I want to illustrate how the new media affects the audiences in my country, Afghanistan. Do the Agenda-Setting Function Theory, developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972, visible in the new media environment? Or, does the media manipulating people? Are they thinking freely or being influenced by outside forces? As well as I will explain another theory introduced by Noelle Neumann in 1974 the Spiral of Silence Theory. If the individuals' intended actions are against cultural norms would they still do them? Research studies show that many individuals would not. This theory is based on the premise the societies threatened to isolate the individuals who divvy it from the accepted cultural norms. In turn, people often fear isolation and choose not to provide their opinions. But, is the fear of isolation is the only reason for people to prefer not to voice their opinions?
Agenda-setting theory says that media does have some power. It suggests that media has more power than Uses and Gratification Theory and Reinforcement Theory. The main definition for this theory is that media does not tell audiences what to think, but rather it sets the agenda to what should think about. (McCombs, Maxwell; Donald Shaw, 1994).
According to the theory, media can set the agenda for public issues of the time. Audiences are active, however in the limitations of agenda set by the media. Mostly, people think about certain topics that the media are covering it. Their research centred around news reports during a US Presidential elections. "The seminal Chapel Hill study found a high correlation between the rank-order of the issues in the news coverage of the 1968 presidential campaign and the rank-order of these same issues among the public" (Valenzuela, 2014).
They attest that influential "gatekeepers" in the media use selection, omission and framing to decide what issues will be presented and from which angle they will be presented. This encourages the public to believe an issue is important, which in turn shapes political policies. There is a dramatic distortion between the ongoing events in the world outside and their delineation in the media. Stuart Ewen and Elizabeth Ewen (1992) centralized their study of "Shadows on the Wall" on differences between reality and fiction. They believe that people see the shadow of the world, adding that it was not only the problem of antiquity world as it flows in today's world too. (Ewen, Stuart; Ewen, Elizabeth, 1992)
An important force of media stems from its ability to translate reality. But, according to Ewens, it’s a damaged translation. But, repetition of fictions would form history by passing the time.
"As the word or the image is reproduced, again and again, it becomes fact, known simultaneously by strangers, a common, if sometimes deceptive, bond. Fact! is seen, over and over again, repeated by itself, repeated by others. When it is stored, it becomes history, a common heritage". (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992). As in the framing term of the agenda-setting, function theory shows a media broadcast emphasizes certain points and downplays others in a news story. When reality comes into the media, gatekeepers and influential people within the media shift through that reality and turns out what they believe is important. So, media agenda is delivered by influential media elites which effects on public agenda. Public hold hot discussions and talks about issues that they get it from media. Media agenda and public agenda also affect the policy agenda. Politicians will be forced to talk about the things that they get from the public agenda and media agenda. But sometimes politicians talk about some issues with effects the public and the media. Media widely covers the issues that are being spoken with politicians. Audiences' perception of reality is influenced by the representations of reality in the media.
McCombs and Shaw used evidence from a US Presidential election. In 1968 they interviewed 100 voters from Chapel Hill and analysed the frequency of issues appearing in the news. (McCombs, Maxwell; Donald Shaw, 1994).
They found that there was a correlation mutual relationship between the number of times frequency a political issue appeared in the media and the perception by the interviewees that this issue was important.
This theory is more about the media not telling us what to think, but what to think about. What they mean is that the media forms the daily conversation. It did not tell people to think about a particular issue but it was telling people which issues to talk about.
But, before evaluating the agenda-setting function theory in today's modern media communication. I want to put light on the Spiral of Silence theory. The theory talks about the relationship between the majority and minority and how they express themselves. German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann formulated the theory in 1974. (Noelle-Neumann, 1998).
The majority viewpoint of a topic their desires and wants develops public opinion. Those who do not agree with popular public opinion become part of the minority viewpoint. Media via its broadcasting series influences on public opinion. Those who are part of the majority viewpoint are more likely to speak up and those who are in minority will keep quit in public conversations. This fear of isolation that their opinions are contradictory to the majority characterizes spiral of silence theory.
