Cultural Studies Debate - Grossberg vs. Garnham

In Lawrence Grossberg’s article, Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is Anybody Else Bored with this Debate?, he repeatedly criticizes Nicholas Garnham’s inability to define and discuss cultural studies. Garnham makes several criticisms about cultural studies in his essay. His first criticism is that it “celebrates popular culture and gives up any oppositional role”, due to the fact that cultural studies ignores the institutions of cultural production (626). Secondly, “because cultural studies ignores cultural production, it is incapable of understanding the real structures of power, domination, and oppression in the contemporary world” (626).

Grossberg completely disagrees with Garnham’s criticisms… He believes that cultural studies did not reject political economy, but instead, it rejected the way some political economists practice political economy. However, Grossberg agrees somewhat that some parts of cultural studies have become too celebratory of culture. Although Grossberg shoots down many of Garnhams opinions on the matter, he also seems to agree occasionally with him.

The Changing Media Industry

In the article, The New Media Giants written by David Croteau and William Hoynes talks about how the TV industry has changed throughout the years through bigger corporations buying out smaller ones and even how technology has changed the industry. New technology is one of the key elements facilitating industry changes (29). When CBS and Viacom merged there was only three national broadcast networks and by the end of the century there was six. Now TV wasn’t the only place for the media. Internet played a huge role in the media world. “Because of the apparently low cost of entry and virtually no-cost distribution, it was thought to be a way to level the playing field between large media conglomerates and smaller independent producers” (29). Now, with the Internet, everyone can essentially put his or her media and idea on the web. Although the Internet has changed the TV industry already, I believe that its going to change it to an ever greater extent. Today, you can essentially watch any TV show that you’re looking for or even the news live online. What will happen to the media industry if everything becomes online and you don’t need a TV?

The Changing Industry Structure

It has always been a huge deal when famous media/industry/corporations merge ownership or partnership. In The New Media Giants, David Croteau and William Hoynes argue about the evolution of media and the affect it has on the public. The market perspective and the public sphere perspective introduce two different but very important concepts to keep in mind when analyzing media.

http://myportfolio.usc.edu/waca/DisneyTV.gif
This photo on the top left shares some examples of some of the major media companies Walt Disney owns.


From the market perspective, these media giants merging or selling out to another company can be "understood as the rational actions of media corporations attemping to maximize sales, create efficiencies in production, and position themselves strategically to face potential competitors" (22). The growth and evolution of media conglomerates is unstoppable and to this day it is expanding to include everything from radio, television, to computer games, CD's, movies, the Internet etc. These multiple revenue generates from this expansion. With so many big media players buying out other big media players, more and more corporations are owning a vast majority of media. It is scary in a way because no one thinks to know that Disney owns almost everything from the Disney channel to ABC family to Lifetime to ESPN to SOAP etc. The list goes on vertically and horizontally allowing Disney (for example) to own many different types of media products as well as a variety of ways of distribution, production, and exhibition of their product(s). The digital platform "encompasses all forms of media" making it easier "for companies to create and promote their different products" (33).

The public sphere perspective ties with what has been mentioned concerning the market perspective. As said before, big media companies buying out other big media companies is seen to act as beneficial to the companies and its success. However, from the public sphere perspective, "growth in the number of media outlets does not necessarily ensure content that serves public interest" (22). In other words, when there is a vast majority of media or a high selection of different forms and genres of media, the public have choices of different media to choose from depending on interest, mood etc. People associate with whatever media attracts them because they find an interest in it. If Disney, for example, were to own every single possible form of media in this world, the diversity of expression will lack because of the dominance of one particular outlet. It would leave out so much if Disney ruled the world.

