Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:28:31.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two approaches to the study of mass media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Michael Buerage
Get access

Extract

In this essay two sociological perspectives are used to examine aspects of the mass media. One is derived from Marx's theory of capitalism and the forces and relations of production that determine its structure and development. According to this perspective, the mass media are part of a capitalist society and the content of the media is analysed in terms of class interest and class conflict. The second perspective is derived from Tocqueville's theory of democratic society. In Democracy in America Tocqueville uses two ideal types—of aristocratic and democratic society—to analyse American society and to compare it with European society.

Type
Myths and Mass Media
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 1969 , pp. 238 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) See de Tocqueviixe, Alexis, Democracy in America, ed. Bradley, Phillips (New York, Vintage, 1945), 2 volsGoogle Scholar. Esp. vol. II, book I, chap, XI–XIII. For a similar point of view, Mannheim, Karl, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (London, Routledge, 1952)Google Scholar, chap. II and Essays on the Sociology of Culture (London, Routledge, 1956), part III.Google Scholar

(2) See, for examples of the former view, Leavis, Q. D., Fiction and the Reading Public (London, Chatto and Windus, 1939)Google Scholar; Hoggart, Richard, The Uses of Literacy (Fairlawn N. J., Essential Books, 1957)Google Scholar. For the latter view see Altick, R. D., The English Common Reader (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Herd, Harold, The March of Journalism (London, Allen and Unwin, 1952)Google Scholar. There are, of course, mixed types, for example, Williams, Francis, Dangerous Estate (London, Longmans, 1957)Google Scholar, and individual critics who seem to have shifted from one view to the other, MacDonald, Dwight, Against the American Grain (London, Gollancz, 1963).Google Scholar

(3) For an analysis of this distinction, see Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963)Google Scholar and for an example of an appeal to the positive concept see Hoggart, , op. cit. p. 147Google Scholar; the negative is found throughout Herd, op. cit.

(4) See especially Read, Donald, Press and People 1790–1850 (London, Arnold, 1961).Google Scholar

(5) Webb, R. K., The British Working Class Reader 1990–1848 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 15–19.Google Scholar

(6) On the content of these publications, see Dalziel, Margaret, Popular Fiction 100 Years Ago (London, Cohen and West, 1957)Google Scholar and Webb, , op. cit. pp. 106–115, 147–151.Google Scholar

(7) Webb, , op. cit. pp. 25, 80.Google Scholar

(8) On the scale of this effort, see Altick, , op. cit.Google Scholar chap, III, v. On the anti-radical literature in the 1790's, Webb comments “for sheer size the performance is astounding” (op. cit. pp. 43, 41–45, 115–117, 130–133).

(9) On the reasons for this failure, see Webb, , op. cit. pp. 26–28, 53–59, 66–73, 77–80, 86–92, 158–162Google Scholar; Dalziel, , op. cit.Google Scholar chap, v, vi, VII; Altick, , op. cit. chap. v.Google Scholar

(10) For details on the organization and opinion of these papers, see Webb, , op. cit. pp. 36–40Google Scholar; on circulation, ibid. p. 63; Altick, , op. cit. pp. 381–393Google Scholar; Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, Vintage, 1963), pp. 718–719Google Scholar. For comparison the daily circulation of The Times in 1822 was 5,730 (ibid.).

(11) Thompson, , op. cit.Google Scholar on the varied opinions in these papers, pp. 746–832.

(12) For examples of the latter, see Hindley, Charles, The Life and Times of James Catnach (London 1878)Google Scholar and The History of the Catnach Press (London 1887).Google Scholar

(13) Webb, , op. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

(14) Thompson, , op. cit. p. 732.Google Scholar

(15) Dalziel, , op. cit. chap. IV.Google Scholar

(16) Thompson, , op. cit. pp. 712, 717, 735–736.Google Scholar

(17) For an example of this type of argument, see Swados, Harvey, A Radical's America (Boston, Atlantic-Little Brown, 1962), pp. 65–73.Google Scholar

(18) See for example the conclusions about the effects of television on children in Himmelweit, Hilde et al. , Television and the Child (London, Oxford University Press, 1958), pp. 17–34.Google Scholar

(19) Royal Commission on the Press, 1947–1949 (London, Cmnd. 1700, HM50).Google Scholar

(20) These comments are based on a comparison of Emery, Edwin, The Press and America (Eaglewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1963), chaps, XI, XII, XVII, XVIIIGoogle Scholar; and Williams, Francis, Dangerous Estate (London, Longmans, 1957)Google Scholar, chaps, VII, IX, X.

