Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Propaganda model
|
views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public.
|
|
|
five filters in propaganda model
|
Size, ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation
Advertising Reliance on media sources “Flak” Anticommunism |
|
|
size, ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation, how is it a filter?
|
“...the limitation on ownership of media with any substantial outreach by the requisite large sum of investment” (4)
Higher costs have resulted in a relatively small number of media giants having control over very large numbers of media producers Managers need to take actions that please stockholders movement towards profit-seeking objectives Non-media, multi-national companies, with particular interests, increasingly control media outlets Media are dependent on government for licenses, policy support, third world investment, and are subject to government control and harassment Conclusion: Media autonomy from corporate and government power is incompatible with current structural facts |
|
|
Advertising. How is it a filter?
|
The filter? “The advertisers’ choices influence media prosperity and survival” (14)
Papers with advertisers can offer a lower copy price, driving out media companies that depend on sale revenue alone Working-class and radical papers at a serious disadvantage because “their readers are not purchasers.”(15) More narrow interest in audience makes mass media less democratic audience with buying power, not audience per se Pressure to please advertisers, include their principles in content Fear of offending or alienating advertisers Conclusion: Media autonomy from advertiser power is incompatible with current structural facts |
|
|
Reliance on media sources
|
The filter? “Mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest” (18)
Media need steady, reliable flow of raw information, and can’t afford to have their own reporters everywhere Tendency to concentrate reporting resources where significant information is often provided “Official” and “expert” sources support mass media claim to objectivity Only government and corporate sectors have the resources to provide the kind of mass information and needed Pressure to make content agreeable to needed sources Conclusion: “[L]arge bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access by their contribution to reducing the media’s cost of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing, news” (22) Media autonomy from powerful sources is incompatible with current structural facts |
|
|
Flak and the Enforcers
|
The filter? “If certain kinds of fact, position, or program are thought likely to elicit flak, this prospect can be a deterrent” (26)
Flak produced on a large scale, by those with means, can be costly and uncomfortable for media Advertisers don’t want to offend potential customers, so will stay away from media likely to elicit flak The powerful can hurt media indirectly by complaining to stockholders, employees, etc “Flak machines” can be well-funded to pressure the media to conform to corporate or political agendas Conclusion: Media autonomy from publicized criticism and negative press, i.e., flak, is incompatible with current structural facts |
|
|
Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism
|
The filter? “The ideology and religion of anticommunism” (31)
Issues tend to be dichotomized as Communist or anti-Communist There is great pressure to demonstrate anticommunism, causing many to “behave very much like reactionaries.” (29) ‘Rooting for our side’ treated as a legitimate, not biased, media practice Conclusion: Media autonomy from widely politically adopted and promoted ideologies, such as anticommunism, is incompatible with current structural facts. |
|
|
Two Principles of Broadcast Media Ownership for a Democratic first principle
|
Access to broadcast spectrum is given to those who:
Are capable and willing to deliver content Include content that will enable citizens to realize interests, including their political powers (affecting government and justifying their affect) In cases where competing parties are equally capable of the above, priority is given to those satisfying interests not yet met. Only once all conditions are satisfied can normal market forces enter to maximize efficiencies |
|
|
Two Principles of Broadcast Media Ownership for a Democratic second principle
|
2
Guided only by the free-market principle: “Access to the broadcast spectrum is decided procedurally through a price-coordinated system of exchange in an open market...” (824) Subject only to legislation used to promote efficiency in the market. |
|
|
Two Principles of Broadcast Media Ownership for a Democratic
|
We must choose first principle as media has the power to shape out political views. If media power becomes concentrated its detrimental in a democratic society.
Problem with the free market as sole guiding principle? It does not guarantee the satisfaction of this diversity condition. |
|
|
“Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate,” Mary Lyn Stoll CONCLUSIONS
|
Case studies and moral analyses show that a revamping of media institutions is required.
