User:Alfred0892/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Alfred0892 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Alfred0892 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
There are many scholars and theorists that disagree with Smythe's arguments and theories regarding the audience as a submissive commodity. |
There are many scholars and theorists that disagree with Smythe's arguments and theories regarding the audience as a submissive commodity. |
||
One of the leading critics of Smythe's work, Brett Caraway, points out the limitations of Smythe's interpretations and argues that Smythe's theory represents a one-sided class analysis which devalues working-class subjectivity; the surplus value generated by advertisers for the media owners disputes the notion that audiences are working for the advertisers. The audience activities are not under direct control of capitalists and the [[Use value|use value]] produced by the audience labor is not alienated from them. |
One of the leading critics of Smythe's work, Brett Caraway, points out the limitations of Smythe's interpretations and argues that Smythe's theory represents a one-sided class analysis which devalues working-class subjectivity; the surplus value generated by advertisers for the media owners disputes the notion that audiences are working for the advertisers. The audience activities are not under direct control of capitalists and the [[Use value|use value]] produced by the audience labor is not alienated from them. <ref name="caraway">{{cite journal|last1=Caraway|first1=Brett|title=Audience labor in the new media environment: A Marxiam revisiting of the audience commodity|journal=Media, Culture & Society|date=2011|volume=33|issue=5|pages=693-708}}</ref> |
||
Caraway argues that these qualities are required under the [[Marxism|Marxist mode of capitalist labor]] and are lacking within the audience commodity model, which means that the audience is not under the submissive control of capitalists in the form that the audience commodity places them under. <ref name=caraway/> |
|||
Many other criticisms supporting Caraway argue based upon similar guidelines. Some suggest that network executives and advertisers discuss the buying and selling of audiences, which means that what is being sold is 'time', which in this view the audience does not exist as a commodity because it cannot be 'owned' by anyone. |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 04:07, 24 October 2016
Audience Commodity Theory
The theory of the audience commodity was first proposed by Dallas Walker Smythe, claiming that the principle product of the commercial mass media in monopoly capitalism was audience power. This audience power is used to accomplish the economic and political tasks which are the reason for the existence of the commercial mass media.[1]
Smythe argues that audience power is produced, sold, purchased and consumed, which ultimately defines it as a commodity as it is valuable to the mass media and boasts a price. Furthermore, like any other labor power, audience power involves work, which under capitalism is defined as an action for which one receives payment. The difference in this instance is that the payment the audience receives is not in the monetary form, but in entertainment form through the program that they consume by watching as an audience. [1]
Under this theory the audience works to create the demand for advertised goods which is the intention of capitalist advertisers; the advertisers expectations are realized sufficiently that the results perpetuate the system of demand management. This degrades the audience into a submissive form of value for the mass media. [1]
Arguments Against the Audience Commodity
There are many scholars and theorists that disagree with Smythe's arguments and theories regarding the audience as a submissive commodity.
One of the leading critics of Smythe's work, Brett Caraway, points out the limitations of Smythe's interpretations and argues that Smythe's theory represents a one-sided class analysis which devalues working-class subjectivity; the surplus value generated by advertisers for the media owners disputes the notion that audiences are working for the advertisers. The audience activities are not under direct control of capitalists and the use value produced by the audience labor is not alienated from them. [2]
Caraway argues that these qualities are required under the Marxist mode of capitalist labor and are lacking within the audience commodity model, which means that the audience is not under the submissive control of capitalists in the form that the audience commodity places them under. [2]
Many other criticisms supporting Caraway argue based upon similar guidelines. Some suggest that network executives and advertisers discuss the buying and selling of audiences, which means that what is being sold is 'time', which in this view the audience does not exist as a commodity because it cannot be 'owned' by anyone.