(21) For these other changes, see Emery, , op. cit. pp. 214–225, 247, 311, 317, 357, 388—389, 422Google Scholar, and Williams, , op. cit. pp. 133–134, 143–156.Google Scholar

(22) Emery, , op. cit.Google Scholar and Bourne, H. R. Fox, English Newspapers (London, Chatto and Windus, 1887), vol. I, p. 390Google Scholar: “[Cobbett] brought with him some of the worst habits and methods of the young American journalism”. Williams, , op. cit. pp. 110–113, 129Google Scholar: “The success of Levy's Daily Telegraph was achieved, in part, by emulating American popular journalism”. T. P. O'Connor, founder of The Star in 1888 which anticipated several of The Daily Mail's innovations had previously worked for the New York Herald and “found English newspapers stuffy and obsolete” (Williams, , op. cit. p. 133Google Scholar). For other examples, see Cudlipp, Hugh, Publish and Be Damned (London, Dakers, 1953), pp. 33, 73Google Scholar. For British influence on the founding of the New York Daily News, see Emery, , op. cit. p. 623.Google Scholar

(23) Williams, , op. cit. pp. 126–127Google Scholar; Cudlipp, , op. cit. pp. 64–65Google Scholar; Emery, , op. cit. chap. xx.Google Scholar

(24) For example, the press that Benjamin Day used to produce The New York Sun was developed by The Times (Emery, , op. cit. p. 210).Google Scholar

(25) Emery, , op. cit. p. 380.Google Scholar

(26) See for example Smith, J. W. Robertson, The Life and Death of a Newspaper (London, Methuen, 1952), pp. 101–102Google Scholar, and comments by Williams, , op. cit. pp. 152–156.Google Scholar

(27) Tocqueville, , Op. cit. Vol, II, pp. 68–74.Google Scholar

(28) Williams, Raymond, Communications (London, Chatto and Windus, 1966), p. 93.Google Scholar

(29) Ibid. pp. 82–86.

(30) Thompson, op. cit. pp. 750–751Google Scholar; Webb, , op. cit. p. 51.Google Scholar

(31) Schatzman, L. and Strauss, A., Social Classes and Modes of Communication, American Journal of Sociology, LX (1955), 329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernstein, B., Some Sociological Determinants of Perception, British Journal of Sociology, IX (1958), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(32) Tocqueville, , op. cit. vol. II, p. 64.Google Scholar

(33) Williams, R., op. cit. pp. 133–173.Google Scholar

(34) Id.Culture and Society 1780–1950 (New York, Harper and Row, 1966), p. ix.Google Scholar

(35) Gabriel, Ralph, The Course of American Democratic Thought (New York, Ronald, 1956)Google Scholar: on Emerson, and Thoreau, pp. 52–53Google Scholar; on Whitman, , pp. 132–134Google Scholar; on Royce, , pp. 303–314Google Scholar; on Turner, , pp. 322–326Google Scholar; on Morgan, , pp. 172–178.Google Scholar

(36) Ibid. pp. 220–226.

(37) Op. cit.: on Hulme, , pp. 190–195Google Scholar; on Kingsley, , p. 102Google Scholar; on Lawrence, , pp. 209, 211Google Scholar; on Orwell, , p. 286.Google Scholar

(38) Ibid. pp. 56–57, 65.

(39) Ibid. p. 79.

(40) Ibid.: on Disraeli, , pp. 97–98Google Scholar; on Dickens, , p. 96Google Scholar; on Eliot, G., pp. 105–109Google Scholar; Arnold quoted p. 132.

(41) Ibid.: Hobson, J. A. quoted p. 140.Google Scholar

(42) Ibid. p. 229.

(43) Ibid. p. 201.

(44) Ibid. p. 140.

(45) Ibid. p. 35.

(46) Ibid.: authors cited.

(47) Williams, , op. cit. p. 64Google Scholar

(48) Ibid. p. 154.

(49) Briggs, Asa, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, vol I: The Birth of Broadcasting (Oxford, University Press, 1961), p. 238.Google Scholar

(50) Op. cit. pp. 7, 138.

