Principles of Journalism

In 1997, an organization then administered by PEJ, the Committee of Concerned Journalists, began a national conversation among citizens and news people to identify and clarify the principles that underlie journalism. After four years of research, including 20 public forums around the country, a reading of journalism history, a national survey of journalists, and more, the group released a Statement of Shared Purpose that identified nine principles. These became the basis for The Elements of Journalism, the book by PEJ Director Tom Rosenstiel and CCJ Chairman and PEJ Senior Counselor Bill Kovach. Here are those principles, as outlined in the original Statement of Shared Purpose.



A Statement of Purpose
After extended examination by journalists themselves of the character of journalism at the end of the twentieth century, we offer this common understanding of what defines our work. The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society.

This encompasses myriad roles--helping define community, creating common language and common knowledge, identifying a community's goals, heros and villains, and pushing people beyond complacency. This purpose also involves other requirements, such as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to the voiceless.

Over time journalists have developed nine core principles to meet the task. They comprise what might be described as the theory of journalism:

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.



2. Its first loyalty is to citizens
While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization's credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business people in a news organization also must nurture--not exploit--their allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.



3. Its essence is a discipline of verification
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.



4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
Independence is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform--not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism.



5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power
Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.



6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.



7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.



8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics. This is best achieved by newsrooms with a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. The map is only an analogy; proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessen their significance.



9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience
Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility--a moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voice differences with our colleagues, whether in the newsroom or the executive suite. News organizations do well to nurture this independence by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. This stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.

Original Source

The Journalism of Assertion

Marshall McLuhan was wrong. If the medium really were the message, Americans would always elect the most able television communicator. Pat Buchanan would have beaten George Bush. Richard Nixon might have been commissioner of baseball but never president.

That, however, is not how America operates. In the fifty years since television became a force in politics, only two masters of the medium have been elected leader of the country -- Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy. Arguably, Bill Clinton might be a third. Buchanan's skills on television take him only so far. His ideas, while they energize some voters, alienate others. Much the same is true for another gifted communicator, Jesse Jackson. Citizens weigh countless factors in making their decisions, including ideology. The most clever ads often do not correlate into votes. The message, not the medium, is the message after all. No doubt the medium and the media shape what message are sent and how they are put together. But how, and how much? To what extent does the culture of news define our politics? The principle focus of this work is to examine the contours of the new media culture, which we call the Mixed Media Culture, and to explain its effect on contemporary political debate.

That task is made more difficult -- and more necessary -- because the culture of news is changing so rapidly. Journalism is in a state of disorientation brought on by rapid technological change, declining market share, and growing pressure to operate with economic efficiency. In a sometimes desperate search to reclaim audience, the press has moved more toward sensationalism, entertainment, and opinion. In only the last year, journalism has suffered a host of embarrassments over press ethics and still further declines in audience size and public confidence, and has engaged in new levels of self-examination. No event signals the changing norms as much as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that led to the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton. To that degree, this work will try to understand the new media culture through that event.

The ordeal of Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton, Kenneth Starr, and the impeachment trial they precipitated were part of a kind of cultural civil war in America in which the press plays a peculiarly important role. As a consequence, this work will also try to assess the role of the press in contributing to that growing conflict that has gripped politics over the last several decades. Finally, this work will attempt to offer some modest suggestions for how journalists might try to cope with this new Mixed Media Culture of news.

At least in its broadest outlines, the sex scandal involving Clinton was not unprecedented. In the summer of 1964, high-ranking law enforcement officials armed with secret tape transcripts made the rounds to selected journalists in Washington. The tapes had conclusive evidence that one of the nation's most respected and powerful political figures was cheating on his wife.

When the transcripts weren't enough, no less a figure than the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation got involved directly. J. Edgar Hoover invited some reporters to FBI headquarters to actually listen to the tapes themselves. There, you can hear it. He's having sex there. Out of wedlock. Adulterer.

The man caught on the tapes was controversial in his own right. A minister. A man who used the Bible in nearly every speech. A man whose primary tactic was to use guilt, morality, and an appeal to goodness as forces for persuasion. To Hoover, the hypocrisy was overwhelming; it was proof that Martin Luther King, Jr. could be considered a fraud and a hypocrite. This is precisely the kind of criticism of officials that journalists in the 1990s feel they are obliged to make.

Hoover's intent was to "expose" King, the FBI director said, to "disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize" the black leader.

Not one reporter wrote a story, even those friendly to Hoover and unfriendly to King. Evidence of the campaign against King and the direct use of the tapes did not emerge for nearly two decades.

How different would American history be had the press operated differently in 1964? It is impossible, of course, to place the behavior of a political figure from one period into the context of another period, or impose the judgments of one time on those of another. Perhaps King would have behaved differently.

But imagine Hoover sharing his tapes with professional Internet gossip Matt Drudge. How would CNN handle the leaked tapes if the network knew MSNBC was about to be given the same information? Would rumor of King's extramarital activities be "Issue One" on the McLaughlin Group? Or ferried into a debate on talk radio or Crossfire? What would the attorney general have done if a special prosecutor were investigating evidence Hoover was peddling of King connections with the Communist party, and King were asked under oath about adultery?

Harris Wofford, the former Pennsylvania senator who had known King since the early 1950s, first wrote about Hoover's efforts in 1980 in Of Kennedys and Kings. He believes that in the media culture of the 1990s, one of the most important Americans of the twentieth century would have been destroyed and American history would have been quite different.

Bill Clinton is not Martin Luther King, and Kenneth Starr is not J. Edgar Hoover. The King incident did not involve a lawsuit, a special prosecutor, or allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice. Nor was King an elected official. But the basic issue of what the press is willing to publish today compared with a generation ago is unmistakable. And no doubt it matters.

