Critical Theory of Information, Communication, Media, Culture and Technology
By Marisol Sandoval
Le Monde Diplomatique is a monthly newspaper for international politics, which aims to “stand out in an increasingly uniform media landscape for its critical vision, in-depth analysis of world issues and reportages that illuminate the state of the planet“.[1] It is published in 26 languages and reaches a global audience of 2.5 million people. The newspaper is financed by sales and advertising and distributed via retail, subscriptions, and as supplement in other newspapers. Is Le Monde Diplomatique an alternative medium?
On the one hand Le Monde Diplomatique provides critical content an thus offers an alternative to dominant discourses. On the other hand, it partly makes use of commercial financing mechanisms and professional, non-participatory organizational structures, which means that its organisational structures can hardly be described as alternative.
So what defines alternative media? Should they focus on providing critical content and alternative viewpoints, or should they mainly try to open up access to media production in order give voice to the voiceless? Are alternative media participatory media, or are they critical media? This paper is concerned with the question how to conceptualize alternative media in a way that allows them to contribute to emancipatory social transformations. Figuring out possibilities and limits of alternative media as emancipatory media is the aim of this paper.
Alternative media are often confronted with many problems such as a lack of financial resources, a lack of public visibility, and therefore a lack of societal impact. Thus, critical media theory should not only look at theoretical potentials of alternative media but also at ways of how to realize these potentials within the existing social conditions.
In order to situate the discussion on alternative media within the wider context of critical media theory I begin with a brief overview of main arguments of the critics of capitalist media. I then discuss some implications of defining media as participatory media. Finally, I propose a model of alternative media that takes into account the difficulties of alternative media production under capitalism and proposes ways of how alternative media can achieve both, being critical of society, and at the same time avoid marginality in order to actively contribute to emancipatory societal transformations.
Media between emancipation and repression
Since the beginning of the last century, many critical theorists, ranging from the Frankfurt School to the critical political economy tradition, have criticised the system of capitalist mass media. Their critique focuses on two main aspects: the critique of the commodity form of media (see for example Nicholas Garnham, 2006; Dallas Smythe, 1997) and the critique of their ideological character (see for example Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, 1947/1977; Leo Löwenthal, 1964; Herbert Schiller, 1997).
Theorists that point at the commodity form of media are concerned with the role of media as commercial enterprises and their embedment in the overall economy (Smythe, 1997: 438; Garnham, 2006: 212). For Smythe for example the most important question in media studies is “what economic function for capital do they [the media] serve?“ (Smythe, 1997: 438).
While Garnham (2006) as well as Smythe (1997) mainly look at the media as economic actors, theorists like Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (1947/1977) are more concerned with analysing the ideological character of capitalist media. They argue that the integration of the cultural realm into the system of commodity exchange has as a consequence that only cultural products that can survive on a capitalist market are produced. The market mechanism would therefore lead to standardization, identity, and conformity. As a result consumers are confronted with the permanent reproduction of the existing societal conditions. This would lead to mass deception, manipulation and uniformity, and eliminate every idea of resistance (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1947/1997).
These critical media theories are not critical of the media as such but of their role under capitalism. This means that media could also be used in ways to empower the oppressed and to foster critical thinking and resistance to the dominative capitalist relations. Douglas Kellner has pointed at this ambiguity of the media: “Media and computer technologies are among the most advanced forces of production which are creating a new global capitalist society which may well strengthen capitalist relations of production and hegemony, but also contain the potential for democratizing, humanizing and transforming existing inequities in the domain of class, race and gender. Like most technologies, they can be used as instruments of domination or liberation, and can empower working people, or they can be used by capital as powerful instruments of domination” (Kellner, 1997: 1).
Depending on the context of their usage, media have repressive as well as/or emancipatory potentials. Therefore it is important for critical media theory to criticise those relations that foster a repressive media usage, and at the same time figuring out possibilities for realizing emancipatory potentials. The following chapters will contribute to the latter.
Defining alternative media
All approaches to alternative media point out that such media pose an alternative to the dominant system of capitalist mass media. This means that alternative media negate certain aspects of capitalist mass media.
A majority of definitions of alternative media stresses that in order to offer an alternative to dominant commercial media, alternative media first and foremost need to be participatory media. They argue that media can have emancipatory societal effects if they contribute to democratizing the access to media production in order to give ordinary people a voice. These definitions focus on media actors and conceptualize alternative media as participatory media.
Alternative media as participatory media?
