Mcquails Mass Communication Theory, Study notes of Media Laws and Ethics

Download Mcquails Mass Communication Theory and more Study notes Media Laws and Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

McQuail’s Mass

Communication

Theory

Theory of Media

 - Media, society and culture: connections and confl icts and Society - social relations and experience Mass communication as a society-wide process: the mediation of - A frame of reference for connecting media with society - Theme I: power and inequality - Theme II: social integration and identity - Theme III: social change and development - Theme IV: space and time - Media–society theory I: the mass society 

• Media–society theory II: Marxism and political economy - Media–society theory III: functionalism - Media–society theory IV: social constructionism
• Media–society theory V: communication technology determinism - Media–society theory VI: the information society - Conclusion

Theory of Media and Society^81

potential for significant influence, but it is the particular ideas and values conveyed by the media (in their content) which are seen as the primary causes of social change, irrespective of who owns and controls. The influence is thought to work through indi- vidual motivations and actions. This view leads to a strong belief in various potential media effects for good or ill. Examples include the promotion by the media of peace and international understanding (or having the opposite effect), of pro- or antisocial values and behaviour, and of enlightenment or the secularization and modernization of traditional societies. A form of idealism or ‘mentalism’ concerning media also lies behind the view that changes in media forms and technology can change our way of gaining experience in essential ways and even our relations with others (as in the theories of McLuhan 1962, 1964). The two options remaining – of interdependence and of autonomy – have found less distinctive theoretical development, although there is a good deal of support in common sense and in evidence for both. Interdependence implies that mass media and society are continually interacting and influencing each other (as are society and culture). The media (as cultural industries) respond to the demand from society for information and enter- tainment and, at the same time, stimulate innovation and contribute to a changing social- cultural climate, which sets off new demands for communication. The French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, writing about 1900, envisaged a constant interweaving of influences: ‘technological developments made newspapers possible, newspapers promote the for- mation of broader publics, and they, by broadening the loyalties of their members, cre- ate an extensive network of overlapping and shifting groupings’ (Clark, 1969). Today, the various influences are so bound together that neither mass communication nor modern society is conceivable without the other, and each is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for the other. From this point of view we have to conclude that the media may equally be considered to mould or to mirror society and social changes.

Interdependence (two-way influence)

Idealism (strong media influence)

Materialism (media are dependent)

Autonomy (no casual connection)

No

No

Social structure influences culture Yes

Yes

Culture influences social structure

Figure 4.1 Four types of relation between culture (media content) and society

82 Theories

The option of autonomy in the relations between culture and society is not necessar- ily inconsistent with this view, unless interpreted very literally. It is at least very likely that society and mass media can be independent of each other up to a point. Societies that are culturally very similar can sometimes have very different media systems. The autonomy position also supports those who are sceptical about the power of the media to influence ideas, values and behaviour – for instance, in allegedly promoting conform- ity, stimulating ‘modernity’ or damaging the cultural identity of poorer or less powerful countries. There are different views about how much autonomy in relation to society the media can have. The debate is especially relevant to the central thesis of ‘interna- tionalization’ or ‘ globalization ’, which implies a convergence and homogenization of a worldwide culture, as a result of the media. The autonomy position would suggest that imported media culture is superficial and need not significantly touch the local culture. It follows that cultural imperialism is not likely to happen simply by chance or against the will of the culturally ‘colonized’ (see Chapter 10).

An inconclusive outcome

As with many of the issues to be discussed, there are more theories than there is solid evidence, and the questions raised by this discussion are much too broad to be settled by empirical research. According to Rosengren (1981b: 254), surveying what scattered evidence he could find, research gives only ‘inconclusive, partly even contradictory, evidence about the relationship between social structure, societal values as mediated by the media, and opinions among the public’. This assessment is just as valid thirty years later, suggesting that no single theory holds under all circumstances. It seems that the media can serve to repress as well as to liberate, to unite as well as to fragment society, to promote as well as to hold back change. What is also striking in the theories to be discussed is the ambiguity of the role assigned to the media. They are as often presented in a ‘progressive’ as in a ‘reactionary’ light, accord- ing to whether the dominant (pluralist) or alternative (critical, radical) perspective is adopted. Despite the uncertainty, there can be little doubt that the media, whether moulders or mirrors of society, are the main messengers about society, and it is around this observation that the alternative theoretical perspectives can best be organized.

