Television/ consumer society: Media 1920-2010

At the start of the 1920s, the availability of technology such as the radio was dependant on meeting the ‘necessary conditions’ model making it viable as a consumer product. The three parts of the ‘necessary conditions’ model (in this case, for the radio) are: Technology, and the affordability of radio sets; Demographics, having reduced costs experiences a boost to profitability of American media; Law and regulation. In the UK, the BBC was able to keep a monopoly on broadcasting rights up until the 1970s (resulting in pirate radio, most notably depicted for my generation, in the fun-time film “The Boat that Rocked.” and who says I’m not familiar with popular culture).

It is interesting to note the different paths that radio took in the UK and USA. Since the BBC had such a death grip over the airwaves of Britain, and since the BBC only dealt with “up market” content (wouldn’t want one to sully oneself now would we?) the newspapers were left alone with the popular agenda. This meant that there was no competition between the two forms of media. In the States however, there was no such monopoly as the BBC and as a result the radio was much more commercial. This resulted in the two medias competing with each other and since radio is much cheaper to set up and produce than the press, American newspapers were (for all intents and purposes) killed off by the 1950s/60s.Obviously the biggest factor in the demise of the newspaper industry was the lack of advertising in favour of the radio. Britain had no such problem (refer to BBC death-grip mentioned above).

The 1950s Keynesian based economy of Britain was currently embroiled in paying off the nation’s war debt. According to Keynesian economics it’s better to pay people to dig holes and fill them back in, as opposed to them being unemployed. At this time, there were plenty of ‘holes’ to be filled. Southampton for example.

The vast amount of government spending taking place during the post war period, resulted in a massive consumer society. Everyone was busy spending all their money, and advertisers were doing their darndest to get that money for themselves, TV being more popular than newspapers, the advertisers moved to the more fertile grounds. The money advertisers gave to commercial stations resulted in a rise of pop. Programmes such as Sit-Coms, sport, and Soap Operas. Advertisements fuelled popular programming as well as essentially brainwashing the public into buying completely useless rubbish, depending on what you believe, on a completely separate note, my purple hair dye worked really well… something else that advertisers do is follow the majority. The ‘baby boomers’ of the post war period being this majority. Whilst the Mirror trenchantly followed the parents of the boomers, the Sun (the TV paper) went after the boomers themselves and followed their particular wants at the time (for example as they’d all be in their 60s/70s, they might be more inclined towards news of health etc.). by the 1970s the Sun had essentially crushed the Mirror in circulation, and by the ‘90s, newspapers were dying, the same way they had in the USA. Here cometh the undeniable rise of the television as the most prominent media. And since America is now what popular media is based on. Anything popular is taken directly from America I.e. Rupert Murdoch.

Here endeth the (out of practice when it comes to blogging my notes) lesson.

Professor Peter and the Paper Pickle

In preparation for newspaper discussion tomorrow, I have decided to take Brian's advice and read Peter Cole's articles on UK newspapers. The first 'Why middle England gets the mail', initially discusses, as a precursor to this and the other articles, the decline of newspapers. As far as the figures can say, fewer and fewer people are buying papers. Nowadays, there are many other media outlets which are cheaper and easier, such as television, and of course, the Internet. I have noticed that lately people have been considering alternatives to newspapers as a source of news (personally, I prefer to have something solid in my hands (grow up!) as opposed to looking at a screen). Indeed many newspapers have announced plans to update and improve news websites. At the moment, I believe there are no news sites that charge any fee to readers. But you can be sure that this will soon be changing. More to the point, getting rid of papers would lessen a massive strain on the environment and global warming as we wouldn't have to rip up an entire forest to produce just one Sunday Times. That is, if you believe all that Al Gore, hippy mumbo-jumbo (oh I can feel the hippy-hatred already). However, I have digressed. While it is true that newspaper sales are falling, it is at a very gradual rate. Still, as Cole points out, this has in no way lessened the "press's influence on the national agenda", or the power they can still wield.


I have to say that Cole amused me with his comments on the Express (this also happens to be the paper I have to read for the news agenda presentations). He says that he can never understand why anyone would choose to read it. Now, I have never read it before, but honestly, I can't see why anyone would. It's not as though it's a particularly classy looking thing, and surely if you're going to buy a paper your first thought wouldn't be 'I know, I'll get an Express!'. Maybe when I start reading it I'll find hidden treasures that make it all worthwhile. Not to mention that I have to have a broad world view if I'm to be a fantabulous journalist. Though I should probably never use that word again...

I have to say, it seems odd that Cole's referring to the Daily Mail as "mid-market". Now don't get me wrong, I know what he means. But I don't think I've ever heard the words 'middle' and 'Daily Mail' in the same sentence. I don't really have much to say about the Mail, I was brought up well. "Ewan, if you don't have anything nice to say..." but honestly you cannot fault the Mail for giving it's readers what they want to hear (/read. Be quiet!), even if you can fault it for pretty much everything else.

The next two articles consider the tabloids and broadsheets, and the changes they have had to make; Or should have made. While he claims that some of the best journalists work for tabloids, and that tabloid techniques are the hardest to acquire. He criticises way in which they failed to change with the times and are beginning to go the way of the 'small' McDonald's portion (my words, not his). Tabloids have always been the voice of the masses and for that reason, if no others, they are read by the Great and the Good, as talismans of acceptance, and therefore, 'electability'. Nonetheless, in the last 20 years, sales between the Sun and the Mirror have fallen by 2.5m copies. For some it has been poor managerial decisions, for many it has simply been a change in attitudes. Some, like the Star, have suffered very poorly and have had to resort 'Big Brother' stories and what is essentially soft porn.

The main, and obvious difference that separates the tabloid from the broadsheet is the content. Tabloids offer what could be considered the more tedious stories in terms of taste, I, for example, could not care less which X Factor contestant threatened to head-butt someone, or which 'celebrity' has had a nose job (as far as the writing goes, it's quite enjoyable to read. I just can't stand some of the subject matter). Broadsheets tend to err on the side of what is (arguably) more important. Political news and international crises for example. However, it is in the shape of the more "serious" papers that the difference is lessening. The Times, Guardian, and Independent have all downsized their formats to fit a more compact size. Initially this resulted in an increase in sales and indeed, still show a higher sales rate than their ancestors, 32,000 more per day for the Independent, 20,000 more for the Times. The main 4 broadsheets have not, despite all changes in format and style, have not changed their relative positions in circulation: Telegraph, Times, which lean to the right; Guardian, Independent, which lean left.

The last article discusses the Sunday papers. These multi-sectioned monsters take up half the kitchen table and most of it is thrown in the bin without even a glance. However, according to Cole, people somehow take comfort in the size of these creatures. They believe that they are getting their money's worth (something that Is becoming predominantly more important in our current financial climate), never mind that only half of it is read. Although it can also be said that they'd get whichever paper is cheapest, with the same satisfaction. But within the Sunday paper ranks, there seems to have been terrific upheaval. Both the Independent and the Telegraph have had a succession of new editors and owners, bringing about constant changing and shifting in styles, content, and overall appeal.

Cole also touched on the Saturday papers, calling them being pale imitations of the culture-embedded Sunday paper. That is not to say that they aren't successful, as they sell more than Monday to Friday, raising the average per-week sale. Cole also comments on how relevant the Sunday paper is, with the advent of the Saturday paper filing the gap of weekend reading. Though Sunday will in my opinion, always be more of a day of rest and reading than Saturdays will ever be.