Bertolt Brecht already in 1932 criticized the usage of the radio as one-sided distribution apparatus instead of using it as a two sided communication apparatus. Brecht pointed out that radio technology would be suitable for opening-up access to media production for everybody (Brecht, 1932/2000: 43). Similarly Walter Benjamin pointed out that also the press could become a more democratic tool for communication by turning its readers into writers. In this case the “literary competence” would become “public property” (Benjamin, 1934/1996: 772). Hans Magnus Enzensberger stressed that in regard to electronic media the distinction between receiver and transmitter would not exist due to technical reasons, but be an expression of existing class relations (Enzensberger, 1970/1982: 48).
Brecht’s, Benjamin’s and Enzensberger’s approaches to alternative media all stress that the decisive factor for establishing emancipatory media is the abolition of the distinction between consumers and producers of media products. For them the emancipatory potentials of media arise from the practices of media producers that is, from the processes of how media are produced collectively.
Many recent approaches to alternative media pick up this vision of abolishing the division between producers and consumers of media products in order to establish a more democratic media system. For Nick Couldry for example the main problem with the existing highly concentrated mass media system is that the majority of people is excluded form media production. Media concentration would therefore result in a concentration of symbolic power, which allows commercial mass media to gain “influence over peoples beliefs (barely articulated) through which we frame the social world” (Couldry, 2003: 43). Therefore for Couldry the most important task for alternative media is to challenge the highly concentrated media system and the resulting power of capitalist mass media by challenging the “the entrenched division of labour (producers of stories vs. consumer of stories)” (Couldry, 2003: 45). Couldry’s approach to alternative is very similar to Brecht’s, Benjamin’s and Enzensberger’s demand to abolish the distinction between producer and consumer of media products. Opening up access to media production to a broad public would challenge mass media’s power of naming by confronting the reality constructed by capitalist mass media with other versions of social reality.
Likewise, the discourse on community media is widely oriented towards participatory access to media production and the empowerment of individuals. Community media are understood as media that serve a specific geographic community or a community of interest, and allow non-professionals to actively engage in media production, organization and management (Lewis, 1976: 61; Jankowski, 2003: 8; Coyer, 2007; KEA, 2007: 1; Peissl and Tremetzberger, 2008: 3).
Whereas for Couldry as well as for Brecht, Benjamin and Enzensberger participatory media production is necessary for establishing a more democratic media system at the macro-level, community media approaches stress that participation in the first instance should contribute to the empowerment of those who are engaged in alternative media production.
This argument is also central in Alfonso Gumucio Dagron’s (2004) and Clemencia Rodriguez’ (2003) understanding of alternative media. For Gumucio Dagron participatory production processes are at the core of alternative media projects: “In my own view alternative communication is in essence participatory communication, and the alternative spirit remains as long as the participatory component is not minimized and excluded” (Gumucio Dagron, 2004: 48). Although Gumucio Dagron points out that the promotion of social change is important for alternative media participatory production processes remain their central characteristics. According to him only participatory media give voice to the voiceless and are able to support social change by representing “people and not and not only the economic and political interest of a powerful minority” (Gumucio Dagron, 2004: 47). Clemencia Rodriguez uses the term citizens media in order to illustrate that alternative media should assist those who are engaged in the production processes in becoming active citizens: “Citizens’ media is a concept that accounts for the processes of empowerment, concientization and fragmentation of power that result when men, women and children gain access to and reclaim their own media” (Rodriguez, 2003: 190). For Rodriguez the main task of alternative media is to assist people in living a self-determined life.
Another important representative of a subjective approach to alternative media is Chris Atton. Apart from participatory production he also stresses the importance of anti-capitalist and anti-managerialist organization processes. Also for Atton the empowerment through the direct involvement in production and organization processes marks the emancipatory potential of alternative media projects. He points out that alternative media “emphasize the organization of media to enable wider social participation in their creation, production, and dissemination than is possible in the mass media” (Atton, 2002: 25). But unlike Rodriguez and Gumucio Dargon he warns against validating “participation as good in itself” (Atton, 2008: 217).
As this outline shows, subjective approaches to alternative media have in common that they stress the importance of democratizing media production. Alternative media are first and foremost understood as participatory media. However, as I will argue in the following, an understanding of alternative media as participatory media has certain limitations.
One main problem of defining alternative media as primarily participatory media is, that participation as such is not necessarily emancipatory. Participatory organization principles can also be used for advancing repressive media content. One example is the Internet Forum of the right-wing National Democratic party of Germany (National Democratic Party of Germany, 2009), which is an extreme right-wing medium, that is produced in a participatory way. As Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke (2004) as well as Robert Hillard and Michael C. Keith (1999) illustrate, participatory production is not only employed for politically progressive, but also for conservative purposes. In this context Bart Cammaerts points at “the extensive use of the internet (as well as other media) by non-progressive reactionary movements, be it the radical and dogmatic Catholic movement, the fundamentalist Muslim movement or the extreme right – post-fascist – movement” (Cammaerts, 2007; 137).
