Where, if anywhere, does media power reside?

We are living in a world surrounded by messages of all kinds. The media, as our channels and sources of these messages, has emerged as one of the predominant estates in all aspects of our lives. As David L. Altheide (1985, ch.1) stated “the influence [of the media] goes beyond mere imagery and information derived from, say TV news reports or entertainment programs”. Indeed, media power is unquestionably immense, but where and whom does media power rest upon? What makes the media so powerful?

This essay discusses the control of media power on two main “spectrums” - media production and media reception by the audience. By defining the two elements as different “spectrums” instead of “levels”, I wish to bring out my argument that they are rather “interactive” but not entirely hierarchical in the power domain. Although many media professionals and scholars still hold on to their assumption of being positioned hierarchically above the public. Yet, the relationship between the media and the public has changed tremendously over time. Media production, indeed, is the primary unit in the process of message

delivery. Its content (the output) is effectively governed by various factors, market forces for example, which would be discussed in further details in the following paragraphs. Meanwhile, the audience receives the messages produced by the media. It is a passive but not entirely unilateral process. Widespread education, democratic rule and improved communication facilities have entitled the audience to the power in influencing the media in return. I would further elaborate and illustrate my point with supporting evidence from different media industries.

In the audience reception spectrum, media power continues to be evident. Media and Communications theories argue that the audience or the public are easily deceived and manipulated by the media, and that the public plays a passive role in the one-dimensional media reception model. As Kitzinger (1999) pointed out, these issues are often based on the assumption that “ordinary people” are nothing more than “cultural dopes”. This is evident in the words of Nardi (cited in Altheide 1985:16), “The audience will focus on the flashy and disattend the familiar - a red handkerchief in the right hand keeps people from looking at the left hand...[Audiences] believe they have seen the complete coin when they have seen only one side”. Altheide (1985:16-17) made an excellent rebuttal on Nardi’s assumption, I should note...audience members are aware that the medium of TV permits “camera tricks” and “special effects” anyway.” The effects of media are undisputedly far-reaching on the public but that does not necessarily give it a free pass to the mind of the audience. No matter how powerful and sensational the projected message is, the interpretation of the message is still left to the audience. Kitzinger added, “the interrogations of media power have been replaced by celebration creativity.”(cited in Philo, 1999:Ch1) . Not every single message conveyed by the media will be accepted in the media-au

Some topics in this essay:
David Altheide, Glasgow Media, Media Communications, Stuart Hall, David White, Ken Livingstone, Cottle Lecture, Essay Assignment, media power, media public, media production, control media, audience public, bureaucratic sources, media professionals, media-audience encounters, glasgow media, degree media,