Well, module DD101 is one month behind me now (final mark will be issued next month), but I do feel I should keep posting on the world and its workings in a few terms. 1, through the theories I have come across in my studies, 2, through my own political leanings, and a general mash-up of these two and some of the examples from the text books.
What I would like to look at in this entry is the reporting of tabloid journalism. I will be looking a little at the theories of Michel Foucault, (referenced in "I'm Free, June 2011). Two of most obvious aspects of tabloid reporting is the sensationalist manner in which "news" is reported, and of how little reporting is devoted to items of genuine newsworthiness.
So, to Foucault. I studied and applied his theory of discourse previously, of how discourse, in the form of authoritative figures, or in experts invested with authority. These figures have changed throughout history, from kings, lesser nobility, to the government ministers, committees, and appointed experts of today. Foucault theorised that discourse from top down enters into everyday thinking, and that we adapt this in the long term into social norms. That was the theory I applied to the above mentioned entry, and although I will go on to look at another of Foucault's theories, his thinking on discourse is a basis of it.
Foucault has many theories surrounding sex, sexualisation, and procreation. He theorised that, apart from the sexual imperative of continuing a family, there was procreation. This, in his opinion, was only permitted, historically, to the ruling classes. The ruling classes were the ones with the power to make the laws of the realm, and to decide upon punishments for transgressions of these laws. In other words, they used the laws, and social order of these, to set examples. Their own crimes would be judged by their peers, so preserving the status quo, but that is for another day.
How, then can this be linked to tabloid rags, which, most people would agree, are actually aimed more at the lower end of the class scale (not unique to UK, incidentally)? After all, I'm sure your average judge or magistrate does not take legal advice from the problem pages of The Sun, et al.
The answer lies mostly in the idea of discourse. Newspapers still enjoy a large circulation, and the number of newspapers sold is only part of the number of people who might read them. eg in my house there are four adults, but only one paper has to be brought in to the house for all to read. The remainder of the answer is in Foucault's theories on sex, and social order, and in the move of population from rural to urban settings, which added to rising literacy rates, along with the growth of mass produced newspapers. And the Tories.
Yes, the Tories. They were in government in the UK for 18 years, during which they would obviously become a part of discourse. From 1989 right up until the end of their tenure in 1997, (and, for some time after) there were regular stories involving Tory MPs and "kiss and tell exclusives". Although they were in power, and in Foucault's thinking, "permitted" to procreate, the means to report on this type of activity was there, established in the public domain. Despite exposure, very few MPs actually lost jobs through this, some spending time on the back benches before coming back to the forefront of political life.
Although politicians have been involved in such scandals before, the consequences have become less severe as time has passed, as mentioned above. Perhaps, because this type of scandal has entered into discourse, and because, more and more, people have recovered their public lives following "Exclusives" by newspapers, it has not become such a big deal. Perhaps the public have become desensitised by over exposure. This does not seem to be the case, because tabloid newspapers run the same type of stories, and their respective circulations have not dropped off.
Why, then are these rags still selling? Taking the theories of Foucault - discourse, sexual permission and social order, It can only lead to one thing. In the last 15 - 20 years populations have become so taken by it that they have gone from being interested, to obsessed, to willing to go through anything to attain it. The C word. Celebrity. Celebrities have been behaving like MPs (sexually) for as long as anyone can remember, and have been berated for it as much. To take an example of the obsession for celebs, let's look at Russell Brand.
The Sun, in particular, regularly featured this man over a 2-3 year period, at first reporting, then glorifying the sexual exploits of a man, who is, it must be said, is a genuinely witty and entertaining comedian, eventually turning him into a parody of himself, awarding him the title "Shagger of the Year" twice running. So, a combination of celebrity, and a national obsession surrounding it, perpetuated the cycle of kiss and tell stories, in this case, not always by the smitten fan I should add, adding to the parody. So, if this kind of froth continues to sell newspapers, can we really blame them for sticking with a winning formula?
.
Yes. Yes, we can. We can and we should. Remember, Foucault has the power of discourse and social order in the hands of kings and nobles. The best known term for newspaper owners is "Press Baron". Baron. A noble. Ruling class. Is there a vested interest for reporting on celebrities, sports stars and soap operas? Perhaps it is a diversion from the real issues, which would rouse people to take a more active interest in the real issues affecting our lives in the world today. To quote the late Bill Hicks, "Honey, come see, they figured out what really happened with Kennedy.....wait, Gladiators is on TV".
Perhaps the invasion of Iraq would truly not have been in our names. Perhaps the newspapers would have been less mercenary in their news gathering (hacking, blagging, etc). Perhaps true democracy could be in place in our countries, rather than just turning up and voting (for the parties supported by the papers we read). Perhaps the 99% would really be 99%, instead of what it is being reported by some "news" papers as being.
