L18 Media Industry Theorists - News

Media Industry Theorists:

• Livingstone and Lunt - Regulation 
• They studied the work of OFCOM and regulation
• There is an underlying struggle in UK regulation between the needs to further the interests of citizens (by offering protection from harmful material) and the need to further the interests of consumers (by ensuring choice, value for money and market competition)
• The increasing power of global media conglomerates and the digital age have put traditional regulation at risk. Unless a parent has put restrictions on streaming services, people of any age can access anything inappropriate for their age group.
• Newspapers are SELF REGULATED so do no apply to newspapers
• Political Context - Press Freedom (there is no government body such as OFCOM to monitor News but Libel laws are applicable to print news)
• However, the increasing power of media corporations (such as News International) together with the rise of convergent technologies and transformations in the production and distribution of media products, have placed traditional forms of media regulation at risk.
• Originally applied to television and radio, but consumerism as defined in this study can be evidenced in the online editions of newspapers and increasingly in print editions, with the traditional public interest news function being relatively marginalised.
• Examples of public debates about the role of social media companies in news and disinformation would support the idea of the difficulties of regulating globalised convergent media.
• Examples of the new media operating in socially responsible ways in the public interest would argue against this theory, as would the example of strongly regulated online content in authoritarian societies such as China.
• Hesmondhalgh (Cultural Industries)
• Cultural industries have an interest in making profit, without profit they would not survive and their products would not be made.
• Hesmondhalgh focused on RISK. Risk is high so many media producers go for low risk projects such as sequels and re-boots. This could be seen as a commercialisation of culture (links to Jungle Book)
• Example: 10 years ago - the top YouTube videos wold have been User Generated Content. Now, it is large music videos created by large companies who dominate the top lists.
• Cultural industries follow the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration and integration - cultural production is owned and controlled by a few conglomerates who vertically integrate a range of media to reduce risk.
• Risk is particularly high in the cultural industries because of the difficulty in predicting success, high production costs, low reproduction costs and the fact that media products are 'public goods' - they are not destroyed on consumption but can be further reproduced. This means that the cultural industries rely on 'big hits' to cover the costs of failure. Hence industries rely on repetition through use of stars, genres, franchises, repeatable narratives and so on to sell formats to audiences, then industries and governments try to impose scarcity, especially through copyright laws.
• The internet has created new powerful IT corporations, and has not transformed cultural production in a liberating and empowering way - digital technology has sped up work, commercialised leisure time, and increased surveillance by governments and companies.
• Examples of newspapers relying on predictable audience-pleasing low-risk news - such as royalty, celebs, lifestyle and mainstream sport content - would count as evidence to support this theory. They also commonly like to use the Madeleine McCann story as news companies know that people would be please to read into this story. 
• Patterns of ownership and control that are not vertically integrated in large corporations, e.g. that of the Guardian, would count as evidence against this theory, as would evidence of the online media allowing a diverse range of new voices to be heard. Event though the Guardian have to think about profit, they try not to make it their main goal.
• How the theory is useful:
• Draws attention to newspapers as an industry - the forms and effects of ownership and control, journalists' working practices, and issues of risk and profitability.
• Applies particularly to the response of newspapers to competition for readers and advertising revenue from the 'new' media.
• For online news, corrects over-optimistic views of the internet as an arena for freedom and unlimited creativity.
• How the theory is limited:
• In prioritising the effects of ownership and control of newspaper content, this theory may not aid in understanding how ideologies, audience choice or media language conventions can determine media content.
• Curran and Seaton (Power and Industry)
• They argue that the media is controlled by a small number of companies who, for the most part, are driven by money and power which is the normal pattern in a Capitalist society.
• They state that such media concentration limits creativity, variety and quality.
• The antithesis is that more socially diverse ownership would allow more varied and adventurous media productions which would be better for society.
• Studies of concentration and control will validate this theory
• Examples of diverse opinions (e.g. in online news or non-mainstream print newspapers) would argue against this theory, as would examples of newspapers sacrificing profit for the sake of quality and creativity (e.g. the Guardian refusing to put up a paywall but instead calling for supporters to fund quality journalism).
• How the theory is useful:
• Studying newspapers as an industry draws attention to forms and effects of ownership and control, journalists' working practices, and issues of risk and profitability.
• Applies to the narrow range of political opinions expressed by British national newspapers, with bias to pro-capitalism.
• For online news, corrects over-optimistic views of the internet as an arena for freedom and unlimited creativity.
• How it is limited:
• In prioritising the effects of ownership and control of newspaper content, this theory may not aid in understanding ow ideologies, audience choice, or media language conventions can determine media content.

Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere

Which theorist would you use to explore ownership and media concentration within the news industry and why?

- Curran and Seaton fits within this idea as their theory states that media is controlled by a small number of companies predominantly driven by power and money, which is the normal pattern in a Capitalist society. This is applicable to News as they argue that media concentration limits creativity, variety and quality. However, it does not fit perfectly, as more socially diverse ownership would allow more varied and innovative media products that society would benefit from, and yet newspaper companies such as the Daily Mail is all about creating repetitive stories made for mass consumption, a safe topic choice that they know will be pleasing to their audience and so they can keep making revenue.

Which theorist would you use to explore the prevalence of low quality, sensationalist news and why?

- Hesmondhalgh's theory works in this case, as his theory focuses on risk, and the commercialisation of culture. Risk is particularly high in the cultural industries because of the difficulty in predicting success, high production costs, low reproduction costs and the fact that media products are 'public goods' - they are not destroyed on consumption but can be further reproduced. This means that the cultural industries rely on 'big hits' to cover the costs of failure.

Which theorist would you use to explore the impact of the Leveson inquiry and why?

- The Leveson inquiry was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, who was appointed in July 2011. A series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012.

Livingstone and Lunt theory is significant to the Leveson inquiry as it is about regulation also. They claim that there is an underlying struggle in UK regulation between furthering the interests of people (protecting from explicit material) and furthering the interests of consumers, which is entirely applicable to the inquiry, as it was about trying to protect citizens from harmful subjects that newspapers were publishing, and also respecting the freedom of the press.