In “Emergent Innovation through the Coevolution of Informal and Formal Media Economies,” Stuart Cunningham explores the relationship between the formal and the informal media economies, specifically in the way they constitute “as sources of innovation and renewal in media ecologies,” ecologies of exchange and production (416). The formal media economy focuses on the “market-based” work of the professionals (ie.producers) and how they obtain interest and support for their product (418). On the other hand, the informal media economy focuses on how non-professionals (ie. amateurs) engage with a product through “secondary markets, household-level peer to peer exchange” (416). The line between the formal and the informal have become blurred because producers are cultivating and exploiting the informal media economies for their own benefit, a key understanding about today’s media industries. The “socialization of professional production strategies” can be depicted by transmedia, “a new aesthetic” where a story “unfolds across multiple media platforms” (416, 422). The ABC Family show Pretty Little Liars pursues strategies of socialization through informal media economies by building audience engagement and putting fans to work by promoting their product. The show uses social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube; the latter providing a “freemium model” for the purpose of alternative profit (423).
Transmedia producers pursue socialization strategies because social media particularly allows fans to direct people toward the producer’s product (416). Formal media economies are essentially getting informal media economies to do the work of engaging audiences for them. The Pretty Little Liars (PLL) official twitter page, @AB...
... middle of paper ...
...ntent” (McChesney, 73). Whereas Robert McChesney’s approach on political economy of communication in his essay “How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy” concentrates on the “structural and institutional factors and assess what types of pressures exist that will shape the content” (73). For instance, McChesney focuses on how media content is affected by the government in how they “condone and encourage” advertising which shapes an “ever greater commercialism in our culture” (78). Cunningham’s approach is essentially observational and is limited in that he fails to provide a critical edge to his argument as McChesney, who urges a critical impulse for “institutional and structural” change within these media industries. An approach that encompasses both Cunningham and McChesney’s arguments would provide a well-rounded understanding of media industries.
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
Sante implies ideas from the recent past, such as those of Hollywood individuals who “are richer, thinner, [and] more charismatic,” flourished on the imagination and eagerness of people just by the idea of a secret that may have a solution (438). Extending on the concept of TV culture manipulating people using mystery, Sante implies how social media has misrepresented reality through fabricated secrets by influencing people “in moments of desperation” to purchase a product or service that will somehow give them an advantage socially (438). Although the belief of companies seeking more reputation or money by persuading consumers to purchase their goods and services has been around for decades, Sante suggests how the perception of secrecy or a mysterious factor of that product will give that consumer dominance or an improvement is now recently being investigated, but also understood that TV culture will always strive on the concept of
Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and internationally. The aim of these companies is to generate revenue and in order to do this they create and air shows that cater to popular demand. In doing so, they sometimes compromise on the quality of their content. This is where public broadcasters come into perspective.
With an understanding of the theoretical links between economic structures, relations of production, and political systems that protect economic structures in society this case study examines media as a contributor to democracy in Australia as well as a business with economic objectives. This section will provide a short explanation of Fairfax media history and position in 2012 prior to explaining Gina Rinehart’s role in the company. The print sector in Australia has historically exhibited relatively high levels of concentration, dominated by News Corp Australia, Fairfax and APN. The Australian print news media have experienced a long-term trend of a decrease in titles and owners. According to Geoffrey Craig, ‘in 1923 there were as many as
When discussing the media, we must search back to its primal state the News Paper. For it was the News paper and its writers that forged ahead and allowed freedoms for today’s journalism on all fronts, from the Twitter accounts to the daily gazettes all must mark a single event in the evolution of media in respects to politics and all things shaping. Moving on in media history, we began to see a rapid expansion around 1990. With more than 50% of all American homes having cable TV access, newspapers in every city and town with major newspaper centers reaching far more than ever before. Then the introduction of the Internet; nothing would ever be the same.
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defence mechanism. Even when we accept Fiske’s ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.
The introduction of mass media has been defined by this article as being the source of media censorship. Dwyer mentions regulating bodies and rating systems which have been used by the government in controlling the freedom and rights of
In the beginning of the book, Postman establishes the idea of media as a metaphor. This means that media can be viewed as what is important to a society. Postman is very influenced by Marshall McLuhan’s theory of the “medium is the message” (8). Postman then applies this theory to his own findings to form an argument against television. He tries to describe the extent to which media controls the messages we receive. For example, the television is continuously trying to persuade consumers to buy certain unnecessary products through a variety of manipulative techniques. Postman argues that Americans need to learn to differentiate between the different types of schemes used by the television to trick us. He concludes this idea of media being a metaphor by claiming that the media is changing and influencing the American culture.
in fact, they operate internal markets for resources in addition to commissioning a large amount of programming from private producers, and compete for audience attention” (p.51). Miller spends the chapter examining this theory by studying the history of television, labour market and globalization. At the start of television public broadcasting had the control. They were the one bringing the public information about the War that was going on. After the war, television began to become popular, and a lot of household began to obtain them.
O’Shaughnessy, M., Stadler, J. (2009)Media and Society: An introduction. Dominant Ideology and Hegemony. London: Oxford.
Scolari, Carlso Alberto. “Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers, Narrative Worlds, and Branding in Contemporary Media Production.” International Journal of Communication 3 (2009): 586-606. Print.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer fled Germany during the Second World War, where they were exiled in America. Once there, they were exposed to American entertainment, and generated the now famous theory of the ‘culture industry’. The pair saw the media products of 1940s America as identical, all built around similar ideas with no individual creativity to distinguish them from one another. This is what constituted the culture industry, a production line in which media products are sent out one after another, none of which challenge the status quo, instead simply supporting it. When we look at this theory in our current media climate, it is clear that the revolutionary works of online streaming services such as Netflix have fundamentally challenged notions of what we know as the culture industry, through
... small media reforms (like public journalism) will be enough to reduce the commercial and corporate imperatives driving our existing media systems (Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 235). Instead, a fundamental reform of the entire system is needed, together with a wider institutional reform of the very structures the media systems work within, our democracies. This will be a difficult task, due to powerful vested interests benefiting from the status quo, including media, political and economic elites. Reforms will need to be driven by campaigns mobilising public support across the political spectrum, to enable the citizens of the world to have a media system that works to strengthen democratic principles as opposed to undermining them. This task is challenging, but it will become easier once people begin to understand the media’s role in policymaking within our democracies.
In this “Digital Age” that we currently live in, it becomes very easy for an individual to become infatuated with the amount of social media outlets available on the internet. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat all revolve around the idea of showcasing one’s personal life for the sake of receiving positive feedback or attention by peers and strangers from the outside world. An episode of the Netflix sci-fi anthology series, “Black Mirror,” decides to tackle this topic in a surreal yet imaginative way. The episode in particular, “Nosedive,” investigates a hypothetical future or alternate universe where social media profiles and star ratings have become the norm. The plot revolves around a young lady named Lacie, who
Keen, Andrew. The cult of the amateur: how blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today's user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.