TALKING POINTS #1: MEDIA AND IDEOLOGY

Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences

David R. Croteau and William Hoynes

Pine Forge Press (2002)

Chapter 5, Pages 159-168

A few points that I thought were key for me to remember…

Ideology as normalization

The sheer repetition [of pictures of social interaction and institutions] on a daily basis can play important roles in shaping broad social definitions. ...In essence the accumulation of media images suggests what is “normal” and what is “deviant.” (163)

This statement early in the chapter encapsulates the subsequent explanation of Stuart Hall’s notion of hegemony: one dominated – and not just reflected but re-presented - by mass media. Leading to the common-senseness discussed on page 166..

Spectacle of the Bizarre

The media can become part spectacle of the bizarre. The ideological influence of media can be seen in the absences and exclusions as much as in the contents. (163)

For media messages falling outside of “dominant ideology” but represented by mass media – they are positioned in opposition to the dominant culture, for the spectator or consumer to look at from the outside – not identify with. Even as you may identify with the bizarre, you are being taught that it isn’t the dominant, accepted mode.

Hegemony

Power is wielded…in an arena of culture I the realm of everyday life where people essentially agree to current social arrangements. (page 166)

Hegemony operates at the level of common sense…forming a ‘core’ of a person that isn’t pure or natural or truthful but is itself a social construction.

Criticisms…

While these short pages successfully conveyed a few basic concepts of media and ideology, I thought it was poorly written and used hackneyed examples. In contrast, the excerpts of Stuart Hall on page 169 jumped out of the page as taut and exciting writing.

Beginning on page 160, the article set out its own strain of dominant ideology – abandoning the notion of cultural contradiction and complexity that I think even a freshman media studies student would grasp. Croteau and Hoynes' first two examples of “groups scholars are interested in studying the images of” are women and African-Americans, thereby establishing a dominant culture of white maleness. Writing an exclamation point at the obviousness of it, I read on hoping for a savvier take. ALL examples cited throughout the pages we read were white males or white male scenarios: Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Eminem, Priest, Last Temptaton of Christ, school shootings, George W. Bush, William Bennett.

When introducing an alternative media example (to showcase the “media battle”), the authors even use the language “other examples include” and go on to specify “female television characters.” Eminem wasn’t referred to as a male rapper, a white rapper, a rural rapper. Secretary of Educaton William Bennet wasn’t referred to as the male Secretary. While I understand the very point of the article is to explain hegemony through basic examples, the word “female” wasn’t necessary to include in the sentence if the actual examples of media contest regarded single motherhood and lesbianism.

But we know real challenge to hegemony isn’t about that – we know that the very issue of not being a white straight man is often the issue itself. Savvier authors would have explained the basic concepts of media, ideology and hegemony without their own dominant ideology (or maybe it’s their perceptions of their audience’s ideology) being so uncomplicated.

The chapter is written by two white men, cites only white male scholars, uses almost exclusively white male media examples, and posits the remaining three examples with a modifier: female, African-American.

Murphy Brown's son would still be a teen in 2011 - 19 years old!

Question for Class

I'm curious about the drawn-out "war" and battlefield" references. I understand the terms being used within popular culture when discussing media, but I'm not familiar with them being used in any scholarly way. I understand this is a textbook and not a scholarly text, but the extended metaphor seems odd. I am wondering if anyone knows if these "culture war" terms are academic terms...