While the press may not tell people what to think, it gives them a list of things to think about. In so doing the news culture still shapes the lines of the political playing field and the context in which citizens define meaning for political events. The rules of the political and media culture alter not only how politics is conducted, but increasingly who participates, why, and the nature of what can be accomplished.

The Lewinsky story did not change everything in the American media culture. Instead, it represented a convergence of long-standing trends, which came together with the political culture and clarified in part the consequences of both.

To understand these changes, it is helpful to recognize what the Clinton scandal represented for the press: the moment when the new post-O.J. media culture turned its camera lens to a major political event for the first time. What do we mean by the post-O.J. media culture? It is a newly diversified mass media in which the cultures of entertainment, infotainment, argument, analysis, tabloid, and mainstream press not only work side by side but intermingle and merge. It is a culture in which Matt Drudge sits alongside William Safire on Meet the Press and Ted Koppel talks about the nuances of oral sex, in which Hard Copy and CBS News jostle for camera position outside the federal grand jury to hear from a special prosecutor.

Previous major political scandals such as Iran-Contra predated this merging of news cultures. Other recent incidents such as Gennifer Flowers were too fleeting to offer more than a glimpse of the new world of competition that batters down the very notion of journalist as gatekeeper. After Monica and Bill, the cultures were merged into one, not merely in the minds of a distracted public but in fact. NBC News owned MSNBC, which merged its own identity with the Clinton scandal. Its Meet the Press program turned Internet gossip pamphleteer Matt Drudge into a pundit, and Fox News made him into a TV show host. Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff covers the story for Newsweek and is under contract with MSNBC and NBC to offer punditry about it -- to the delight of his managers at Newsweek, which encourages reporters to become pundits and pays them for each radio and TV appearance. From NBC Nightly News to MSNBC's "The Crisis in The White House" to Dateline's infotainment as journalism to Matt Drudge -- the line is more blurred than the Mixed Media Culture likes to admit.

We will base our critique of the Mixed Media Culture on a variety of work we conducted throughout 1998 in our positions as chairman and vice chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a group of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, and educators concerned about the direction of the craft. This work included three major content studies of the Clinton scandal coverage, as well as three public forums we sponsored involving key journalists who covered the story. We will also draw on numerous interviews we conducted throughout the year with journalists inside and outside of Washington.

We will argue that in the new Mixed Media Culture the classic function of journalism to sort out a true and reliable account of the day's events is being undermined. It is being displaced by the continuous news cycle, the growing power of sources over reporters, varying standards of journalism, and a fascination with inexpensive, polarizing argument. The press is also increasingly fixated on finding the "big story" that will temporarily reassemble the now-fragmented mass audience. Yet these same characteristics are only serving to deepen the disconnection with citizens, diminish the press's ability to serve as a cohesive cultural force, and weaken the public's tether to a true account of the news. The long-term implications for the role the Founders saw as most important for the press -- that of being a forum for public debate and as such a catalyst for problem solving -- is being eroded.

The way in which the new Mixed Media Culture has diluted the stream of accurate and reliable information with innuendo and pseudofacts had an impact on the Clinton scandal. It partly explains why the impeachment left so many Americans estranged, as if it were a TV show rather than a political crisis. The notion that author Daniel Boorstin introduced in The Image in 1961, in which what was true was becoming less important than what one could make seem true, had thoroughly saturated the political culture by the late 1990s. Politicians had created an environment in which lying became respectable by calling it spin. They invented "doctors" to administer it. The effect was acute. Pointing out one of the principal differences between the Watergate scandal and the Clinton scandal, journalist Benjamin C. Bradlee observed, "People lie now in a way that they never lied before -- and the ease with which they lie, the total ease.... People expect no consequences .... This word spinning... is a nice uptown way of saying lying." That was at the heart of the disconnect of the Clinton impeachment: a political establishment that had so perfected and celebrated dissembling lacked the authority with the public to evince outrage and try to convict someone for lying. The irony of it was manifestly plain to most Americans, but it was largely missed inside Washington.

During the Clinton scandal, the press, the group with the biggest stake in maintaining the integrity of facts and accuracy, further succumbed to the ethos of pseudofacts. The Mixed Media now elevate to the status of celebrities, and in some cases embrace as journalists, the same spin doctors and dissemblers -- people like George Stephanopoulos or Tony Blankley -- once paid to manipulate them. They create pseudoexperts, people who look good but have limited expertise, to appear on their talk shows. They create news networks without reporters, relying instead on argument to pass as journalism. In the process, the Mixed Media Culture contributes to the blending of fact and assertion, real events and pseudoevents, news and entertainment -- what journalist Richard Reeves has called "the Oliver Stoning of America."

The new Mixed Media Culture has five main characteristics:

1. A Never-Ending News Cycle Makes Journalism Less Complete: In the continuous news cycle, the press is increasingly oriented toward ferrying allegations rather than first ferreting out the truth. Stories often come as piecemeal bits of evidence, accusation, or speculation -- to be filled in and sorted out in public as the day progresses. The initiating charge is quickly aired. Then journalists vamp and speculate until the response is issued. The demand of keeping up with and airing the to and fro leaves journalists with less time to take stock and sort out beforehand what is genuinely significant. Ironically, it means the news is delivered less completely. This gives the reporting a more chaotic, unsettled, and even numbing quality. It can make tuning in to the news seem inefficient. It also makes it more difficult to separate fact from spin, argument, or innuendo, and makes the culture significantly more susceptible to manipulation.