Some representatives of the participatory media approach argue that the emancipatory effects of alternative media arise from the production process itself: “The political nature of alternative media is often present irrespective of content, located in the mere act of producing” (Dowmunt and Coyer, 2007: 2). This view is problematic as without considering the content of participation it becomes impossible to distinguish between emancipatory and repressive media usages. As Atton states participation should not be validated “as good in itself” (Atton, 2008: 217).
Another problem of an understanding of alternative media as participatory media is related to the question of resources and the political economy of the capitalist media system. In the 1980s a research group called Comedia strongly criticized an understanding of alternative media as participatory media. According to Comedia the public marginality of many alternative media projects stems form “the absence of a clear conception of target audiences and of marketing strategies to reach new audiences, the failure to develop necessary skills in the area of administration and financial planning, and the commitment to an inflexible model of collectivity as the solution of all organizational problems” (Comedia, 1984: 95). The disadvantages of collective organizational structures would be high expenditures of time and resources. According to Comedia alternative media therefore often remain in an “alternative ghetto”.
Likewise, Chris Atton and James Hamilton highlight the tension between political goals and economic necessity. They stress that the struggle for obtaining the necessary resources for media production puts alternative media under immense pressures: the “general political-economic dilemma for any critical project is that it needs resources with which to work, but those crucial resources are present only in the very society that it seeks to change or dissolve” (Atton and Hamilton, 2008: 26).
Without money alternative media production often depends on the self-exploitation of media producers, low-cost production techniques and the usage of alternative distribution channels. This creates problems with continually producing an alternative media product and difficulties in reaching a broad audience. Gaining public visibility requires financial resources for producing and distributing media products. Under capitalism it is difficult to obtain these resources without making use of commercial mechanisms of financing like selling space for advertisements. Using such capitalist techniques of financing contradicts the political aims of emancipatory alternative media that are critical of capitalism. But alternative media are not located outside the capitalist system and therefore are dependent on financial resources for producing and distribution their products. For non-commercial alternative media obtaining financial resources remains a constant challenge.
One could argue that with the Internet new possibilities for cheap participatory media production (Couldry, 2003: 45; Bennett, 2003: 34; Wright, 2004: 90; Atton, 2004; Hyde, 2002: online), for bypassing gate-keepers (Bennett, 2004: 141; Rosenkrands, 2004: 75; Meikle, 2002: 61) and for reaching a potentially global audience arise (Vegh, 2003: 74; Meikle, 2002: 60f). This is certainly true, but at the same time with the Internet another important problem for alternative media production becomes more evident: not all media content that is produced and distributed receives public visibility and is consumed (Wright, 2004: 84; Rucht, 2004: 53; Curran, 2003: 227). In this context Pajnik and Downing point out that “in the contemporary world it is not uncommon that being heard is more important than what is being said. The result is a cacophony of simultaneous monologues leading ultimately to uniformity and standardization, rather than exchange of ideas between equals” (Pajnik and Downing, 2008: 7).
Thus, giving ordinary people a voice by opening up access to media production is not enough for a truly democratic media system to emerge. Referring to blogs Christian Fuchs states: “that everyone is in principle able to post political ideas in a blog doesn’t mean that he or she will be heard and listened to because blogging today takes place in a hierarchical and stratified society in which public attention can be bought and is controlled by media corporations and political elites“ (Fuchs, 2008: 135).
Also on the Internet political and financial power are essential for gaining public visibility. Those projects that have the means for advertising their websites (as for example established commercial media institutions) have an advantage over those without resources (as for example many alternative media projects). Participation remains very limited if people can only talk but are not heard. Therefore the discussion on emancipatory media potentials also has to consider structural inequalities as a central feature of capitalist political economy.
In the context of the Internet Marcuse’s (1965) concept of repressive tolerance becomes more apparent than ever before. According to Marcuse, tolerance becomes repressive when, due to the large number of ideas that are available for consumption, critical ideas are tolerated but immediately subsumed under the ruling ideas. Marcuse states: “other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately ‘evaluated’ (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language“, this means that “the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis“ (Marcuse, 1965: 96).
The hope that a communication apparatus that abolishes the distinction between producers and consumers, as Brecht imagined it, automatically leads to a more democratic and emancipatory media system has to be disappointed. The abolition of the distinction between media consumers and media producers, as it has been realized on the Internet, is not enough for making an emancipatory media system reality. Public visibility is still stratified through power relations.
