The Concept of Mediatization - Assignment Example

CMM31 – Assessment Item 1. 1. Ross and Nightingale argue ‘audience research is a vehicle for monitoring the impact of both the mediatization of human senses and the industrialization of the productive capacity of the media’ (2003:13). Using examples, briefly discuss the term mediatization. The concept of mediatization is critical to a proper understanding of the role that media plays in culture and society. Although the term ‘mediatization’ has been used in different texts to discuss the effect of the media on different social phenomena, little effort has been made to explain the concept itself (Hjarvard 2008, p. 106). The term ‘mediatization’ was used for the first time do examine the impact of the media on political communication. Kent Asp, a Swedish media researcher, spoke about the mediatization of political life in reference to a political system that is adjusted to and influenced by the demands of the mass media during political coverage. Asp (1996, p. 73) One form of adaptation is when politicians phrase their rhetoric using phrases that polarize and personalize the issues. They do this in order to increase their chances of gaining media coverage (Asp 1996, p. 76). According to Ross & Nightingale (2003, p. 7), mediatized information is one of the five aspects of various media events that always recur as sources of interest in media research. The other elements include audience activities and participants, audience participants as individuals, media power relations, and media time or space of a particular event. The level of people’s engagement with mediatized information is dependent on many factors. Ross & Nightingale (2003, p. 7) mention five main factors that determine an audience’s level of engagement with media information. These factors include the definition of the subculture, the variety of media activities chosen, orientation of media materials, how a subculture is empowered and the interpretation of members of a subculture. Through mediatization, the society is being transformed in such a way that information is no longer scarce Schulz (2004, p. 101). In this regard, attention becomes a strategic resource. The resulting competition makes information abundant, thereby transforming media into a powerful institution that impacts on the way in which political institutions set their agendas. With the introduction of the internet, new forms of mediatization have emerged. The internet has introduced new ways through which information is mediatized. The internet revolution has made it necessary for media researchers to reconsider who is able to participate in today’s media activities an audience and who is not (Schulz (2004, p. 101). It has also necessitated the task of determine how internet time and spaces change and people’s thoughts about their day-to-day interactions with the world around them. Mediatization in the information age has also raised new questions regarding regulation and ownership of internet-based media. Mediatization also brings to the fore the issue of information sharing through new collaborations and contexts In addition, today’s media researchers are confronted with the task of determining the types of information that is mediatized for internet use and the way in which mediatization influences the manner in which the world is organized (Ross & Nightingale 2003, p.11). Today’s social institutions such as schools, medical utilities and public transport and communication systems have not been left behind as far as media influence is concerned. Indeed, a large majority of them have undergone the most far-reaching transformation through sustained media exposure. Whenever reference is made to media audiences, information is said to be mediatized when the power and management dimensions of a media event are put into consideration (Hjarvard 2008, p. 106). The concept of mediatization also tends to be used in reference to the influence of the media on contemporary politics. Hjarvard (2008, p. 106) gives examples of how Fernando Collar de Mello, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair made use of the media to rise to power in Brazil, Italy and Britain respectively. On the other hand, Hjarvard adds that mediatization presents the problematic consequences that have been brought about by modern mass media. In other words, mediatized politics are often viewed as a style of politics that is no longer autonomous. This is because it is highly dependent on the mass media in all its core functions. (Schulz 2004, p. 101). When the meaning of the term ‘mediatization’ is viewed from a broader the perspective, it is considered a product of media influence. The development of the media is an essential element of the every modern society’s development process. The influence of the media should be regarded as one of the most critical elements whenever mediatization of modern culture is being discussed (Hjarvard 2008, p. 132) 2. How is war propaganda linked with audience management? Please use examples in your answer. War propaganda refers to a public relations strategy for manipulating people’s attitude towards war instead of engaging in an open dialogue. Pro-war propaganda is normally