Pedro.doc
Mass media, advertising and consumption-the Greek case, 2000-2010.
Prolegomena
I
In its universal aspect, the whole field of telecommunications may be considered as a basic component of a wider “hyper-field” having as a core computer science and communications, while also including related fields as the electronics industries ( embracing computer manufacturers, home electronics e.t.c.), the software industries as well as the information services in electronic form). The basic constituent guaranteeing the greatest production of surplus-value (or, equivalently, profitability) is the privatization of the network substructure, a fundamental presupposition of maximum profitability, provided that this specific substructure has been brought into existence through public funding-so that the privatized company will find the substructure already in place, with no obligation to add any additional capital whatsoever. At a first phase, the rhetoric of deregulationpassionately favours competition and the internationalization of this “hyper-field”.
During the next phase, internationalization facilitates the (natural) tendency towards monopoly, since the international capital being invested for this purpose is abnormally huge ,when related to any respective local capital. International capital, due to its enormous volume, promotes institutionally, by way of its lobbies and in any other conceivable manner, the processes of deregulating the components of the “hyper-field”. The deregulation brought about tends to significantly contribute to the major objective, which is the “unprecedented expansion of consumption, far beyond the existingpatterns in every single component of the “hyper-field””(1).
The expansion of consumption was made possible through central directives, asfor example with the directives of E.U from Brussels. And a coursetending to decrease the ever-present risk (for capitalprofitability) is the convergence and/or the symphysis (i.e. the conjoining, the growing together) of capital invested in the core components of the “hyper-field”.
For example, the rapprochement of the mass media, informatics and telecommunications with the spectacle industry manifests a major trend of this convergence.The significant investments required , result -in every single case- from the most significant and financially sound component of the “hyper-field” in any given conjuncture. The unifying principle of all these are the particularly expanded possibilities of the digital field.
However, a dominating presupposition of the pursued convergences at the level of technology is the enlargement of withdrawal in people’s private lifes, i.e. individualization (2), which has been, and continues being, one of the foundation stones of the society of consumption. And the influence of the advancing individualization becomes entirely visible through the cultivation of the all-embracing individualism, a collective aversion for the meaning ( and practice) of everything public and collective, of the public space, the public discourse, the public interest and the public good. In general, against everything that even slightly approaches the meaning of the commons.
This aversion for anything that has to do with the collective, the commons, is certainly cultivated on a long term basis and consciously by the various elites, with unfoundedarguments, and results in weakening of the will of the majority of a country’s inhabitants, by presenting and disseminating a magical ( and non-existent) image, which has already collapsed with the manifestation and the raging of the worldwide financial crisis.
The advancing individualization combines with depoliticization, closure into one’s self, the aversion of teaching history at all levels of education, the limited knowledge of words-by significant obstacles in expressing and communicating ideas and concepts exceeding a vocabulary of 100-200 words- which is the dream and the ideal of every despotism. It also combines with a continuous imitativeness at the level of consumption, which finds its condensed expression in the consistent cultivation of lifestyle, in close association with an analogous social imaginary.
In the Greek case, a number of the domestic mass media (the so-called systemic) undertook, in an unsolicited manner, the wider role of the “instructor” and “reformer” of society-addressing the public at large-, the “educator” (according to others, the “seducer”) of the new generation, according to the prevailing “international standards”. “Values” being highlighted included the effortless enrichment, impudence (what some call shrewdness) , the scorn of colleagues and/or friendly bonds, the criminal indifference for their close environment, the indifference for public goods, the identification with the “glittering” and successful mass media people or the financially successful ones.
Of course, some were awakened after the collapse of the Greek stock exchange during the late 1999, while quite a few never awakened from their lethargy. Surely, in a general fashion “and in a first approach, today’s Western people-Greeks included-is somebody strictly limited in his private sphere. Their interest is restricted in their living standards, trying to camouflage the void of every sense related to their lives and their eventual death, with various consumer “goods”. They are manipulated by the so-called politicians or are so disappointed with the current political situation, reacting with abstention. They are enervated by the media of mass communication, stunned with the serials and swallowing,more or less, what is being served as “news” […]. Today’s society is a society of TV-consumption in a double sense […].What today’s people mainly consume is te-le-vi-si-on content. And through TV they consume, (using it as an intermediary), theillusion of a life made up by money, sex, power and violence” (3).
It is all about the conscious cultivation of a “convenient self-deception”(4). Of course, after the manifestation of the Greek financial crisis, during the end of the first decade of the 21st century, radical changes were recorded, and not only at the level of the possible realization of their desires, but mainly in the extended perception of the Greek people , concerning the mass media and their use.