According to Gumucio Dagron (2004) and Rodriguez (2003) public visibility is not an aim for alternative media projects. They stress that the success of alternative media should not be measured along criteria like scope, number or recipients, or circulation: “anyone asserting that alternative media are fine but their coverage is to limited geographically or in terms of users does not understand what alternative media really are” (Gumucio Dagron, 2004: 49). According to Gumucio Dagron alternative media are successful if they contribute to the establishment of dialog within a local community or within existing social networks.
This is certainly true for a certain type of alternative media, which aims at local community building as or at enabling communication between existing social networks such as social movements or protest groups. In these cases it is important that alternative media are organized participatory and that every recipient can also become a producer of messages in order to allow exchange and dialogue.
But one can also think of another type of alternative media that aims at establishing a counter-public sphere by reporting about topics neglected by capitalist mass media and by criticizing structures of domination and oppression. Such alternative media need to gain public attention if they want to be successful in raising awareness and mobilizing for social struggles. At least such alternative media are dependent on financial resources that often make necessary commercial financing and restrictions regarding access to media production.
Examples for such a type of media are The New Internationalist, Z Magazine, Rethinking Marxism, Historical Materialism or Monthly Review. Defining alternative media as participatory media excludes such oppositional publications although they provide critical content and contribute to the establishment of a counter public sphere.
As outlined above there are several reasons for arguing that participatory production processes should not be considered as decisive for the alternative character of media. In summary, these reasons are:
* Participatory production processes need not necessarily be emancipatory but can also be used for advancing repressive purposes.
* Participatory, non-commercial media that reject professional organization processes often suffer from a lack of resources. This makes it difficult to gain public visibility and to contribute to the establishment of a broad counter-public sphere, which would be necessary for raising awareness on the repressive character of capitalism and for supporting radical social transformation.
* Using participatory production processes as decisive criterion for defining alternative media excludes many oppositional media that provide critical content but make use of professional organization structures.
Highlighting the limitations of an understanding of alternative media as participatory media does not mean that alternative media should not strive for employing participatory components in the organizational structure, but that today this is not always possible to the desired extent.
Alternative media as critical media?
While the definitions discussed above mainly focus on media actors and their inclusion in media production, other definitions focus on media content in defining alternative media. Media content is a durable result of media production and can therefore be considered as a media structure.
John Downing for example speaks of alternative media as radical media that “express an alternative vision to hegemonic politics, priorities and perspectives” (Downing, 2001: v). Alternative media should establish counter-hegemony, report about neglected topics, and criticize oppression: “the role of radical media can be seen as trying to disrupt the silence to counter the lies, to provide the truth” (Downing, 2001: 16).
For Downing radical media need not necessarily be participatory media. He points out that sometimes professional organization is important for challenging hegemony: “some forms of organized leadership are essential to coordinate challenges to the ideological hegemony of capital and to put forward credible alternative programs and perspectives” (Downing, 2001: 15). Establishing an alternative public sphere and reporting about oppression and the struggles against it for him is more important than the realization of participatory production processes (Downing, 1995: 250).
Also Tim O’Sullivan has given a definition of alternative media that is oriented towards media content. He describes alternative media as “forms of media communication that avowedly reject or challenge established and institutional politics, in the sense that they all advocate change in society, or at least a critical reassessment of traditional values” (O’Sullivan, 1995: 10). Graham Meikle points at several aspects that mark critical media content: “Stories that address complexity rather than reducing it to a good guys/bad guys schema. Stories that stimulate discussion and debate rather than constructing conflict, stories that go beyond a spurious objectivity and recognise their writer’s responsibility to strengthen civic discourse and involve community members in coverage issues which affect them“ (Meikle, 2002: 100).
Focusing on media content offers an objective criterion for defining alternative media. As I have outlined in the proceeding section, participatory production can be used for progressive as well as for repressive ends. A more objective criterion, like critical media content, seems more useful for deciding upon the repressive or emancipatory character of media.
An ideal-typical model of alternative media
Thus far I have argued that the participatory aspects of alternative media are desirable but at the same time limited. Critical content can serve as a more manifest criterion for defining alternative media. An integrated understanding of alternative media as both critical and participatory can be based on a dialectical model of the media system. Such a model assumes a dialectical relation between media actors and media structures. This means that media structures enable and constrain the action of media actors, who again through their actions shape and change the media structures.
Media actors are the producers and consumers of media products. Media structures in the sense of insitutionalized relationships (Giddens, 1984: xxxi) for example are institutions, technologies, media content, or the economic form of media products.