There is an imperfect duty to promote diverse views, rather than making programming decisions solely by desire to maximize profit. Rights to silence are undermined by excessive power over media at large—free speech rights of individuals take precedence over those of corporations. Rawlsian conclusion: “[T]he opportunities of the most powerful to have their views heard cannot be increased unless the worst off would also have the opportunity for voice improved as well.” (259) |
|
|
“Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate,” Mary Lyn Stoll
Question in article? |
Have media conglomerates failed to meet their duties to protect freedom of speech?
|
|
|
In Defence of Entrapment Journalism (and Beyond),” Neil Levy
Thesis |
Thesis: Entrapment journalism has an ethically legitimate place in journalistic practices.
|
|
|
Why entrapment journalism shoudl be ok according to Neil Levy and media's two function
|
1 Communicate information and provide a forum for public debate
2 creating an informed voting public Watch-dog role alert public to abuses of power Both of these functions require investigative reporting. Both, but especially the second, may require uses of deception similar to techniques in proactive law enforcement |
|
|
Virginia held's thesis' on political violence
|
“[M]edia should contribute to decreasing political violence through better coverage of arguments for and against political dissidents’ views, and especially through more and better treatment of nonviolent means of influencing political processes.” (187)
2) We have a moral responsibility to free media from the commercial control it works under to create a liberated media culture . |
|
|
Responsibilities of media according to v. Held #1
|
Descriptions of political violence
Terrorist vs. Freedom fighter? Terrorist Act vs. Retaliation? To cover or not to cover? Cowards or heroes? Contagion effect? Descriptions have a tendency to reflect biases, and/or be shaped by the desire to tell a dramatic story. |
|
|
Responsibilities of media according to v. Held #2
|
In order to influence belief, media need to engage in discussion of questions of political right and wrong.
Question the priority of morality over law “Where freedom of expression is protected, the media are entirely able to engage in moral discourse over the justifiability or not of civil disobedience, illegal dissent, political violence and the like.” (194) Make clear that moral positions should be sound and justifiable. Discuss the justifiability of various methods of furthering justified causes. |
|
|
Responsibilities of media according to v. Held #3
|
Provide images and ideas that promote understanding and best moral positions available, and the best ways to further them make violent means unattractive, non-violent means attractive.
|
|
|
Responsibilities of media according to v. Held #4
|
Be aware of audiences, particularly potential recruits for political violence, their mentors and friends, by giving media time to members of disaffected groups who do not endorse violence.
|
|
|
Held's beliefs for media
|
media should report in a way to bring about peaceful resolutions of violence. Not report due to commercial interests (money).
a media culture would need to be based in honest reporting, empathic engagement into the situations of others, rational discourse, and a culture of trust. Such a culture would also minimize beliefs that lead to political violence. Despite current trends, we should not lose sight of the potential of media culture, nor on its responsibilities pertaining to political violence. |
|
|
“Imitation, Media Violence, and Freedom of Speech,” Susan Hurley
Thesis and how its accomplished |
Purpose: To apply recent cognitive and neurological scientific research on imitation to the case of violence in the media vs. freedom of speech.
Accomplished by... A survey of current research on imitation A survey of the research on imitation of media violence, and commentary on its connection with the broader research on imitation Consideration of how this empirical work is relevant to freedom of speech |
|
|
Susan Hurley (imitation) conclusion
|
She concludes that media violence tends towards harm to others, and that therefore, questions must be asked about cases in which freedom of speech comes into conflict with the harm principle—and such questions may lead to reform of legal policy.
|
|
|
Susan Hurley
Do humans imitate? |
Recent evidence and scientific opinion come down strongly in favor of the view that human beings have pervasive imitative tendencies
|
|
|
Hurley's conclusions on imitation from empiracle data
|
First, exposure to media violence causes an increase in violent behavior of significant effect size across the population of viewers , in both the short and long terms.
Secondly, that it often does so ‘directly’, in ways that are unrecognised and bypass the individual viewer’s autonomous deliberative processes |
|
|
Media Violence and Freedom of Speech: How to Use Empirical Data,” Boudewijn de Bruin THESIS:
|
Hurley’s article goes wrong in two ways: (1) She does not successfully defeat the argument from autonomy, and (2) Her empirical data is not sufficient to claim a connection between media violence and increase in “non-autonomously copied criminal violence” (493).
|
|
|
De Bruin’s doubts about Hurley’s argument...
|
Even assuming that CEH is true...
