Regulation of conduct is constrained within the boundaries of institutions like the media of which, according to Foucault (1991), must be organised internally first before it can govern successfully outside its boundaries. Therefore, what matters in the study of governmental power is not so much the institution itself but rather the broader strategies the institution adopts in its governing capacities (Foucault, 1991: 103). The media therefore, must attend to the conduct of its audiences (subjects/actors) and be internally consistent. Successful governing does not involve violence although no power is without potential refusal or revolt (Foucault, 1981: 253-354). In other words, power struggles are expected but dealing successfully with them depends on how they are rationalised.

This approach is different from many others in that is recognises different social structures and groups, takes on a more or less responsible role in working with them and for them, while at the same time maintaining a certain degree of power over them. It concentrates not only on the framing of issues by the media but the way individual's (audiences) make sense of the media's menu of issues (Negrine, 1999: 202). A critique of the role of the media tends to base its theories on the media as a dominant entity that hold the balance of power over the people. This it appears to do for purely economic reasons and considers its audiences as non-distinct subjects who may be easily influenced into the ways of thinking as portrayed by the media and those dominant institutions such as Government, of which it represents. In the words of Jones and Jones (1999), 'audiences become pawns in the media's struggle for power (Jones and Jones, 1999: 188).

Perhaps what these theories tend to underestimate is the power of the masses (either within audiences or smaller groups) and how public opinion plays a major role in determining societal change. As Bryce (1899) suggests, 'neglecting to recognise the power of public opinion is a major flaw in much of the analysis of the media's role in shaping or governing society' (Bryce, 1899: 251). Acknowledged as often formed primarily from outside sources in which everyone may be predisposed to seeing things in some one particular light, public opinion may be formed and altered by education, habits of mind, accepted dogmas, religion, social affinities, notions of personal interests and continuous exposure to the media (Berelson and Janowitz, 1966: 15). As many theorists believe that possibilities exist whereby the media may present 'biased information' (either by distorting it or omitting it altogether), it may follow that exposure to this information could result in biased public opinion. For example, in 1984 William Bundy (1984), at that time a recently retired editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, called the print media 'almost congenitally weak on history' and said that 'this relates not only to failures to present, or even to understand, the historical background of society and its particular problems'. He goes further to say, 'the range of complexities of key issues confronting most Western nations is far greater than at any time and print media, particularly the press, is not keeping pace with the need nor taking audiences seriously' (Speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 5 May, 1984). Others charge the print media in particular, with avoiding controversial issues altogether and depriving the public of important information (Collins, 1985: 14). According to Goot (1996/1997), 'the media are guilty of manipulating the population and in some ways, treating them and the subject matter with contempt' (Goot, 1996/1997: 9-12).

Philip Knightly (1983), then writer for the Sunday Times in London noted, 'the print media has its constant duty to be accurate and fair but when it comes to giving the depth of information to facilitate wise decision-making (governing the population), that may be beyond its capacity - or responsibility. They risk reducing their public to an ill informed mass therefore, perhaps that duty rests with the education system' (Testimony before NC Washington, 8 December 1983). What Knightly may be implying in this instance is, if people were more educated and aware of issues around them, they would begin to enforce their public opinions on the media. The media would have to respond as it would be in theirs, and the public's best interests to do so.

Public opinion is often measured through the collection of information derived from opinion polls that are assumed to reflect the will of the people as in Bryce's romantic definition of 'sizing up the attitudes of their fellow citizens' (Bryce, 1979: 126). Bourdieu on the other hand, suggests that opinion polls are biased and guilty of asking questions objectively rather than subjectively while at the same time asking questions that would appear too complex for the average person to answer honestly (Bourdieu, 1979: 127-128). With reference to elections, Gallup and Rae (1984), Collins (1985) and Knightly (1983) suggest a failure 'to represent the will of the people (Gallup and Rae, 1968: 16-17).Opinion polls may only represent influences that each person derives from his fellows, leaders and the media. In this sense, opinions of those to which the opinion polls appear to favour comply with that which is suggested by Goot previously. This may suggest that the media not only govern the population for the most part dishonestly, but are also governed by those institutions such as the Law (repressive State Apparatuses). This explanation is in keeping with Gidden's (1984) definition of power as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In this sense, public opinion polls, as agencies of opinion information, may be misleading.

Contrary to the above criticism of the media, when reviewing the histories of events and issues over the past twenty years for example, it would appear that the media has influenced public opinion in a more positive direction. For example, environmental issues twenty years ago were not thought of as particularly important. Issues such as deforestation, recycling, pollution and global warming were not believed to be serious threats to man's existence (present and future). The media, often faced with resistance (demonstrations, letters to the editor), has helped alter the consciousness of the public on such issues with campaigns such as 'Clean Up Australia' and the formation of Government departments such as the Department of the Environment and Heritage. I other words, they have governed the public over time to think in a particular way of which is beneficial to all society. This example may be referred to as the 'governmentalisation of the environment'.

The feminist movement is another example. During the 1970s, feminists were often referred to as 'radical groups of troublemakers' whose main aim was to upset the 'status quo' (Dow, 1996: xi-xii). The media recognised the 'newsworthiness' of this movement that provided 'good copy'. It also meant that audiences became more aware of feminist issues (Johnson, 1993: 18). In other words, the media provided a platform whereby the population was governed into a different way of thinking about women and issues of equality and pervasion such as rape and domestic violence (private issues became public ones). Graphic colour imagery of women and children as innocent victims whether close to home or overseas such as those in Kosovo would appear to have more profound effects compared to twenty five years ago. This may be referred to as the 'governmentalisation of women' from a global perspective.

These and other issues such as health are examples whereby the media have 'filled the space between the private lives of citizens (public) and the public concerns of rulers (institutions) (Rose, 1990: 2). Citizens have become 'intensely subjective beings (Rose, 1990: 3) as 'calculated forces of society (Foucault, 1991: 20). In other words, audiences provide calculated opinions of which the media use to 'govern the population'. These calculated public opinions are often that which keeps a particular media type in circulation. The Audit Bureau of Circulation for example, audit circulation figures for media types every six months and this provides a more definite indication of popularity than readership, which may be ascertained by surveys, dependent on the sample and the knowledge and truthfulness of the people involved. Readership on the other hand, gives a better impression of the actual consumption of print media types as most have multiple readers (more than one person reads a particular article in the same household).

There are obviously varying views on the media and how they govern the population. No longer is the political subject (public) 'thought to be motivated merely by a calculus of pleasures and pains' (Rose, 1990: 205). Instead, they are to regulate themselves although this regulation appears to be done within socially and culturally constructed boundaries. The media has had to adapt to changes in society and appears to not only govern the population through increased pressure from public opinion but pressure from those who govern them (owners, Government). In other words, they have taken on a duality of roles that is becoming more and more complex as audiences become more educated and media technologies such as the Internet, advance.

****** PLEASE NOTE ******

If you have or know of anyone whose essays warrant being on the Internet in order that others may gain knowledge about any subject, please EMAIL me and let me know. I think this is a very important resource that is greatly needed for everybody.

BACK TO THE TOP

Ignorance is not bliss, it's a waste!

Last Updated 20/06/03

© Kelta Web Concepts 2003 All rights reserved