(51) Reith, J. W. C., Into the Wind (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1949), p. 144.Google Scholar

(52) Wilson, H. H., Pressure Group (London, Seeker and Warburg, 1961)Google Scholar, on government committees, pp. 20, 21; on the support of press and others, pp. 153, 159.

(53) Briggs, , op. cit. p. 26Google Scholar: “Few other institutions reveal more clearly the difference between national traditions, national ways of life”. Unfortunately he does not analyse these traditions and ways of life.

(54) Op cit. pp. 225, 232–236, 403.

(55) Op. cit. pp. 401–402.

(56) Wilson, H. H., op. cit. pp. 133, 138, 139. 159.Google Scholar

(57) Paulu, Burton, British Broadcasting (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1956), pp. 375–380.Google Scholar

(58) Wilson, , op. cit. p. 16.Google Scholar

(59) Report of the Committee on Broadcasting 1960 (London, Cmnd. 1753, HMSO), pp. 51–68, 290.Google Scholar

(60) Paulu, B., British Broadcasting in Transition (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1961), pp. 38–52.Google Scholar

(61) Reith, , op. cit.Google Scholar

(62) Ibid. pp. 99, 100, quoted by Briggs, , op. cit. p. 238.Google Scholar

(63) Briggs, , op. cit. p. 238.Google Scholar

(64) Briggs, , op. cit. p. 206Google Scholar. Id.The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Vol. II: The Golden Age of Wireless, pp. 306–308, 315–323.Google Scholar

(65) Paulu, , British Broadcasting, op. cit. pp. 342–343Google Scholar; Briggs, , op. cit. vol I, pp. 203–204Google Scholar; vol. II, pp. 256–280; Reith, , op. cit. p. 101.Google Scholar

(66) Briggs, , op. cit. pp. 249–250.Google Scholar

(67) Paulu, , British Broadcasting in Transition, op. cit. p. 18Google Scholar; Briggs, , op. cit. vol. II, pp. 467–472.Google Scholar

(68) Briggs, , op. cit. vol I, p. 246.Google Scholar

(69) Loc. cit. on children's programmes, pp. 258–262; on music, p. 294; on talks p. 256.

(70) Paulu, , British Broadcasting, op. cit. pp. 342–343Google Scholar; British Broadcasting in Transition, op. cit. pp. 169–171.Google Scholar

(71) Paulu, , British Broadcasting in Transition, op. cit. pp. 24–27.Google Scholar

(72) Ibid. p. 159.

(73) Ibid. pp. 88–89, 94–101, 107–110.

(74) White, Llewellyn, The American Radio (Chicago, University of Chicago, 1947). pp. 32–33. 40. 153–203.Google Scholar

(75) Barnouw, Erik, A History of Broadcasting in the United States (Oxford, New York, 1969), vol. II: The Golden Web, pp. 94–95, 107, 155–157. 177–178.Google Scholar

(76) See for example Barnouw, Erik, op. cit. vol I: A Tower in Babel (Oxford, New York, 1966), pp. 28, 169Google Scholar; vol. II: pp. 259–260.

(77) For the remnants of an early aristocratic tradition see Curti, Merle, The Growth of American Thought (New York, Harper, 1943), pp. 213–258, 642–644, 695–696Google Scholar; for the justification of economic inequality, pp. 633–656.

(78) Friendly, Henry J., The Federal Administrative Agencies: The Need for Better Definition of Standards (Harvard, Cambridge, 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for criticism of inconsistency of present standards and examples of FCC decisions, pp. 53–73; for an argument of the impossibly difficult problem of applying standards to programme content, PP. 54–56. See also Barnouw's comment: “Because programming offered no objective standards the FFC began to give special attention to technical standards, such as quality of equipment. Every station representative was pressed on technical questions […]”. (Op. cit. vol. I, p. 216).

(79) Minow, Newton, Equal Time: The Private Broadcaster and the Public Interest, ed. Laurent, Lawrence (New York, Atheneum, 1964), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; Friendly, , op. cit. pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

(80) Barnouw, , op. cit. vol. II, p. 189Google Scholar; White, , op. cit. pp. 128–131.Google Scholar

(81) Barnouw, , op. cit. vol. II, pp. 258–259.Google Scholar

(82) See Minow, , op. cit. pp. 3–43, 295.Google Scholar

(83) See comments Barnouw, , op. cit. vol. I, p. 30.Google Scholar