SY4882 - 1999

Culture, Modernity and the Media

Dr. Talja Blokand

Assessed essay, 14 May 1999

No. of words:1149 (Essay 1), 1407 (Essay 2)

Press Freedom in Britain

Advertising & TV Programming

Two essays based on exam questions.

Christian Einsiedel

Erasmus Student (9852810)

Grosvenor Place CD7, Grosvenor St.

Manchester M1 7HR

+44-161-933-4726

christian.einsiedel@stud.man.ac.uk

einsiedel@hotmail.com

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 2 of 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1

PRESS FREEDOM IN BRITAIN (QUESTION NO. 6) 3

1.1

Question 3

1.2

Introduction 3

1.3

Discussion 3

1.4

Conclusion 6

2

ADVERTISING & TV PROGRAMMING (QUESTION NO. 10) 7

2.1

Question 7

2.2

Introduction 7

2.3

Discussion 7

2.4

Conclusion 10

3

BIBLIOGRAPHY 12

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 3 of 12

1 PRESS FREEDOM IN BRITAIN (QUESTION NO. 6)

1.1 Question

"Press freedom has reached a level it has never had in Britain before". Discuss

(No. of words: 1149)

1.2 Introduction

At first glance, press freedom in Britain has reached a level that has yet to be matched

by some other countries in the world. There is no direct political censorship and little

other explicit regulation. In a way, there is even more journalistic freedom than in most

European countries, as journalists and their papers have little to fear from a weak Press

Complaints Commission.1

There are two major questions to be discussed: First, are these criteria sufficient for

describing press freedom? And second, if so, is it correct to speak of the highest level

press freedom ever reached in British history?

By taking a more detailed look in the following paragraphs, I will argue that the answer

to both questions is ′no′.

1.3 Discussion

The British press has been free from direct political control since the middle of the 19th

century, when the parliamentary campaign against press taxes led to the abolishment of

several restricting laws.2 Ever since, direct censorship has appeared only once - during

the first years of the Second World War.3

However, the press system has not remained unchanged during this long period of

relative freedom. First, the industrialisation led to rising production costs and furthered

the transfer of popular press ownership "from the working class to wealthy

1 see CURRAN, James and Jean Seaton

, Power without Responsibility - The Press and Broadcasting in
Britain

, London, 1997, p. 296

2 ibid., p. 26

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 4 of 12

businessmen."4 It followed "the era of the press barons",5 who became proprietors of

national and regional press chains in the early 20th century. Because they followed

mainly their own (economic and patriotic) interests, the press became for the first time

detached from political parties, although it still "helped to sustain the dominant culture

by stigmatising radical opponents of the political order."6

After the new wave of regulation that came with the Second World War was abolished

in 1956,7 the press system known today began to develop. It is characterised by high

concentration of ownership, polarisation between tabloids and quality papers, and the

fact that newspaper ownership no longer correlates with patriotic interests as papers are

owned by multinational news companies.8 This provides for a less predictable relation

between the press and the party system.

Following the argument that British press freedom nowadays is bigger than ever before,

one must assume that this latest development is the reason for the increase. However, it

is crucial to see that any further discussion strongly depends on how press freedom is

defined: If it is seen as freedom from political regulation, the British press is indeed as

free as it never was before. If, however, one accepts that there are other criteria to be

considered, this position is hard to defend.

The first thing to take into account is the introduction of a commercial, advertising

based press system. While this made freedom from direct political control possible, it

also provided for new forms of influence.9 The economic need to attract the audiences

that advertisers demand led to the decline of radical or controversial papers in the late

19th century.10 Diversity was limited to a degree that was profitable in terms of

advertising revenues - a fact that has not changed with the latest developments.