The decisive question in defining alternative media is how (a) alternative media structures and (b) alternative media actors differ from those of capitalist mass media:
(a) Alternative media structures: Critical media theory has shown that capitalist mass media are repressive because of two interconnected aspects: their commercial character on the one hand, and their ideological character on the other hand. Thus if alternative media want to negate the repressive capitalist media system they should be non-commercial instead of commercial and provide critical content instead of ideologies.
(b) Alternative media actors: Alternative media theories stress that alternative media differ from capitalist mass media because they open up access to media production to a broad public and try to abolish the distinction between media producers and media consumers, so that a prosumer (Toffler, 1980) emerges.
Ideal-typical alternative media realize all of these dimensions: They are non-commercial, provide critical content and are produced in a participatory way (see figure 1):
The model of capitalist mass media and ideal-typical alternative media shows that through the production process subjective knowledge of media producers becomes objectified into media products. The subjective knowledge turns into an objective structure that is media content. The structure as objective media content again becomes subjectified through the process of reception, that is the objective media products turns into subjective knowledge. This shows that the actor and the structural level do not form completely separated unities but encroach upon each other.
The comparison in figure 1 contains a strict dichotomy between capitalist mass media and ideal-typical alternative media. But since alternative media production today takes place under the conditions of a capitalist society the ideal model cannot be realized to the desired extent.
I have criticized those models of alternative media that exclusively focus on exercising prefigurative politics and collective organization practices and therefore often fail in reaching an audience for their media products. This means that under capitalism non-commercial, participatory, and collective organization can often only be sustained at the expense of financial stability, continuity and public visibility. Gaining public visibility under capitalism requires financial resources for producing and distributing media products. Realizing an ideal model of alternative media would presuppose different societal conditions. It would require that people have enough time, skills, and resources for not only consuming but also producing media content and that the necessary technologies for media production are freely available. Alternative media that try to realize the ideal model to the full extent therefore are likely to fail in reaching a broad audience. But reaching a broad audience is necessary if alternative media want to contrast the ideologies produced by capitalist mass media with critical reporting. Only in doing so they have a chance to contribute to critical awareness raising regarding the dominative and oppressive character of capitalism. Critical awareness is a necessary precondition for critical actions and the resistance against capitalism.
Under capitalism the ideal model of alternative media is likely to fail. Thus, the strict dichotomy between capitalist mass media and alternative media has to be set off. Instead, I argue for defining minimum requirements for speaking of an alternative medium.
Minimum requirement for defining alternative media
In order to be successful in advancing progressive political aims, alternative media might have to make use of some elements of commercial techniques of media production. Alternative media can make use of capitalist structures and at the same time criticize them. Herbert Marcuse has in this context spoken of “working against the established institutions, while working in them” (Marcuse, 1972: 55).
Critical media content can be used as a minimum requirement for speaking of alternative media. This means that also commercial and non-participatory media can be understood as alternative as long as they produce and distribute critical media content. As soon as ideological content in standardized form is produced and distributed and the alternative critical vision vanishes, one can no longer speak of an alternative medium (see table 1)
At the actor level table 1 shows that media need not necessarily abolish the distinction between media producers and media consumers for being alternative. Here, the minimum requirement for speaking of an alternative medium is that media producers produce critical media content.
At the structural level table 1 shows that the economic form of media products (commercial vs. non-commercial) should not be considered as decisive for the alternative character of media. Here, the minimum requirement for speaking of an alternative medium is critical content. As soon as ideological content is produced a medium is no longer alternative.
Many critical political economists have argued that it is hardly possible to at the same time employ commercial mechanisms of financing and to be critical at the level of media content. Commercial financing would necessarily lead to ideological content because it would create dependences on the market and on their financiers (see for example Garnham, 2006; Smythe, 1997; Knoche, 2003; Herman and Chomsky, 1988). However, the relationship between economic form and media content should not be understood as deterministic causality.
Nevertheless, alternative media that employ commercial mechanism of financing are constantly endangered of being subsumed under the interest of their financers. For Atton and Hamilton the “key dilemma” for alternative media therefore is “whether or not to rely on advertising” (Atton and Hamilton, 2008: 26). It certainly is a difficult but very important task for alternative media to maintain independence at the level of content. If they fail in doing so and their political aims get lost their alternative character vanishes. The concept of “working against the established institutions, while working in them” (Marcuse, 1972: 55), is always accompanied by he danger of getting subsumed under the interest of the established institutions. But at the same time it is often the only chance to step out from marginality and to become politically effective.