There are three assumptions to the spiral of silence theory. First, society threatens isolations to the individuals of different views, which implies the society has the power over those choose not to conform to the majority viewpoint from fear of isolation. Noelle Neumann created the train test experiment, the train test is appraisement measures people's willingness to speak their own opinion in public. The test uses the concept of a 5-hour train. The person sitting next to you start talking about a topic. The question is then asked, would you talk or not talk about that topic to the person?
Second, fear of isolation causes people to evaluate opinion constantly, included in the "Quasi-Statistical Sense". Which means people estimate the strength of opposing site in a public debate. People's views about public opinion can often be incorrect and mislead. This is known as pluralistic ignorance. Media plays a big role to form public opinion.
Third, the assessment of public opinion will determine individuals' behaviour in public. People may attempt what is known last minute wing, which is a change of opinion during the final moments of the conversation. And at the time groups who hold minority viewpoint speak out despite the risk of fear known as the hardcore.
But, with the emergence of new media technologies and the internet do the theories still alive in the framework of media?
However, to know the exact impact of the spiral of silence and agenda-setting function theory we need to survey the society and those who use new media technologies. In general, new media platforms have produced different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel self-administrated and freer to express their opinions.
In the new media outlets, individuals have equal right to share their opinion and receive the information or message directly without gatekeepers or influential media elites' interference.
Social media users less likely to not speak their minds, if their opinions are not supported online. But their avoidance does not mean fear of isolation. Somehow they may want to keep their audiences satisfied.
In my view even in the spiral of silence theory, limiting the avoidance of expressing thoughts to the fear of isolation is an uncompleted approach. People may eschew to keep silence considering various reasons. Lack of evidence to support their opinion, inability to put opinion into words, lack of confidence, the concern of being misunderstood or preferring to keep their opinions private can be part of the reasons. But, if we consider the agenda-setting theory function in today's media, in some aspects the theory is efficient and usable.
"A fundamental assumption of agenda-setting theory is that people get their news from a finite number of news sources or outlets. Furthermore, because news is selected by professional gatekeepers who operate under similar news values, the media agenda is thought to be uniform across those few outlets, at least on the national level. However, as the number of news outlets increases and the number of news consumers for any particular outlet decrease, the idea of a unified media agenda becomes problematic" (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001)
Not only media set agenda for the public, likewise the public and events in the social environment forms the context of the media.
"One of the most widely used measures of the public agenda is the venerable Gallup Poll question, What do you think the most important issue facing our country today? (Valenzuela, 2014)
If we evaluate public opinion through this question in Afghan society we may get definite answers accordingly to a wide range of issues which is being broadcast in the social and Television networks.
As nowadays, social media websites in Afghanistan have become portals of heated discussions and disputes about the killing of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Commander of Iran Qassem Soleimani by the US airstrikes in Baghdad. A large group of people in their daily lives hold talks about the issue. Television networks and social media lead their thoughts and say them how to think about the issue.
The killing of an Iranian commander by the US is not a domestic issue of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is facing lots of challenges and problems in its territory. A large number of people are being killed daily in Afghanistan. Human rights are being violated in the country. But these problems get serious only it appears in the media. Another example of agenda-setting function theory can be widespread reactions of Afghans to the short scenes of a new Indian film entitled "Panipat". The film is about Ahmad Shah Abdali, one of the kings of Afghanistan who fought in India. The film, with special effects and dialogues about Afghan attacks on India, has triggered widespread reactions about the Indian narrative of events as they unfolded.
In conclusion, we can say that the spiral of silence theory, with the advent of new media platforms, has lost its use in Afghanistan. People can easily voice their opinions through various media outlets. But, the agenda-setting function theory is still alive in Afghanistan.
M. Zaher Dowran
Communication Faculty of Ankara University
19913212
References
Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The End of Mass Communication. Mass Communication and Society. pp. 365- 379.
Ewen, Stuart; Ewen, Elizabeth. (1992). "Shadows on the Wall" Channels of Desire: Mass Images and the Shaping of American Consciousness. pp. 189-220.
McCombs, Maxwell; Donald Shaw. (1994). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. (A. Altun, Trans.) pp. 259-270.
Mills, C. (n.d.). Sociological Imagination (Vol. Chapter 3 "Abstructed Empiricism).