As a result of this merging phase, so many more channels have been created (added) and new forms of media have been developed, allowing people to watch their favorite shows on the computer instead of the tv, or listen to their favorite songs on youtube instead of the radio or i-pod for example. However, Croteau and Hoynes point out that "more content does not necessarily mean different content" (29). This method is not the only one out there to make big media giants successful. The idea of globalization is another strategy media conglomerates follow to maintain success. The outside countries actually have a huge affect on big media corporations. These companies rely on the interest of other countries and keep in mind how their products will sell outside of the United States. This demonstrates that media companies (very few big giants) "dominate the entire (global) mass communication industry" (36). With that said, much of our media not only shapes our perspectives but outside countries' perspectives. Our cultures, although very different, share the affect of the media's influence to our lifestyles.

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%20Page/Disney-war.jpg
I personally thought this picture was interesting. I suggested what if all of media was controlled by Disney and this picture demonstrates that imagined idea perfectly.

Taking Over TV

In the "The New Media Giants" the export of American television is addressed. (Bodroghkozy anyone?) Just like the export of any cultural creation I see this as a dangerous practice because it risks undermining local custom and tradition. A constant barrage of American culture is bound to have some influence on a foreign audience. In some Asian countries, the introduction of American professional wrestling is credited with drastically increasing the rate of violence. It is also likely that American programming is much more commonly received than that from any other nation. This might create the perception for those in more isolated lifestyles and locations that the rest of the world is akin to what you see on American television.

On a related point, what, if any, aspects of the text that is being viewed abroad are being changed for the viewing audience. Language would be an easy change, but you can't re-film every episode of a tv show to reflect the dress, diet, social practices, and nuances of each of the countries in which it is broadcast.

I also wanted to point out that the US has adopted multiple foreign born shows and made them staples in American media. It is evident that American media companies are not worried about being pushed out of the market by foreign competitors like those competitors are in their own country. If Americans like an idea it is brought over, revamped and pumped out into the public without the majority of viewers ever knowing that their beloved show started elsewhere.

The site realtvaddict.com reveals a few Americanized foreign born shows and it is interesting to note the wild popularity of the shows which weren't conceived in the US but are now undoubtedly American shows.

New Media Giants

Croteau and Hoynes’ article mainly talks about the merger between two major television companies, Viacom and CBS. It was the largest merger in history by a long shot. Merging media companies has four main developments – growth, integration, globalization, and concentration of ownership.

During this merger, the television shows changed tremendously. A great example is MTV. Not too long ago, it used to be exactly what its name says – music television. Music videos and talk about music were the only things you would tune into MTV for, versus now being a reality television show advocate. On another note, MTV also became a global phenomenon. “Over three-quarters of households that receive MTV are outside the United States” (35). Expanding a station globally like that also gives its network a better name.

Making sense of mergers

The article "The New Media Giants" deals with mergers of companies. The two that are focused the most are CBS and Viacom. From personal experience, I can say that these mergers seriously effected the quality of some of Viacom's channels. The article goes on and on about the business behind all of the mergers, but the most important thing though is the entertainment value they are supposed to provide.


Nickelodeon is a clear example of a channel seriously effected by the merge in 1999. They used to have great shows, that kids around 8-15 or so could like, and the quality of the cartoons and shows were much better. I remember though at the turn of the millennium, the shows went downhill, and I didn't understand why, but after reading this article I can see the probable cause. Today, Nickelodeon is a festering mess of horrible shows, and I feel bad for the kids that are subject to awful broadcasting.

The good old days of Rugrats.


What on earth happened?



MTV, another channel owned by Viacom, obviously is nowhere near the channel that it was 10 years ago, and even then it started to branch from its musical routes. During late 1990s though they started to branch into reality shows such as The Real World and Stunt show "Jackass." The Jersey Shore is a relatively new show and it clearly goes against all intentions of the purpose of the channel itself- which was to originally be a channel associated with music.


A lot of channels both associated with CBS/Viacom and others that are not, are guilty of changing too much of a channel around. I am sure this happens because of monetary and business reasons, where paychecks come first and quality television comes second.