It certainly would be desirable that alternative media could do without commercial financing. Karl Marx considered the independence from market mechanisms as crucial for a free press: “The primary freedom of the press lies in not being a trade“ (Marx, 1842: 71). But under the existing societal conditions commercial financing often is the only way for overcoming marginality. As Marcuse stressed, counterinstitutions “have long been an aim of the movement, but the lack of funds was greatly responsible for their weakness and their inferior quality. They must be made competitive. This is especially important for the development of radical, ‘free’ media” (Marcuse, 1972: 55).
In summary alternative media can be understood as media that try to contribute to emancipatory social transformation by providing critical media content. A decisive question therefore is: What exactly does critical media content mean?
Critical media content
A definition of critical media content can refer to the definition of critique given by Karl Marx: “The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence“ (Marx, 1844: 385).
Critical theorists like Max Horkheimer (1937/1992), Herbert Marcuse (1937/1992), Theodor W. Adorno (1969) have further advanced this notion of critique. Marxist critique departs form the critique of capitalist relations and societal contradictions and is directed against all forms of domination. The critique consists in the negation of repressive societal conditions, and aims at a society without domination and oppression in which all human beings can live a self-determined life.
Critical media content can therefore be understood as content that criticizes all forms of oppression and domination, and keeps up the vision of a self-determined society that can be achieved through social struggles.
In this sense alternative media as critical media realize what Marx intended the press to be: “the public watchdog, the tireless denouncer of those in power, the omnipresent eye, the omnipresent mouthpiece of the people’s spirit that jealously guards its freedom“ (Marx, 1849: 231). For Marx “it is the duty of the press to come forward on behalf of the oppressed in its immediate neighbourhood“ and “to undermine all the foundations of the existing political state of affairs“ (Marx, 1849: 234).
I propose a model of alternative media that pursue radical criticism at the level of content but are not necessarily alternative at the level of economic product form and production processes.
This definition of alternative media, which uses critical content as minimum requirement, has the following main advantages compared to an understanding of alternative media as participatory media:
* It does not exclude oppositional media that make use of commercial mechanisms of financing. Commercial financing allows alternative media to maintain financial stability, which makes it easier to continually produce high-quality media products and to gain public visibility. Thus, such a definition can help alternative media to overcome marginality and to reach broader publics. This does not mean that alternative media that do not reach a broad audience should not be considered as alternative but that such media can probably not effectively contribute to the development of a critical counter-public sphere, which is essential for critical consciousness building.
* Using critical content as decisive criterion for defining alternative media allows distinguishing clearly between repressive and emancipatory media usages.
Several examples illustrate that, despite of compromises, it is realizable for alternative media to at the same employ commercial financing, and remain critical at the content level. The Canadian journal Adbusters for example is financed by donations and sales and has a paid circulation of about 120.000. Adbusters is critical of capitalism, supports social movements and calls for political activism. Through critical reporting the journal wants to contribute to “topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century” (Adbusters, 2009). The bimonthly journal Mother Jones has a paid circulation of 250.000 and is financed by donations, sales and advertising. It aims at supporting social change by critical reporting and investigative journalism (Mother Jones, 2008). These two publications have in common that they use mainstream distribution channels and have an appealing design. This makes them more accessible for a broad audience.
Rodney Benson conducted a content analysis of 4 Californian alternative Newsweeklies (LA Weekly, New Times LA, San Francisco Bay Guardian, SF Weekly) that are entirely financed by sales and advertising. The study showed that especially the San Francisco Bay Guardian is critical of capitalism and reports on political activism. Benson concludes: “This study has called into question the common research assumption that commercialism, especially advertising, necessarily undermines the critical, oppositional stance of the press. Although relying on advertising to a greater extent than U.S. daily newspapers, many urban newsweeklies offer news and views ignored by the mainstream media, as well as encouraging passionate democratic debate and, in some cases, active political involvement” (Benson, 2003: 124).
Conclusion
In the introduction I posed the question whether Le Monde Diplomatique should be considered as alternative medium. Although Le Monde Diplomatique is a commercial newspaper and restricts access to media production I argue that it should be understood as alternative because it questions ruling ideas, criticises domination and is partial for the oppressed, provides detailed analyses of topics neglected by capitalist mainstream media, considers causes and not only effects; i.e. Le Monde Diplomatique provides critical content.
Le Monde Diplomatique does not represent the ideal type of alternative media. This would require negating capitalist mass media not only at the level of content, but also at the level of economic product form (non-commercial media products) and production processes (participatory production processes). As I have pointed out, realizing this ideal model of alternative media would require societal conditions that are not realized today.
If alternative media want to avoid marginality and to be able to contribute to emancipatory societal transformations they rely on financial resources for producing and distributing their products. Since this can require employing commercial means of financing and restricting access to media production I have argued that critical content should be considered as minimum requirement in defining alternative media.