Morva, O. (2013). Chicago Okulu, Pragmatik Sosyal Teoride İletişimin Keşfi. 85-143. Istanbul: Doruk.
Neolle-Neumann, E. (1998). Kamuoyu, Suskunluk Sarmalının Keşfi. Ankara: Dost.
Valenzuela, M. M. (2014). Agenda-Setting Theory: The Frontier Research Questions. (K. K. Jamieson, Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/50723222/PDF_of_handbook_chapter_-_sebavalenz.cl_gmail.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAgenda-Setting_Theory_The_Frontier_Resea.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=A
Social media websites in Afghanistan have become portals of heated discussions and disputes about short scenes of a new Indian film entitled “Panipat”. The film is about Ahmad Shah Abdali, one of the kings of Afghanistan who fought in India. The film, with special effects and dialogues about Afghan attacks on India, has triggered widespread reactions about the Indian narrative of events as they unfolded.
The film has not been released yet, but some of its scenes published on social media websites have amassed a large number of fans. Although the film has its critics in India, its supporters and critics are divided into two particular groups in Afghanistan. Both groups present their views and critique of Abdali’s personality from their points of view. Criticism of the film in Afghanistan is so strong that those who agree with the film are subjected to profanity. Some social media users have said on their accounts that the government of Afghanistan must react to this matter. Some go to the extent to argue that the script of the film should have been shared with the government of Afghanistan, something which has become more of a joke on social media websites.
Panipat is an upcoming historical war film directed by Ashutosh Gowarikar based on the third battle of Panipat with Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Dutt and Kriti Sanon in the cast scheduled for release on December 6. There are perceptions that the movie has insulted Ahmad Shah Abdali, prompting sharp reactions from many Afghan citizens. (Chaudhury, 2019) Fearing misrepresentation of former Afghan emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali in Ashutosh Gowarikar’s upcoming Bollywood period drama Panipat, the Embassy of Afghanistan has expressed concerns to New Delhi and sought a meeting with Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar over the issue.
Starring actors Sanjay Dutt and Arjun Kapoor, Panipat is based on the Third Battle of Panipat between the Maratha Empire and the Durrani Empire in 1761 — one of the most significant events in Indian history. The film’s trailer was released recently, sparking concerns amid Afghan people about the misrepresentation of Abdali (played by Dutt), the founder of modern Afghanistan, as a brutal ruler. Within hours of the trailer release, the Afghanistan Embassy in New Delhi wrote to the Ministry of External Affairs. (DUTTA, 2019)
“Since the film is related to former Afghan emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali, any insensitive/distorted depiction of his character might provoke emotions of Afghans which could be unfairly exploited by others to adversely affect the trust and harmony that exists so well among the people of two countries,” the letter stated.
The trailer of Panipat has garnered over 35 million views on YouTube since its release and is still trending on the platform. Many voices from Afghanistan have since spoken up against what they feel could be a misrepresentation of the Durrani emperor and Ahmad Shah Abdali, a revered figure for them.
Varied reactions to the trailer of Panipat brings me to discuss cultural theorist and political activist Stuart Hall's theory of communication through media, which he emphasizes his encoding and decoding model in media. This theory suggests that the media carries important messages, which producers "encode" in text. However, audiences come to their interpretations when they "decode" a text through the process of negotiation. He further proposed that audiences come to different understandings of a text depending on the reception context in which they saw it.
According to Stuart Halls encoding and decoding model, both the producer and the audience have very specific roles within this model. Producers, people who create a form of media that is based on their ideas or ideologies are known as the encoders. And the audience, viewers of the media that is produced are known as the decoders. In the process of encoding a message, the sender may use either verbal (words, signs, images) or non-verbal (body language, facial expressions) symbols to help the receiver better comprehend the message that is given. As the message is in the possession of the receiver, the audience takes and observes the message into an interpretation and translation process, where the coded information is decoded and translated into a comprehensible form. This process allows the opportunity for the receiver to reconstruct the idea by giving meanings to symbols and to interpret the message as a whole. However, the receiver of the sender's message won’t always get the expected response the producer was expecting.
Stuart Hall urges that there are three main positions that the audiences might take when they decode the media message. Such as dominant-hegemonic or preferred, negotiated and oppositional.