2. Sources Are Gaining Power Over Journalists: The move toward allegation over verification is compounded by a shift in the power relationship toward the sources of information and away from the news organizations who cover them. Sources increasingly dictate the terms of the interaction and the conditions and time frame in which information is used, and set the ground rules for their anonymity. They shop stories from outlet to outlet, striking bargains to their own best advantage, whether it is a celebrity trying to promote a new movie or a leaker negotiating which newspaper or prime time magazine to give the interview to. This shift in leverage toward those who would manipulate the press is partly a function of intensifying economic competition among a proliferating number of news outlets -- a matter of a rising demand for news product and a limited supply of news makers. It is also a function of the growing sophistication in the art of media manipulation.

3. There Are No More Gatekeepers: The proliferation of outlets diminishes the authority of any one outlet to play a gatekeeper role over the information it publishes. One of the key features of the Mixed Media Culture is that the press is now marked by a much wider range of standards of what is publishable and what is not. On one hand, journalism is richer, more democratic, more innovative, and, given the possibility of narrower targeting of audiences, has the potential of becoming closer to its audience. On the other hand, the loss of market share, fragmentation of revenue, and disorientation has meant an abandonment of professional standards and ethics. Information is moving so fast, news outlets are caught between trying to gather the information for citizens and interpreting what others have delivered ahead of them. In practice, the lowest standards tend to drive out the higher, creating a kind of Gresham's Law of Journalism. What does the news organization that requires high levels of substantiation do with the reports of those with lesser levels of proof?

4. Argument Is Overwhelming Reporting: The reporting culture (which rewards gathering and verifying information) is being increasingly overrun by what Deborah Tannen has called the "argument culture," which devalues the science of verification. The information revolution is a prime force behind the rise of the argument culture. Many of the new media outlets are engaged in commenting on information rather than gathering it. The rise of twenty-four-hour news stations and Internet news and information sites has placed demands on the press to "have something" to fill the time. The economics of these new media, indeed, demand that this product be produced as cheaply as possible. Commentary, chat, speculation, opinion, argument, controversy, and punditry cost far less than assembling a team of reporters, producers, fact checkers, and editors to cover the far-flung corners of the world. Whole new news organizations such as MSNBC are being built around such chatter, creating a new medium of talk radio TV.

5. The "Blockbuster Mentality": As the audience for news fragments, outlets such as network television that depend on a mass audience are increasingly interested in stories that temporarily reassemble the mass media audience. These big stories might be analogous to a hit movie or song that crosses over traditional audience divisions, and their appeal creates a "Summer Blockbuster" mentality in the media. These blockbusters tend to be formulaic stories that involve celebrity, scandal, sex, and downfall, be it O.J., Diana, or Monicagate. Part of their appeal to news organizations is it is cheaper and easier to reassemble the audience with the big story than by covering the globe and presenting a diversified menu of news.

These new characteristics of the Mixed Media Culture are creating what we call a new journalism of assertion, which is less interested in substantiating whether something is true and more interested in getting it into the public discussion. The journalism of assertion contributes to the press being a conduit of politics as cultural civil war. The combatants in that war can employ the piecemeal nature of news and the weakened leverage of the gatekeepers to exploit the varying standards of different news organizations. These combatants also flourish amid the growing reliance on polarized argument. The role the press has played in the fight over values is not new. Television is well suited to symbolic, polarizing issues. And the growing heterogeneity of the press, while it more accurately reflects the diverse interests of the audience, makes it difficult for the press to find cultural common ground.

The solution, to the extent that one can be identified, is not in trying to enforce a lost homogeneity on journalism. Rather, it is in individual news organizations becoming more clear-headed and courageous about what their own purpose and standards are, and then sticking to them.

Those who fare best in this new culture, at least in classic journalistic terms, are those who do their own research. These news outlets are governed by their own internal standards because they are having to make their own judgments about when a story is verified, what is true, and what is relevant. They are less susceptible to repeating others' mistakes, and they are most careful about accuracy because they bear sole and original responsibility.

Increasingly, news organizations will be forced to distinguish themselves not by the speed and accuracy of their reporting, their depth, or even the quality of their interpretation. The perpetual news cycle will synthesize virtually all news reporting and interpretation into a kind of blended mix. Scoops remain exclusive for only a matter of seconds. Instead, news organizations will have to distinguish and establish their brand by the values and standards they bring to the news. When and how do they use anonymous sources? Will they publish charges they cannot substantiate simply because others have? When is someone's private life publicly relevant? This means news organizations should do more to think through in advance what their news values and policies are on a variety of key journalistic matters. And as newspapers did a century ago, in a time of similar intense competition, they will do well to articulate and market themselves to the public according to those values.

Whether traditional news values -- such as verification, proportion, and relevance -- survive depends ultimately on whether they matter to the public. News outlets that aspire to high standards on such matters as proof of accuracy and proportionality distinguish themselves by more than self-censorship. They offer the public reliability and save people time. In a world with growing choices, and one where the depth of information is potentially infinite for every user, the highest value may be given to the source whose information is most accurate, most dependable, and most efficient to use.

In the end, the importance of having an accurate, reliable account of events is profound. "Public as well as private reason depends on it," Walter Lippmann noted eighty years ago. "Not what somebody says, not what somebody wishes were true, but what is so, beyond all our opinion, constitutes the touchstone of our sanity."

The question before us now is whether the search for what is so, the journalism of verification, will be soon overwhelmed by the new journalism of assertion.

From America in the Age of Mixed Media - Chapter 1
Find Detail (CLICK HERE)

Globalization, Mass Media and Cultural Intrusion: Nepali Perspective

– Nirmala Mani Adhikary

Globalization has become a unidirectional gateway to American and Indian mass media entering Nepal. The flow of information from super-power United States and regional-power India to Nepal is contributing to impose foreign values and for cultural invasion over Nepal.

