1. Stereotypes, narratives, ideologies and discourses are devices that, in different ways according to different theorists, fortify media power. Critically analyse how these devices work, according to various theorists, and reflect upon which best explains communicative power.

The social construction of reality is mediated through the communicative powers of stereotypes, narratives, ideologies and discourses and the media is extremely powerful in communicating messages with these devices. It will be argued that discourses are the most powerful communicating device used by the media in the postindustrial era today. Furthermore as per Croteau & Hoynes (2014, p. 9), the analysis will focus on recognised mass media that is readily available in print, film, radio, television, sound recordings and the Internet. Poststructuralists within sociology examine the structures of society and human agency. Human agency or action is influenced by sociocultural factors such as ideology that shape human identity and act subconsciously over an individual. Ideology is the system of meaning that helps explain, define and make value judgments about the world (Croteau & Hoynes 2014, p. 152). As we live in an interconnected world there are many ideologies as there are social structures in any given society. Related to this is that dominant ideas are hegemonic. Marx created the superstructure, which is the domain of ideas for example religion, legal structures, family, institutions and these are influenced by the interests of the economically dominating classes in society. For Gramsci, ideological hegemony is a mechanism for the ruling/dominating class to maintain its power, either via force or consent or a combination of both (Croteau & Hoynes 2014, p. 158). Thus the level of ideological hegemony would vary between societies and countries. In places like Australia, for example, the use of force would not be used and the ideological hegemony is achieved by convincing people to accept its terms in a civil society, which means that capitalism dominates the cultural sphere. Ideological hegemony’s domination is quite subtle and relies on common sense assumption on how social life is arranged in any given society. ‘Common sense is the way we describe things that everybody knows, or at least should know, because such knowledge represents deeply held cultural beliefs’ (Croteau & Hoynes 2014, p. 159). Gramsci also devised the notion of civil society that is private and where the dominant hegemony rules while political society, which is state governed involves direct intervention by the government. Convincing people in the private, civil society/sphere involves cultural domination in civil institutions such as the media, educational and religious schools. Mass media institutions such as television, magazine, newspaper publications, films and Internet news and entertainment websites legitimize the discourse of the dominant hegemony. Popular culture that is shown on television and film industry for example, project consistent images of society and encourages absorption of this dominant ideology thinking. Narratives are stories and are part of the cultural processes of all societies. Related to this is the concept of narrative structure, which consists of a beginning, middle and an ending (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler 2008, p. 259). Todorov (1975 cited in O’Shaughnessy et al. 2008, p. 261) demonstrated that all narratives are movements between two equilibriums, from a stable situation to disequilibrium and disruption to resolution whereby equilibrium is reached again but this is structurally different to the former equilibrium. The narratives result in questions being raised, which require resolution so that a formal structure exists even if the outcome is negative. For example in all movies such as Legally Blonde, The Hurricane, Tracks, the narrative draws in the audience/viewer and it is eventually resolved. The resolution obviously raises new questions or problems. Even in newspapers the narratives draw in the reader and through text explain the situation succinctly but then once the issue, which is under examination, is resolved, further questions arise. This shows that society is in a constant state of flux and that there are innumerable narratives that become resolved and yet raise new questions. In Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices, Hall (1997, p. 258) defines stereotypes in three ways, the first being that it acquires the ‘few simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped and widely recognised characteristics about a person, reduce everything about the person to those traits, exaggerate and simplify them, and fix them without change or development to eternity.… So the first point is – stereotyping reduces, essentialises, naturalizes and fixes difference.’ An example would be that the media portrays young as being foolhardy and irresponsible when most are not at all as well as Aborigines always being intoxicated and living on benefits. ‘Secondly, stereotyping deploys a strategy of ‘splitting’. It divides the normal and the acceptable from the abnormal and the unacceptable. It then excludes or expels everything which does not fit, which is different… So, another feature of stereotyping is its practice of ‘closure’ and exclusion. It symbolically fixes boundaries, and excludes everything, which does not belong’ (Hall 1997, p.258). An example would be the exclusion of minority ethnics from prestigious horseracing clubs and award nights like the Logies as television hardly ever shows minority groups at these prestigious events. ‘The third point is that stereotyping tends to occur when there are gross inequalities of power. Power is usually directed against the subordinate or excluded group’ (Hall 1997, p. 258). So the nature of stereotypes is such that it is persistently rooted in power and displayed by arguments that encourage the promotion of difference. Hall (2007, p. 259) explored how power is used to physically control or symbolically influence others. Power includes not only ‘economic exploitation and physical coercion, but also in broader cultural or symbolic terms, including the power to represent someone or something in a certain way – within a certain regime of representation [including] symbolic power through representational practices. Stereotyping is a key element in this exercise of symbolic violence’ (Hall 2007, p. 259). This power to control others through representation ensures that ownership of identity is given thus to an outside authority – to those with power. We all use stereotypes to define groups of people and create some semblance of order when confronted with those who are different from self. Some stereotypes have historical and social roots, which reveal some truth. For example the traits of neo-Nazis throughout history has been well