Mass Communication as a Society-wide Process:

the Mediation of Social Relations and Experience

A central presupposition, relating to questions both of society and of culture, is that the media institution is essentially concerned with the production and distribution of knowl- edge in the widest sense of the word. Such knowledge enables us to make some sense of our experience of the social world, even if the ‘taking of meaning’ occurs in relatively autono- mous and varied ways. The information, images and ideas made available by the media may, for most people, be the main source of an awareness of a shared past time (history) and of

---

---

84 Theories

Thompson (1993, 1995) has suggested a typology of interaction to clarify the consequences of the new communication technologies that have detached social interaction and symbolic exchange from the sharing of a common locale. He notes (1993: 35) that ‘it has become possible for more and more individuals to acquire information and symbolic content through mediated forms of interaction’. He dis- tinguished two types of interaction alongside face-to-face interaction. One of these, which he calls ‘mediated interaction’, involves some technical medium such as paper, electrical wires, and so on, which enables information or symbolic content to be transmitted between individuals who are distant in space or time or both. The partners to mediated interaction need to find contextual information as well having fewer ones than in face-to-face contact. The other type is called ‘mediated quasi-interaction’ and refers to relations estab- lished by the media of mass communication. There are two main distinguishing fea- tures. First, in this case, participants are not oriented towards other specific individu- als (whether as sender or receiver), and symbolic forms (media content) are produced for an indefinite range of potential recipients. Secondly, mediated quasi-interaction is monological (rather than dialogical), in the sense that the flow of communication is one-way rather than two-way. There is also no direct or immediate response expected from the receiver. Thompson argues that the ‘media have created a new kind of public sphere which is despatialized and non-dialogical in character’ (1993: 42) and is potentially global in scope.

Mediation metaphors

In general, the notion of mediation in the sense of media intervening between ourselves and ‘reality’ is no more than a metaphor, although it does point to several of the roles played by the media in connecting us to other experience. The terms that are often used to describe this role reflect different attributions of purposefulness, interactivity and effectiveness. Mediation can mean different things, ranging from neutrally informing, through negotiation, to attempts at manipulation and control. The variations can be captured by a number of communication images, which express different ideas about how the media may connect us with reality. These are presented in Box 4.1.

Metaphors for media roles

• As a window on events and experience, which extends our vision, enabling us to see for ourselves what is going on, without interference from others.
• As a mirror of events in society and the world, implying a faithful reflection (albeit with inversion and possible distortion of the image), although the angle and direction of the mirror are decided by others, and we are less free to see what we want.

i

---

---

Theory of Media and Society^85

• As a filter , gatekeeper or portal , acting to select parts of experience for special attention and closing off other views and voices, whether deliberately or not.
• As a signpost , guide or interpreter , pointing the way and making sense of what is otherwise puzzling or fragmentary.
• As a forum or platform for the presentation of information and ideas to an audience, often with possibilities for response and feedback.
• As a disseminator who passes on and makes information not available to all.
• As an interlocutor or informed partner in conversation who responds to questions in a quasi-interactive way.

Some of these images are to be found in the media’s own self-definition – especially in the more positive implications of extending our view of the world, providing integra- tion and continuity and connecting people with each other. Even the notion of filtering is often accepted in its positive sense of selecting and interpreting what would other- wise be an unmanageable and chaotic supply of information and impressions. These versions of the mediating process reflect differences of interpretation of the role of the media in social processes. In particular, the media can extend our view of the world in an open-ended way or they can limit or control our impressions. Secondly, they may choose between a neutral, passive role and one that is active and participant. They can vary on two main dimensions: one of openness versus control, another of neutrality versus being actively participant. The various images discussed do not refer to the truly interactive possibilities of newer media, in which the ‘receiver’ can become a ‘sender’ and make use of the media in interaction with the environment. However, it is now clear that new online media can fulfil most of the roles indicated as well as additional ones, as outlined in Chapter 6 (p. 139), with reference to Internet portals.

A Frame of Reference for Connecting Media with Society

The general notion that mass communication interposes in some way between ‘reality’ and our perceptions and knowledge of it refers to a number of specific processes at dif- ferent levels of analysis. The Westley and MacLean (1957) model (see p. 86) indicates some of the additional elements needed for a more detailed frame of reference. Most significant is the idea that the media are sought out by institutional advocates as chan- nels for reaching the general public (or chosen groups) and for conveying their chosen perspective on events and conditions. This is broadly true of competing politicians and governments, advertisers, religious leaders, some thinkers, writers and artists, and so on. We are reminded that experience has always been mediated by the institutions of society (including the family), and what has happened is that a new mediator (mass communication) has been added which can extend, compete with, replace or even run counter to the efforts of other social institutions.

