 |
| Media,
Culture and Power
|
 |
Media play increasingly more important role in the modern
society. In fact, the emergence of mass media contributed
to the consistent change of the significance of media for
the modern society. In actuality, the influence of mass media
is overwhelming since people are constantly receiving information
from various media, including printed and visual media. In
such a situation, the question of control over media and their
use as means of mass communication naturally arises. In this
respect, it is important to underline that there is a variety
of views on media and their role in the modern society. At
the same time, approaches to media can be absolutely antagonistic.
At this point, it is possible to refer to althusserian views
on media and governmental approaches to media, which are absolutely
different. In fact, these views represent two different philosophical
and cultural approaches to media. Althusser, for instance,
insisted on the necessity of the independence of media from
any external influences from the part of the state in order
to make media free of biases and ideological prejudices (Althusser,
1999, p.319). In contrast, the governmental approach to media
stands on the ground that the regulation of media is necessary
in order to prevent harmful impact of media on masses and
on each individual in particular. Hence, the state often attempts
to minimize the negative impact through the limitation of
violence and regulations which forces mass media to meet moral
and ethical norms of the society and dominating culture, while
Althusser believed that such regulations are harmful for the
society because they impose the ideology of the state and
ruling elite on the entire society (Althusser, 1999, p.321).
Traditionally, the governmental control over the media was
minimal, but, in the course of time, along with the growing
significance of media to the contemporary society, grew the
governmental interference into the functioning of media and
attempts of the governmental regulation of the functioning
of media. In such a situation, the governmental policy in
relation to media became obvious – the government attempted
to control media, though in a democratic state the total governmental
control over media is impossible (Tolson, 1996, p.148).
At the same time, it is necessary to underline that the introduction
of the governmental regulations was justified by objective
reasons, which were supported by large number of people. In
this respect, the risk of a negative impact of media on the
psychology of people, especially children, played the determinant
role. In fact, specialists (Barker, 2008, p.92) estimate that
media can produce a negative impact on the formation of an
individual identity because the violence on television, for
instance, can increase the aggressiveness of people, especially
children and adolescents. In such a situation, the governmental
interference is justified by the necessity to minimize such
a negative impact of media on human psychology and behavior
through the system of regulations.
It proves beyond a doubt that mass media affect life of each
individual and the entire society because nowadays media are
everywhere. In fact, people are constantly bombarded with
information they receive from various media which they may
access twenty-four hours a day. In such a situation, it is
very important to prevent possible negative impact of media
on people. It is not a secret that media cannot only influence
but also shape identity of an individual and, in such a situation,
it is extremely important to provide a meticulous control
over media, especially in relation to violence in media which
may affect dramatically people, especially children (Tolson
149). In this respect, the most effective tool of control
over media is the government control or, to put it more precisely,
censorship, but such a measure provokes serious opposition.
The opponents of the introduction of the governmental censorship
over media to control violence represented in media is argued
to be a threat to the freedom of press because, along with
a possible positive impact of the censorship due to the essential
limitation of violence in media, it can also lead to the misuse
of power by the government that may undermine basic democratic
principles of the modern society (Tolson, 1996, p.152).
In order to better understand the arguments of both supporters
and opponents of the introduction of the government censorship
of violence in media, it is primarily necessary to briefly
dwell upon the current situation in media and possible effects
of violence in media. In this respect, it should be pointed
out that modern media are characterized by the excessive amount
of violence that cannot fail to affect the audience, especially
children. Specialists underline that nowadays “violence
dominates television news and entertainment, particularly
what we call “happy violence” – cool, swift,
painless, and always leading to a happy ending in order to
deliver the audience to the next commercial message in a receptive
mood” (Is Media Violence Free Speech, 2007, p.1) At
the same time, the negative impact of violence in media increased
substantially in the result of the wider spread and practically
permanent impact of media on people. It proves beyond a doubt
that violence always exposes the audience to the risk of certain
psychological problems and can increase aggressiveness of
people. At any rate, the impact of violence in media may be
destructive on psychological and moral development of children.
In fact, nowadays, in addition to traditional media, such
as TV, children, as the part of the audience which is the
most susceptible to the negative impact of violence in media,
have access to Internet, they play video games which may also
contain a lot of violent acts. As a result, they acquire wrong
or, to put it more precisely, violent models of behavior.
At the early age they cannot distinguish between such concepts
as good and bad. This is why they imitate the models of behavior
they learn from TV, Internet, video games, movies, etc. As
a result, the violence in media contributes to violent and
aggressive behavior of children and negatively affects the
formation of their personality (Research on the Effects of
Media Violence, 2007, p.4). However, the impact of violence
in media on adults may be also very significant since it also
stimulates anti-social behavior of people since the abundance
of violence in media changes the perception of violence as
abnormal, anti-social act. Instead, it is perceived as a norm.
In such a situation, the number of those who “blame
media violence for societal violence and want to censor violent
content to protect children” (Media Violence, 2007,
p.1) steadily grows.
In such a situation, the introduction of censorship by the
government seems to be practically essential. It should be
pointed out that the government should have the right and
opportunity to censor violence in media in order to minimize
its presence in media and, therefore, its negative impact
on people. In this regard, the government is the most reliable
institution because media cannot effectively control themselves
because violence traditionally contributes to higher profits
of media because it attracts the large audience (Thwaites
et al., 2002, p.163). As a result, it is impossible that some
private structure controlled it, while public organizations
do not have official power and authority to define the policy
of media. Consequently, the government has to censor the violence
in media as the most powerful and reliable institution.