Quite recent findings on the use of the mass media investigate the index of usage of the mass media, and on what is the meaning of this index for those using the media according to the intensity of userelated to their educational level and political affiliation. Two large groups are formed, which for purposes of abbreviation are defined according to their age groups. In addition, there isquite a number of other factors who distribute those two large groups in relation to more components, thus forming subgroups of groups.
But in these lines we just record the general trend. These two groups are composed by people aged 15-34 years old, and bypeople aged 55+. The first group consists of people mainly with higher and secondary education, intensive users (5)of at least three mass media, with internet at the top, and are politically progressive, mostlybelonging to some form of the Left. The second group, aged 55+, consists of peoplewith lower and secondary education, which with as they age, use more and more frequently the mono-cultivation of a single medium, which happens to be television, and are dominated by a conservative mindset, mostly belonging to the Right/Center-Right political spectrum, and to a lesser degree to the (political) Center. The intermediate age group, those of 35-54 years old, consists of two fluid sets, each of them acquiring the media habits of the wider group ( 15-34 or 55+) closer to them.
In fact, these two wider groups constitute ,in fact, two different conceptions and interpretations of the world, leading to entirely dissimilar –if not directly different social imaginaries, belonging to parallel, asymptotic worlds, with no points of contact. This means that these two wider groups possess entirely different mindsets, thus tending towards different decisions and towards different readings of their everyday reality. Perhapsthis may constitute the greatest fissure in today’s Greek society, with possible consequences for its further course. A different understanding and interpretation of everyday reality might lead to different consciences and to finally different decisions and actions.
The fissures to which we referred might be depicted with the following table:
First fissure (educational level) / Mostly of higher and secondary education. Intensive users of at least three mass media. / People of lower and secondary education. Intensive users of two mass media or of one medium or not intensive users of mass media.Second fissure ( age bracket combined with political orientation) / Intensive users of at least three mass media, belonging to some form of the Left. People aged 15-24, 25-34 years old (y.o) and secondarily 25-34 y.o comprise the majority of the intensive users of at least three mass media. / Intensive users of two or fewer or no mass media. Mostly people aged 55-64 and 65+,with a conservative mindset, belonging to the (political) Center andmainly to the Right/Center-Right political spectrum. Intensive users of one medium or even non intensive users, mostly belonging to the 55-64 and 65+ age brackets.
Essentially, starting with2008 , we may observe the gradual course of disintegration of the vast majority of the existing mass media in Greece , leading to implosions and not only for the television stations, which follows the overtly manifest downward course of advertising expenditure, the latter being the major income for the Greek mass media.
This meant the end of the processing of cheap mass media content ( e.g. for trash TV and similar media programmes and media content in other mass media) and their “resale” –through the mainly comprador character of the media-to the unsuspecting media audience as the embodiment of the Greek Dream.
Such a finding does not necessarily lead to the unjustly rumoured “death” of television, or of any other medium, but to a paradigm shifttowards an entirely different media content from these which had been “consumed” by the audiences until now, and for which the audiences had been persuaded that it is was the only possible content which could exist in the mass media sphere. This means that the “construction” of a symbolic and imaginary space which had been “sold” to the media audiences up to this point (by the “specialists”), had already started to decompose. The aforesaid symbolic and imaginary space gave form to a reality constructed by and through the mass media, and which hadabsolutely no relation whatsoever with the everyday life of the Greek people since 2009-2010.
The former powerful cultural influence, evident in large numbers of the population, ardently supported by the systematically promoted individualization, the arrogance, the endless trend for easy money for mimicking the lifestyle and other paraphernalia, and encouraged by the (so-called) industry of “free time” and the pseudo-mass culture and by the mainstream media, is being dematerialized, heading towards the dustbin.
And we are now landing in an entirely different, distinctly richer reality. On a worldwide basis, the last decade is being characterized by a single word: transition. We are societies under transition. i.e.under transformation. The crisis itself is but a symptom of this transformation, since crisis refers to the necessity of a mostly radicalre-examination of the biggest part (if not the total) of our everyday reality.
We draw up a list of sectors-not in order of significance- that have to be re-examined or currently are under re-examination:
1. The vast majority of the models attempting to provide an explanation of the function of mass communication was of a linear character (sender → receiver), following a one-way direction. There was no feedback from the receiver to the sender. The fact that today’s post-TV media, and mainly the internet, a medium with a highly increased potential with respect to TV, does not follow the one-way logic (of the TINA family-There Is No Alternative) implies that the older such models urgently need a radical revision followed by their repositioning, in order to continue having some meaning in our times.
