by DK
In the 1990s, Bauman developed his theory of “liquid modernity” which describes how the “fluid” and changeable nature of modern society has left people feeling insecure (see LEISURE time). According to Bauman, society has moved away from the “solid modernity” of the industrialized 19th century – a period that was relatively stable and predictable. In Bauman’s view, we are now living in an age of constant uncertainty and increasing levels of risk.
we ARE what we BUY
Bauman was interested in the way modern “liquid” society has affected personal identity. Up until the 1970s, people tended to define themselves by what they did for a living. In today’s society, however, the idea of a “job for life” is no longer realistic. Bauman argues that personal identity in modern society is linked to consumerism – people now define themselves by the goods they buy and surround themselves with.
Bauman was awarded the Polish Military Cross of Valour for his bravery during World War II. He later became one of the youngest majors in the Polish army.
“mass media” refers to the businesses and organizations that provide us with news and information. They have an influential role. but does it really matter what they tell us?
Is the media biased?
From politicians to the police, and parents to school teachers, concerns about how the media influences the minds of the public, particularly those of young people, is the cause of much debate. The media purports to be passing on to its audience facts rather than opinion. However, how objective is it? During the two world wars, we know that the Nazi Party used the media to control the flow of news to the German people, distorting the words of anyone who disagreed with it. Around the world during times of conflict there is similar concern that the media is not passing on the truth but has a point of view of its own, a bias.
Speaking with one voice
It is hard to deny that the media affects us all at some level. In our digital world, news about events taking place across the globe reaches us, via our phone, laptop, TV screen, or newspaper, wherever we are. However, for sociologists of the media, the notion that “the media” comprises a single, all-powerful entity that talks to everyone in an undifferentiated way is one that requires careful analysis. In actuality, the media comprises multiple news agencies and broadcasting companies, which compete with one another for audience ratings. In order to maximize their ratings, media organizations publish a variety of news stories in a variety of styles and formats, varying the political angle they adopt, and the style of reporting, in order to reach a range of audiences.
Getting involved When we watch the news, we interpret the coverage according to a variety of factors, such as our age, ethnicity, and gender.
A passive audience?
In trying to understand the effects of the media, sociologists question the notion that audience members are “passive”. This view supposes that the minds of the public uncritically absorb news and information, which shapes how they think and act in ways they are unaware of. Sociologists draw attention instead to the active role audience members play in interpreting the news. Instead of one big group, sociologists describe the recipients of media news as various “audiences”. These audiences are differentiated by ethnicity, social class, age, and gender. Different news stories lead to various interpretations or “readings” by members of these different audiences.
In an analysis of the US mass media by sociologist Herbert Gans entitled Deciding What’s News (1979), he found that some powerful media figures assumed that the US public comprised two types of viewer: an educated and affluent elite and a poorly educated and passive majority. Through interviews and time spent observing a cross section of the US public, Gans found that irrespective of their social background, news audiences adopt a critical stance towards the news they receive. Rather than the media coverage determining the views of the audience, audience members are actively involved in constructing meaning. Gans found that interpretations of the coverage of political events varied along gender and ethnic lines, with black Americans often adopting a critical stance towards the framing of news stories by predominantly white news editors and producers. The age of viewers also shaped an interpretation of the news, with older viewers demonstrating a concern for issues they perceived to have wider social and political consequences.
Gans’ work provides strong evidence to contradict the view that the media can influence the minds of all of its audience.
soap operas
A study by US sociologist Alan Rubin of the viewers of US soap operas found that, the mainly female, viewers watch not merely to pass the time but because the moral issues the soap operas raise provide the basis for discussions with friends and colleagues. By looking at the soap operas with a critical eye, viewers reflect on their own moral perspectives.
Young adults spend up to 27 hours a week online. Adults spend up to 20 hours, including those spent using the internet at work.
See also: Who owns the MEDIA? | Who DECIDES what’s news? | Where do you get your NEWS from? | Culture and the media
every morning many of us wake to hear the news on the radio or television, or we read it in newspapers or on our phones. media companies play a major role in communicating news and information to us. But does it matter who owns these businesses? Does it affect the news we receive?
The media matters
Knowledge of what is happening across the world and how this will impact our lives is vital in our global society. It matters because we may have friends or family who live in other countries, we may work for a company with colleagues in offices overseas, we may wonder how world events will affect the global financial markets, or we may be making travel plans. But how reliable is the news and information we receive from the media? Do the people who own and run the media have an effect on the news that we receive?