The impact of globalization on Nepalese society could be analyzed with regards to diverse fields such as culture, economy, politics, policies, media, etc. In general, this essay is confined to analyze the role of mass media as the means of making Nepal the target of 'cultural globalization.' In particular, it is focused to analyze the role of the mass media of super-power United States and regional-power India for cultural invasion over Nepal. The connection between international power relations and the media in the process of globalization has been considered here.

Globalization: unidirectional gateway

Globalization has been defined as "the 'name' that is often used to designate the power relations, practices and technologies that characterize, and have helped bring into being, the contemporary world" (Schirato and Webb 1). Apart from economical and technological aspect, the term has been widened to include "broader cultural, political and environmental dimensions" (IMF 2) as well. Even there is claim that "it has become a new religion of both modern and post-modern societies on this planet" (Bhattachan 81). There seems no hard and fast rule or any widely accepted recipe to define the term. Some view the meaning of globalization as "less than precise" (Schirato and Webb 1) and, for others, "there is nothing mysterious about globalization" and it has extended "beyond national borders" (IMF 2).

Whether one likes or dislikes the phenomenon, "it seems everyone has a stake in its meaning, and is affected by its discourses and practices" (Schirato and Webb 2). It is true in case of Nepal too, especially after the restoration of democracy in 1990. "The democratically elected governments of Nepal since 1990 also encouraged the process of globalization" (Dahal 56). The present condition, as one Nepalese sociologist observes, is such that "the fever of 'globalization' has caught up Nepalese policy makers, planners, political leaders, intellectuals, academia, media people, and layman alike" (Bhattachan 80).

Just like in the case of defining globalization there are contrasting views regarding the impact as well. Both the views, globalization as a process that is being considered beneficial, inevitable and irreversible vis-à-vis being regarded "with hostility, even fear, believing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens employment and living standards and thwarts social progress" (IMF 1), have been recognized. From Nepalese point of view, "Globalization is taking place not on terms of equality of nations, but is based on relations of dominance of a few and the subordination of the many" (Acharya 26). It has been observed as 'monopoly' that is manifested "in terms of the market economy wedded with liberal democracy, high-technology and media revolution" (Bhattachan 81). Even straightly, "the universal process of globalization" is "commonly understood in Nepal as 'Americanization' or 'Westernization' (imposition or adoption of Western culture, values and life style eroding the indigenous ones)" (Dahal 57).
The issue of 'monopoly' in the context of media has direct concern with the doctrine of 'free flow of information.' "Developed by the United States and other Western nations after World War II," the doctrine has been considered by supporters as "a means of promoting peace and understanding and spreading technical advances" (MacBride and Roach 287). The critics have recognized as accompanying "the international expansion of American power" and complementing "the related doctrine of the free flow of capital, commodities, and resources" (Mattelart and Mattelart 156-157). The doctrine has been even severely criticized, "Free flow is like a free fox among free chickens" (Schirato and Webb 176).
In such scenario, 'free flow of information' obviously becomes the 'mantra-at-the-ready' in the hands of powerful nations in order to dominate others. The communication flow, as some critics claim, "is one way, from the powerful nations to the weaker ones" (Vivian 425). In case of Nepal, the flow of information from different sources should be considered. The mass media of United States as well as of India have got entrance through the gateway of globalization, which is not bi-directional from the Nepalese point of view.

International power relations and media

The mass media play a crucial role in almost all aspects of daily life in these days. Because mass media could far exceed the reach of any previous interpersonal communication they are capable of instantaneously connecting virtually every human being. In 'global village', as Marshall McLuhan would term contemporary world, media are the largest focus of leisure time interest, providing the shared 'cultural environment' for most people and more so than any other single institution. They have been considered as the driving forces behind the cultural globalization.
Since the world is believed on the process of 'cultural globalization' with the media as the driving forces, a question of politics immediately raises. It is not simply a question of unequal distribution that some countries having more access to and control over media. It is that whether such access and control of some countries can undermine others' culture. The most fundamental question of society, concerning the distribution and exercise of power, turn on the understanding of the connection between international power relations and the media.
In "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream", Chomsky discusses that different media are doing different things, and argues that the 'elite' or 'agenda-setting' media (of US) are setting "a framework within which others operate." He observes that framework as "a reflection of obvious power structures." (Chomsky 20) In other words, "world patterns of communication flow, both in destiny and in direction, mirror the system of domination in the economic and political order." (Sinclair et al. 301) As Chomsky observes, no one, trying to break the mold, is going to last long. He further argues that the product of media won't be without the interest of the power systems around them. "If that wouldn't happen, it would be a kind of miracle." (Chomsky 22)
It is understandable, in this light, why most of the media would have a vested interest in the Capitalist system and would be inclined to give support to its most obvious defenders. It is not unlikely to assume the international media as the carriers of powerful nations' culture. Though it is debatable how much they would be successful actually to influence the audience it is clear that international media, at least, lead the world in their transportability across cultural boundaries. With reference to the "framework" observed by Chomsky, there is substantive ground to believe that American as well as Indian media have their obvious cause to support the 'monopoly' or 'power relations.'