3 ibid., p. 62-66

4 ibid., p. 41-58

5 ibid., p. 42

6 ibid., p. 53

7 ibid., p. 85

8 see WILLIAMS, Granville,

Britain′s media: How they are related - Media ownership and democracy

,

London, 1996, p. 48

9 see CURRAN 1997, p. 22-27

10 ibid., p. 34

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 5 of 12

On the contrary, with the concentration of press ownership and convergence of different

media related businesses, ownership became to be seen as "strategy by which large

business organisations sought to influence the environment in which they operated."11

This led to increased proprietorial influence on newspaper content, and thus to higher

internal pressures on journalists.12 To put it in a nutshell, former political control of the

press was replaced by economic pressure (and the resulting organisational needs and

structures) - a process that Simon Lee called "the privatisation of censorship.13

There is a second important point to be considered: It is the fact that press freedom is no

value as such, but is desirable because of its function within a democratic society.14 This

function includes informing the public about current affairs from different points of

view in order to make informed decisions possible, controlling the powerful by holding

them accountable for their actions, challenging established beliefs and sparking

discussion about social issues, or more generally: furthering the democratic process.

From this point of view, the definition of press freedom as freedom from external

(political, commercial or other) influence seems only of secondary importance. Instead

of debating which structural criteria must be met to constitute press freedom, any press

system existing within a democracy should rather be judged by the degree to which it

fulfils its democratic function. Press freedom would thus be the degree to which the

press is free to serve democracy.

Adopting this definition and looking at the current situation of the British press again, it

is no longer adequate to speak of a particularly free press system. As indicated above,

the British press is influenced by the need to favour certain audiences, and will thus - at

least to some degree - neglect contrasting viewpoints. It is also influenced by the

interests of its proprietors, whose main objective is not to serve democracy but to make

their businesses profitable. The weak controlling body15 further limits the freedom of

11 ibid., p. 85

12 see WILLIAMS, p. 67/68

13 LEE, Simon,

The cost of free speech

, London, 1990, p.10

14 see FISH, Stanley,

There′s no such thing as free speech - and it′s a good thing, too

, Oxford, 1994, p.

14/15

15 see CURRAN 1997, p. 85

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 6 of 12

the press as defined above, because its freedom from political regulation reaches so far

that it can not be held responsible for the negative effect it may have on democracy.16

Additionally, press freedom can also be seen from the perspective of participation: The

right of journalists to state their opinions freely is only valuable for democracy if these

opinions represent a variety of different viewpoints. High entry costs to the newspaper

market17 as well as peer group pressures amongst journalist that lead to assimilation set

a limit to this variety, and thus further limit press freedom in Britain.

1.4 Conclusion

Paradoxically speaking, the British press is free,18 yet still there is little press freedom -

at least if furthering democracy is adopted as standard by which press freedom should

be measured. But even if this is not accepted, one still has to admit that there are several

deficiencies to press freedom that are rooted in the market orientation of the British

press.

It is arguable that the level of press freedom in Britain was higher during the final years

of the Second World War than it is today. This is due to two key factors: First, press

freedom was held up as "one of the symbols of democracy that Britain was defending

against Nazi Germany"19 after initial war time censorship was lifted in 1942. Second,

newsprint rationing had caused a shortage of advertising space from 1940 onwards. As

a consequence, advertisements were placed even in publications that did not conform to

advertisers political views, reinforcing a pluralist press.20

Whether intended by the government or not, the combination of these two factors led to

a press that was free from both political control and market pressures - and thus free to

fulfil its democratic role to an extent that is not reached by the current press system.

16 hence the title of Curran and Seaton′s book,

Power without responsibility

17 see CURRAN 1997, p. 103

18 from political control

19 CURRAN 1997, p. 67

20 see CURRAN 1997, p. 68/69

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 7 of 12

2 ADVERTISING & TV PROGRAMMING (QUESTION NO. 10)

2.1 Question

Investigate the role of advertising in deciding what is programmed on television.

(No. of words: 1407)

2.2 Introduction

Advertising on TV can be criticised for two for major reasons: Its potential dangers to

the audience and its influence on the programme itself.

The first factor is part of a wider scenario, in which new media and mass culture in

general are regularly criticised as "a central feature of the decay of civilisation in a

capitalist society".21 It has lost importance since empirical research in the 1950′s and

1960′s found little evidence to support the fear of ′brainwashing′, but confirmed that

people do not necessarily adopt what is presented in the media.22 Advertising, although

far from having no influence at all, does thus not have the feared direct effect on TV

audiences.

Regarding the second factor, concern seems more justified. Again, little evidence can be

found that single advertisers have a direct influence on TV programming. However,

their indirect influence is powerful enough to even change the face of public service

television that does not depend on advertising revenue.

In the following paragraphs, I will try to show the structures and processes that make

such a development possible.