spread by war industrialists and governments while anti-war propaganda is normally spread by enemy sympathizers and pacifists. Propaganda is defined not by its extent of truth or falsity, but by the methods of manipulation that are facilitated in various media. War propaganda is characterized by media-based use of loaded vocabulary, misdirection, fallacious demagoguery and staged events, all of which are justified as being motivated by either patriotic or idealistic cause (Kumar 2006, p. 60). Audience management is a critical element of any war propaganda. Proper media-based audience management facilitates successful completion of this propaganda. Where one country is pitied in a war against another, the national audience has to be influenced positively in order to be in support of the government’s attempts at invading the enemy or resisting invasion. Such an influence has to take a form that simultaneously deceives the enemy (Kumar 2006, p. 54). A proper understanding of media audience research, therefore, is necessary in order for war propaganda management efforts to succeed. The conceptual problems that arise during media audience research today are brought about by the rapid changes that are taking place in today’s media technologies (Turnbull 2002, p. 89). The approach that is adopted by academic researchers in understanding the media audiences differs from the one that is adopted by commercial media industry players and policymakers. Commercial media players are only interested in audiences as markets or consumers. On the other hand, policymakers consider media audiences with regard to their social and moral welfare as cultural citizens (McArthur 1992, p. 77). Each of these different perceptions has different implications with regard to the questions that are asked and the procedures used during research (McArthur 1992, p. 79). However, regardless of the perspective chosen by war propagandists in their attempts to understand and manage media audiences, many challenges are posed by technology changes. Digital forms of information access and delivery provide audiences with multiple ways of engaging with today’s media. Increase in the channels and forms of information delivery makes it increasingly difficult to analyze and understand media audiences (Ross & Nightingale 2003, p.17). Policymakers in both the U.S and U.K seem to have learned many propaganda lessons from past armed conflicts, particularly in Suez Canal (1956) and Vietnam (late 60s and early 70s). The role that the media played in the Vietnam War is believed to be a deciding factor in the victory of the Vietnamese and the defeat of the U.S. however; dissent started being featured in the U.S media only after the ruling elite started holding differing views regarding the war. Meanwhile, contemporary American war planners have learned how not to risk going into war with uncensored media coverage in trail (Hiebert 2003, p. 247). According to McArthur (1992, p. 138), the U.S administration seemed determined, beginning in the Reagan Administration, to ensure that never again would reporters be given an opportunity to ‘confuse the public about the governments aims in a war, whether accidentally or deliberately’. Censorship, therefore, is an essential component of audience management in matters relating to war propaganda (Hiebert 2003, p. 245). Such censorship entails not just provision of information security but also provision of pictures. During the Gulf War in 1991, this lesson was properly applied when the war commanders kept journalists at bay. These journalists were only supplied on a daily basis, with images of only those smart bombs that did not miss their targets. Every day, they would be provided with footages of ‘precision bombs’ that neither missed targets nor targeted civilians. The impression created was that of a clean war where ‘smart’, ‘surgical’ strikes left all civilians unharmed. The emphasis on clean war by the U.S and U.K was an attempt to divert public attention from the debate on weapons of mass destruction. Some of these weapons of mass destruction included uranium-tipped shells and ‘daisy cutter’ bombs (Kellner, 1992, p.63). News management was a key strategy of managing the opinions that the American and indeed international audiences held regarding the Iraq War. Many story lines, issues and slogans were framed in such a way that they served the government’s purposes. Throughout the war, showy briefings were staged and compelling television footages were made out of various visual and electronic media appearances by policymakers (Hiebert 2003, p. 254). 