view.

According to Marxism, Media directly influences the way people behave. Important dimension of
Media’s Role is to shape how people think by controlling the nature, extent and type of information on
which they make judgments. Some theories criticize Marxism for oversimplifying media’s influence on
people behavior. According to Neo Marxism Media’s ideological role is considered in terms of how it
creates and sustains a broad political consensus around a set of core values, rather than how it
manipulates people’s behavior directly. In contemporary societies the range of behavioral choices is too
great to be simply and easily manipulated. Media’s role is considered in terms of how it helps to
maintain the status quo by policing and protecting core social values.

Similarly, Pluralists reject Marxist interpretations. They believe that Modern Capitalist Societies are
Democratic, all interest groups are given a platform to express their views to the electorate and only
those people will be voted in power whose arguments are the most persuasive and convincing. People
obtain most of their knowledge about politics from newspapers and TV. According to the Pluralists,
Media owners are Objective, Responsible & Impartial facilitators of this political process. They place a lot
of emphasis on Info Diversity. Even where old media forms are highly concentrated, Pluralists believe
there is still a range of views available. Diversity of information makes it nearly impossible to influence
the behavior of people in a particular way.
Diversity is also related to choice, not just in the range of different Media and views, but also in terms of
consumers. Its media consumers, not producers who are central to the relationship b/w Media &
Ideology. If a producer doesn’t provide the content that people demand, then the company will go out
of business. If some content gets more media coverage than others, this doesn’t necessarily mean that
it’s biased or influencing people’s behavior directly. It means that media outlets are providing what the
audiences demand. E.g. women magazines focus too much of beauty, slimming, babies and weddings
because that’s what the majority of women want to read about. Media audiences aren’t passive but are
actually active.

Media owners demand from their employees whatever consumers want. This places Media owners in a
unique and potentially powerful position. Owners get profits and consumers get entertainment and
information. The overall role of the Media is to provide consumers with information and services that
they demand. A Diverse range of Media exists and people can choose from different sources of
information. A variety of Media reflecting a range of views also means that some sections will represent
the interests of “Ordinary People” and the activities of the powerful can be scrutinized, exposed and
criticized. Thus media cannot directly influence people behavior.

(2nd side)

However, according to some theories, particularly Marxism, media directly influences the way people
behave. Media is a manipulative model in which owners and controllers use the media as a tool to
influence public opinion. They promote a particular ideological world view that openly favors the
interests of the Ruling class. Ideas favorable to the Ruling Class are continually highlighted and
promoted whereas opposing views are ignored, misrepresented or marginalized (cornered).
Oppositional ideas are represented in ways that suggest that they are not to be taken seriously.

The Glasgow Media Group showed how UK TV news broadcasts portrayed owners positively and Trade
Unions negatively during Industrial Actions in the 1980’s. Hussain shows how in Denmark, Ethnic
Minority Groups suffered exclusion and marginalization in the mainstream media that used Openly Anti-
Immigrant and Anti-Muslim language. The “scapegoating” is designed to create divisions within and b/w
groups and to deflect (turn aside) the blame for social problems away from the behavior of the Elite. In
this way, media directly influences the behavior of the people. General role of Media is to ensure that
the views & interests of the Elite are presented in ways that encourage people to accept social and
economic inequality as “normal” and “right”.

Capitalists use false but influential ideas, values and norms to influence people behavior and ensure that
W.C conforms and doesn’t threaten their stability. They use their cultural power to dominate
institutions/superstructures such as education system, Religion and the Mass Media etc. These
superstructures help in transmitting the Ruling class Ideology e.g. ensuring that people finds capitalism
fair and just etc. They convince people of the benefits of Capitalism. According to Ross when societies
are demographically heterogeneous (mixed) but behaviorally homogenous (similar), the media is used
by both individuals and powerful elites to create a sense of community and culture, this is called Mass
culture.
Mass Culture joins together Mass Society because it provides “the things in common” such as values and
beliefs that socially isolated individuals share. However, because mass culture is created through the
media it can be manipulated to reflect the interests of a Ruling Class thus directly influencing people’s
behavior. According to Lang and Lang, it was difficult to directly influence a socially isolated mass of
individuals in the past but now, due to internet, people are open to various form of media manipulation
through their involvement in new media networks which can influence the thinking and behavior of
people.

So, to some extent, media can influence people’s perspective and behavior as described by Marxists.
People’s opinion can be manipulated to benefit the ruling class and capital system but to a great extent,
media provides diverse information to people and also comments negatively on elite group and
capitalist system which makes it difficult to directly influence people’s behavior. Modern efficient media
has further provided diverse information to people and consumers also hold a significant position for
the marketing value and profit earning of media channels which suggest that they are aware and active
consumers of the media content and their behavior cannot be influenced or manipulated directly.