2.3 Discussion

Even more than proprietorial influence, advertiser′s influence is mainly based on

unspoken rules and journalistic self-censorship. Advertisers will rarely criticise single

21 MUKERJI, Chandra and Michael Schudson,

Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary perspectives
in cultural studies

, Los Angeles, 1991, p. 27

22 see CURRAN 1995, p. 12

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 8 of 12

programmes, as this would be perceived as an attempt to restrict journalistic freedom.

The dependency of commercial television on advertising revenue, however, leads

journalists and producers to the anticipation of advertiser′s demands, which are then

taken into consideration when developing television programmes.23

The first major demand is to attract large audiences in order to provide advertisers with

a large potential target group for their products. It is regulated by the market,

guaranteeing that advertising around prime time programmes or highly attractive

movies and sports events will be more expensive. To be able to make their stations

more profitable, programme makers will have to adapt to ′mass taste′ in order to get the

biggest possible audience share. Programmes will be designed or influenced in order to

match the lowest common denominator, which may lead to oversimplifying complex

issues and avoiding controversial topics.

The second major demand is to target specific audiences that are interesting to

advertisers because of their high purchasing power. Seen from a producer′s perspective,

it is thus less profitable to make programmes for a low income audience or for elderly

people, who are said to have established a strong brand relationship and are thus less

interesting to advertisers. It is for this reason a programme might be taken off air even

though its audience ratings are still satisfactory. On the other hand, it may be profitable

to portray special interests like golf or collecting watches. Even though absolute

audience ratings are expected to be low, advertisers will be willing to pay for a highly

homogeneous target group that is interested in the special products they try to sell.

A third demand - less explicitly regulated - has to be met by producers: To provide

with their programmes an environment that makes the audience receptive to

advertisements. TV stations may earn more advertising revenue if their programmes

help to create a ′buying mood′. Again, this is done by avoiding controversial or

offensive programming around advertisements, by entertaining the audience, and by

reinforcing the belief in consumption as a means of self-expression in general. This

includes portraying products and companies in a favourable way throughout a station′s

23 for this and the following points, see BAKER, C. Edwin,

Advertising and a democratic press

,

Princeton, 1994, p. 44

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 9 of 12

programme,24 and may even lead to not mentioning negative information about an

important advertiser.

There is another important influence on programming that does not come directly from

advertising, but follows the same commercial logic: It is the complimentary need to

keep production costs low. In order to maximise profits, TV producers are not only

under pressure to create programs that match advertisers demands, they are also forced

to spend as little money as possible while still satisfying these demands.

This leads them to cut production costs of news reports, documentaries and films, with

the primary aim of finding the most profitable balance between low costs and high

advertising revenue. As such, creating challenging television programmes that exploit

the possibilities of the medium to the furthest possible extent becomes a secondary

objective. The risk of unexpectedly high production budgets is avoided by outsourcing

as much of the production process as possible, hiring mainly (replaceable) freelancers

and buying in material from independent production companies. While this follows an

economical rationale, it also makes quality control more difficult, leading to forged

documentaries and the like. Again, it seems that commercial interest is given priority

over artistic or audience interests.

In addition to outsourcing, programme makers are also likely to rely on material that is

by definition cheap to produce. Talk shows and soap operas, for example, are for

obvious reasons less expensive to make than documentaries. Taken into consideration

that they will probably generate higher audience ratings, producers are likely to prefer

these programmes. While this makes their stations more profitable, it sets limits to

programme variety.

Finally, the need to control budgets also explains the frequent use of material that has

already been produced - notably American series and soap operas. Because such

material has been sold to TV stations in the originating country before, the initial

production costs are already amortised. Thus, it can be offered at per-minute prices that

are far lower than the ones for newly produced material. Again, the variety of

programmes likely to be seen on commercial television is effectively limited.

24 e.g. including news programmes

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 10 of 12

Within this commercial logic, public service television stations like the BBC find it hard

to defend their way of programme making, which is supposedly oriented towards doing

justice to the potential of the medium and the audience′s needs. If one accepts that these

′needs′ are identical with the ′wants′ expressed in audience ratings, it seems indeed hard

to justify comparatively high production costs for programmes that the majority of

viewers do not find attractive. From a commercial perspective, it might even be

justifiable to discriminate such productions as ′waste of money′, and the attitude behind

them as ′elitist′.