3. The term ‘audience’ has been defined in different and overlapping ways, from the definition deployed by pioneers in the field of mass media research, to definitions found in more recent debate and theoretical dispute. Using examples briefly discuss differences in defining the term “audience”. Today’s information media environment is more cluttered compared to that of the traditional media, thanks to proliferation of diverse technologies (Hjarvard 2008, p. 108). This cluttering has changed the manner in which people access information. The composition of media audiences has become difficult to define (Hjarvard 2008, p. 109). Cluttering of the environment in which audiences access media information is evident through technological changes and the corresponding transformations in audience behavior. For instance, traditionally, television viewing was a group experience occasioned by the availability of only one TV in each household. Today, there are several TVs, desktop and laptop computers in many homes (Hjarvard 2008, p. 111). Additionally, the information age brings with it many platforms of accessing and interacting with both traditional and modern media. These changes make it difficult to define and understand audiences (Hjarvard 2008, p. 112). Various definitions of the term of the term ‘audience’ have been proposed, some by researchers, others by commercial players and policymakers. Turnbull (2002, p. 282), defines an audience as a group of people participating in an conversational encounter or show involving a work of art, music, theater or academics, through any medium. The definitions differ depending on the aspects of an audience that interest each one of these people. For commercial media, audience is understood in terms of money. These media generate the largest proportion of their profits through the sale of advertising space. They do this by bringing together audiences and advertisers. For them, therefore, an audience refers to only those people that are of interest to advertisers. Media industry players are only interested in knowing what will attract and hold the attention of the consumer for long enough to interest an advertiser. Social researchers take a slightly different view of an audience. They are often interested in measures called demographics. Demographics involve categorization of people according to various factors such as sex, age, education, ethnicity and income. Both industry and academic researchers may find it relevant to categorize audiences in terms of taste and patterns of media consumption (Schulz 2004, p. 99). Both may also use research methods such questionnaires, interviews and surveys (Schulz 2004, p. 96). However, the industry researcher ends up defining an audience differently because their reasons for conducting the research work different from those of the academic researcher. For an academic researcher, interest is on what the audience is doing and why, simply as a matter of general social concern (Schulz 2004, p. 87). For industry researchers, the knowledge of audience demographics can be sold to advertisers to enable them reach their audiences (Turnbull 2002, p. 89). In media studies, the term ‘audience’ is often used in reference to people, either as a group or individuals. It is also used in reference to large groups such as newspaper readerships, mass audience for television news and public. The people in this sense of the term ‘audience’ are viewed as sharing few attributes apart from interest in the ongoing event. This understanding corresponds to the areas of focus that are of interest to media industry researches (Schulz 2004, p. 88). In both aspects of understanding media audiences, change in audience characteristics and behavior is inevitable. For this reason, media research companies have to keep monitoring changes in consumer demographics in light of the changing trends. Information on these changing trends is crucial for choice of programming and marketing strategies among media companies. For instance, (Turnbull 2002, p. 90) highlights an industry case study that involved niche marketing strategies for use by Channel Ten, an Australian television station. In this study, Channel Ten reversed its fortunes during the 1990s by targeting the 16-39-year demographic simply through a change of programming strategies (Turnbull 2004, p. 89). In contemporary audience research, overlaps of definitions are common. Indeed, these overlaps are partially responsible for the ongoing debate and theoretical dispute in audience research. Finally, definitions of audiences tend to differ based on whether media influences are considered to be beneficial or not (Ross & Nightingale 2003, p. 5). References Asp, K, 1996, The Modernization of Swedish Campaigns: Individualization, Professionalization, and Mediatization, Praeger Publishers, Westport. Hiebert, R, 2003, ‘Public relations and propaganda in framing the Iraq war: a preliminary review’ Public Relations Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 243-255. Hjarvard, S, 2008, ‘The Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Change’, Nordicom Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 105-134. Kellner, D, 1992, The Persian Gulf TV War, Westview, Boulder. Kumar, D, 2006, ‘Media, War, and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management during the 2003 Iraq War’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 48 - 69 McArthur, J, 1992, Second Front, University of California Press, Berkeley Ross, K, & Nightingale, V, 2003, Media and audiences, Routledge, London Schulz, W, 2004, ‘Reconstructing Mediatization as an Analytical Concept’, European Journal of Communication, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 87-101. Turnbull, S, 2002, ‘Audiences’ in Cunningham, S & Turner, G. The media and communications in Australia, Sydney: Allen and Unwin Read More