Cultural imperialism paradigm:

The mass media constitute a primary source of definitions and images of social reality and the most ubiquitous expression of shared identity. The reality we confront these days is, in fact, "mediated" reality. Since the sociological significance of media extends beyond the content of media messages their influence is not limited to what we know. They are the domains where "the central problem of today's global interactions" that is "the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization" (Appadurai 324) has to be dealt. So there are differing views with respect to the question of a global culture.
Herbert Schiller, in Mass Communications and American Empire, has criticized the Western-controlled international mass media preempting native culture, a situation he sees as robbery, just like the earlier colonial tapping of natural resources to enrich the colonizers. He argues that the one-way communication flow is especially insidious (Vivian 425). Schiller, while analyzing the connection between international power relations and the media, propounds the thesis of cultural imperialism, or more particularly media imperialism.
Those who believe the concept of cultural homogenization would argue the phenomenon acting "as a universal solvent that will dissolve all cultural differences in a dull and colorless homogeneity throughout the world" (Lechner and Boli 283). Such line of thought would see information technology being used as "the tool to displace indigenous cultures for the benefit of global popular culture" (Subba and Uprety 144). However, there is another strand of the cultural globalization debate, which has the idea of cultural hybridization, that is, "the blending of foreign and local to make a new form" (Schirato and Webb 156).
Cultural imperialism paradigm has been dismissed by some critics as "a simplistic application of the now-discredited hypodermic needle model of mass communication" and some others like to see the phenomenon as "simply internationalism brought on by the ever more sophisticated media of mass communication" (Vivian 427). Sinclair, Jacka and Cunningham see the cultural imperialism discourse having serious inadequacies, both as theory and in terms of reality that the theory purported to explain. For them, the thesis was "based on quite incorrect assumption." They argue, "Actual transformation of the world television system made it less and less sustainable on the empirical level, and shifting theoretical paradigms, including postmodernism, postcolonialism, and theories of the 'active' audience, made its conceptual foundations less secure." Rather, "a trend toward greater regional exchanges" has been observed. (Sinclair et al. 302)
Lets take their claims of technology transfer and greater regional exchanges one by one. First, if we talk from technological aspect, there is nothing to deny that it is easier than ever to communicate because of technology. But it will be more difficult to societies like ours because one lacking technology or money to purchase or develop local technology be at a distinct disadvantage in global communication. Electronic colonialism, the dependency relationship established by the importation of technology, foreign produced software, along with engineers, technicians in short, and the wherewithal to direct and manage information resources, creates a real dilemma. It upsets natural, evolutionary development and socialization process. Clearly, Nepal is not in such a position to expect free flow of information truly and "domestic channels ... can neither thwart the invasion of airwaves, nor can they compete with them" (Subba and Uprety 144).

Second, even if there would be a trend toward greater regional exchanges, countries like Nepal would not be on safer side. Rather, there would be two fronts of the battle. The cultural invasion would be from world centers as well as regional centers. The regional centers would not be less worrisome because "for polities of smaller scale, there is always a fear of cultural absorption by polities of larger scale, especially those that are nearby" (Appadurai 324). Then, it is not the case of cultural imperialism paradigm being irrelevant; rather there is indication of the situation being more complex. Nepal's complaint today is not solely about cultural imperialism from United States but from India (and other places like Hong Kong) as well. Thus "the sword is a double-edged one with both Indian and global players effectively pushing the native traditions to the corner" (Subba and Uprety 145). Such situation does not deny cultural imperialism paradigm, rather it explores the need of multidimensional approach to the paradigm.
However, they have yet another point to criticize, "the cultural imperialism critique neglected the internal historical and social dynamics within the countries susceptible to their influence" (Sinclair et al. 303). Ideally, countries like Nepal, who are inheritor of civilization of millenniums history, should be capable of overcoming any cultural intrusion.

Cultural invasion by foreign media:

Three major conclusions could be drawn from above discussions. First, globalization has failed to rescue the 'free flow of information' being misused by powerful nations as mere curtail to hide their dominance. Thus the process has become unidirectional gateway to American and Indian mass media entering Nepal. Second, the connection between international power relations and the media is in such a way that international mass media, specifically American and Indian here, won't be free from the interest of the power systems around them. Third, the cultural imperialism paradigm propounded by Schiller is still relevant for analyzing Nepal's situation.
Now, it is to be analyzed whether the flow of information through American and Indian mass media is contributing to impose foreign values and for cultural invasion over Nepal. Clearly, this is the scope of mass media research, which is relatively new discipline in Nepal. The issue of foreign media's impact is even in less priority. Even one of the most significant and extensive researches done in Nepal, Mass Media and Democratization: A Country Study on Nepal (IIDS, 1996), did not incorporate the issue. However, the issue of cultural invasion from both Hollywood, or the West, and Bollywood, or India, has been matter of discourse.
Bhattachan has alleged globalization for promoting the 'West is the best' psyche and thereby contributing for "the rapid destruction of indigenous cultural systems through the process of homogenization." To prove that "the impact has been more intense and deep" he presents an example of Thakali youths speaking "English fluently but not their own mother tongue." Claims even extend to the extent that looking down upon their own traditional norms and values is common among those Nepalese "who have come in contact with Western norms and values through various media." (Bhattachan 89)
In one instance, Nepalese youth of Khumbu has been observed taking Terminator as his best film and Arnold Schwartzneger as his role model (Luger 41). Liechty has identified a new group of youth as 'teenagers' whom locals have not only perceived "with tastes in imported, Western 'English' music" and not going "for the (Nepali) folk songs" but also as "disobedient, likely to take drugs" and viewing 'blue' (pornographic) film (Liechty 180-181). Such emergence of "a category of antisocial, vulgar and potentially violent young males" (Liechty 182) is, perhaps, one of the most shocking impacts of globalization experienced by Nepalese society.
Taking foreign mass media as the primary source of definitions and images of social reality has contributed in shifting the entire value system of some people:
"These Nepalese people are discovering that individualism is good but communitarianism is bad; that Christianity is good but animism, Bon, Lamaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are bad; drinking local beer (chyang and tongba) is bad but drinking Western beer is good; that riding car is good but walking/trekking is bad; and drinking water is bad but drinking Coca Cola is good." (Bhattachan 89-90)
One research conducted in 2003 revealed that Indian (Hindi) channels were Nepalese women's first choice for entertainment. Star Plus alone was the choice of 31.75% respondents. While they used to watch Nepal Television for one and half to two hours in a day, the time spent for watching Indian television was three-four hours daily. Hindi tele-serials were the most favored programs among the respondents except the newscast by Nepal Television at 8 pm (Asmita 27). The popularity of Kasauti Jindagi Ki, a tele-serial aired through Star Plus was found so popular that 64% respondents were watching it regularly. Kyon Ki Sas Bhi Kabhi Bahoo Thi (47.25%), Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki (47%) and Kahin Kisi Roj (37.75%) were also found very popular (Asmita 31-33).