---

Theory of Media and Society^87

Main themes of media-society theory

The main themes and issues to be dealt with in this book have already been introduced in Chapter 1 and also in Chapter 3 under the heading ‘Early perspectives on media and society’. Here we return in more depth to these matters. The theories available to us are fragmentary and selective, sometimes overlapping or inconsistent, often guided by con- flicting ideologies and assumptions about society. Theory formation does not follow a systematic and logical pattern but responds to real-life problems and historical circum- stances. Before describing some of the theories that have been formulated, it is useful to look at the main themes that have shaped debate during the ‘first age of mass communi- cation’, especially relating to power, integration, social change and space/time.

Theme I: Power and Inequality

The media are invariably related in some way to the prevailing structure of political and economic power. It is evident, first of all, that media have an economic cost and value, are an object of competition for control and access. Secondly, they are subject to political, economic and legal regulation. Thirdly, mass media are very commonly regarded as effec- tive instruments of power, with the potential capacity to exert influence in various ways. Fourthly, the power of mass media is not equally available to all groups or interests. Box 4.2 introduces the theme of media power by naming the main kinds of effects, whether intended or not, that have been attributed to the mass media.

Hypothetical aims or effects of mass media power

• Attracting and directing public attention
• Persuasion in matters of opinion and belief
• Influencing behaviour
• Providing definitions of reality
• Conferring status and legitimacy
• Informing quickly and extensively

In discussions of media power, two models are usually opposed to each other: one a model of dominant media, the other of pluralist media (see Figure 4.3). The first of these sees media as exercising power on behalf of other powerful institutions. Media organizations, in this view, are likely to be owned or controlled by a small number of powerful interests and to be similar in type and purpose. They disseminate a limited and undifferentiated view of the world shaped by the perspectives of ruling interests.

88 Theories

Audiences are constrained or conditioned to accept the view of the world offered, with little critical response. The result is to reinforce and legitimate the prevailing structure of power and to head off change by filtering out alternative voices. The pluralist model is, in nearly every respect, the opposite, allowing for much diversity and unpredictability. There is no unified and dominant elite, and change and democratic control are both possible. Differentiated audiences initiate demand and are able to resist persuasion and react to what the media offer. In general, the ‘domi- nance’ model corresponds to the outlook both of conservatives pessimistic about the ‘rise of the masses’ and also of critics of the capitalist system disappointed by the failure of the revolution to happen. It is consistent with a view of the media as an instrument of ‘cultural imperialism’ or a tool of political propaganda. The pluralist view is an idealized version of what liberalism and the free market will lead to. While the models are described as total opposites, it is possible to envisage mixed versions, in which tendencies towards mass domination or economic monopoly are subject to limits and counter-forces and are ‘resisted’ by their audiences. In any free society, minorities and opposition groups should be able to develop and maintain their own alternative media. The question is whether media exercises power in their own right and interest. However, this possibility exists and is to be found in fictional as well as factual por- trayals of media moguls and empires. There are cases of media owners using their position to advance some political or financial goal or to enhance their own status. There is prima facie evidence of effects on public opinion and actions. More often, the independent power the media is said to cause unintended harmful effects. These relate, for example, to the undermining of democratic politics, cultural and moral debasement, and the causing of personal harm and distress, mainly in the pursuit of profit. Essentially they are said to exert power without responsibility and use the shield of freedom of the press to avoid accountability. This discussion of media effects gives rise to a number of questions which are posed in Box 4.3.