Problem with first premise of H’s formulation of the argument from autonomy: I should be free to choice to decrease the extent of my autonomy. Ex: alcohol Hurley should have responded to a more subtle version of the argument Is the second premise really false? Perhaps only for some individuals... “[R]estricting MV decreases the extent to which those viewers who are not affected by MV can exercise their autonomy, because for them the possibility of an autonomous decision to view MV is ruled out.” (498) What kinds of policy does the first premise really suggest? ... Finally, does this mean we have to ban “grandson-helps-disabled-granny” films too? broader implications for imitation tendency. |
|
|
arguments from autonomy
|
The argument from autonomy rests on two premises:
“The extent to which we can exercise our autonomy should not be decreased.” “A restriction on receiving certain forms of media violence removes an opportunity to form beliefs and desires and to act on them independently and on our own, and it does not add new opportunities to do so; that is, it decreases our autonomy.”(497) Media violence should not be restricted. Hurley argues that CEH makes the second premise false, because our autonomy is not served by engaging in media violence. Rather, tendency to unconscious imitation will side-step autonomous deliberation, making restrictions on media violence more likely to result in increased autonomy. |
|
|
What is PUFFERY Arrington
|
“[T]he practice by a seller of making exaggerated, highly fanciful, or suggestive claims about a product or service.” (409)
|
|
|
Arrington’s concept of AUTONOMY
|
A multifaceted concept, best understood when conceptualized with reference to the following components:
1 Autonomous desire 2 Rational desire and choice 3 Free choice 4 Control or manipulation Arrington’s goal is to offer an analysis of these concepts, and apply it to advertising. |
|
|
Autonomous Desire
|
We should not equate nonautonomous desires (i.e., those which are not original to me) with culturally induced desires.
If we do, desires for music and art could never be original to a person, only desires for food, shelter, etc. If we do not equate them, then the mere fact that a desire comes from an ad doesn’t mean it isn’t mine. Induced and autonomous desires do not separate into two mutually exclusive classes. Autonomous and nonautonomous desires are better understood as the difference between desires an agent does or does not consider to be her own Example kleptomania Such desires are experienced as foreign to one’s character First order vs. Second order desires |
|
|
Rational Desire and Choice
|
Perhaps we could object that advertising causes us to act on irrational desires, as the agent is not in full possession of the facts.
But what counts as rational desire? If we need all the facts, is any desire rational? Even if we only ask for all available info, not all of it is relevant. “Normally a rational desire or choice is thought to be one based upon relevant information, and information is relevant if it shows how other, prior desires may be satisfied.” (414 ) Advertisers are aware of such prior desires- that is how they design advertisements. Therefore they are providing the relevant information. Advertising may lead, but in most causes does not lead, to infringement on autonomy. |
|
|
Free choice
|
Are desires born of advertising not free, i.e., irresistible impulses or unconscious desires?
We act freely when we act for a reason “A person acts or chooses freely if he does so for a reason, that is, if he can adduce considerations which justify in his mind the act in question.” (414) Acting from habit or impulse is only involuntary if the person is aware of a good reason to do x but follows the impulse to do y anyway. So there may be cases where consumers act compulsively, but the advertising efforts in general cannot be blamed for the compulsive behaviour. |
|
|
Control or Manipulation
|
A person controls the behaviour of another iff :
C intends P to act in a certain way A. C’s intention is causally effective in bringing about A. C intends to ensure that all of the necessary conditions of A are satisfied. (415) Do these conditions apply to advertising? Difference between intending and hoping? Third condition: Brainwashing arranges all the necessary conditions for belief. The advertiser does not. Advertisers seek to influence, but they do not go as far as controlling behaviour. |
|
|
Arrington’s conclusions…
|
“I have come down tentatively in favour of the advertisers. Advertising may, but certainly does not always or even frequently, control behavior, produce compulsive behavior, or create wants which are not rational or are not truly those of the consumer… [I]t is innocent of the charge of intrinsically or necessarily doing them.” (416)
|
|
|
Children and the Changing World of Advertising,” Elizabeth Moore's thesis
|
“The blurring of advertising and entertainment targeted at children is a social, political, and ethical issue that deserves our collective attention... Empirical research is needed now to understand how children interact with the deluge of advertising that already infiltrates their daily lives. It is also time to resurrect formal public debate about our increasingly sophisticated media system and its role in children’s lives.” (165)
|
|
|
Are children uniquely vulnerable to advertising {ELIZABETH MOORE}?
|
Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the answer is YES.
“As the media landscape children face has diversified, the lines between advertising and entertainment have become increasingly blurred.” (163) Multiple forms of media, product placement, games, contests, promotions, branding, all aimed at children. And in the midst of all this, “there is little evidence to suggest that children’s understanding of advertising and how it works can be accelerated beyond their capacities at key points in their cognitive development.” (164) Children lack ability to resist selling efforts, as well as critical thinking skills that would allow them to understand things like materialism. To evaluate advertising the following abilities are required: 1) distinguish between commercial and non-commercial content, 2) recognize the persuasive intent. Younger children appear to be capable of neither, while older children have the “cognitive and attitudinal defenses,” but frequently fail to apply them. (163) |