5 New Media has weakened the power of traditional media. Assess

New media has weakened the power of traditional media as it offers opportunities to ordinary people to
gain information and knowledge required in democratic societies. New media also makes politicians
more accountable to people while old media was majorly owned by government (such as BBC or CGTN)
which did not provide information regarding corruption scandals of politicians and personalities in
authority thus new media has weakened the power of traditional media.

Furthermore, internet provides people with opportunity to access alternative information,

interpretations and viewpoint. According to some media sociologists, internet can revitalize democracy
because it gives a voice to those who would otherwise go unheard. New media convert ordinary citizens
to citizen journalists who can together take action, which may lead to social change and revolution.
Citizen journalists have majorly weakened the power of old traditional media. Now people do not
depend on old media for information as it can be gained by the fast, efficient new media. Ordinary
people upload and update information on the internet themselves which keep others aware thus it
weakens the power of traditional media.

Some Neo Philiacs who were part of anti global capitalism movement used the internet to challenge
powerful elites. Different activist’s networks have spoiled corporation and government websites. Now
people do not depend on old media to acquire limited knowledge and information provided by the
corporations or government. Thomas uses the example of Burma to show the weakening power of
traditional media and growing influence of citizen journalists. Mass antigovernment demonstrations in
the country received a lot of attention because people themselves had the technology to show what is
going on in the world. According to Black, Facebook and Twitter are effective agencies of change in
terms of their influence on societies. Surowiecki further says that digital technology assists crowd
sourcing. If you ask people about their opinion, basic crowd truth will emerge. The new media make it
harder for the state to censor or restrict the flow of information which limits the power of traditional
media now. This further contributes to political socialization because people have a greater
understanding of the meanings of issues and events which they did not have while depending upon
traditional media.

Furthermore, new media has leaded the consumers towards globalization. It has increased the choices
available to consumers on a global scale. Due to globalization, new media’s role is to provide consumers
with information and services that they demand. Diverse range of new media exists and people can
choose from different sources of information (internet access means that people can get information
from both national and global sources), this also suggests that power of traditional media has declined.
Due to new media’s wide range of sources and globalization, it is almost impossible for corporation or
state to influence the media content (while traditional media was heavily influenced by the government
and bureaucracy). New media such as websites and social networks make global connections. These
global features also enable the consumers to share text, images, videos and other content without being
prevented by physical boundaries. Due to new media, people have higher level of interactivity.
According to Boyle, digitalization has allowed information to be delivered across a range of media
platforms while platforms of traditional media are separated and unconnected. This further shows the
weakening power of traditional media.

(2nd side)

However, many sociologists claim that new media’s influence on society has been exaggerated. The
Digital Pessimism theory says that new media is not really new. The power of traditional media is never
weakened because new media ownership of the new media is still concentrated in the hands of
powerful corporations. Interactivity is just an illusion.

Furthermore, the content of the new media has led towards decline in the quality of popular culture.
Revolution that is caused by the emergence and usage of new media has been exaggerated by the Neo
Phliliacs. New media undermines the democratic process. Similarly, Comford and Robins say that
traditional media is still powerful and influential because new media is not “new”, it is an
accommodation between old and new media and new media is just a refined version of traditional
media. Moreover, interactivity is not new. Even in the past people used to write to newspapers and
phoned into radio and TV programs. Only new thing about the new media is the speed. Due to rapid and
advanced technology, everything is instant and can be accessed in real time.

New media is not increasing the potential of ordinary people to participate fully in the democratic
process and cultural life as transitional media conglomerates play a major role in developing and
controlling the new media. According to Jenkins, new media is not revolutionary or democratic because
new media developed when large corporations invested. Political elite power holders such as the
government, political parties and bureaucrats have constructed sophisticated websites to make sure
that their influence on the people remains strong and their views dominate the world. This suggests that
power of traditional media is not declined. Furthermore, media technologies strengthen the power of
existing elites rather than promoting free speech or democracy. Democracy and equal access of
information to all the people is just an illusion of the new media. Digital class divide adds on the
inequality because those who are unable to access the web have the most genuine political grievances.
According to Seaton, online political involvement mirrors the level of ordinary people’s political
involvement in the real world. Similarly, Hill and Hughes say that cyberspace and websites contain
mainstream political opinions. Alternative minority political issues are concealed. Mass communication
tools can be used by repressive regimes to restrict individual freedom and enhance various forms of
state surveillance.

In conclusion, new media to some extent did not decline the power of the traditional media because
new media’s resources are controlled by elites, corporations or politicians etc. Many people do not even
have the access towards new media while they are usually exploited the most but, to a great extent,
new media is found to be revolutionary and a threat to the power of traditional media. New media has
resulted in globalization, diversity of choice among information resources and interactivity. Traditional
media did not have these features. People now gain information from various online networks which
was restricted in old media, thus it gives evidence that to a great extent, old media’s power has
weakened.

