Page 26 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2
P. 26

Advert s ng and Persuas on  | 

              giants like Comcast (which owns TV One) and Time Warner (which owns Sí TV)
              to decide what constitutes diversity and how much we should pay for bundled
              programming does not solve the structural issues of vertical integration, media
              conglomeration, and the unequal distribution of advertising dollars for programs
              that  include  the  perspectives  of  communities  of  color.  When  the  progressive
              Consumers Union and the Free Press support à la carte in opposition to a broad
              spectrum of communities of color, and they do so by framing the issues using the
              classical economic language of individual consumer choice (the title of a Consum-
              ers Union report supporting à la carte is “Let the Market Decide”), we risk repro-
              ducing the abstracted, universalistic discourses of consumer choice and neutral
              markets that have reinforced current neoliberal free-market structural arrange-
              ments rather than invoking the cultural rights of historically disempowered groups
              and the necessity that we all interact broadly with cultural difference instead of
              walling off our television viewing through personalized channel subscriptions.
                Rather than narrowing viewership of culturally diverse networks such as Sí
              TV through à la carte pricing, perhaps the industry needs prompting to make
              these diverse networks more widely available. Placed on limited digital tiers, Sí
              TV reached less than 14 million subscribers as of 2007, while close to 80 million
              households had access to “mainstream” cable/satellite networks. In this case, the
              cable marketplace, as a space for the general public to participate in the diversity
              of Latino culture in the United States, falls far short of creating a common space
              for engaging with cultural difference.
              see  also  Cable  Carriage  Disputes;  Conglomeration  and  Media  Monopolies;
              Government Censorship and Freedom of Speech; Media Reform; Minority Media
              Ownership;  Obscenity  and  Indecency;  Regulating  the  Airwaves;  Representa-
              tions of Race; Representations of Women.

              note

              An earlier version of this article was published in Flow, an online journal of television and
                 media: see “À la carte Culture,” Flow 4, No. 3 (April 2006) at www.flowtv.org.
              Further  reading:  Gripsrud,  Jostein,  ed.  Television  and  Common  Knowledge.  New  York:
                 Routledge, 1999; Lewis, Justin, and Toby Miller, eds. Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader.
                 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002; Secrest, Lawrence W., and Richard E. Wiley. “Recent
                   Developments in Program Content Regulation.” Federal Communications Law Journal 57,
                 no. 2 (March 2005): 235–42; Williams, Patricia J. “Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC:
                 Regrouping in Singular Times.” In Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed
                 the Movement, ed., Kimberle Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Pelle, and Kendall Thomas,
                 191–200. New York: The New Press, 1995.
                                                                      John McMurria


              adVertising and Persuasion

                Advertising  is  the  driving  force  behind  American  business  and  the  largest
              industrial economy the world has ever known. It is the mediator between the
              consumer and the vast array of products available from manufacturers across the
   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31