The first type of decoding is the dominated response. In this type of response, the audience or receiver fully accepts and reproduces the code to the producer or sender.
A preferred reading occurs when a decoder operating within the dominant code decodes a message in terms of the codes with which it has been encoded. This, according to Hall, is the hypothetical instance of "perfectly transparent communication". Such a characterization has allowed the possibility of transparent communication being read into the mode. (Pillai, 1992)
For example, there are dominated decoders among individuals who reacted to the trailer of the Panipat. "Why are you throwing your life away for such a small piece of land," Abdali asks Sadashiv in the trailer, and he answers even more dramatically (or at least as dramatically as Arjun Kapoor’s acting will allow him): "I am ready to die for even a single grain of dust of my motherland". (Gowarikar, 2019) The producer's intention by this dramatic dialogue is vivid, it wanted to show Marathas patriotism. The intended response is dominated because the producer, Ashutosh Gowarikar, made it his main intention to create a sense of patriotism. A large number of viewers have got what the producer wanted them to understand through the trailer. Stuart Hall has themed them as "dominant-hegemonic or preferred readers".
As a viewer, Santosh Shinde, commented under the official trailer of Panipat, saying "one of the reasons why Panipat keep you hooked is because of the director's depiction of the complex politics behind a battle". Another one has said that "the best thing about this movie is storytelling and it keeps you engaged. Once again it has been proved that the director is the real hero to make a great cinema". (Gowarikar, 2019)
The second type of decoding is the negotiated response. To emphasize the notion of no necessary correspondence between encoding and decoding, Hall (1980a) also distinguishes between "negotiated" and "oppositional" readings. A negotiated reading occurs when in spite of recognizing the authenticity of hegemonic definitions the viewer contests them through particular or "situated" logics. (Pillai, 1992)
It means, this type of response partly believes the code and broadly accepts the message, but the receiver sometimes modifies the message that best reflects their own experiences, interests and positions. We can discover "negotiated readings" in the short trailer of Panipat film. This part of viewers accepts the history of Panipat war and some aspects of the short trailer as well. But the distorted depiction of former Afghan emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali's character provokes their emotions.
The negotiated audiences in Afghanistan are not keen to see the brave Marathas, led by the Peshwa's cousin Sadashiv Rao Bhau, being brutally destroyed by Abdali, who invaded India nine times between 1747 and 1769. The trailer shows an emperor, clearly, Shah Alam II, convinced that no one would dare go against the Marathas. Until a Mughal courtier says: “Ek hai, Jahapanah”. It also shows another Muslim ruler handing over his guns to Abdali. “Ham Maratha ka safaya kar denge. (We will remove all evidence of Marathas from here),” to which the Muslim ally, either from the Rohillas or Awadh, says: “Phir hamari bandookein aapki (Then our guns are yours)”. (DUTTA, 2019)
The film is intended to shed light on the history of Panipat war where the viewers can exercise the producers intended message but because of the portrayal of Ahmad Shah Abdali in the film, they will crash with a different response such as an oppositional response.
The third type of decoding is the oppositional response. An oppositional reading, according to Hall, occurs when the viewer understands both the literal and implicative meanings of discourse but decodes the message in an entirely heterogeneous way. It is here, he argues, that the "politics of signification" meets the "struggle in the discourse," indicating the failure of practices of encoding to achieve a hegemonic reading of the text. (Pillai, 1992)
This response completely disagrees with the producer's message and depending on the receiver's social position, they would reject the producers' ideology. For example, the narrative in the trailer says that "Abdali's invasion means an assault to all India. This time he is invading with an army of 100,000. In his last invasion, the Yamuna River flowed red for seven days". (Gowarikar, 2019) The narration sparked anger among the viewers of the trailer. A large number of viewers of the trailer have expressed their anger and opposite notions over the message of the trailer. This is what called as "oppositional reading" by Stuart Halls.