What I would like to look at in this entry is the reporting of tabloid journalism. I will be looking a little at the theories of Michel Foucault, (referenced in "I'm Free, June 2011). Two of most obvious aspects of tabloid reporting is the sensationalist manner in which "news" is reported, and of how little reporting is devoted to items of genuine newsworthiness.
So, to Foucault. I studied and applied his theory of discourse previously, of how discourse, in the form of authoritative figures, or in experts invested with authority. These figures have changed throughout history, from kings, lesser nobility, to the government ministers, committees, and appointed experts of today. Foucault theorised that discourse from top down enters into everyday thinking, and that we adapt this in the long term into social norms. That was the theory I applied to the above mentioned entry, and although I will go on to look at another of Foucault's theories, his thinking on discourse is a basis of it.
Foucault has many theories surrounding sex, sexualisation, and procreation. He theorised that, apart from the sexual imperative of continuing a family, there was procreation. This, in his opinion, was only permitted, historically, to the ruling classes. The ruling classes were the ones with the power to make the laws of the realm, and to decide upon punishments for transgressions of these laws. In other words, they used the laws, and social order of these, to set examples. Their own crimes would be judged by their peers, so preserving the status quo, but that is for another day.
How, then can this be linked to tabloid rags, which, most people would agree, are actually aimed more at the lower end of the class scale (not unique to UK, incidentally)? After all, I'm sure your average judge or magistrate does not take legal advice from the problem pages of The Sun, et al.
The answer lies mostly in the idea of discourse. Newspapers still enjoy a large circulation, and the number of newspapers sold is only part of the number of people who might read them. eg in my house there are four adults, but only one paper has to be brought in to the house for all to read. The remainder of the answer is in Foucault's theories on sex, and social order, and in the move of population from rural to urban settings, which added to rising literacy rates, along with the growth of mass produced newspapers. And the Tories.
Yes, the Tories. They were in government in the UK for 18 years, during which they would obviously become a part of discourse. From 1989 right up until the end of their tenure in 1997, (and, for some time after) there were regular stories involving Tory MPs and "kiss and tell exclusives". Although they were in power, and in Foucault's thinking, "permitted" to procreate, the means to report on this type of activity was there, established in the public domain. Despite exposure, very few MPs actually lost jobs through this, some spending time on the back benches before coming back to the forefront of political life.
Although politicians have been involved in such scandals before, the consequences have become less severe as time has passed, as mentioned above. Perhaps, because this type of scandal has entered into discourse, and because, more and more, people have recovered their public lives following "Exclusives" by newspapers, it has not become such a big deal. Perhaps the public have become desensitised by over exposure. This does not seem to be the case, because tabloid newspapers run the same type of stories, and their respective circulations have not dropped off.
Why, then are these rags still selling? Taking the theories of Foucault - discourse, sexual permission and social order, It can only lead to one thing. In the last 15 - 20 years populations have become so taken by it that they have gone from being interested, to obsessed, to willing to go through anything to attain it. The C word. Celebrity. Celebrities have been behaving like MPs (sexually) for as long as anyone can remember, and have been berated for it as much. To take an example of the obsession for celebs, let's look at Russell Brand.
The Sun, in particular, regularly featured this man over a 2-3 year period, at first reporting, then glorifying the sexual exploits of a man, who is, it must be said, is a genuinely witty and entertaining comedian, eventually turning him into a parody of himself, awarding him the title "Shagger of the Year" twice running. So, a combination of celebrity, and a national obsession surrounding it, perpetuated the cycle of kiss and tell stories, in this case, not always by the smitten fan I should add, adding to the parody. So, if this kind of froth continues to sell newspapers, can we really blame them for sticking with a winning formula?
.
Yes. Yes, we can. We can and we should. Remember, Foucault has the power of discourse and social order in the hands of kings and nobles. The best known term for newspaper owners is "Press Baron". Baron. A noble. Ruling class. Is there a vested interest for reporting on celebrities, sports stars and soap operas? Perhaps it is a diversion from the real issues, which would rouse people to take a more active interest in the real issues affecting our lives in the world today. To quote the late Bill Hicks, "Honey, come see, they figured out what really happened with Kennedy.....wait, Gladiators is on TV".
Perhaps the invasion of Iraq would truly not have been in our names. Perhaps the newspapers would have been less mercenary in their news gathering (hacking, blagging, etc). Perhaps true democracy could be in place in our countries, rather than just turning up and voting (for the parties supported by the papers we read). Perhaps the 99% would really be 99%, instead of what it is being reported by some "news" papers as being.