If the older models will not be revised, then we may say with enough certainty that they belong to a kind of “mass media archaeology”, since the influence of these models of the past-if not revised-is a “tool” with an quite evident political dimension, potentially influencing the mindsets and the conscience of the living.
2. The prominently interesting characteristic of our times is that we have to learn to live with and between multiple mass media systems, which presupposes a relevant education. But the problems for Greece begin from this very point. The foundation of such an education is 1) the necessity for teamwork, (an anathema for the neoliberal elites) being entirely difficult in our era, where individualization is promoted in every conceivable manner, 2) a conception of time having nothing to do with the prevalent ( in our times, operational) quasi-immediacy, and an 3) essential communication of people between them as citizens, having no relation whatsoever with the superficial “communication” as promoted by the various forms of digital media.
However, such an education nowadays presents a series of quite visible structural problems “…within the overall decline of the socialization system for young people, the disgust for a school that does not educate, the political hypocrisy and the politicians of favouritism and of dealings […] the businessmen and bankers prone to looting, the cynicism and vulgarity of the mass media, the marginalization and unemployment, the visible intimidation that the next generation will live worse, more miserably than the present one. And it is certainly true that, within the shadow of the financial recession, neoliberal policies will continue “nationalizing” the banking debts, and to privatize or attempt privatizing profitable or potentially profitable public infrastructures (telecommunications, harbours and the like)” (6).
3. During the last years we have witnessed a significant increase in the use of the internet, as well as that the intensive internet users manage to perform more tasks than one at the same time, with their laptop/P.C. This is called multitasking, a subject still unexplored.
Though the findings we have previously analysed, i.e. the existence of two entirely uncorrelated between them groups of people , rather remain the largest problem since the era of the deterioration of the “older” mass media, being at the same time the most significant problem to be resolved by the mass media themselves. Otherwise, the mid-term future of quite a few media is under threat.
4. In addition-and this is the most important fact- we must consider the observation that the so-called new media do not produce surplus-value in the sense the “old” media produced, even during the era of television’s omnipotence. In that case we have the comeback of the falling rate of profit, which deplores all societies under recession (7).
This is the major reason for the fierce attempt to enforce a number of “laws” (severe restrictions, in fact) of the ACTA,SOPS, TIPP type, the end of whom has to be the dustbin, their enforcement constituting a direct threat to the remaining rights of the citizens of enough apparent democracies.
With the above remarks and conclusions we arrive at the most crucial point: this transition makes up the major substratum for the crisis in the mass media sphere. We may wonder, if in this slippery environment, both “old” and “new” mass media could solve their problems, so that we might arrive at new forms of them, or will they be the media with an uncertain future within a worldwide crisis?
A part of the model of interweaving ( diaplokí in Greek) combined the ownership of one or more mass media –functioning as a besieging ram- along with other enterprises of the same owner, so that the access in a number of projects of the public domain ( which could be undertaken by his other enterprises) along with the “suitable” price over-evaluation ( which will most probably be not audited at all or will be superficially audited ) by the competent public services responsible for delivering the project , could be a child’s game by using the owner’s mass media as rams, so that he could finally undertake the specific public contract.
In that sense the model of interweaving relies on the construction of a triangle including a) the politicians or the public services controlled by them, b) the mass media owned by entrepreneurs using private capital, and c) private banks, i.e. the financial sector of the private capital, with sole objective the undue enrichment of the entrepreneurs and, to a lesser degree, with the politicians being bribed by the entrepreneurs, in order to undertake projects of the public domain.
The mobility being observed in the mass media even today (8) is an indication that the model of interweaving we have previously described has not undergone any significant changes, and that lifestyle along with opaqueness as a way of practicing politics remains still with us.
The downfall of the so-called established (i.e. the systemic) mass media, with a good number of them acting as “battleships” of the political system was, in reality, the equivalent of lifting up the lid from a kettle ready to explode, any time now. The kettle represents Greek society, encircled in exceedingly severe limitations of undescribable and permanent austerity, imposed in an extra-parliamentary fashion by the so-called troika of the “exterior”, comprising representatives of EU, IMF and ECB, in harmonious cooperation with the domestic troika of the “interior”. The latter consisting of hard-core Greek supporters of the extra-parliamentary imposition of neo-liberal policies (i.e. of the so-called “adjustment”) , with no historical antecedent, and wholeheartedly supporting a policy entirely subordinated to the diktats of the troika of the “exterior”, coupled with the substantial cooperation of a government consisting of “apparently” dissimilar political parties.