Abdali fits the Alauddin Khilji mould of “otherness” – tall, imposing, and dismissive of Hindu martial prowess. A Pakistan-American columnist Dr Mohammad Taqi has questioned the casting of Sanjay Dutt in the role of Ahmad Shah Abdali. Taqi said that Abdali was 25 when he first invaded India, and 39 when the Third Battle of Panipat was fought. He died at the age of 50, therefore, making the casting of Dutt in the role inaccurate. He tweeted, "Ahmad Shah Abdali first invaded India when he was 25 and was 39 at the Battle of Panipat. He was a handsome man by all accounts and died at age 50. Sanjay Dutt is 60 and looks 160. If nothing else the casting director of Panipat movie should be fired posthaste." (Taqı, 2019)
Stuart Hall’s encoding and decoding model is of great importance to today’s media because we as viewers must be critical of analyzing media. What we watch, read, or listen must be analyzed carefully because the producers encoded message may seem harmless and rather in your favour of personal beliefs, but if you don’t effectively decode the message sent from the producer, you as a viewer may be at risk of being negatively influenced by the producers' ideology.
Panipat and the way to handle it
Panipat depicts Ahmad Shah Durrani's, known as the Ahmad Shah Abdali in the film, famous war with Maratha forces, the most powerful fighting forces in India at the time. Ahmad Shah Durrani, who is also known as the founder of modern Afghanistan, led the army to India many times after he came to power, the largest of which occurred in 1761. During the military campaign, Ahmad Shah Abdali defeated the army of 60,000 men of Rajputs with his 60,000 men force after a bloody battle. (Ajand, 2019) Ahmad Shah Durrani's victory in the Panipat guaranteed the continuation of Islamic rule in India for many years. But alongside that, it reinforced the British position in the country. A few years later, the British took over the continent in the absence of a belligerent and warlike force in India.
Indian cinema (Bollywood) wants to revive the war story again. The famous Indian actor Sanjay Dutt plays the role of Ahmad Shah Abdali and starring young Arjun Kapoor opposite him.
Only a trailer of the film is released so far. The trailer did not reveal how Ahmad Shah Abdali is portrayed in the film. However, the reactions are increasing through the social platform in Afghanistan. Afghans, especially Pashtun ethnics have a special sensitivity to the name of Ahmad Shah Abdali. They respect him as Ahmad Shah Baba (Ahmad Shah Father) for creation of the vast Durrani Emperor. That’s why any negative approach towards Ahmad Shah will face with sharp reactions in Afghanistan. On the other hand, India has a secular political system, which supports the freedom of speech and ideas.
India is called the biggest democratic system in the world. Affected by this political system, Indian cinema has established itself as an independent pillar influencing Indian public opinion. (Ajand, 2019) The Indian film industry is independent of Indian politics, but in line with the Indian system, has launched various historical, political and social films, some of which have made a lot of noise. Bollywood's critical look at the political system is one of the highlights of this industry in India. Similarly, Indian cinema has sometimes made films that have affected countries in the region. Most of the films narrating the successive wars between India and Pakistan have been made in a way that portrays Pakistan as an invading country and India as a defending country. In these films, the Hindu monarchy has always imposed a cruel defeat on the Pakistanis.
The same is in the case with Afghanistan, which has always been a friendly country in Indian politics. Sometimes the Indian films have had negative reactions in Afghanistan. The Kabul Express film, directed by in 2008 by Kabir Khan and starring John Abraham and Arshad Warsi, also sparked a sharp reaction from the Afghan government. The film was banned in Afghanistan. Because the film had insulted some ethnic groups in Afghanistan from the viewpoint of Afghans. However, the Kabul Express film could not have a negative impact on the political relations of the two countries despite the harsh reactions of the Afghans. In contrary to the hot discussions and reactions on social media, even now, the negative image of Ahmad Shah Durrani does not seem to have a negative effect on Afghanistan's foreign policy towards India.
So let us assume that Panipat has portrayed Afghanistan and its people negatively, insulted the honourable personality of Abdali and misrepresented history, how can this matter be handled?
If the people of Afghanistan wish to object to the film, they can, but how should they object? Some people may step forward and write a few critical lines against the film for their satisfaction, but a deeper look dictates that Afghans should make another film that presents Abdali’s actual image, the situation of Afghanistan at that time and the events of that era to the world. Afghans must show to the government of India and the Indian cinema that their narrative is wrong and that they have skilfully established that.
