Page 74 - Critical Political Economy of the Media

Paradigms of media power 53

albeit predominantly those working in ‘settled’ liberal democratic political
systems. A strong liberal version denies the influence of pressures from above on
day-to-day work (see Goldsmiths Media Group 2000). However, mainstream
liberal communication scholars came closer to acknowledging the salience of
factors identified by the radical tradition, while falling short of accepting their
conclusions.
Liberal pluralist media sociology, influenced by occupational sociological studies
and the ‘ethnographic turn’, has provided necessary additions, as well as cor-
rectives, to political economy accounts. Commercial media institutions are
driven by core economic interests to secure future profitability and expand
market share. But in addition to market forces, organisations are subject to other
influences. Studies of journalistic media (Gans 1980; Baker 1994; McNair 1998;
Bennett 2011) identify these as:

economic influences (including economic structure, levels of competition and
ownership concentration, influence of advertising)
political influences (governments, politicians, pressure groups and powerful
interests as well as political–legal framework and wider political culture)
sources’ influences and media interaction with extra-media social actors
technology
management control, corporate policies and organisational dynamics
professional culture and norms
gender, ethnicity and the sociocultural backgrounds of professionals and
actors
consumer preferences and influences.

Liberal approaches to news are characterised by their emphasis on the individual
autonomy of media workers. Reliance on dominant sources is explained as
arising more from the organisational routines and professional values of news
gatherers than from instrumentalist imposition. Yet source research acknowl-
edges that the traditional liberal claim of media independence (the ‘fourth
estate’) must be modified (Goldsmiths Media Group 2000). If there is some
degree of source dependence (the radical claim), discussion shifts to consider how
structured it is and how ‘open’ or ‘closed’ is the resulting mediated discursive
space. Is dependence on elite sources evidence of the subversion of democracy,
or proof of its functioning? Schudson (2005) presents reliance on official sources
as a guarantee of media support for the ‘democratic order’. Source dependence
is also balanced by the imperative for media organisations to maintain their
independence as a source of legitimation, allied to their market value, for users.
Media are formally disconnected from other ruling agencies, Schudson argues,
because they must attend as much to their own legitimation as to furthering the
legitimation of the capitalist system as a whole.
What liberal accounts defend is the capability of media professionals operating
under corporate ownership to continue to serve society. This position shifts