As the BBC depends on politicians for the periodical renewal of their license, its

producers were forced to adapt to this perspective and change their programmes to the

same extent that politicians became to accept audience ratings as main indicator for

programme quality. Due to structural differences, this process is unlikely to lead to total

assimilation. However, the degree of assimilation that evolved after the Broadcasting

Act of 1990 illustrates how far the influence of commercialism on television reaches.

2.4 Conclusion

Considering the structures and processes described above, it is evident that advertising

and the underlying commercial logic determine25 ′what is programmed on television′.

Looking at developments in other European countries, it seems even more plausible to

suggest a direct link between the amount of commercial orientation and program

content: For example, German public service television earns 8% of its revenue from

advertising, yet the programme remains rather close to the BBC′s non-commercial

ideals. 26 French public service television, on the other hand, is forced into heavy

competition with commercial stations as it depends on advertising revenue to make up

half of its budget.27 As would be expected, its programme more closely resembles that

of its (fully) commercial competitors.

25 The term "to determine" is used here in the sense Raymond Williams suggested, not meaning "to totally

predict or prefigure", but "to set limits"; see MUKERJI, p. 40

26 see ′Le Monde′,

Trois télévisions publiques européennes fausseraient la concurrence

, Nov 28 1998, p.

22

27 this is true for ′France 2′; see ACHILLE, Yves and Jacques Ibanez-Bueno,

Les Télévisions européenes
en quête d′avenir

, 1994

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 11 of 12

How this influence of a commercial logic on TV programming should be judged

depends on the way television is seen: If it is regarded as a product like any other, there

is nothing wrong with limiting the offered variety mostly to what the market demands.

It can, however, also be regarded as a special product or ′public good′, because it plays

an important role in the formation of public opinion that is crucial to the functioning of

democracy. From this perspective, no external influence (be it political, commercial or

other) should lead to a limitation of available viewpoints, because it deprives the

audience of their positive freedom - the right to be supplied with enough information to

make really informed choices.

Although it seems from this perspective as if commercial influence on television had a

negative effect, it must be considered that not all of the above mentioned effects

necessarily have to occur. The BBC/ITV duopoly between 1954 and 1990, when

"commercial aspects were, as far as possible, not to have impact on the quality of

programming",28 may serve as an example. It shows that the degree to which

commercialism affects TV production depends in the end on how far political regulation

will allow it to do so.

28 HOFFMANN-RIEM, Wolfgang,

Regulating media, The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in
Six Countries

, New York, The Guilford Press, 1996, p. 71

---

Christian Einsiedel Two essays

p. 12 of 12

3 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

- ACHILLE, Yves and Jacques Ibanez-Bueno,

Les Télévisions européenes en quête

d′avenir

, PUG, 1994

- BAKER, C. Edwin,

Advertising and a democratic press

, Princeton, Princeton

University Press, 1994

- CURRAN, James and Jean Seaton

, Power without Responsibility - The Press and

Broadcasting in Britain

, London, Routledge, 5th edition 1997

- CURRAN, James, Michael Gurevitch and Janet Woollacott:

The study of the media:

Theoretical approaches

, in: Gurevitch et al.:

Culture, Society and the media,
London

, Routledge, 1995, ch. 1

- FISH, Stanley,

There′s no such thing as free speech - and it′s a good thing, too

,

Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994

- HOFFMANN-RIEM, Wolfgang,

Regulating media, The Licensing and Supervision

of Broadcasting in Six Countries

, New York, The Guilford Press, 1996

- LEE, Simon,

The cost of free speech

, London, Faber and Faber, 1990

- MUKERJI, Chandra and Michael Schudson,

Rethinking Popular Culture:

Contemporary perspectives in cultural studies

, Los Angeles, University of

California Press, 1991

- RAMSAY, Iain,

Advertising, Culture and the Law: Beyond Lies, Ignorance and

Manipulation

, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1996

- WILLIAMS, Granville,

Britain′s media: How they are related - Media ownership

and democracy

, London, Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, 1996

Articles:

- ′Le Monde′,

Trois télévisions publiques européennes fausseraient la concurrence

,

Nov 28 1998, p. 22

---