Political Economy of Television it

¶ … Political Economy of Television

It has been said that the political economy of television determines what viewers get to see. In order to evaluate that statement, it first necessary to understand what a political economy means. Once the term "political economy" is understood, it is then necessary to determine what the political economy of television is. After the political economy of television has been ascertained, it is then necessary to determine the choices offered to television viewers. Only after examining the above items is one able to determine that television has become such a vast medium that it is impossible to support any claims that there is only one political economy for television. While the political economy of a certain network may limit the choices offered to its viewers, the medium is so vast that choices are practically limitless and offerings to viewers are practically unlimited. Therefore, the claim that the political economy of television determines what viewers get to see is erroneous.

Although the term "political economy" has become almost synonymous with Marx, it is actually an idea that predates both Marx and all mediums of modern communication except for the printed word. Jean Jacque Rousseau attempted to explain the term as early as 1755. According to him, in order to accomplish the general will of society, it is necessary to bring all individual wills in conformity with the general will. "As virtue is nothing more than this conformity of the particular wills with the general will" (Rousseau), such conformity will "establish the reign of virtue" (Rousseau).

While "the original basis of political economy was the relationships between different roles of production" (Encyclopedia), it has evolved to refer to "a variety of different, but related, approaches to studying economic behavior" (Encyclopedia). In fact, modern political economists are interested in analyzing both the ways that government affects the allocation of resources and the way that the economic system affects "the form of government and the kinds of laws and policies that get made" (Johnson).

However, looking into the political economy of television requires viewing an economy in something more than dollars and cents. Furthermore, it requires placing television into the role of government. The most well-known person to apply the theories of political economy to mass media communications was Karl Marx. According to Marx, "the role of mass media is one that maintains the status quo of class dominance" (Political Economy of Media). In this formulation, the media, and those who control it, take the place of the government. The programming offered to viewers is both the currency and the mechanism of control.

To really understand Marx's theory of the political economy of media, one must start with the central idea that "the Marxist view of media is one of class domination" (Political Economy of Media). To support that idea, Marxists maintain that capitalists control the media. Those capitalists use their control of the media to influence and effect media professionals to present material that will reinforce the dominance of the upper class. In addition, "the audience is unable to discern the influence because of its own influence by the dominant class" (Political Economy of Media).

Marx's theory of political economy begins with the idea that the base of society determines everything else in society. Therefore, the material that is released by the media is determined by the economic base of the organizations producing the media. For example, media is driven by advertising, which means that the media has to submit to the influence of advertisers while developing programming. According to Marxists, "the ownership and control of the media is the base/superstructure of the media" (Political Economy of Media). Essential to Marx's political economy of media is the idea that the ruling class uses mass media as its method of information dissemination and does not permit any use of the mass media to disseminate alternative ideas (Political Economy of Media).

The opposing viewpoint of the media is that it is a tool for free speech and actually helps foster free thought. The most famous expression of this idea is probably the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (U.S. Const. amend. I).

Clearly, the American tradition has been to recognize the media as a way to encourage free speech among people.

Which point-of-view is more meritorious? That is a difficult determination. On the one hand, Marx's theory requires that people buy into the idea of a false consciousness. In order for Marx's theory to be true, viewers reinforce their own domination by seeking out that programming that reinforces their submissive social status.

On the other hand, Marxist theory "exposes the myth of the 'value free' social science" (Political Economy of Media). In fact, even if the dominant class does not have complete control of the media, Marxist analysis can serve to draw attention to television's influence on society and any inequalities found in television's programming.

In fact, in the Political Economy of Media, the author applies the theory of political economy to primetime television programming. The author contends that the owners of the mass media outlets are profit-driven when creating television programming. Therefore, the author contends that television programs shown during prime-time reflect an upper class lifestyle. In addition, commercials shown during those programs are directed at upper class viewers. The author explains the fact that commercials are targeted towards the upper, and therefore dominant, class by explaining that those in the upper class are more likely to make purchases because they have the financial means to do so.

However, such an argument is based on false assumptions. The first assumption is that all prime-time programming is geared towards the upper class. Perhaps when television was dominated by the networks, such an assumption would have been valid. However, television programming is no longer limited by what the major networks offer to viewers. Instead, a viewer with even a basic cable package is offered a plethora of choices. Viewers that choose an upgrade to a cable package or a satellite service have an almost unlimited array of choices.

Furthermore, even if the political economy of television programming determines what viewers can watch in some places, the differences between American television programming and television programming nationwide cannot be ignored. In countries like Britain or Scandinavia, television programming is dominated by public service stations. In other countries the media is completely controlled by the government, which determines exactly what options a viewer is permitted to see. In contrast, the United States system has developed based on sponsorship by targeted audiences and is "distinguished by the normality of advertising spots and breaks" (Brunsdon).

