The culture industry is responsible for all the rubbish we have in the media. Discuss. Introduction purpose of this essay is to critically discuss who is ultimately responsible for all the rubbish in the media. In this argument I will prove that the responsible parties would in fact be both the producer and Its consumers. I will elucidate the issue with Osgood Charms model of communication and the concept of hegemony with TM, a tabloid website and television series, as representation of the culture industry, to develop my argument.
TM began as a celebrity news website In 2005, drew traction among consumers when Nielsen fleeted an audience of 4. Million in June 2006. (Newsweek, Inc. , 2008) The increase in demand for TM suggests a feedback that the consuming population did not perceive tabloid as rubbish. Based on the feedback, TM debut its television series in 2007 to satiate its consumers demand for tabloid. The cycle then repeats.
The Culture Industrialization to the Frankfurt School theorists, the culture Industry Is In fact mass culture where cultural products, like factory goods, are mass produced with low cost of production, standardized and commercialese for the sole intention of making a profit. It also Indicates that large media corporations that control the means of production and circulation of Ideas can ultimately Influence collects Ideologies.
Theodore Adorn, Max Herkimer, Herbert Marcus, Walter Benjamin coined the term culture industry to signify the process of the industrialization of mass-produced culture and the commercial imperatives that drove the system. The commodities of the culture Industries exhibited the same features as other products of mass production communication, standardization, and mastication. The products of the culture industry had the specific function, however, of providing ideological estimation of the existing capitalist societies and of integrating individuals into the framework of mass culture and society (Holt Preen, 2009, p. 5). Republishing mentioned that mass culture molded and insidiously convinced its audience that self-worth is closely identified with luxury brands and opulent lifestyles. Therefore, it can be concluded that rubbish are products of mass culture generated with no cultural significance to Improve ones self-worth. As we become acclimated to life around the television set, collectively striving for a media-produced image, our choices are made for us. Choice is reduced to brand name. We sacrifice self- knowledge for consumerism. (Guppy, 2006, p. 30) Producers build a repertoire by mass producing cultural products to secure a higher rate of commercial success. Graham suggests with ratio that by producing a repertoire of 50 records as opposed to producing only one would provide better odds for producing commercially successful hits that will sustain the company in the long run. (Hexagonally, 2002, p. 22) However, this practice perpetuates rubbish in the media when subpart cultural products within the repertoire fall to become commercially successful, resulting In overvaluations.
Osgood Charms Model of Communication Osgood Charms model of communication falls into the cultural context school of communication suggests that all parties involved assume the roles of the encoder (sender of the message), interpreter and decoder (receiver of the message). In the context of the culture industry, audience are deemed active because they are able to react and provide a feedback on the content to its producers, where the cycle will then repeat. Communication Theory, 2010) SHAPE MERGE-FORMAT concept of Historiographers concept of hegemony elucidates that the dominant class in any society gets to determine the norm and in the context of this argument, the dominant class gets to decide what is or is not considered rubbish in the media. Hegemony refers to power as insidious because beneath the dominant class ability to convince the society that the act of pressure on the working class to conform are as determined by tradition, is an ulterior motive to obscure the act of resisting changes that are disadvantageous to the ruling. (Brannon Stafford, 2000, p. 44) Thomas Reuters provided perspective on hegemony in the production of knowledge where academic felt compelled to inform the public with unbiased appraisals of the political scene as he acknowledges that dominant classes with the means of production and circulation of ideas can and will use that to their benefit by deceiving the public. (Reuters, 2011, p. 369) Producers and Consumers are Both Irresponsibleness with the Osgood Charms model, it is difficult to determine the beginning and end of the communication process in modern days where the cycles are successful extensions of communication processes from the past.
Tm’s tabloids popularity amongst its audience was not unforeseen. Harvey Levin, managing editor of TM, mentioned In an effort to further feed the current American obsession with celebrities, the site also boasts of an expansive collection of archived star photos and videos of their favorite performers over the years. (Immediate, 2005) This indicates that consumers demand for tabloid prior to TM and that TM was simply capitalizing on this demand by expanding existing mediums and means of accessing tabloid. In September 2007, TM became the highest viewed tabloid website garnering up to million page views and 10. Million unique visitors. (The New York Times, 2007) The sole intention of TM was to make a profit from cable and subscription charges by seemingly harmless act of consuming tabloid. Premiership itself can be commoditized and this is done through advertising, where high premiership on TM can be transposed into higher advertising charges imposed on prospective advertisers. The spike in sales acted as feedback which then became quantitative evidence that consumers loved what they produced. A populace that only consumes entertainment becomes disenfranchised.