Understanding Agency & Ideology in Media Content Creation - Essay Sample

Introduction

Agency and ideology are critical concepts to understanding the power and position of individuals who are responsible for the creation and circulation of media content. They can also help a person understand the many ways in which power operates during the creation of media content. Agency, as used in this discussion, is the level of autonomy or independent thinking exercised by an individual or professional during the creation and distribution of media content. As for ideology, it refers to a particular worldview or perspective of society possessed by an individual or a group of individuals. It is these two concepts that Havens & Lotz use to "discuss the economic, regulatory, industrial, organizational, and creative practices that shape many media industries" (5). According to Havens & Lotz, the use of the words "ideology" and "agency" usually carries a negative connotation when used as concepts to analyze the media industry.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The word ideology is mostly associated with the cold war era politics when the world was divided between capitalism and communism. People would, therefore, tend to associate the word with politics, especially those that are radical. When used in the analysis of the media, the word carries an undertone of overly politicized attitudes on subjects that would not be perceived as political. In the book, Havens & Lotz say, "The term "ideology" conventionally carries derogatory connotations of overly politicized attitudes toward subjects or issues that are seen as apolitical" (9). The reason for such a connotation is that the analysts involved with the study of the media industries hold the opinion that no topic or areas of human consideration are free of political considerations.

Ghaderinezhad says, "recent definitions of ideologies linked with the concepts of power relations and domination" (879). Although Havens & Lotz's use of the word is neutral, only representing worldviews that lie behind and give meaning to those endeavors. The ideas derived from conventional theories of Marxism are the source of ideology in media studies (Havens & Lotz 9). The theories of Marxism try to examine the human understanding of the world, the place of humans in it, and the relationships with others. It is therefore evident that the negative connotation associated with ideology originates from its association with politics, particularly communism.

Agency is also another word that carries negative connotations whenever it is used as a concept to analyze media industries. For most people, the concept of agency is lost to most media companies and individuals who have turned to lobbyists for either commercial interests or political interests. The central questions related to the agency when analyzing media industries include. Are the individuals working in the media talented individuals expressing their creative visions for definite ideological and political ends? (Havens & Lotz 10) Alternatively, "are they merely cogs in corporate machines trying to satiate the masses by producing media full of ideological messages that maintain the interests of those in power?" (Havens & Lotz 10).

The media industry is very diverse, and using an umbrella term to represent all the individual components and companies is an overgeneralization. Using the concepts proposed by Havens & Lotz, media workers enjoy a certain level of autonomy whose extent is affected by several factors such as their cultural background, conventions of the media in which they are work, and their superior's priorities (11). These are covered under the principle of circumscribed agency. The word "agency" attracts negative connotations because a section of the population associates the media with the brainwashing of the masses. According to Haven & Lotz, there are "fearful condemnations that media are brainwashing the masses and destroying individuality" (6).

The advancement of technologies that allow instantaneous global communication is always seen as a threat to individuality. Media houses have also grown from catering to the needs of localities to being global companies and media houses that span across several continents. These changes, combined with the already present fear of global corporations, does not argue well for the public perception of agency. There is a tendency to associate large media houses with corporate advertising, which makes a negative dent in their perception. Also, the move from being local media houses that tends to the specific locality to large corporations is viewed as agreed that forces the individual workers to abandon their loyalty to the community in exchange for profits of large media companies.

Haven and Lotz think that the fears associated with communication technologies are not something new. "We can see traces of these fears as far back as the nineteenth century when Rudyard Kipling wrote of deep-sea cable technology that connected the United States with Great Britain in 1897," (Haven & Lotz, 6). Similar sentiments can be seen in modern communication technologies such as telephones and social media, which are perceived as tools for altering communication patterns and social norms. The same kind of fears and skepticism are extended towards organizations such as media houses that control these technologies. Therefore, the word "agency" reminds people of the brainwashing done by these organizations that want the members of the public to conform to their ideologies and, in the case marketing, buy their products, hence causing them to lose their sense of individual thinking.

Reaction to "Who Owns the Internet?"