Those serials were presenting extra-marital relations in one or another form, which 50.25% respondents had never seen and 28.5% respondents had seen rarely in Nepalese society. However, 36.5% respondents said that it was the 'story' because of which they like the serials. Thus they were fond of such affairs even being aware that extra-marital affairs were seen perverted in Nepalese society. As many as 15.25% respondents even admitted that television watching for them was like an addiction (Asmita 38-39). The research revealed the paradox that Jagriti, aired through Nepal Television, was 'most-admired' program but the respondents even preferred watching Hindi serials if they would be aired at the same time (Asmita 54).
Vinay Thakur, 38, a hairdresser at Bagbazar in Kathmandu, has considerable examples regarding the influence of Hindi movies and television shows. During an interview, he claimed that nearly all of his male customers use to ask him to make hairstyle just like a particular film star like Hritik Roshan, John Abraham, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, etc. Contrastingly, his female customers are willing to imitate the stars of Hindi tele-serials rather than heroines of Hindi movies. He memorized no customer willing to imitate hairstyle of Nepalese film star, with an exception of Rajesh Hamal whose influence he had experienced some years ago.
Apart from Bollywood stars, Vinaya mentioned Hollywood stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet as another 'role model' of his customers. It was immediately after the success of Titanic movie. Such experiences can be associated with the Indian experience after introduction of Star TV carrying "lots of U.S.-originated programming" and the impact has been observed, "many Indians now dress like the Americans they see on 'Baywatch'" (Vivian 426) "I have to be watching movies. Otherwise, how I could be up-to-dated about newer hairstyles?" Vinaya admitted, "I don't understand English at all. But I have to (watch the movie)."
Lok Ratna Chitrakar, 29, clothes merchant by profession since generations, has experienced the media induced cultural globalization himself. According to Lok Ratna, he started to help his father when he was about 11. He remembers persuading his father to add new items such as pieces of Kurta-Salwar, typically popularized with the process of what he terms 'Indianization' during those days. Previously, they used to sell traditional Nepalese clothes including Hakupatasi, Gunyu-Cholo, Daura-Suruwal, etc. When he fully took the charge of the business at 19, he decided to sell jeans wears mainly. He had shifted his shop to New Road. With the change in 'trend', last year he withdrew jeans wear and opened a John Player's showroom. He has put a hoarding board outside the showroom with Hritik Roshan as the model. He has been just trying to cope with the shift in customers' clothes preference, Lok Ratna maintains. He considers media behind the shifts in clothes preference, "You know, when Rangeela movie was a hit, I sold hundreds of Rangeela cap."
The foreign media do not influence just in direct ways. Their insidious influence comes indirectly too. For instance, number of Nepalese movies has been identified as mere copy of Bollywood movies. Many of the programs aired through commercial FM stations hardly heard 'Nepali' though they are produced in Nepal. When Mahashivaratri and Valentines' day happened on the same day, "majority of RJs of commercial FM radios including Kantipur FM and Hits FM completely ignored Mahashivaratri" (Nirmal). The shift in cultural identity, at least those who claim being 'modern' is evident.
For critics, such evidence reveals the lack of guidelines for safeguarding national culture, and thereby putting the national security in danger:
"If a nation state's identity and its means of survival are determined by its traditions and culture, then Nepal has a lot to do before it can grapple with the prevailing situation. The irony is that a nation-state like Nepal depends heavily on their unique culture traditions to sustain their distinct identity. This is their first line of defense, so to say. Once their identity is undermined, their long-term chances for survival become scarce, because other forms of their defense mechanism are even less developed." (Subba and Uprety 144-145)

Conclusion:

The doctrine of 'free flow of information' seems becoming mere an instrument of domination in the hands of powerful nations. As the consequence, foreign media's influence as exporters of foreign culture is going on unobtrusively. Because media have their obvious cause to support the 'monopoly' or 'power relations' there seems sufficient ground that they tend to impose 'cultural homogenization.' American and Indian media could not be exception. As empirical evidences show, globalization has become a gateway to Western and Indian mass media to impose foreign values and for cultural invasion over Nepal. This has brought urgency to policies specifically designed to deal cultural globalization through mass media because the condition will remain so until Nepal could not utilize the gateway for two-way flow.