6 Media owners have no influence over the content of the media today.

The development of the new global media forms limits for national government or private owners to
control information as they may once have done. Media owners have no influence over the content of
the media today because in the digital age, most people are no longer restricted to information which
they passively received in old times. Weibner argues that “for every fact on the internet, there is an
equal and opposite fact “, this questions the effectiveness of owner’s control over the media.

In democratic societies, political factors may not have a direct influence on the content of the media but
still owners are restricted by the state and government lay down basic rules governing acceptable and
unacceptable content. For instance owners are not allowed to own too many media outlets in order to
reduce the dominance of the view of one person or the group. Many countries have cross ownership
rules which prevent companies from owning more than one media form in the same area. In UK, BBC
and ITV have formal requirements imposed by the powerful regulator, the office for communications.
According to Pluralists, the regulator prevents media owners from imposing biased content.

New media on the other hand, provides opportunity to ordinary people to gain information and
knowledge and make politicians accountable to people. It converts ordinary citizens into citizen
journalists. Ordinary people themselves produce and update content on the new media which shows
that owners have no influence over the content of the media today. Neo Philiacs who were part of the
antiglobal capitalism movement has used the media (internet) to challenge elites. Thomas used the
example of Burma to show the growing influence of citizen journalists. Mass anti capitalism
demonstrations in the country received a lot of attention because people themselves had the
technology to show what is going on in the world. The internet makes it harder for the owners to restrict
the flow of information. Moreover, Globalization of new media and conglomerates are attempts to find
a new audience to increase profits. Due to globalization it is almost impossible for the owners to
interfere in media content because their businesses are economically too complex.
New media such as websites and social networks are global in intent; they enable global connections
through the development of information networks. Important aspects of these global features is the
ability to create and share text, images, videos and other content without being restricted or prevented
by owners. Today’s media has higher level of interactivity in terms of how users relate to different forms
of media technology. It connects all kinds of information in many different ways across a global network.
Globalization of the media empowers its users by encouraging creativity which suggests that owners
have little influence over the content of the media today. Similarly, pluralists believe that in today’s
media diversity exists. Diversity is related to the choice among information sources. Its media
consumers, not owners who are central to the relationship between media and ideology. If owner does
not provide the content people demand then his company will go out of the business. Owners only
compete to win market share and create profit while consumers have the real influence over the
content of the media today. Media gives public what the audience wants rather than what the owner
decides.

(2nd side)

However, Marxism approach claims that media is controlled by the ruling class and personalities who
own the media have a huge influence over its content today. According to traditional Marxism, in
contemporary Societies, Media is the most important and influential ideological institution. Whoever
owns the media, exercises a great deal of power. The media is a powerful agency that can shape and in
some instances fully decide people’s general thoughts and behaviors. Media is Part of the political and
ideological superstructure in Capitalist societies thus, owners have an influence over media’s content.

Media is controlled in the interest of the ruling class. Media owners propagate values that support the
status quo, shaping how people see the world through a range of legitimizing ideas which may include
Support for capitalist, Rationalizing & justifying social inequalities, Defending the concept of private
property, The private ownership of profits, Negatively labeling alternatives to Capitalism. Media is a
tool/ instrument controlled by the Ruling Class to teach an ideology that favors their interests. According
to Miliband, members of the Ruling Class share a common economic and cultural background which is
created and reinforced through educational and family networks.

Ownership & control are part of a Hierarchal system; both are necessary features of Capitalist
corporations. Owners & Controllers use the media to manipulate how subject classes see the world to
create the belief that societies work in the interests of all rather than the interests of a few. In this way
the media creates a “False Consciousness”, Lower social classes cooperate with the ruling class in their
own exploitation and against their own interests. E.g. In the UK, following the Global Financial Crisis in
2008, the media has characterized recovery in terms of “Austerity” and the need for everyone to work
together to make sacrifices to pay off the National Debt. The ability to control the type and quality of
info people receive means a Ruling Class controls and broadly determines how people think.

In conclusion, to some extent, media is controlled by the owners where ruling class uses media to their
own interest and manipulates the thinking of people to preserve the capitalist system. Media’s content
is presented to benefit the ruling class and create false consciousness but to a great extent, Owner’s
influence over today’s media has declined. Citizen Journalists challenge and question the personalities in
power. Media has also become a major source of income. Demand and taste of consumers is given
much importance by the media channels to earn more profits which shows that owners personal
influence over the media’s content has declined significantly and consumers have the real power to
demand the content of their choice. Globalization of the new media has increased efficiency of the
information being transferred and interactivity has increased which further suggest that owners cannot
restrict this instant information and their influence has decline today.

