Critical Political Economy of CML
In the post-truth transformative media ecosystem the significance of CPE, relates to financial mechanisms, conflicts of interests between the freedom of press and economic pressures, direct political intervention and the way media industries are organised and financed which influence on news.
Jonathan Hardy (2014) in ‘CPE of the Media’ argues that it investigates digital convergences of media, technology, telecommunication and media systems, media ownership, information capitalism, digital capitalism, intellectual rights, advertising literacy and culture.
It also deals with the question of how governance arrangements affect media markets, media behaviour and content and policy raise the importance of CPE. Hardy draws on Jenkins and Hesmondhalgh to explain that the prevalence of culturalism shifted the focus of attention from media production to consumption nad located power and agency over meaning-making with textual readers and more recently digital producers (Jenkins 1992, 2006)
CPE is a critical realist approach that investigates problems connected with political and economic organisations.. `His articles conclude that CPE is concerned with communication and power and democratic life in its broadest sense, making communication arrangements democratic and sustainable.
CML, therefore, goes beyond analysing media content to examine the powerful corporations and organisations that create media primarily to generate profit but also end up dominating the cultural sphere. Frechette, Higdon, and Williams (2016) argue that CML “analyses how media industries reproduce sociocultural structures of power by determining who gets to tell the stories of a society, what points of view and organisation all interests will shape the constructions of these stories, and who the desired target audience is” (p. 205).
A political economic lens allows us to understand that the commercial media industries are dominated by a small number of multinational corporations who view their audiences not as citizens in need of entertainment and information, but rather as sources of profit (Jhally & Livant, 1986).
This is evident in statements made by media owners and executives, such as the quote from Michael Eisner mentioned above, as well as others like the founder of the largest radio chain in the US, Clear Channel Communications, who stated: “We’re not in the business of providing news and information. We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music. We’re simply in the business of selling our customers’ products” (Fortune Magazine). Similarly, after acquiring YouTube in 2008, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said: “I don’t think we’ve quite figured out the perfect solution of how to make money, and we’re working on that. That’s our highest priority this year” (Schmidt, 2008). Even during the 2016 Presidential campaign, the head of CBS stated, referring to then-candidate Trump’s divisive but audience-generating rhetoric: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS” (CBS, 2016). This highlights the fact that the primary goal of these media corporations is to generate profits, rather than to inform and educate the public.
David Hesmondhalgh in his book entitled “The Cultural Industries” in 2002 advocated the adoption of CT to be understood as how they as audiences are sold as a commodity by television companies to advertisers. He argued we should “resist the more negative aspects of commodification”. By corollary, culture is increasingly packaged as a product to be sold to the audience , but he was concerned the process produced “unrecognised and under-rewarded paid labour”.
The term “commodification” refers to the process of turning things, services, ideas, and people into objects for sale in a capitalist economy. It also describes the ways in which activities that were previously outside the market, such as art, religion, or healthcare, are being incorporated into the capitalist system. On a broader level, “commodification” signifies the growing influence of capitalist methods of accumulation in every aspect of our lives and around the world. Under these conditions, as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels stated, “the only connection between people is their naked self-interest and callous ‘cash payment'” (Marx and Engels, 1998).
In the 21st century, social media has become a key player in the mass communication landscape, and the commodification of culture has only accelerated. Scholars such as Adorno and Horkheimer’s analysis are still relevant today as the profit-driven nature of social media corporations has led to the manipulation of cultural products to maintain the capitalist order. Social media platforms like Facebook and X are not just a means of communication, but also a means of generating profit through targeted advertising and data collection. The commodification of culture on social media has led to the manipulation of information, the erosion of privacy, and the spread of disinformation, all of which contribute to the maintenance of the capitalist order. In this sense, a critical examination of the political economy of social media is crucial in understanding the ways in which the platforms are used to maintain ideological domination and societal power imbalances.
Reuters.com considers realising the age of engagement with our social thrust has a very specific plan behind it. The media have to go where the audience is which is not an over-reliance and express delight in having an audience wherever it is. (Slade Sohmer) As the conversation around stories has shifted to SM the comments section is deemed as a better place for that discourse to happen. (Dan Colarusso, executive editor of Reuters.com. ‘https://X.com/colarusso42’)
Comment threads could be both an important source of information and a business opportunity for publishers. “Everything that a reporter writes can be — often immediately — verified or checked, externally by the audience. Increasing use of comment systems has affected how news is reported. In some instances, comments have countered agenda-setting theory by guiding the news reporting process (Graham, 2013; McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; Santana, 2011).
A journalist’s engagement in commenting additionally improves the quality not only of the discussion but also of original reporting (Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011). Quality of the comments and the discourse as a whole also improves when those who post contribute frequently and repeatedly (Weber, 2013).
Joseph Reagle explores the multifaceted nature of online comments found at the bottom of the web. He contends that these comments, whether informative or manipulative, entertaining or infuriating, can offer valuable insights into human nature and social behaviour. Reagle delves into various online communities, including Amazon reviewers, fanfiction authors, online learners, scammers, freethinkers, and mean kids, illustrating how comments serve different purposes such as informing, improving, manipulating, alienating, shaping, and perplexing individuals. He draws parallels between pre-internet forms of critique and the modern phenomenon of online comments. He also discusses the techniques of online fakery, the emotional dynamics of giving and receiving feedback, and the culture of trolls, haters, bullying, and misogyny. Reagle examines how the constant stream of social quantification through comments impacts self-esteem and well-being. Finally, Reagle highlights the puzzling nature of online comments—short, asynchronous, and often context-shedding—and how they provoke a range of reactions from readers, including confusion and amusement.
The poor performance of the news media can be further explained on the basis of the well-established ‘indexing’ and ‘manufacturing consent’ models which broadly suggest that news media discourses are elite-driven and thus hegemonic (Cottle, 2006; McChesney, 2008; Robinson et al., 2010) [NEXT- The Role of Social Media]