Page 220 - Critical Political Economy of the Media

Media power, challenges and alternatives 199

A central set of questions are therefore: to what extent do these problems persist
given profound transformations of media? Which problems persist? How has
change in media systems served to reduce, ameliorate or render redundant ‘old’
problems? What new problems arise? Any answers to such questions need to
acknowledge partiality in both positive and negative senses. In its positive sense
partiality, having a particular preference, refers to emotions of fondness and
judgements of value. In its negative sense partiality refers to bias and suggests a
distorted or at least limited perspective. I think both meanings are pertinent and
that advancing any positive partiality benefits from recognising positionality and the
limitations of perspective in addressing the problems of media. Second, we need to
ask these questions of specific practices in specific contexts. That does not mean
that analysis must remain micro in focus at all, but that the local and specific
context of problems is always relevant. Third, it must be an ongoing, collective
task to map, understand and assess problems in the media. To be salient critical
media analysis must engage with changes affecting communication systems,
relevant developments in theory and analysis, as well as diverse political and
social priorities, all reflexive of more international and comparative perspectives.
In chapter two I reviewed the division between liberal and radical perspectives
used to structure formative university courses in media in the 1970s. In Western
media studies a version of the liberal paradigm remains dominant, even though
advocates are more likely to self-identify as postmodernist, in viewing mediated
communications as increasingly pluralistic and open (Deuze 2006). The majority
tradition does not see major problems in commercial media cultures surrounding
access, and voice, and so is generally not concerned with remedies (including
institutional reform). The foundation is a positive assessment of the capabilities
of capitalism to generate and circulate information, including radical ideas. For
McNair (2006: 41) capitalism ‘has evolved into providing the most open and
receptive space for dissenting voices of any form of society in human history’.He
acknowledges there are still dominant forces of state and market influencing
media but offers an optimistic conclusion. In contemporary cultural capitalism,
commercial viability and political radicalism coexist; ‘The market provides a
highly efficient mechanism for the circulation of dissenting, progressive ideas in
commodity form’ (McNair 2006: 88). The distribution of films by Michael
Moore (Capitalism a Love Story; Fahrenheit 9/11) and Morgan Spurlock (Super Size
Me; The Greatest Movie Ever Sold) are amongst the supporting examples. McNair
celebrates the capacity of the market to bring about self-corrective reform. The
competitive logic of cultural capitalism placed Fahrenheit 9/11 at the heart of the
mainstream media marketplace, it was the highest-grossing documentary film
release, generating more than $222 million worldwide on a production budget
of $6 million, although McNair does acknowledge the difficulties Moore had in
securing a distribution deal after Disney’s Miramax withdrew. The market is
an aid not a barrier to the circulation of diverse viewpoints. Market competition
also spurs critical journalism: ‘In the global news market … critical, revelatory
journalism is not a luxury … but a marketing necessity, as is the visible