7 It is a mistake to think that societies have radically changed by the growth of the new media.

Many sociologists claim that new media’s influence on society has been exaggerated. The Digital
Pessimism theory says that new media is not really new. Ownership of the new media is still
concentrated in the hands of powerful corporations. Interactivity is just an illusion.

The content of the new media has led towards decline in the quality of popular culture. New media
undermines the democratic process. Similarly, Comford and Robins say that traditional media is
powerful and influential because new media is not “new”, it is an accommodation between old and new
media and new media is just a refined version of traditional media. Moreover, interactivity is not new.
Even in the past people used to write to newspapers and phoned into radio and TV programs. Only new
thing about the new media is the speed. Due to rapid and advanced technology, everything is instant
and can be accessed in real time.

New media is not increasing the potential of ordinary people to participate fully in the democratic
process and cultural life as transitional media conglomerates play a major role in developing and
controlling the new media. According to Jenkins, new media is not revolutionary or democratic because
new media developed when large corporations invested. Political elite power holders such as the
government, political parties and bureaucrats have constructed sophisticated websites to make sure
that their influence on the people remains strong and their views dominate the world. Furthermore,
media technologies strengthen the power of existing elites rather than promoting free speech or
democracy. Democracy and equal access of information to all the people is just an illusion of the new
media.

Digital class divide adds on the inequality because those who are unable to access the web have the
most genuine political grievances. According to Seaton, online political involvement mirrors the level of
ordinary people’s political involvement in the real world. Similarly, Hill and Hughes say that cyberspace
and websites contain mainstream political opinions. Alternative minority political issues are concealed.
Mass communication tools can be used by repressive regimes to restrict individual freedom and
enhance various forms of state surveillance.

(2nd side)

However, new media offers opportunities to ordinary people to gain information and knowledge
required in democratic societies. New media also makes politicians more accountable to people while
old media was majorly owned by government (such as BBC or CGTN) which did not provide information
regarding corruption scandals of politicians and personalities in authority.

Internet provides people with opportunity to access alternative information, interpretations and
viewpoint. According to some media sociologists, internet can revitalize democracy because it gives a
voice to those who would otherwise go unheard. New media convert ordinary citizens to citizen
journalists who can together take action, which may lead to social change and revolution. Citizen
journalists have majorly weakened the power of old traditional media. Now people do not depend on
old media for information as it can be gained by the fast, efficient new media. Ordinary people upload
and update information on the internet themselves which keep others aware. It suggests that world has
indeed changed radically due to the growth of the new media.

Some Neo Philiacs who were part of anti global capitalism movement used the internet to challenge
powerful elites. Different activist’s networks have spoiled corporation and government websites. Now
people do not depend on old media to acquire limited knowledge and information provided by the
corporations or government. Thomas uses the example of Burma to show the weakening power of
traditional media and growing influence of citizen journalists. Mass antigovernment demonstrations in
the country received a lot of attention because people themselves had the technology to show what is
going on in the world. According to Black, Facebook and Twitter are effective agencies of change in
terms of their influence on societies. Surowiecki further says that digital technology assists crowd
sourcing. If you ask people about their opinion, basic crowd truth will emerge. The new media make it
harder for the state to censor or restrict the flow of information which shows how the society has
changed radically now. It further contributes to political socialization because people have a greater
understanding of the meanings of issues and events which they did not have while depending upon
traditional media.

Furthermore, new media has leaded the consumers towards globalization. It has increased the choices
available to consumers on a global scale. Due to globalization, new media’s role is to provide consumers
with information and services that they demand. Diverse range of new media exists and people can
choose from different sources of information (internet access means that people can get information
from both national and global sources), this also suggests that society has changed radically due to the
growth of the new media. Due to new media’s wide range of sources and globalization, it is almost
impossible for corporation or state to influence the media content. New media such as websites and
social networks make global connections. These global features also enable the consumers to share text,
images, videos and other content without being prevented by physical boundaries. Due to new media,
people have higher level of interactivity. According to Boyle, digitalization has allowed information to be
delivered across a range of media platforms while platforms of traditional media are separated and
unconnected.

In conclusion, new media to some extent did not change the society because new media’s resources are
controlled by elites, corporations or politicians etc. Many people do not even have the access towards
new media while they are usually exploited the most but, to a great extent, new media is found to be
revolutionary and a threat to the power of elites. New media has resulted in globalization, diversity of
choice among information resources and interactivity. Society has changed significantly. People now
gain information from various online networks which was restricted in old media, thus it gives evidence
that to a great extent, society indeed has changed radically due to the growth of the new media.