Media Freedom and Pluralism: Media Policy Challenges in the Enlarged Europe

Chapter 9: Audience Resistance: Reasons to Relax Content Regulation

CHaPTer 9 audience resistance: Reasons to Relax Content Regulation 1 PÉter Bajomi-lázár 9.1. The puzzle of rhetorical unpopularity vs. practical popularity Commercial television is unpopular and popular. it is unpopular in the sense that audiences tend to despise it for its “low quality,” “sensationalism ,” and “disrespect” for privacy. and it is popular in the sense that it has a high audience share. in fact, more people watch commercial television channels than their public service counterparts in nearly all european countries (open society institute, 2005). The contradictory nature of the public’s position on commercial television is also mirrored in broadcasting regulation, which, in most of europe, allows commercial broadcasters to operate, yet seriously limits their activity. Policymakers and lawmakers tend to consider commercial television a kind of “necessary evil.” in order to protect citizens from the assumed negative impact of commercial television, they engage in positive and negative censorship. on the one hand, broadcasting regulation imposes classic public service obligations2 upon commercial broadcasters, such as offering news regularly. on the other hand, it restricts the airing of particular content such as violence, hate speech, and pornography (open society institute, 2005).3 as a general rule, broadcasting regulation in europe places public service broadcasting first. even the regulation of commercial television is rooted in a normative perspective that is based upon the public service broadcasting ethos. What explains the puzzle of rhetorical unpopularity and practical popularity that commercial television enjoys? Why do many viewers say that they despise commercial television and keep watching it? in this chapter, i will recall theories that might help to answer these i4 Beata book.indb 175 2010.05.09. 10:22 176 Media Freedom and Pluralism questions. reviewing previous research on how viewers receive television programs, i will argue that audiences are resistant to what is generally believed to be “harmful” content, which makes restrictive content regulation unnecessary. liberal media policy analysts put forward various arguments for the relaxation of content regulation imposed upon commercial television channels. some note that commercial broadcasters tend to sabotage public service obligations: either the programs they air fail to be real public service programs and meet purely commercial purposes (such as their infotainment magazines disguised as news programs), or they do not broadcast public service programs at all but choose to pay a fine. This makes regulation senseless and regulatory authorities ridiculous (Kertész, 2006). others say that the “self-correcting processes” of the media market regulate content sufficiently and adequately; that is, private interests ultimately meet the public interest. Programs that fail to meet the expectations of the audiences leave the small screen quickly. For example, the reason why most commercial television channels do not show hardcore violence and pornography is that there is no massive demand for such programming; viewers use the remote to communicate their wishes. Competition, i.e., the smithian “invisible hand of the market,” makes regulation by the state a useless and hence a senseless venture (cf. Keane, 1991). Yet others point out that national regulation is easy to ignore in the era of global mass communications . all investors have to do is register their television channels in a country not regulated by the target territory, and transmit programs via satellite or cable to their destination, or just use the internet to reach their audiences (cf. Bajomi-lázár, 2006). in this chapter, i will use another approach to argue for the relaxation of content regulation: one that contrasts traditional media policy principles with theories of audience resistance. 9.2. Critiques of the commercial media Critics have focused their attention on the commercial media in at least three successive waves. The first wave of critique was voiced in the mid-20th century. Based on earlier works by Karl Marx and Karl Bücher, Max Horkheimer and Theodor adorno of the Frankfurt i4 Beata book.indb 176 2010.05.09. 10:22 Audience Resistance 177 school used such terms to describe the popular mass media (at that time, newspapers, cinema, and radio) as “commercialization” and “commodification,” pointing out that cultural goods had become products to sell. They introduced the concepts “culture industry” and “knowledge industry,” claiming that the media were able to shape audience tastes negatively (cf. Frith, 1997; McQuail, 1994). The second wave of critique was launched in the 1960s, when commercial television reached a mass audience in the united states, and fears of the media...