Alternative media that are critical at the content level can show that under the existing social conditions the realization of the full potentials of individuals and of society is constantly suppressed. Critical consciousness allows to question domination and to imagine an alternative society without oppression, and therefore is a precondition for critical political actions: “Thus, the break through the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation—at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends“ (Marcuse, 1965: 111).
*An earlier version of this paper was published in Kurgu Online – International Journal of Communication Studies.
Notes
[1] About Le Monde Diplomatique: http://mondediplo.com/about
References
Adbusters (2009): About Us. http://adbusters.org/network/about_us.php (last accessed on September 10, 2009).
Adorno, T. W. (1969). Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. In H. Maus, & F. Fürstenberg (Eds.), Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (pp. 125-143). Darmstadt, Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Atton, C. (2002). Alternative media. London: Sage.
Atton, C. (2004). An alternative Internet: Radical media, politics and creativity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Atton, C. (2008). Alternative media and journalism practice. In M. Boler (Ed.),Digital media and democracy: Tactics in hard times (pp. 213-227). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Atton, C., & Hamilton, J. (2008). Alternative journalism. London: Sage.
Bailey O., Cammaerts G.B., & Carpentier, N. (2008): Understanding alternative media. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Benjamin, W. (1934/1996). The author as producer. In Selected Writings. Cambridge: Belknap Press
Bennett, W. L. (2003). New media power: The Internet and global gctivism. In N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 17-38). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bennett, W.L. (2004): Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. In W. van De Donk, & B. D. Loader, P. G. Nixon, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Cyberprotest. New media, citizens and social movements (pp. 123-146). New York: Routledge.
Benson, R. (2003). Commercialism and critique: California’s alternative weeklies. In N. Couldry Nick, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power. Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 111-128). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brecht, B. (1932/2000). The radio as a communication apparatus. In M. Silberman (Ed.),
Bertolt Brecht on film and radio (pp. 41-46). London: Meuthen.
Cammaerts, B. (2007). Blogs, online forums, public spaces and extreme right in North Belgium. In: N. Carpentier, et. al. (Eds.), Media technologies and democracy in an enlarged Europe: The intellectual work of the 2007 European media and communication doctoral summer school (pp. 137-151). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Comedia (1984). The alternative press: The development of underdevelopment. Media, Culture & Society, 6, 95-102.
Curran, J. (2003). Global journalism: A case study of the Internet. In: N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 227-242). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Couldry, N. (2003). Beyond the hall of mirrors? Some theoretical reflections on the global contestation of media power. In: N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 39-54). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Coyer, K. (2007). If it leads it bleads: The participatory news making of the Independent Media Center. In W. De Jong, M. Shaw, & N. Stammers (Eds.), Global activism, global Media (pp. 165-178). London: Pluto.
Dowmunt T., & Coyer K. (2007). Introduction. In T. Dowmunt, K. Coyer, & A. Fountain (Eds.), The alternative media handbook (pp. 1-12). Oxon: Routledge.
Downing, John D.H. (1995). Alternative media and the Boston tea party. In: J. Downing, A.
Mohammadi, & A. Sreberny-Mohammadi(Eds.), Questioning the media (pp. 238-251). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Enzensberger, H. M. (1970/1982). Constituents of a theory of the media. In R. Grimm, & B. Armstrong (Eds.). Hans Magnus Enzensberger. Critical Essays (pp. 46-76). New York: Continuum.
Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and Society. Social theory in the Information age. London/New York: Routledge.
Garnham, N. (2006). Contribution to a political economy of mass-communication. In M. G.
Durham, & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies. KeyWorks (pp. 201-229). Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gumucio Dagron, A. (2004), The long and winding road of alternative media. In J. Downing, D. McQuail, P. Schlesinger, & E. Wartella, Ellen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media Studies (pp. 41-63). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. London: Vintage Books.
Hillard, R. L./Keith, M. C. (1999), Waves of rancor: Tuning in the radical right. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Horkheimer, M. (1937/1992). Traditionelle und Kritische Theorie. In Traditionelle und Kritische Theorie. Fünf Aufsätze (pp. 205-260). Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1947/1997). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.
Hyde, G. (2002). Independent Media Centers: Cyber-subversion and the alternative press. In First Monday, 7 (4). Online: http://www.firstmonday.org/Issues/issue7_4/hyde/index.html (last accessed on January 02, 2008).
Jankowski, N. (2003). Community media research: A quest for theoretically grounded models. Javnost – The Public, 10 (1), 5-14. KEA (2007). The state of community media in the European Union. Online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies.do?language=EN (last accessed on December 2, 2008).