Dominance Pluralism Societal source Ruling class or dominant elite Competing political, social, cultural interests and groups Media Under concentrated ownership Many and independent of and of uniform type each other Production Standardized, routinized Creative, free, original Controlled Content and world Selective and decided Diverse and competing views, view from ‘above’ responsive to audience demand Audience Dependent, passive, Fragmented, selective, reactive organized on large scale and active Effects Strong and confirmative of Numerous, without consistency established social order or predictability of direction, but often no effect

Figure 4.3 Two opposing models of media power (mixed versions are more likely to be encountered)

---

90 Theories

solidarity and sense of community. Addiction to television has been linked to non- participation and declining ‘social capital’ in the sense of participating in social activi- ties and having a sense of belonging (Putnam, 2000). The media have brought mes- sages of what is new and fashionable in terms of goods, ideas, techniques and values from city to country and from the social top to the base. They have also portrayed alternative value systems, potentially weakening the hold of traditional values. An alternative view of the relation between mass media and social integration has also been in circulation, based on other features of mass communication. It has a capacity to unite scattered individuals within the same large audience, or to integrate newcomers into urban communities and immigrants into a new country by providing a common set of values, ideas and information and helping to form identities (Janowitz, 1952; Clark, 1969; Stamm, 1985; Rogers, 1993). This process can help to bind together a large-scale, differentiated modern society more effectively than would have been pos- sible through older mechanisms of religious, family or group control. In other words, mass media seem in principle capable both of supporting and of subverting social cohe- sion. The positions seem far apart, one stressing centrifugal and the other centripetal tendencies, although in fact in complex and changing societies both forces are normally at work at the same time, one compensating to some extent for the other.

Ambivalence about social integration

The main questions that arise for theory and research can thus (much as in the case of power) be mapped out on two criss-crossing dimensions. One refers to the direction of effect: either centrifugal or centripetal. The first refers to the stimulus towards social change, freedom, individualism and fragmentation. The second refers to effects in the form of more social unity, order, cohesion and integration. Both social integration and dispersal can be valued differently, depending on preference and perspective. One per- son’s desirable social control is another person’s limitation of freedom; one person’s individualism is another person’s non-conformity or isolation. So the second dimension can be described as normative, especially in the assessment of these two opposite tendencies of the working of mass media. The question it represents is whether the effect at issue should be viewed with optimism or pessimism (McCormack, 1961; Carey, 1969). While early critics of mass communication (e.g. C.W. Mills) emphasized the dangers of over-integration and social conformity, the individualizing effects of newer media have come to be viewed by social critics as socially corrosive (e.g. Sunstein, 2006). In order to make sense of this complicated situation, it helps to think of the two versions of media theory – centrifugal and centripetal – each with its own position on a dimension of evaluation, so that there are, in effect, four different theoretical positions relating to social integration (see Figure 4.4). These can be named as follows:

1 Freedom, diversity. This is the optimistic version of the tendency for media to have a fragmenting effect on society that can also be liberating. The media spread new ideas and information and encourage mobility, change and modernization. 2 Integration, solidarity. This optimistic version of the reverse effect of mass communication as a unifier of society stresses the needs for a sense of identity, belonging and citizenship, especially under conditions of social change.

---

Theory of Media and Society^91

3 Normlessness, loss of identity. The pessimistic alternative view of greater freedom points to detachment, loss of belief, rootlessness and a society lacking in social cohesion and social capital. 4 Dominance, uniformity. Society can be over-integrated and over-regulated, leading to central control and conformity, with the mass media as instruments of control.

This version of the integrating effects of mass communication leaves us with a number of questions (Box 4.5) that have to be answered for different societies at dif- ferent points in time and no general answer is possible.

Questions about media and integration

• Do mass media increase or decrease the level of social control and conformity?
• Do media strengthen or weaken intervening social institutions, such as family, political party, local community, church, trade union?
• Do media help or hinder the formation of diverse groups and identities based on subculture, opinion, social experience, social action, and so on?
• Do mass media promote individual freedom and choice of identity?
• Do online media have a bias against integration?

Theme III: Social Change and Development

A key question that follows on from the preceding discussion is whether or not mass communication should be viewed primarily as a cause or as an effect of social change.

1 Freedom, diversity

3 Normlessness, loss of identity

Pessimistic vision

Centrifugal effect

Centripetal effect

Optimistic vision

2 Integration, solidarity

4 Dominance, uniformity

Figure 4.4 Four versions of the consequences of mass communication for social integration

?

Theory of Media and Society^93

In more recent years, the biggest change associated with mass media has probably been the transition from communism in Europe after 1985. The role of the media in these events is still a matter of debate, although the process of glasnost did give the media a part to play in internal change within the Soviet Union, and once started they seemed to amplify it.

