DEFINING IRONY: MARXIST VIEWS ON CORPORATE MEDIA CONTROL

One of the earned reputations of the dissident Right is the inability to formulate coherent arguments. Rather than examine the opposition’s views to find flaws or sharpen one’s own position, most simply defer to the canned talking points made by others, so-called ‘designated leaders’ among the Right – the talking heads, for good or bad. Emmanuel Goldstein, the phony target of State animosity in Orwell’s 1984, was a reflection of this reality. The conservatives conserve nothing, by design. It is a trend which necessitates change underscoring the importance of uncontrolled and unrestrained alternative media, should any societal shift be expected. The great irony becomes looking to the Left in order to gain a better understanding on the Right.

That being said, two realities must be observed; the first, that there is no differentiation between political party at the most elite levels, they are the face of an international corporate interest; the second, the recognition that the media is nothing more than propaganda to further the aims of the first. Awareness of both observations has become blatant among even the stupid, what conflict theory labels class consciousness. With their authority de-legitimized, the lone option the Power Elite have is to resort to force. -NCS

Marxist views on the Ownership and Control of the Media

Traditional Marxists argue that those who own the media also control it.

They note that the media is owned by members of the bourgeoisie: very wealthy business owners. They argue that these bourgeois owners instruct editors and journalists to put across particular messages to the audience. These messages spread the dominant ideology which seeks to justify the power and privilege of the bourgeoisie. Through this, the media is able to contribute towards creating a false class consciousness.

This idea of direct control by owners is sometimes described as the manipulative/instrumental approach and is associated with the writings of Ralph Miliband. He argued that the editors and journalists in newspapers and other media organisations depend on the owners for their jobs and therefore will not use any apparent autonomy they may have to resist the dissemination of bourgeois ideology.

There certainly are examples of owners directly interfering with the content of the media. Richard Desmond, former owner of the Express, apparently regularly visited the newspaper offices making clear demand of what should be included. While Rupert Murdoch claims he only took large, long-term decisions (such as which party the paper would support at a general election or what their view on the European Union should be) former editors of his have suggested a much more hands-on approach. Andrew Neil, who edited the Sunday Times for Murdoch, has says that Murdoch was the de facto “editor in chief” of the Sun and, despite not seeing himself in that role for the Times or the Sunday Times, nevertheless he did make direct interventions (such as insisting that no articles were published that would offend the Malaysian prime minster of the day).

Curran (2003) found lots of evidence of owners directly manipulating media content. In the middle of the 20th century, “press barons” were quite open about their propagandist role, and also that there have always been a lot more Conservative-supporting newspapers than those critical of that party, which reflects them serving the interests of their wealthy owners. He argues that in the later 20th century and today owners are, if anything, even more interventionist, with again Rupert Murdoch being the obvious example.

Furthermore, politicians clearly believe media moguls to have a great deal of control over media content because they try to get on the right side of them! Tony Blair famously flew to Australia to meet with Rupert Murdoch and was rewarded with the support of the Sun. Several years later, David Cameron repeated this with the same outcome.

Evaluating traditional Marxist views

  • One criticism of traditional Marxist theories of the ownership and control of the media comes from neo-Marxists, who point out that the bourgeois owners of media companies do not have time to micro-manage media content. Traditional Marxists suggest the owners have a clear political view and a clear set of economic interests and ensure that their media companies project those views and disseminates an ideology that supports their interests. But in reality, owners can have so many business interests that they can really only control the big picture, leaving real control of media content down to editors. Even the editors of large publications or programmes cannot control everything and give some autonomy to their journalists.
  • A further criticism comes from pluralists who argue that proprietors are predominantly businessmen, not editors. James Whale (1997) argues that “media moguls” are busy dealing with global business matters, not what story to run in a particular national newspaper. A journalist who has written extensively about media control, Roy Greenslade, asks the question, why would you own a newspaper if not to try and put across your opinions? But pluralists have a clear response to that: to sell them and make lots of money. If the aim of media owners is to make money, then their interest in the content of the media does not relate to ideology or politics but to the more basic question of what will sell. Owners might intervene sometimes in media content, but they will do so because they want to ensure good sales figures. Even Curran, whose research provides some evidence to support the Marxist perspective, argues that Rupert Murdoch’s interventions in his publications are more based on commercial needs and sales than being part of the ideological state apparatus.
  • Many sociologists always question the idea of a passive audience who are delivered the dominant ideology from above, which is discussed in more detail in a later section.
Spread the love
                

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: NC Scout

NC Scout is the nom de guerre of a former Infantry Scout and Sergeant in one of the Army’s best Reconnaissance Units. He has combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He teaches a series of courses focusing on small unit skills rarely if ever taught anywhere else in the prepping and survival field, including his RTO Course which focuses on small unit communications. In his free time he is an avid hunter, bushcrafter, writer, long range shooter, prepper, amateur radio operator and Libertarian activist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or via his blog at brushbeater.wordpress.com .

2 Comments

  1. Madman Actual February 10, 2022 at 10:39

    This is the result of the Revolution being fomented out coddled University students and not the true working class. As you discussed on RC. Though those university students are dangerous and very cunning, a radicalized tradesman is much more dangerous.

  2. Kulak Beet Field Collective February 10, 2022 at 11:33

    Look up Karl Otto Paetel and National Bolshevism especially the passage about the symbiotic relationship between Marxism and fascism.
    Who funded the Bolshevik revolution and got Lenin safe passage across Germany?
    The banksters and Wall Street.
    WRSA is right about thinking harder and unlearning centuries of faulty programming.

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love