Kellner, D. (1997). Marxism and the information superhighway. Online: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays (last accessed on April 25, 2007).
Knoche, M. (2003). Freie Radios – frei von Staat, Markt und Kapital(ismus)? Zur Widersprüchlichkeit Alternativer Medien und Ökonomie. Medien Journal, 4. 4-19. Le Monde Diplomatique (2009): About LMD. http://mondediplo.com/about (last accessed on September 10, 2009).
Lewis, P. M. (1976). Bristol channel and community television. London: IBA.
Löwenthal, L. (1964). Literatur und Gesellschaft. Das Buch in der Massenkultur. Neuwied a. Rhein: Luchterhand.
Marcuse, H. (1937/1968), Philosophie und Kritische Theorie. In Kultur und Gesellschaft I (pp. 102-127). Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.
Marcuse, H. (1965). Repressive tolerance. In: R.P. Wolff, B. Moore, & H. Marcuse (Eds.), A critique of pure tolerance (pp. 95-137). Boston: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, H. (1972). Counterrevolution and revolt. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marx, K. (1842). Debatten über Pressfreiheit und Publikation der Landständischen Verhandlungen. In Marx-Engels Works: Vol. 1 (pp. 28-77). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1844). Einführung in die Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. In Marx-Engels Works: Vol. 1 (pp. 378–391). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1849). Der erste Preßprozeß der “Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung”: Verteidigungsrede von Karl Marx. In: Marx-Engels Works: Vol. 6 (pp. 223-234). Berlin: Dietz.
Meikle, G. (2002). Future active. Media activism and the Internet. New York: Routledge/Pluto.
Mother Jones (2008): Distribution Numbers. http://www.motherjones.com/mediakit/magazine/numbers-distribution.html (last accessed on October 12, 2008).
National Democratic Party of Germany (2009): National forum germany. http://www.nationales-forum-deutschland.de/ (last accessed on September 10, 2009).
O’Sullivan, T. (1994). Alternative media. In T. O`Sullivan, J. Hartley, D. Sounders, M.
Montgomery, & J. Fiske (Eds.), Key concepts in communication and cultural studies (p.10). London: Routledge.
Pajnik, M., & Downing, J. (2008). Introduction: The challenges of nano-media. In M. Pajnik,
J. Downing (Eds.), Alternative media and the politics of resistance (pp. 7-16). Ljubljana: Peace Institute.
Peissl, H., & Tremetzberger, O. (2008). Community media in Europe: Legal and economic contexts of the third broadcast sector in 5 countries. English Summary. Online: http://www.communitymedia.eu/images/publications_books/2008_rtr_community_media_in_europe_eng.pdf (last accessed on December 15, 2008).
Rodriguez, C. (2003). The bishop and his star: Citizens’ communication in southern chile. In: N. Couldry, & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 177-194). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rosenkrands, J. (2004). Politicizing homo economicus: Analysis of anti-corporate websites. In W. van De Don, B. D. Loader, P. G. Nixon, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Cyberprotest: New media, citizens and social movements (pp. 57-76). New York: Routledge.
Rucht, D. (2004). The quadruple `A´. Media strategies or protest movements since the 1960s. In W. van De Donk, B. D. Loader, P. G. Nixon, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Cyberprotest. New media, citizens and social movements (pp. 29-56). New York: Routledge.
Schiller, H. (1997). Manipulation and the packaged conciousness. In P. Golding, & G.
Murdock (Eds.), The political economy of the media: Vol. 1 (pp. 423-437). Cheltenham/Brookfield: Elgar.
Smythe, D. W. (1997). Communications: Blindspots of western Marxism. In P. Golding, & G. Murdock (Eds.), The political economy of the media: Vol. 1 (pp. 438-464). Cheltenham/Brookfield: Elgar.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam.
Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying form of online activism: The case of cyberprotest against the World Bank. In M. McCaughey, & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 71-96). New York: Routledge.
Vigurie, R. A., & Franke, D. (2004). America’s right turn: How conservatives used new and alternative media to take power. Santa Monics, CA: Bonus Books.
Wright, S. (2004). Informing, communicating and ICTs in contemporary anti-capitalist movements. In W. van De Donk, B. Loader, P. G. Nixon, & D. Rucht (Eds.). Cyberprotest. new media, citizens and social movements (pp. 77-93). New York: Routledge.
Did you appreciate this publication? Please consider donating.
Marisol Sandoval
Latest posts by Marisol Sandoval (see all)
- Demanding and Defining Alternative Media - August 29, 2014
- Alternative Media – Participation and Critique - May 30, 2014