Works Cited:
Acharya, Meena. "Globalization Process and the Nepalese Economy." Impact of Globalization in Nepal. Ed. Madan K. Dahal. Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES, 2005. 26-47.
Appadurai, Arjun. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy." The Globalization Reader. Eds. Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 322-330.
Asmita Mahila Prakashan Griha. Nepali Mahilaharuma Televisionko Prabhav. Kathmandu, 2003.
Bhattachan, Krishna B. "Globalization and Its Impact on Nepalese Society and Culture." Impact of Globalization in Nepal. Ed. Madan K. Dahal. Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES, 2005. 80-102.
Chomsky, Noam. "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream." You Are Being Lied To. Ed. Russ Kikc. New York: Disinformation, 2001. 20-24.
Dahal, Ram K. "Impact of Globalization on Nepalese Polity." Impact of Globalization in Nepal. Ed. Madan K. Dahal. Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES, 2005. 48-79.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). "Globalization: Threat or Opportunity." http://www.imf.org/external/np/exer/ib/2000/041200.htm accessed on August 7, 2006.
Lechner, Frank J. and John Boli (Eds). The Globalization Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Liechty, Mark. "Youth Identities and the Experience of Modernity in Kathmandu, Nepal." Youth Cultures A Cross-cultural Perspective. Eds. Vered Amit-Talai and Helena Wulff. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Luger, Kurt. Kids of Khumbu. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 2000.
Mattelart, Armand and Michele Mattelart. Rethinking Media Theory: Signposts and New Directions. Trans. James A. Cohen and Marina Urquindi. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
MacBride, Sean and Colleen Roach. "The New International Information Order." The Globalization Reader. Eds. Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 286-292.
Nirmal, Aayod Dhaumya. "Parampara Ra Parivartanko Dosandhma Mahashivaratri." Space Time Daily. Kathmandu, Falgun 25, 2058 B.S.
Schirato, Tony and Jean Webb. Understanding Globalization. London: SAGE, 2003.
Sinclair, John, Elizabeth Jacka, and Stuart Cunningham. "Peripheral Vision." The Globalization Reader. Eds. Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 301-306.
Subba, Phanindra and Hari Uprety. "Impact of Globalization: How to Resolve the Nepalese Security Dilemma." Impact of Globalization in Nepal. Ed. Madan K. Dahal. Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES, 2005. 124-152.
Vivian, John. The Media of Mass Communication (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.

News is the vehicle of hidden ideology of power centers

The mass media play a crucial role in almost all aspects of daily life in contemporary human society. They constitute a primary source of definitions and images of social reality and the expression of shared identity. The reality we confront these days is, in fact, "mediated" reality. News is one of the most significant sources in this regard.


While we assess the dissemination of news in the context of global information flow "the amount of news reaching us from various parts of the world is strongly dependent on a few basic variables, the most important ones being the economic relations prevailing between countries" (Rosengren,234). Putting straightly, the US hegemony prevails.

More specifically, "Much of the impetus behind the recent globalization has been commercial and American. Nowhere has this been more strikingly evident than in the 24-hour news field, which is dominated by Ted Turner's CNN at present. Though such an operation has a global reach, its heart is in Atlanta, Georgia. Its programming tends to be stamped with a particular editorial standpoint and a certain way of exploring issues, events, and the actors involved in them" (Blumler and Hoffmann-Reim 207).
The most fundamental question of society, concerning the distribution and exercise of power, turn on the understanding of the connection between international power relations and the media. In "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream", Chomsky discusses that different media are doing different things, and argues that the 'elite' or 'agenda-setting' media (of US) are setting "a framework within which others operate." He observes that framework as "a reflection of obvious power structures." (Chomsky 20) In other words, "world patterns of communication flow, both in destiny and in direction, mirror the system of domination in the economic and political order." (Sinclair et al. 301) As Chomsky observes, no one, trying to break the mold, is going to last long. He further argues that the product of media won't be without the interest of the power systems around them. "If that wouldn't happen, it would be a kind of miracle" (Chomsky 22). Thus, the news flow must not be considered a value neutral process. Rather, news becomes the vehicle of hidden ideology of power centers.


It is understandable, in this light, why most of the media would have a vested interest in the Capitalist system and would be inclined to give support to its most obvious defenders. It is not unlikely to assume the international media as the carriers of powerful nations' culture and ideology. Though it is debatable how much they would be successful actually to influence the audience it is clear that international media, at least, lead the world in their transportability across cultural boundaries. With reference to the "framework" observed by Chomsky, there is substantive ground to believe that American media have their obvious cause to support the 'monopoly' or 'power relations.'

Even "the much trumpeted British Broadcasting Corporation may have the freedom to broadcast whatever it thinks to be the truth about al-Qaeda or Middle East, India or Pakistan, Maoist insurgency in Nepal, but where British interests and security are concerned, it cannot have that freedom" (Adhikary, Communication, Mass Media and Journalism 240). In the context of Gulf war, the American and British media have been criticized for retelling what Washington and London wanted the people to hear about the crisis. "When the war did bread out, the media latched on ever more tightly to coat tails of the high profile western media, like CNN, which was increasingly dominated by the most crude war propaganda. During that time, President Bush signed three secret executive orders that put America's media under U.S. intelligence agency wartime control. The purpose of this control was to demoralize the Iraqis with false reports and promote fervor for the war in the U.S. So did the American media. During Afghanistan war, both U.S. army and American media fought jointly."(241).
Having more access to and control over media has far reaching consequences. This situation is more difficult to societies like ours because one lacking technology or money to purchase or develop local technology be at a distinct disadvantage in global communication. Electronic colonialism, the dependency relationship established by the importation of technology, foreign produced software, along with engineers, technicians in short, and the wherewithal to direct and manage information resources, creates a real problem (Adhikary "Electronic Imperialism").


The foreign media do not influence just in direct ways. Their insidious influence comes indirectly too. Taking foreign mass media as the primary source of definitions and images of social reality has contributed in shifting the entire value system of some people: "These Nepalese people are discovering that individualism is good but communitarianism is bad; that Christianity is good but animism, Bon, Lamaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are bad; drinking local beer (chyang and tongba) is bad but drinking Western beer is good; that riding car is good but walking/ trekking is bad; and drinking water is bad but drinking Coca Cola is good" (Bhattachan 89-90).
The doctrine of 'free flow of information' seems becoming mere an instrument of domination in the hands of powerful nations. As the consequence, foreign media's influence as exporters of foreign culture is going on unobtrusively. Because media have their obvious cause to support the 'monopoly' or 'power relations' there seems sufficient ground that they tend to impose 'cultural homogenization.' American hegemonic flow of news is perhaps one of most significant evidences.