The digital revolution has led to the rise of giant conglomerates that have more wealth and reach than any other company in history. According to Kolbert, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are the new "gatekeepers," which have replaced the old monopolies (15). Questions have been raised about the impact that these new companies have on traditional industries such as entertainment and book publishing. Koblert raises several concerns concerning the power of big internet companies, but this reaction is going to focus on only two points raised by the author. The first point is the power possessed by large tech companies to influence or fix an election, while the second point is that big tech companies have ruined the productivity of intellectual property by creating platforms that allow piracy to thrive.

For the most part, Kolbert is right about the effect of big tech companies on democracy and their power to influence an election. Amazon, Facebook, and Google collectively control approximately three-quarters of the content that people consume in the United States. According to Kolbert, "Google now controls nearly ninety percent of search advertising, Facebook almost eighty percent of mobile social traffic, and Amazon, about seventy-five percent of eBooks sales"(5). That means all they have to do is make specific tweaks to the content that is available to pubic consumption, and the opinion of the people will change. However, the truth is, the current position or that the country finds itself in, is not something new.

Big companies and individuals with the power to influence an election have always existed. Kolbert begins her article by giving an example of the 1876 presidential election where Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes was running against Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden. Samuel J. Tilden was winning the election, but then the big companies responsible for "the Victorian Internet" decided to flex their muscle and influenced the election in Hayes' favor.

At the center of that scheme was the Western arm of the associated press, which was responsible for the media content consumed by people living in small towns. Western A.P was in that position because of the control it had over the bulk of the copy that ran in many small-town newspapers. At its helm was William Henry Smith, who had declared his allegiance to Hayes and would do anything to see Hayes win the election. Western A.P collusion with Western Union, which had a monopoly over the nation's telegraph line, ensured that the two companies could influence the election through manipulating the content that was consumed by the masses (Kolbert 1-4). Besides, Western Union could access the democrat's private conversations and hand the information over to the republicans who would use it to their advantage. The Republicans ended up winning the election courtesy of Smith's manipulation of the news.

The 1876 example is an example of what could happen when the few people have the power to influence the opinion of the many. Nevertheless, the scary part is that while it was possible to tell when the election has been manipulated or "stole" as the democrats termed it in 1876, it is almost impossible to tell if the same happens in the 21st century. The power possessed by these companies over content consumerism is so high that it would take a similar giant company that wields the same power to identify the manipulation and probably route it out. The threat that big tech companies pose to democracy is something for those who care about democracy to worry about.

On the other hand, Kolbert's point about the damage done by big tech on intellectual property is very one-sided. Kolbert paints a picture of a scene that is no longer productive and where people are no longer making money from it, and if they are, it is no longer as profitable. According to Foer, the tech companies have "eroded the integrity of institutions, media, publishing, that supply the intellectual material that provokes thought and guides democracy" (Kolbert 10). Foer makes it seem like the media and publishing institutions no longer have the power or rights from the content which they produce. He makes it seem like Google and Facebook have taken away the rights and ability of these institutions and individuals to earn from their hard work through the intellectual property that they created.

However, Foer's account of the effect of these big tech companies on the productivity of intellectual property is nothing more than an exaggeration. In the article by Kolbert, they use the story of Levon Helm, who was a drummer for popular music group the Band during the 20th century. Helm had been living off the royalties he earned from the music he helped produce. However, according to Taplin, the amount he earned from royalties during his last days had considerably reduced because of the entry of companies such as Napster and YouTube into the music scene (Kolbert 6). Kolbert even backs up the argument by claiming that consumer spending has reduced 75% in the years between 1999 and 2012 (Kolbert 6).

However, Kolbert's claims do not entirely paint the whole picture of the music scene. The global recorded music industry revenues had realized considerable drop during the early part of the 21st century, but the numbers have been picking up since 2012 (Domingo 11). Besides, only the sale physical recordings have been on the decline, other avenues such as digital (in exclusion of streaming) and streaming service revenues have been picking up since 2005 and streaming services, that include YouTube, now account for the majority of the revenues generated from music (Domingo 11). Services such as YouTube have made it easy for artists to be heard. The online stores such as Amazon have facilitated the publishing and sale of books, making it easier for people to market and sell their books. It is, therefore, an overstatement to state that the big tech companies have destroyed the scene of the creative works when in reality, they have made these creative works accessible to a larger population than before.

Works Cited

Domingo, Placido. Global Music Report 2018: Annual State of the Industry. 2018th ed., IFPI, 2018, pp....