But how can Afghans do this? Do Afghans have the necessary artistic skill and resources? Afghanistan entered into its new political life 18 years ago and the international community made investments in different areas, but the government continues to neglect the cinema. No policies aimed at building the Afghan cinema have been formulated and no investor has invested in this area. Afghan Film [Afghanistan’s state-run film company] was stagnant and discriminated against. Over these years, Afghan artists have used their meagre resources to produce a few things, which can hardly be described as complete artistic work. Afghan Film may have produced some films in the absence of any resources. Except for one or two films, the remaining films it has produced were insignificant. Private cinema business has also not thrived.
Some changes have reportedly been seen in Afghan Film over the recent months in Ashraf Ghani’s government, but these changes are not tangible yet. Even the presidential candidates paid little attention to the Afghan cinema in their manifestos. None of them recognised it as a need in society. Given the above, a society such as the one in Afghanistan is unable to respond effectively to a foreign film that has touched on the history and values of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan is to respond to Panipat, it must do so in the form of a film backed by academic knowledge and cinematic resources, something that we lack.
M. Zaher Dowran
Communication Faculty of Ankara University
19913212
References
Ajand, F. (2019, November 06). Bollywood narrates Panipat war. Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independentpersian.com/node/27766/بالیوود-جنگ-«پانیپت»-را-روی-پرده-نقرهای-روایت-میکند
Chaudhury, D. (2019, November 13). Afghanistan raises alarm over the reel on the third battle of Panipat. The Economic Times.
DUTTA, A. N. (2019, November 07). Panipat film raises alarm in Afghanistan over Abdali portrayal, embassy writes to MEA. The Print. Retrieved from https://theprint.in/india/ashutosh-gowariker-panipat-film-raises-alarm-in-afghanistan-over-abdali-embassy-writes-to-india/316996/
Gowarikar, A. (Director). (2019). Panipat [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpXnmy-6w1g
Pillai, P. (1992). "Rereading Stuart Hall's Encoding/Decoding Model". Communication Theory vol.2, no. 3, 221-233.
There is a dramatic distortion between the ongoing events in the world outside and their delineation in the media. How kind of an ideological power arose from these differences? Why there is a difference between the world outside and the pictures in the media? How does this difference come about? There are various understandings about it. Some believe that the difference stems from the economic-political structure within the media. Some others, consider it as a matter of interests, saying political and military elites that govern the people benefits the gaps. I will illustrate the ideological conception of the political economy as well as ideology and reality.
The difference between the material world and its picture in the media corresponds to the difference between the "fact" and the "fiction". If the material world features the reality then the fiction represents the appearance in the media. It can also correspond to the difference between object-imagery, tenor-copy, bases-secondary, presence-representation as well as truth and representation.
Although, the tensions between the "real" world and the ways people perceive it is not an issue relating to the emergence of the media. It is a matter of antiquity and philosophy. Always, we see the world outside through a mediated device. Stuart Ewen and Elizabeth Ewen (1992) centralize their study of "Shadows on the Wall" on these differences, especially the reality and the fiction.
This question stands at the heart of Plato's often-cited "parable of the cave," which appears in The Republic. In the parable, Plato describes human life as if it were lived "in a sort of underground den." Inside the den, people's eyes are averted from the mouth of the cave, turned toward its innermost wall. Their perception of the world outside is perpetually indirect, limited to the shadows that play upon the wall. Though only mediation of the actual world, to the person inside the den these shadows, constitute "reality." (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992)
These people do not see the world outside. They always see the shadow of the world. Ewens believe that it was not only the problem of antiquity world as it flows in today's world too. How we can know the real outside world? American writer Hanno Hardt evaluates the relationship between fact and fiction in authenticity issues. Autonomy is the ability of citizens to express their opinions on common and social issues. Hardt believes in the era of commercial media autonomy has been diminished.