documented in academic publications, newspapers, mass media so that everyone understands the abhorrent acts that these type of groups do and if these groups exist today there is an awareness of their stereotypical behaviour. According to Foucault (cited in Hall 2007, p. 259), stereotyping is a ‘power and knowledge’ sort of game. And this power is spread through interconnected relationships, which make up any given society and this is based on discourse. Discourse is the communication between individuals, groups and subcultures through which ideologies are questioned, truths and ideas are constructed and negotiated and identities are formed and reformed. For power to have an impact on discourse, there has to be the social struggles for freedom (Foucault 1977, p. 6). Power can only create an effect if an object has the possibility to resist. For Foucault, audiences or the masses can and will resist the dominant ideology. For Foucault discourses are diverse, complex and thus interpretation and the outcomes by the masses will be varied and different. However Foucault (1977) maintains the Marxist view that power produces knowledge and this could create a perceived truth. Knowledge also produces power as those who know, construct what is deemed to be knowledge and thus retain power. This power-knowledge construction is fundamentally important as the perception of truth determines how one thinks, acts and sees oneself with respect to others, which includes media communication and its associated tools or devices. Santana, Agosto, Benozzo & Rosa (2014) defined discourse as the usage of texts as symbolic materials to produce meaning and identities. Furthermore Santana et al. (2014) defined Critical Discourse Analysis as the critical examination of how meanings produced by the discourses create sociopolitical and socioeconomic inequalities and injustices in societies. Thussu (2012) examined the worldwide dissemination of US Government’s imperialist war activities of the post-Cold War era (1989-2004) primarily through worldwide television networks. In particular the Iraq War in 1991 was a globalized spectacle as well as the Somalia military operation of 1992. The discourse of these visual and textual communication of these military operations were broken down into six subsections by Thussu (2012) as inundation with official information, threat perception, the atrocity story, misinformation, jingo journalism, and war as entertainment. As predicted by Foucault’s theory of audience resistance to the dominant discourse, Thussu (2012) found that there was a general resentment and discontent with respect to these warfares both within and outside the imperial centres. This shows that discourse is a powerful tool in that it communicates multiple messages and its interpretations by the masses is varied and power can only have an impact if there is resistance to its acceptance. Herman & Chomsky’s Propaganda Model (cited in Klaehn 2005) was developed due to the failure of mainstream media to serve the masses public interest. Based on industrial organisations whereby structure will determine a firm’s behaviour and thus economic performance. The media is owned by a few organisations or sellers and this enables greater profit margins due to less competition between sellers. The Propaganda Model hypothesizes that the news discourse is bound to power and that the primary sources of news media will be the agents of power. Thus in this model official sources are those that reflect the interests of the powerful, socioeconomically dominant classes and institutions. Thus media debate is only framed through official sources. This idea is similar to the critical discourse analysis (CDA) developed by van Dijk (1993). The PM and CDA models are important, more so now as societies are very complex. They are useful in analysing involved issues so as to find the essential traits or factors that reproduce inequality and discord. With the advent of globalisation and technological advances such as the Internet, media discourses are widely prevalent both in written and spoken formats that makes cultural products available globally (Croteau et al. 2014, p.337). That is, without doubt the most influential media tool. Discourses in media incorporate all the features examined, which are the stereotypes, narratives, and ideologies. Without these elements in discourse and discourse analysis, the relationship between individuals, groups and institutions within any given society would not have any meaning and understanding. So discourse can be applied to any event or situation case in point being news stories. For example, the tragic case of the missing Malaysian flight MH370 recently made worldwide headlines and has created numerous narratives, stereotypes and theories. Another example is the common incidences of elderly abuse in nursing homes. This can be analysed using discourses on the sociocultural issues affecting the elderly in societies and how individualism and emphasis on youthfulness leads to abandonment of the elderly. These two instances in the social world highlight that discourse is a reliable and thorough tool to examine any aspect of society at an individual or group level. Media devices of narratives, ideologies, discourses and stereotypes are immensely influential in communicating power, not only of the media but the dominant hegemonies in societies around the world. Discourse is the most powerful as ideas and thoughts are always in a state of flux never static but this tool enables close examination of the issues involved.

References:
Barker, C. (2008). Foucault: Discourse, practice and power. Cultural studies: Theory and practice, 3rd Edn, London, Sage.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes (2014). Media/society: Industries, images and audiences, 4th edn, Los Angeles, Sage, pp. 152-178.
Foucault, M. (1977) Power/Knowledge, New York, Pantheon Books.
Hall, S. (1997), ‘The Work of Representation’ in Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Ed.) S. Hall, London, Sage Publications
Klaehn J. (2005). A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’. Filtering the news: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, Montreal: Black Rose Books, pp. 1-20.
O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2008), ‘Narrative structures and binary oppositions’, Media and Society, 4th edition, south Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
Santana, C.R., Agosto, N.M.V., Benozzo, A., & Rosa, S.C. (2014). Creative (Critical) Discourse Analysis of Tiziano Ferro and Ricky Martin “Coming Out” Qualitative Inquiry 20 (2), pp. 183-192.
Thussu, D.K. (2012). Infotainment Inc: The ascent of a global ideology. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century. Oxon, UK, Routledge, pp. 69–82. van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis Discourse & Society 4(2), pp. 249-283.