Page 25 - Culture Society and the Media

THEORETICAL APPROACHES 15
Marxist interpretations stress the relative autonomy of the mass media—both in
the sphere of professional organization and of signification.
Some observers of these trends have suggested that as further empirical
evidence is gathered, pluralist and Marxist analyses of professionalism in the
media will continue to influence each other, and to discover some areas of
agreement. Thus, for example researchers from both camps now share the view
that powerful institutions and groups in society do have privileged access to the
media, because they are regarded by media professionals as more credible and
trustworthy, and because they have the resources to process information and to
offer the media their views in a usable and attractive form, tailor-made to fit the
requirements of the media. They also agree that the commitment of media
professionals to the canons of objectivity and impartiality, however genuinely
held, also serves to protect them from criticism of their performance as
professionals, by partly removing their responsibility for the output of the media
and placing it on their ‘sources’. And they accept the analysis that this
professional ideology also provides a basis for the profession’s self-respect, and
lays claim for respect from the public. We may tentatively conclude from this
evidence of common denominators in the thinking of both schools that this
strand of studies offers possibilities of further mutual influence and agreement,
without necessarily leading to a convergence of the different perspectives.

Interaction of media institutions with the socio-political
environment
A fourth direction which some studies of media institutions have followed has an
extra-organizational focus, and examines the relationship between the media and
the institutional structures and interests in their environment. This area of
interest is somewhat akin to the domain of the ‘political economy’ approach,
inasmuch as both strands of research examine the relationship between media
institutions and the political and economic institutions of society. However, the
macro-level at which the ‘political economy’ analysis is conducted leaves some
micro-aspects of this relationship unexplored. In particular, questions concerning
the interaction between media professionals and their ‘sources’ in political and
state institutions appear to be crucial for understanding the production process in
the media. Media organizations exist in a symbiotic relationship with their
environment, drawing on it not only for their economic sustenance but also for
the ‘raw materials’ of which their contents are made. The generation and shaping
of these materials through interaction between media professionals and their
sources of information, inspiration and support outside their own institutions take
place at the ‘interface’ between the media and these institutions (Gurevitch and
Blumler, 1977). Contacts at the interface, therefore, constitute a critical part of
the production process, and an important area for investigating the ways in which
external inputs into the production process are managed.