Mixed in ideological clashes were pronouncements of a more fundamental nature that signalled the end of capitalism, ideology, and modernism. Thus, the negation of the autonomy of culture has been accompanied by debates over the end of ideology and the consequences of a totalitarian system in which the destruction of modernism has resulted in the loss of the unique and the reduction of culture to an exercise in social control. (Hardt, 1998) There is something about twentieth-century life that dramatizes the division between the material world and its aspect, between form and substance. In large part, it stems from the exponential growth of a modern media system, a profound apparatus of representation that has come to permeate nearly all facets of life. (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992)
It looks we are entering a new phase of life, in which we only see the simulacrum of things not the backstage of objects. The form (Suret) has an extraordinary power upon existence, truth and original. How this issue come out? However, the impact of media messages has been concentrated in the 20th century but the issue has stemmed in the last quarter of the 18th century. Starting in 1850, western countries witness dramatic changes. Urbanization became more common, compulsory education law has been implemented, the number of people who could read and understand media message grew, workers got right to vote, newspapers widen their coverage and its content does not limit to a specific community group but addresses all social groups, corporatization of media started. As a result of the struggles of the workers class, the working hours decreased. As a result, media became the favourite pastimes of people, who got a specific time to rest. The content of newspapers trended to entertainment. As the advertisements increased the price of newspapers have been decreased.
An important force of media stems from its ability to translate reality. But, according to Ewens, it’s a damaged translation. But, repetition of fictions would form history by passing the time.
As the word or the image is reproduced, again and again, it becomes fact, known simultaneously by strangers, a common, if sometimes deceptive, bond. Fact! is seen, over and over again, repeated by itself, repeated by others. When it is stored, it becomes history, a common heritage. (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992) So, here the ideology notion emerges, we constantly follow these images, sometimes these images can be true as well. But, we constantly face the shadows of reality. One of the most influential names in media studies Walter Lippman says we need images to know the complex outside world. And, the media is an important device which draws pictures of the world outside.
They seem utterly real, we imagine, directly to us without human meddling, and they are the most effortless food for the mind conceivable. Any description in words, or even any inert picture, require an effort of memory before a picture exists in the mind. But on the screen the whole process of observing, describing, reporting, and then imagining, has been accomplished for you. Without more trouble than is needed to stay awake the result which imagination is always aiming at is reeled off on the screen. (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992)
How does the media produce shadows? Media shadows conveying the reality characterized into three parts. The Culture of Choice, The Culture of Violence and The Culture of Ignorance.
The Culture of Choice
According to this idea, we are under the bombardment of media messages and their effects. We choose not only the goods via media outlets but we also prefer our living style according to the pictures we get from the media. Along with the media came the possibility for mass persuasion.
Seen as good at first, especially by companies that realized they could use the media to hock their products, by World War II, the idea that single individuals or companies could bend the entire world to their will using mass communication became a widespread concern. (Chaffee, Steven H.; Miriam J. Metzger, 2001) Television came directly into the home and that viewers were to some extent a captive audience-led people to feel that they were being stripped of the power to control their living rooms.
Television watching-once termed a "family" activity-is today becoming more and more solitary. Televisions, situated throughout the household, provide electric companionship for separate individuals. When families do convene-for dinner-table discussion has given way to television spectatorship. (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992)
The Culture of Violence
According to this vision, horror is the norm (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992) and the media promote the culture of violence. It teaches audiences that violence is neutralized by violence. As we witness in adventure movies, most of the time an attack takes place, and then a figure portrayed as hero severely ward off the assault with violence.
The Culture of Ignorance
According to Ewens' point of view, the media pretends to give information about everything but actually, it keeps people out of social issues. The content of information and entertainment programmes is intertwined. This is a quintessential encounter of our time. It is often said that we are living in the middle of an "information age". The media are everywhere. Computer technology permeates more and more of the fibres of life. More and more industries are involved in the traffic of information: collecting, processing, and disseminating data. Yet while pundits and futurists celebrate the information age, much of the information that circulates throughout society leaves people profoundly ignorant of their world. (Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen, 1992)
To understand, why media damages the truth? We need to assess the appearance of messages by the media and the reasons behind these pictures. There is material reality. When the reality transmitted to the media along with very intense economic and political dynamics a distorted image will appear.
Under the appearance, there is a material reality that has always been hidden. We can not see it through media messages. Therefore, it is a matter of distortion in the distinction of ideology, a matter of exaggeration perhaps a matter of tabloidization. Why does false consciousness emerge?
