What exactly is the ‘Political Economy’ (PE)?

The PE is a fairly ambiguous concept which encompasses several disciplines related to the social sciences, cultural studies and economics – among other things. Vincent Mosco’s book The Political Economy of Communication: Rethinking and Renewal defines PE as “the study of the social relations, especially the power relations that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of resources.” Mosco focuses on the relationship between the production, distribution and consumption of communication in historical and cultural context.

Capitalism defines global markets in an ever more centralized system. According to Mosco, PE frames theoretical and methodological concerns with an emphasis on corporate and government structure, along with the ideological functions created by that structure. He believes that PE focuses on the commodification of both the media and its content – with an emphasis on the political power structure.

That power clearly lies within global multi-media corporations in service of paranoid imperialistic governments like the United States of America. Mosco suggests that PE’s distinct characteristics concern social change and historical transformation, the context of social totality, moral philosophy, and something called praxis: the free activity through which people change themselves and the world.

PE could be considered a political and economic analysis meant to explain the role and structure of media and government in a supposedly democratic system. Among other things, PE is concerned with the issue of media concentration and unwarranted control by evil corporate giants like Viacom and NewsCorp. These patterns were effectively demonstrated more than thirty years ago with Ben Bagdikian’s The Media Monopoly and Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky.

Since Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988 the interlocking number of corporations which control American media has continued to shrink and become ever more rigid. Consent is slightly dated now, unfortunately: It was written at the end of the Reagan era. Communism was still a factor when it was published – although the fall of the Soviet Union was less than a year away. Still, one could just as easily replace the term “communist” with “terrorist” and the same formula would apply. At that time, there were still more than twenty media companies in control of the world’s media, now there are only five.

Bettig and Hall’s book, Big Media, Big Money is more contemporary. It was published in 2003. Chapter three takes a scathing look at the film industry and the synergistic relationships between the major production studios and the fascistic corporate entities which control them. The authors do an excellent job of critiquing contemporary Hollywood realities, examining how media ownership and profit motive profoundly affect the messages and values we receive from the entertainment industry. Hall and Bettig conclude that current interconnections among media, big business and government pose a serious threat to democratic institutions, not just in America, but around the globe.

Bettig and Hall focus on the PE of the movie industry, particularly the toxic creative environment encouraged by the pervasive corporate influence felt in the studios. This includes the ongoing debate over piracy and copyright laws and the deep-pockets legislative crackdown surrounding intellectual property rights.

In the US, movies and TV shows have been increasingly viewed as simply another easily-digestible consumer product designed to make money for shareholders of the massive conglomerates which own them. Anyone who associates “art,” “genius,” or “quality” with any aspect of the business of Hollywood is sadly mistaken. The noxious celebrity culture encouraged by the One Percent is a diversionary tactic encouraged to keep the masses docile and ignorant: much like the “Bread and Circuses” promised to the Roman plebes in ancient times. Prime-Time TV programming is essentially filler between the commercials, and commercial breaks have grown much longer and much louder.

Movies are made based on marketability, not quality. The point isn’t even to entertain, anymore: the industry’s purpose is to stupefy, mesmerize,manipulate, and market. Intelligent, challenging programming is a thing of the past. It’s all about appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Big Media, Big Money affirms that corporate control of Hollywood has had a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of what passes for entertainment in the years since the FCC repealed virtually every federal restriction meant to limit media ownership (1996). Since then, media monopolization has been systematic overwhelming and unrelenting.

The internet is the only outlet left for alternative voices to be heard, and the debate regarding internet neutrality proves that the elite interests once again control The Agenda. It’s only a matter of time before internet access is restricted. The fact that it is being “debated” at all is simply meant to condition us to the reality of less freedom and more surveillance in the near future.

In America, the major decisions over what happens in our society – decisions over investment, production and distribution – are in the hands of a highly concentrated, integrated network of major corporations and evil global conglomerates. Their minions fill some of the most powerful positions in government. The One Percent has an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way society functions and what it values. Within the current economic system, they dictate policy. The command over resources and the need to satisfy their monopolistic desire imposes severe constraints on the Political Economy and on the ideological systems under its control. As Chomsky and Herman put it,

“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.”

References

Bettig, R. & JL Hall (2012). “The Hollywood movie industry: Do we really need it?” 57-114.

Herman, E. & N. Chomsky (1988). “A propaganda model.” 1-35.

Mosco, V. (2009). “Overview of the political economy of communication.” 1-20.