At the same time, the arguments given above basically explain
why the government and any other institution should censor
violence in media. As for the question whether it should censor
violence in media or not the answer may be also affirmative
because it is absolutely unacceptable that violence in media
is absolutely uncontrolled. The destructive impact of violence
in media is obvious and potentially it may threaten to the
national safety of the entire state (Thwaites et al., 2002,
p.170). For instance, after September 11 attacks the disastrous
effects of these attacks, which were examples of violence,
were shown in abundance in media. Naturally, the profound
attention of media and permanent repetition of these violent
attacks contributed to the growing panic and depression of
millions of people. No wonder even nowadays many people are
under the impact of the stress they suffered from the impact
of media depicting effects of the attacks in details.
However, in spite of the convincing arguments of supporters
of the government censorship of media, there are a lot of
opponents, who argue that the government should not control
violence in media because, directly or indirectly, such control
implies the censorship in media in the broader sense. Specialists
argue that the government censorship is unconstitutional because
it is actually “the suppression of words, images, or
ideas that are “offensive” and it “happens
whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political
or moral values on others” (American Civil Liberties
Union, 2006, p.1). What is meant here is the fact that the
government through censorship of violence in media can influence
the policy of media imposing its own moral and even political
views. For instance, the government can forbid covering some
events by media because of the excessive violence that may
negatively influence the audience. However, these events may
be vitally important for citizens and the censorship will
lead to the lack of information and, therefore, inability
of media and people to control the government. In brief, it
is argued that censorship can potentially limit the freedom
of press, namely specialists estimate that “the proposed
cures [government censorship] are worse than the illness”
since “they would extract an unacceptably high price
in terms of eroding our fundamental guarantees of free expression”
(ABFFE, 2007, p.2). Moreover, it is argued that the government
censorship is “the wrong way to deal with violence in
society” (FEN Newswire, 2000, p.1).
In addition, the government regulation or censorship can be
essential in order to protect the national interest of the
country since the government censorship can prevent the spread
of radical ideas in the society. However, this is exactly
where the opposition to the governmental approach grows particularly
strong. In this respect, it is necessary to remind that Althusser
had an absolutely different approach to media. He was conscious
of the great power of mass media over the society (Thwaites
et al., 2002, p.164). This is why he argued that the control
over media can open the way to the control over the entire
society. At this point, it is possible to trace a substantial
influence of Marxist views on his beliefs and ideas. Althusser
understood the possible negative effects of the state control
or regulation of mass media (1999, p.320). Hence, he insisted
on the necessity of the independent development of media and
the public control over media as the only effective means
of control over mass media. He justified his approach to media
by the inability of large masses of people to evaluate critically
the information they receive from media, while the control
of a limited group of people, either private companies or
the state, put this group into an advantageous position over
the rest of the society, because this group could control
the ideological message the media sent to the audience. Therefore,
they could shape the consciousness of masses and define the
cultural development of the society. In such a way, media
become mere tools in hands of a few puppeteers who control
them and who, thus, control the consciousness of the entire
society.
As an alternative, he suggested the development of independent
media. However, he did not totally exclude the possibility
of the regulation of the media performance or control over
media. At this point, his views are similar in a way to the
governmental approach to media, but, unlike the government,
Althusser suggested the establishment of the public control
over media, which could be more effective than the governmental
control or regulations (Althusser, 1999, p.322).
Thus, it is possible to conclude that the government censorship
of media may be argued, it may have supporters and opponents,
but there is only one undeniable fact that media should be
controlled because excessive violence, for instance, in media
may be as dangerous to people and to the country as the threat
of the government control over media and limitation of the
freedom of speech. In such a situation, one of the possible
solutions of this dilemma is the introduction of special commission
which could include representatives of public, non-profitable
and non-governmental organizations, representatives of government
and media, which could develop a clear strategy and standards
which could limit the violence in media. At the same time,
it is necessary to underline the fact that the governmental
censorship or control is not only possible solution of the
problem of the negative impact of media on people. In this
respect, althusserian idea of the public control of media
is worth noting and this control can be very effective.
References:
Althusser, L. (1999). “Ideology & ideological state
apparatuses.” In J. Evans & S. Hall (eds) Visual
Culture: The Reader. London, Sage Publications, pp.317-323.
“American Civil Liberties Union: What Is Censorship?”
Aclu.org. 2006. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from <www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/26611res20060830.html>
Barker, C. (2008). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.
3rd edn., London, Sage, pp.57-73.
“FEN Newswire: Media Censorship Won’t Stop Violence.”
Freeexpression.org. 2000. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from
<www.freeexpression.org/newswire/1129_2000.htm>
“Is Media Violence Free Speech?” Media-awareness.ca.
2007. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from <www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/violence/violence_speech.cfm>
“Media Violence – Introduction.” Media-awareness.ca.
2007. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from <www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/index.cfm>
“Research on the Effects of Media Violence.” Media-awareness.ca.
2007. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm>
Thwaites, T., Davis, L. & Mules, W. (2002), Ideology,
in Introducing Cultural and Media Studies: A Semiotic Approach.
Hampshire & New York, Palgrave, pp. 158-170.
Tolson, A. (1996). “Popular culture: practice and institution.”
In C. MacCabe (ed), High theory/Low culture: Analysing popular
television & film. Manchester, Manchester University Press,
pp.146-155.
“Violence in the Media Joint Statement”. Abffe.com.
2007. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from <www.abffe.com/mediaviolence.htm>
|
|