In the view of Marxist terminology, the contradiction itself already exists between labour and capital in material reality in the external world. According to this view, if the false consciousness was the result of unawareness, we could overcome it through education. But, it is not a matter of unawareness, on the contrary, there is a dramatic contradiction between the labour and capital in the world we live that cause for the contradiction. Media do not produce information, it only produces ideology. Media do not aware us, if we consider the information programmes or entertainment programmes they are not giving us information or produce amusement, they only produce ideology, according to this notion.
So, how we can analyse the media?
The economic and political conditions that have created the media in that way should be analyzed.
To better understand the media, we need to understand the political environment in which they operate.
This becomes obvious when we consider the drastic differences between media in a democratic society and those in totalitarian nations. State control of the mass media is a routine element of totalitarian systems. (Mosco, 2009)
There are three fundamental approaches to communication and media studies. Some schools believe that the production method of the class has a direct effect on the creation of ideological content. It is possible to talk about a class determining school. Orthodox Marxism arguments are often noticeable here. In the argument, where we call the infrastructure determines the superstructure, the ideology is defined by the economic infrastructure as a part of the superstructure.
The second school urge that military, economic and politic elites produce an ideological manipulation to strengthen their military, political and economic power.
There is another political-economic approach dubbed democratic equality or the media as a public space. Peter Golding and Graham Murdock's studies are close to this approach. In their studies dubbed as "Culture, Communication and Economic Politic (2002)" they speak of a duality. They call for wide studies of media, including the content, text as well as audiences. They have evaluated the relationship between production, goods and consumer. Golding and Murdock labelled their studies as a critical economic and political approach. Liberal theories search for ways to gain more benefits of the existing media system. If propaganda is working, they think of how to boost the power of propaganda. But, critical theories discuss the existing problems in the media system.
But, what are the goods in this field?
There are various notions in the framework of the economic-political approach toward "goods" of the media. The first view considers the product of the media such as TV programmes, series as the goods. Another group believe that the goods of media are its audiences. Audiences are sold to the advertising companies. Another view emerged that saying "audience measurements" are commodities of the media.
Peter Golding and Graham Murdock consider production as well as audiences as the commodities of the media. In their free time, most people watch television or use free network sites and social networks. But, they do pay a price of their time. Media companies sell their audiences as commodities to the advertising companies.
Golding and Murdock urge that media should be free and independent of government and advertising companies. But, is it possible to build a media that is independent of the capitalist companies and the government?
Media organizations operate within a context that is shaped by economic and political forces at least partially beyond their control, but the production of media is not simply dictated by these structural constraints. Media critics should bear in mind, not only political and economic conditions affect the media, on the contrary, the media has a profound effect on political and economic developments of any state. It is a matter of two-step flow. Politicians and big business corporations are in dire need of the media. Media professionals develop strategies for navigating through these economic and political forces, and media outlets have their own sets of norms and rules.
M. Zaher Dowran
19913212
References:
Chaffee, Steven H.; Miriam J. Metzger. (2001). The End of Mass Communication. Mass Communication and Society, 365- 379.
Ewen, Stuart; Elizabeth Ewen. (1992). "Shadows on the Wall" Channels of Desire: Mass Images and the Shaping of American Consciousness. 189-220. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Garnham, N. (2008). 'Ekonomi Politik ve Kültürel Çalışmalar: Berlişme mi Boşanma mı?'. İletişim Çalışmalarında Kırılmalar ve Uzlaşmalar içinde, 115-129. Ankara: DeKi.
Golding, Peter; Graham Murdock. (2002). 'Kültür, İletişim ve Ekonomi Politik'. Medya Kültür Siyaset içinde Der. Süleyman İrvan, Genişletilmiş ikinci baskı., 59-97. (D. B. Kejanlıoğlu, Trans.) Ankara: Alp Yayınevi.
Hardt, H. (1998). "The Decline of Authenticity: Modernity, Communication, and Critical Theory". Critical Studies in Communication, Media, and Journalism, 73-95. Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Mosco, V. (2009). The Political Economy of Communication. 2th edition, 65-126. London: Sage Publications.
In writing the article, I made great use of notes from lectures of Dr Şerifa Çam in the class.