Such a development, which has been driven by audience response to advertisers during certain shows, leads one to the idea that television's political economy would have developed just like Marx theorized and would completely reinforce the idea of class dominance. However, American television has developed against a background of media freedom and prohibitions against prior restraint. Therefore, even though the programming offered may have traditionally reflected white, upper-middle class Americans, there has never been any type of prohibition against portrayals of other societies or persons. As smaller networks and specialized cable programming took away more and more of the major networks' traditional values, the networks began to expand their own program offerings to be more inclusive to non-white, non-upper-middle class Americans.

Just taking a glance at the prime-time offerings by one major network, NBC, one can see that it no longer gears its programming towards the dominant class. At first glance, the predominance of crime dramas in the Law and Order family, makes it appear that the programming is used to reinforce the dominance of the upper class. It has been hypothesized by various political economy theorists that police dramas are used to reinforce the power of the police and government in American life. Traditionally, that may have been the case. However, looking at recent storylines on NBC's police dramas, one can see that they do not necessarily elevate or laud upper-middle class values. In fact, many of the story lines demonstrate the possibility for abuse of power that can come with being more affluent. For example, storylines have depicted upper-middle class white Americans as modern day slave-traders and owners, child molesters, neglectful or abusive parents, and mass murderers. In contrast, the heroes of the police dramas are lower-middle or middle-class figures, one of whom is portrayed by a former rap-star who came to fame with a song encouraging the murder of police offers. Furthermore, the dramas not only show their police officers occasionally crossing lines and breaking laws themselves, but also show some of the underlying reasons for criminal behavior.

However, the crime dramas are not the only ones to demonstrate diversity. Among the various prime-time offerings there is a hospital drama, ER, which happens to be one of that network's longest-running dramas and focuses on an emergency room in an urban area. Furthermore, not only does ER feature many non-white cast members, but it portrays minorities in positions of power. It features African-American, Indian, Croatian, and lesbian doctors. In fact, one of the more recent storylines centered on an interracial romantic relationship. Obviously, this program is not geared to appeal towards only white upper-class Americans. On another night, the main prime-time drama centers on a medium that helps solve crimes. Although the medium is portrayed by a white woman, and comes from an upper-middle class background, her boss is Hispanic.

The comedies offered by the network also fail to show a white upper-middle class heterosexual dominance. The days of dominance by comedies like Friends or Seinfeld, which portrayed New York as an upper-class, heterosexual white city, seem to be dead. Instead, comedies offer characters from a variety of backgrounds. One new comedy has a disabled black man as a supporting character. The unusual thing about that show is that they have not resorted to the idea of a disabled person as an object of pity and have not been afraid to shy away from having the character use his disability to his advantage. Another comedy features two homosexual men among its four principle characters. Clearly, major network programming is beginning to reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds to be found in America.

Furthermore, a viewer's options are not limited to those shows offered by the major networks. Flipping through television channels offered by a basic cable package, one finds an almost overwhelming variety of television programming. There are stations offering programming in Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, and other languages that the author could not identify. Just a glimpse at some of the English language stations show a variety of reality programming, a police drama with a diverse cast last, a hospital drama, a comedy about an African-American family, a poker championship, sports programming, nature programming, a historical look at Hitler, a look at the development of slavery in America, a variety of cartoons, and music videos. In fact, glimpsing at the variety of programs offered during primetime, it is difficult to conceive of a group that could not find a program that represents some of the interests and aspirations of that group.

In fact, flipping through various television offerings, it appears that there is only one specific type of programming that actually seems to reinforce the dominance of one class over another: reality television. After watching a week's worth of programming offered on television, one finds it extremely difficult to find a reality program that does not reinforce the dominance of the upper-class. First, there is the idea that most contestants on the reality shows are only participating in the shows because of the promise of a very significant monetary reward. The idea that people would spend a month on a desert island, eat worms, get bit by snakes, or promise to marry a stranger because of the promise of some cash demonstrates the allure of the upper class.

Furthermore, reality programming seems to contain more prejudice and rely on stereotypes to a greater extent than non-reality programming. While most of the programs offering someone a chance to meet a spouse on a television program begin with a somewhat diverse group of potential spouses, the white person choosing the spouse almost always immediately eliminates the non-whites from the pool of potential spouses. In reality programming where people compete against each other for a prize, racial stereotypes are reinforced by the producer's selection of hyper-aggressive black women, and laid-back, almost-lazy or dishonest black men. While this phenomenon has been noted in other situations, it has been exploited in shows produced by Mark Burnett, as exemplified by his casting of Omarosa as the only African-American woman in season one of the Apprentice. Even cable-based reality programs do not seem immune from the lure of the stereotype. One popular home-improvement program regularly features homosexual couples, but the women are undeniably butch and the men super-feminine and prone to fits.

In fact, the most popular reality television program, whose rating suggest it may be the hottest thing on television, makes no secret that it is appealing to the dominant group in America. American Idol openly advertises the fact that its program offerings are determined by voting. Whether or not contestants continue is not determined by technical merit, but by their individual appeal to the American public. Therefore, it is no surprise that many of the contestants reflect upper-middle class American values. In fact, the fact that many mediocre "whitebread" performers outlast more talented, but controversial, performers can be attributed to the dominance of the ruling class.