US sociologist Noam Chomsky would say that the powerful individuals and corporations who own the media use it to influence the population. Using a range of statistical data and public information, Chomsky demonstrates that ownership of the media in the US is concentrated in the hands of a very rich and powerful minority. Of the approximately 25,000 corporate and independent news producers in the US, the richest 29, which include several major media corporations, account for over half the output of news.
Making a profit
Chomsky claims that media outlets reinforce the beliefs and values that are shared by businesses, institutions, and the media, and avoids being critical of these relationships and culture. Media organizations are businesses that are owned by their shareholders who demand that they make a profit, and any that are not financially sustainable will go out of business. Chomsky draws attention to what he calls the “filters” that shape how media content is chosen and presented in order to keep the company solvent.
The primary filter is advertising. Money derived from advertising strongly influences how and what the media reports. News stories with negative messages about businesses who are paying large sums of money to advertise with the news company present a dilemma. Criticism of the company would threaten the likelihood of future advertising deals. The second filter is sourcing. Political news often comes from press releases issued by government officials. Media firms that provide negative coverage of the government’s policies are likely to be excluded from these meetings in future. A third filter is fear. Investigative journalists may uncover stories about individuals and institutions that make people question the credibility of these people or institutions. Businesses or governments may feel threatened by this. Chomsky believes powerful media organizations are actively involved in spreading fear by identifying and demonizing anyone who is critical of their powerful status.
Media domination There are a few powerful media companies who own a wealth of media outlets around the world.
Citizen journalists
The widespread use of new media has begun to challenge the power of the media organizations. Portable devices such as mobile phones and tablets mean tha
t events can be easily recorded, and this coverage can be readily distributed through file-sharing websites. While footage on a hand-held device is not of the same quality or as verifiable as professional news reports, alternative accounts of events provided by citizen journalists or members of the public challenge the view that powerful media monopolies are the only source of valid information in the modern world.
The Murdoch family own newspapers in Australia, the UK, and the US, plus many TV channels.
See also: Who holds the POWER? | Does the MASS MEDIA affect YOU? | Who DECIDES what’s news? | Where do you get your NEWS from?
in the course of a day, most people access at least one source of news information. however you find the news, via a newspaper, the television, or a mobile app, what counts as news and how the contents of the news are shaped by social factors are long-standing concerns for sociologists.
News selection
The stories covered by television news bulletins, posted on news websites, and featured in the pages of newspapers, are the products of a selection process. Which stories to include, what headlines to use, and whether certain information is dropped or kept in, is all decided by a range of interpersonal, organizational, and wider social processes. How these combine to shape the structure and content of the news is important to sociologists who study the media. US sociologist Richard Petersen claimed that the news is neither impartial nor objective. Rather, the contents of news stories is socially constructed. Petersen is not claiming that the news is less “real” or “true” as a result. Any account of a situation or event is affected by social factors such as the class, ethnicity, age, and gender of the person telling the story. These factors shape how all people interpret the world around them, and that includes journalists.
Gatekeepers of the news
Drawing on Petersen’s ideas, US sociologist of the media Michael Schudson adds that the stories and information presented by the media are always the outcome of a range of “selective processes”. These are the decisions made by media “gatekeepers”: the journalists, camera operators, editors, and owners of news media outlets. All these gatekeepers, either alone or as part of an organization, play a part in determining what ends up in the news. The decisions they make include which news events to attend on a particular day, how to cover them, and which to drop in the final editing process.
Other pressures
There are also impersonal, structural factors that shape the contents of the news. These have an effect though the people who produce the news are unaware of them. They include the economic and organizational constraints that the gatekeepers of news operate within.
Particularly significant are financial constraints. The cost of sending news teams to foreign destinations strongly influences the decision of news corporations, particularly smaller independent organizations, to include a story or not. The amount of “air time” or newspaper column space available to editors is also a factor.
Research by sociologists based at the University of Glasgow, known as the Glasgow Media Group, found that television news editors prefer to include soundbites of speech or live footage from the scene of the story, stories that include these are more likely to be included. This indicates that media producers are aware of their audience, who feel that including information directly from the people involved in the story leads to a much more authentic account.