Theme IV: Space and Time

Communication has often been said to have space and time dimensions and also to ‘build bridges’ over discontinuities in our experience created by distance and time. There are numerous aspects to each proposition. Communication makes possible an extension of human activity and perception across distance in several ways. Most obviously, in the form of transportation we are taken from place to place and our contacts, experi- ences and horizons are extended. Symbolic communication can achieve something of the same effect without our having to move physically. We are also provided with maps and guides to places and routes to points in real space. The location of our activity is defined by webs of communication, by shared forms of discourse and by much that is expressed in language and other forms of expression. Virtually all forms of symbolic communication (books, art, music, newspapers, cinema, etc.) are identified with a particu- lar location and have a varying ‘transmission’ range that can be specified geographi- cally. Processes of mass communication are typically described and registered in spa- tial terms, with reference to particular media markets, circulation or reception areas, audience ‘reach’, and so on. At the same time, the end of cost and capacity constraints on electronic transmission means that communication is no longer tied to any one ter- ritory and is, in principle, delocalized. Political and social units are territorial and use communications of many kinds to signal this fact. Communication is always initiated at one point and received at one or many other points. Bridges are built and physical distance seems to be reduced by ease of communication and reception. The Internet has created various kinds of ‘vir- tual space’ and new maps to go with it, especially those that show the web of intercon- nections. New technologies have made it possible for messages sent to materialize at distant points. The account could be continued, but the richness of the theme of space can be appreciated. Much the same could be said in relation to time. The multiplication and acceleration of channels for transmission and exchange of communication have made instantane- ous contact with other sources and destinations an everyday possibility. We no longer have to wait for news or wait to send it, from whatever place. There is effectively no time restriction on the amount of information that can be sent. There is increasingly no time restriction on when we can receive what we want to receive. Technologies of storage and access allow us to disregard the constraint of time on much communica- tion behaviour. All that is lacking is more time to do all this. Paradoxically, although new technologies make it possible and easy to store our memories and all the infor- mation we want, information and culture seem to be subject to faster obsolescence and decay. The limits are increasingly set by human capacity to process any more any

94 Theories

faster. The long-heralded problem of information overload has arrived in daily experi- ence. Whatever the costs and benefits, it is hard to deny the revolutionary character of recent changes. For key propositions, see Box 4.7.

Media effects relating to space and time: key propositions

• Media have abolished distance
• Virtual space becomes an extension of real space
• Media serve as collective memory
• The gap between technical transmission and human reception capacity widens exponentially
• Media lead to delocalization and detemporalization

Media–Society Theory I: the Mass Society

In this and the following sections, several distinctive theoretical approaches to these themes are discussed. They are presented more or less in chronological order of their for- mulation and they span the range from optimistic to pessimistic, from critical to neutral. The first to be dealt with, mass society theory, is built around the concept of ‘mass’ which has already been discussed in Chapter 3. The theory emphasizes the interdependence of institutions that exercise power and thus the integration of the media into the sources of social power and authority. Content is likely to serve the interests of political and eco- nomic power holders. The media cannot be expected to offer a critical or an alternative definition of the world, and their tendency will be to assist in the accommodation of the dependent public to their fate. The ‘dominant media’ model sketched above reflects the mass society view. Mass society theory gives a primacy to the media as a causal factor. It rests very much on the idea that the media offer a view of the world, a substitute or pseudo-environment, which is a potent means of manipulation of people but also an aid to their psychic sur- vival under difficult conditions. According to C. Wright Mills (1951: 333), ‘Between con- sciousness and existence stand communications, which influence such consciousness as men have of their existence.’ Mass society is, paradoxically, both ‘atomized’ and centrally controlled. The media are seen as significantly contributing to this control in societies characterized by large- ness of scale, remoteness of institutions, isolation of individuals and lack of strong local or group integration. Mills (1951, 1956) also pointed to the decline of the genu- ine public of classic democratic theory and its replacement by shifting aggregates of people who cannot formulate or realize their own aims in political action. This regret has been echoed more recently by arguments about the decline of a ‘public sphere’ of democratic debate and politics, in which large-scale, commercialized mass media have been implicated (Dahlgren, 1995, 2005).

