coalpot

Ch. 3: Television as Everyday Network of Government by James Hay from Post Global Network and Everyday Life by Peter Lang

The chapter begins with an etymological reflection on the evolution of the word “network”, tracking its original use to describing aspects of the human circulatory system to its appropriation, in the seventeenth century, to particular artisan techniques. According to Hay (2010), who references Armand Mattelart (1996), it was this convergence of uses of the term in medicine and the economy, with reliance on measurement and mapping of flows, that led to its inculcation in Communication studies.

This tracing of the term’s historical roots is important to Hay (2010) in attempting to understand its application in reference to the transformation of television structures, policies, and spaces. He points out that in the past century, that communication scholars generally used the term to refer to broadcasting and mass communication. He notes that this use was closely linked with notions of nationhood and citizenship, since networks represented the merging of legally and legislatively delineated broadcast spaces. The term became the most popular reference for broadcast television in the US: namely, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and PBS. Within this particular paradigm, the term network became closely aligned with the relationship of the citizenry and its bases of power.

Contemporary advancement in media and communication may have exhausted the term, pushing some scholars to refer to a “post-network era” to account for the incorporation of broadcasting television into cable and satellite programming. Hay (2010) notes that scholars like Lotz (2007) do not use this new terminology to suggest that the traditional usage to describe national broadcast television is obsolete, but rather they adopted the new term to preserve the uniqueness of the characteristics of network television (p.151).

Lotz (2007) sees the dialectic between this new terminology and the concept of the “network society” advanced by Castell (1996), which asks questions more relevant to information technology than to broadcast policy. She however sees some harmony with her term and that of Castel, stating that they both suggests that digital media and the internet marks a historical rupture that pervades almost every gamut of society. Their position validates what Nicholas Negroponte (1996) calls the “digital revolution”, which highlights the fusion between broadcasting and digital interactivity (p.151).

Mark  Deuze (2007) considers the cultural implications of this convergence of me noting that, “Media convergence has a cultural logic of its own, blurring the lines between production, consumption, between making media and using media, and between active and passive spectatorship of mediated culture” (p.152). This concept of convergence culture is one that Deuze borrows from Henry Jenkins (2006), who outlines its dialectic dynamics between media producers and consumers.

Jenkin’s (2006) theory gives considerable power and agency to media consumers, arguing that contribute to the development of a democratic public, highlighting the inherent powers of such communities mobilized and organized around shared goals and interests. Hay (2010), however, is skeptical of Jenkins classifications of consumers into grassroots networks, eager to point to the factors that define or constitute these groups of energized consumers.

Hay (2010) invokes Foucauldian theories on power and governmentality in dismissing Jenkin’s (2006) claim that these new opportunities in digital media empower consumers within the democratic system. Hay (2010) writes, “An analytic of everyday government thus cuts two ways: as an analysis of media industries as well as consumer-citizens who are reliant on techniques of management, and an analysis of how these privatized and personalized techniques of management operate in conjunction  with policies, programs, and regulations of the State” (p.155).

Therefore, Hay (2010) attempts to deconstruct this notion of the liberal citizen by examining it within the context of the evolving convergence of television. He asserts that television is actually a network of government, noting that discussions and policies surrounding its evolution continue to be centered on structures of governments and the reconfiguration of the “welfare state” (p.157).  He posits that this phenomenon is most obvious in the private and public partnerships and the consolidation of these broadcast entities from localized structures to national structures. He notes, “Typically, the link between State and privatized televisiual administration of public services is not formalized”  (p.160). He believes that if this happens then it would contradict the political culture of the limited role of the state broadcasting.

Hay (2010) suggests that a critique of this roundabout governmental strategy for controlling media in order to curtail and limit individual rights unearths Foucault’s exposition on the liberal notions of self-government. It offers insights into how the government uses media to delimit liberties and perceptions of governance.

While I read this chapter, I kept reflecting on a bill being promoted by some Republican Congressional representatives, termed Lamborn’s HR 68, calling for amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, which would end federal funding to PBS and NPR by 2013. I wonder whether this current private-public partnership that Hay (2010) refers to in his article is actually more prophetic of the displacement of public media entirely in the US. Alternatively, it may be that these public entities may become obsolete if, as James states, the government already controls these broadcast spaces indirectly.

_______________________________________________________________

Lang, P. (2010). Post-Global Network and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.