Two major conclusions could be drawn from above discussions. First, global information flow system has failed to rescue the 'free flow of information' being misused by powerful nations as mere curtail to hide their dominance. Thus the process has become unidirectional gateway to certain mass media, for instance American and Indian media entering Nepal. Second, the connection between international power relations and the media is in such a way that international mass media, specifically American here, won't be free from the interest of the power systems around them. Hence they serve as the vehicle of hidden ideology of the US power.


References:

Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. Communication, Mass Media and Journalism (2nd ed). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar, 2006.
Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. "Electronic Imperialism." Space Time Today 2 December 2002.
Bhattachan, Krishna B. "Globalization and Its Impact on Nepalese Society and Culture." Impact of Globalization in Nepal. Ed. Madan K. Dahal. Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES, 2005. 80-102.
Blumler, Jay G. and Wolfgang Hoffmann-Reim. "New Roles for Public Service Television." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. London: SAGE, 2002. 201-210.
Chomsky, Noam. "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream." You Are Being Lied To. Ed. Russ Kick. New York: Disinformation, 2001. 20-24.
Rosengren, Karl Erik. "International Communication at the Mass Media Level." McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Ed. Denis McQuail. London: SAGE, 2002. 231-237.
Sinclair, John, Elizabeth Jacka, and Stuart Cunningham. "Peripheral Vision." The Globalization Reader. Eds. Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 301-306.

Stuart Hall on the Eye of Daniel Chandler

Stuart Hall, now Professor of Sociology at the Open University, was a major figure in the revival of the British political Left in the 1960s and '70s. Following Althusser, he argues that the media appear to reflect reality whilst in fact they construct it.

Janet Woollacott (1982: 108-110) offers a useful critique of Policing the Crisis, a key work by Stuart Hall et al.(1978). The work reflects an analysis of the signifying practices of the mass media from the perspective of Marxist culturalist theory inflected through Gramsci's theory of hegemony, and 'an Althusserian conception of the media as an ideological state apparatus largely concerned with the reproduction of dominant ideologies', claiming relative autonomy for the mass media. For Hall et al. the mass media do tend to reproduce interpretations which serve the interests of the ruling class, but they are also 'a field of ideological struggle'. The media signification system is seen as relatively autonomous. 'The news' performs a crucial role in defining events, although this is seen as secondary to the primary definers: accredited sources in government and other institutions. The media also serve 'to reinforce a consensual viewpoint by using public idioms and by claiming to voice public opinion'.Stuart Hall has also addressed theoretically the issue of how people make sense of media texts. He parts from Althusser in emphasizing more scope for diversity of response to media texts. In a key paper, 'Encoding/Decoding', Stuart Hall (1980), argued that the dominant ideology is typically inscribed as the 'preferred reading' in a media text, but that this is not automatically adopted by readers. The social situations of readers/viewers/listeners may lead them to adopt different stances. 'Dominant' readings are produced by those whose social situation favours the preferred reading; 'negotiated' readings are produced by those who inflect the preferred reading to take account of their social position; and 'oppositional' readings are produced by those whose social position puts them into direct conflict with the preferred reading. Hall insists that there remain limits to interpretation: meaning cannot be simply 'private' and 'individual'.


Hall's emphasis on ideology has been criticized for being at the expense of the importance of ownership and control.

Base and superstructure

Economism (also called 'vulgar Marxism') is a key feature of 'classical Marxism' (orthodox or fundamentalist Marxism). In economism, the economic base of society is seen as determining everything else in the superstructure, including social, political and intellectual consciousness. Theories positing economic relations as the basic cause of social phenomena are also called materialist theories, and Marx's version is also known as 'historical materialism'. Economism is related to technological determinism. Marx is often interpreted as a technological determinist on the basis of such isolated quotations as: 'The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord: the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist' ('The Poverty of Philosophy', 1847).

Mass media research in this fundamentalist tradition interprets the 'culture industries' in terms of their economic determination. According to this view, 'the contents of the media and the meanings carried by their messages are... primarily determined by the economic base of the organizations in which they are produced' (Curran et al. 1982: 18). Consequently, 'commercial media organizations must cater to the needs of advertisers and produce audience-maximizing products (hence the heavy doses of sex-and-violence content) while those media institutions whose revenues are controlled by the dominant political institutions or by the state gravitate towards a middle ground, or towards the heartland of the prevailing consensus' (ibid.). Marxists of the 'political economy' variety (such as Graham Murdock) still see ideology as subordinate to the economic base. The base/superstructure model as applied to the mass media is associated with a concern with the ownership and control of the media.

Critics regard economism as reductionist, failing to account for diversity. Althusserian Marxists propose 'the relative autonomy of the superstructure with respect to the base... [and] the reciprocal action of the superstructure on the base' (Althusser, cited in Lapsley & Westlake 1988: 5; my emphasis). According to this view ideological practices such as the mass media are relatively autonomous from economic determination (see Stevenson 1995: 15-16). The notion of 'relative autonomy' has been subject to criticism (e.g. by Paul Hirst in 1977: see Lapsley & Westlake 1988: 13-14; Curran et al. 1982: 25).

Under the influence of Althusser, Stuart Hall and other 'culturalist' Marxists reject the base/superstructure formulation, arguing that there is a dialectic between what Marx termed 'social being' and 'social consciousness' (Curran et al. 1982: 27).

From – Marxist Media Theory By Daniel Chandler