The organizational structure of media companies directly shapes the contents of the news too. In independent media companies the smaller staff means that there are fewer people involved in producing a story. This means that the final story is a more accurate portrayal of an individual journalist’s approach to a particular story. This can be viewed either positively or negatively, but the story now reflects, in a more obvious way, the biases of the journalist.
news is freshly made
A study called The Media Elite by researchers Lichter, Lichter, and Rothman (1986), supports Petersen’s view that reality is socially constructed. News is not a factual report on the world; there is no “ready-made” reality waiting to be reported. The news is built from reports and opinions. The study suggests that the news should be imagined as a product that has to be freshly made each day.
More than 2.5 billion people read a printed newspaper regularly.
See also: Does the MASS MEDIA affect YOU? | Who owns the MEDIA? | Where do you get your NEWS from? | What does the Internet DO for us?
what’s happening in your local area, as well as what’s happening around the globe, is available on your phone or tablet almost as soon as it occurs. though television news or newspapers are slower, they may be more reliable.
What is “news”?
What is regarded as “news” is likely to vary depending on who you are. For young people news might be whatever is trending on social media that day. For business owners, news might be the state of the stock market and the value of the dollar against the euro.
For most people, prior to the turn of the 19th century, news was usually information about local events. News often took the form of gossip, passed by word of mouth from one community member to another, or announced in the village square by the town crier. With the invention of newspapers in the late 17th century national news was available, but only for a wealthy minority who were literate.
By the 1950s and 1960s, news was mainly conveyed by the radio and later television, both luxury items. By the 1970s, these were the main source of news about the outside world for North American and Western European households.
Is more news good news?
As news at a local, national, and international level became more accessible to all social groups, so the amount of information presented to audiences grew too. Following the explosion of digital communications and the rise of the internet in the late 20th century, the amount of information available has meant that consumers can now seek out and find news that is relevant to them. This might mean following the movements of the stock markets, getting updates from your favourite sports team, or reading the latest celebrity gossip. For Spanish sociologist, Manuel Castells, the world’s most economically and technologically advanced nations have entered the “Information Age”. This means that there is now more activity around the production and consumption of information, rather than for the mass-production of consumer goods.
Is faster better?
The rise of internet-based technologies means that news is produced, distributed, and consumed faster than ever before. However, the reliability of this news is questionable. Not all organizations or individuals putting out information spend time checking the details or putting the facts into a wider context.
People are confronted with overwhelming amounts of information not just on a daily basis, but via minute- by-minute updates transmitted to audiences around the globe. More than ever before people are involved in organizing and managing the amount and type of news they receive. The internet means that irrespective of where we are in the world or what time of the day it is, news can be accessed from broadcasters located anywhere on the planet (providing it is possible to get an internet connection). As “new media” such as mobile phones, computers, and other portable devices have become more affordable, compact, and embedded in everyday life, they have come to replace television and newspapers. For younger people, advances in technology form part of the world they were born into. But the ease of use and affordability of new media means that they are an integral feature of the lives of people of all ages.
For US sociologist Matthew Hindman, technological advances have made news more “democratic”, meaning that now people of all ages and from all social backgrounds can access it. Others fear that new media poses a threat. Information on the internet is often unregulated so while it is more accessible than ever before, its reliability is difficult to discern.
media attachment
British sociologist Michael Bull has studied the increasing importance people attach to new forms of media such as MP3 players and mobile phones. I
n his study, Sound Moves: I-Pod Culture and the Urban Experience (2007), he analyses how new media devices have become so embedded in people’s everyday experience that leaving home without them can be emotionally and psychologically stressful.
There are an estimated 1.7 billion Facebook users around the world.
See also: Who owns the MEDIA? | Who DECIDES what’s news? | What does the Internet DO for us? | Do you live ONLINE?
the internet has changed the world. we can connect with almost anyone, anywhere, any time. we can also use the net as a vast source of information. but is internet technology really bringing us together or is it driving some people into isolation? and Can we trust what we read online?
Network societies
We have entered the Information Age. That is what Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells says in his study The Rise of the Network Society published in 1996. The central force behind this new era in our history is the internet. Up until the 1970s and 1980s, the economies of most developed societies were based on industrial-scale production of consumer goods and services. Since then, digital information, not goods, has become the main focus of what Castells calls “network societies”. Internet-based technologies are driving social and cultural change.