96 Theories

The class that has the means of material production has control at the same time over the means of mental production so that, thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. (cited in Murdock and Golding, 1977: 15)

Marxist theory posits a direct link between economic ownership and the dissemina- tion of messages that affirm the legitimacy and the value of a class society. These views are supported in modern times by evidence of tendencies to great concentration of media ownership by capitalist entrepreneurs (e.g. Bagdikian, 1988; McChesney, 2000) and by much correlative evidence of conservative tendencies in content of media so organized (e.g. Herman and Chomsky, 1988). Revisionist versions of Marxist media theory in the twentieth century concen- trated more on ideas than on material structures. They emphasized the ideological effects of media in the interests of a ruling class, in ‘reproducing’ the essentially exploitative relationships and manipulation, and in legitimating the dominance of capitalism and the subordination of the working class. Louis Althusser (1971) con- ceived this process to work by way of what he called ‘ideological state apparatuses’ (all means of socialization , in effect), which, by comparison with ‘repressive state apparatuses’ (such as the army and police), enable the capitalist state to survive with- out recourse to direct violence. Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony relates to this tendency. Marcuse (1964) interpreted the media, along with other elements of mass production systems, as engaged in ‘selling’ or imposing a whole social system which is at the same time both desirable and repressive. All in all, the message of Marxist theory is plain, but questions remain unan- swered. How might the power of the media be countered or resisted? What is the position of forms of media that are not clearly in capitalist ownership or in the power of the state (such as independent newspapers or public broadcasting)? Critics of mass media in the Marxist tradition either rely on the weapon of exposure of propaganda and manipulation (e.g. Herman and Chomsky, 1988; Herman, 2000) or pin their hopes on some form of collective ownership or alternative media as a counter to the media power of the capitalist class. The main contemporary heir to Marxist theory is to be found in political economy theory. Political-economic theory is a socially critical approach that focuses primarily on the relation between the economic structure and dynamics of media industries and the ideological content of media. From this point of view, the media institution has to be considered as part of the economic system, with close links to the political system. The consequences are to be observed in the reduction of independent media sources, concentration on the largest markets, avoidance of risks, and reduced investment in less profitable media tasks (such as investigative reporting and documentary film- making). We also find neglect of smaller and poorer sectors of the potential audience and often a politically unbalanced range of news media. The main strength of the approach lies in its capacity for making empirically testable propositions about market determinations, although the latter are so numerous and complex that empirical demonstration is not easy. While the approach centres on media activity as an economic process leading to the commodity (the media product or content), there is a variant of the political-economic approach that

---

---

Theory of Media and Society^97

suggests that the primary product of the media is really audience. This refers to the fact that they deliver audience attention to advertisers and shape the behaviour of media publics in certain distinctive ways (Smythe, 1977). What commercial media sell to their clients is a certain more or less guaranteed number of potential custom- ers according to a market-relevant profile. This perspective is more difficult to apply to online advertising and in particular to the search engine as a major vehicle of advertising (Bermejo, 2009; and see below, p. 402). The political economy approach is now being applied to the case of the Internet. Fuchs (2009) builds on Smythe’s ideas in suggesting that the key to the Internet economy lies especially in the commodification of the users of free access platforms which deliver targets for advertisers and publicists as well as often providing the con- tent at no cost to networks providers and site-owners. In the case of very popular websites such as Myspace and YouTube , the distinction from mass communication is not very clear. The relevance of political-economic theory has been greatly increased by several trends in media business and technology (perhaps also enhanced by the fall from grace of a strictly Marxist analysis). First, there has been a growth in media concen- tration worldwide, with more and more power of ownership being concentrated in fewer hands and with tendencies for mergers between electronic hardware and soft- ware industries (Murdock, 1990; McChesney, 2000; Wasko, 2004). Secondly, there has been a growing global ‘information economy’ (Melody, 1990; Sussman, 1997), involving an increasing convergence between telecommunication and broadcasting. Thirdly, there has been a decline in the public sector of mass media and in direct public control of telecommunication (especially in Western Europe), under the ban- ner of ‘deregulation’, ‘privatization’ or ‘liberalization’ (McQuail and Siune, 1998; van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Fourthly, there is a growing rather than diminishing problem of information inequality. The expression ‘ digital divide ’ refers to the ine- quality in access to and use of advanced communication facilities (Norris, 2002), but there are also differences in the quality of potential use. The essential propositions of political-economic theory (see Box 4.9) have not changed since earlier times, but the scope for application is much wider (Mansell, 2004).

Critical political-economic theory: main propositions

• Economic control and logic are determinant
• Media structure always tends towards monopoly
• Global integration of media ownership develops
• Contents and audiences are commodified
• Real diversity decreases
• Opposition and alternative voices are marginalized
• Public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests
• Access to the benefits of communication are unequally distributed

---

---

---

---