#1) Industry and Political Economy

          “Media” is such a broad word; it covers all types of processes that act as the medium between people and the world around them. Thus it plays an important role in the political economy in which we live and the study of culture. At large, a society is a function of its needs; the jobs we create, the education we receive, and the lifestyles we lead are all subject to the influence of what we determine as necessities. But who ultimately determines our needs?

Studying the politics of economy helps us view our history through materialism, and determining the power relationships that inherently develop as we as humans try to create and fulfill our needs. Media—broadcasting, journalism, the internet, or other methods of communication—will always be a need, since it is the means by which our ideas and our shared existence becomes known. Thus media is a direct reflection of what we as a society find important to discuss, feel, express, and most importantly…buy.

It is impossible to examine political economy without taking cultural studies into consideration. This was one of the clearest points made in Garnham’s article, “Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce?” To quote the end: “How is it possible to study multi-culturalism or diasporic culture without studying the flows of labor migration and their determination that have largely created these creatures?” (71) The things we buy create jobs for other people, and they also create our world, since these items—food, music, movies, clothes, games, and everything else—are how we spend our money, our time, etc. It is difficult to think of describing yourself or others without including how we spend our time, what things we like, etc. Thus we individually and as a culture ARE a result of the media surrounding us. And the media we create is a result of who we are, who we want to be, and what we choose to know and talk about.

This relates to the pilot of Aaron Sorkin’s series, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” which only lasted one season. The show captures the behind-the-scenes business and production ordeals of a live sketch comedy show, much like “Saturday Night Live.” To me, the most powerful moment was the controversial speech made by the producer, ensuing all the chaos that followed. What he said relates directly to what we SHOULD think about when we watch television, or interact with any media: what are we allowing the media to say about us? Or make us believe? It has the power to influence what we think about, watch, listen to, and buy.

The producer’s point in interrupting the sketch that made fun of past presidents was to call out its viewers (and entire cast and crew) for buying into petty humor that not only embarrasses their leaders, but themselves as well, for finding that type of trite humor entertaining. Thus Sorkin is emphasizing that media speaks louder than anything about the type of people we are, and how our humor and speech in general is a product of…well, our products. What we consume is not only material things; the television we watch states a lot about our community at large. Thus, like the title of Garnham’s other article suggests, the media we create is an expression of our cultural industries, and vice versa. We cannot discuss the people who create the need for things without also critiquing those who consume the things in need/want.

People thrive on labor and consumption, therefore it was hard to watch the main operator struggle with whether he would cut off the producer in order to keep his job, or allow it to air until he did something against the standards of public television. This also made me think about how our television, and media in general, is always being monitored, especially during live recordings (sports, awards shows, the news) and governed by certain standards, which then create our personal standards for what we believe should or should not be included in the media. Hence our viewing of media is controlled by those who are paid to decide what is appropriate or allowed to be public information.

In relation to Garnham’s 3 organizations of media, live television is a constant “flow” of media and a control of distribution systems. In contrast, many businesses close on holidays, for example, but media cannot; we have the expectation that every channel will constantly show something on the screen. It is something we have grown to depend on, and it should never go away, or stop being constant and relevant to our world and our news, our products our likes and dislikes. To stop media or to have corruption in it is to corrupt our society, cultural industries, and political economy. Sounds a bit dramatic, but it’s really true.

By the same token, this show might not have been successful because it depicts the fragile nature of people working in an industry that we depend on greatly, and consider to be very constant, stable, and satisfying. It is not pleasant to see the feeble nature of those behind the scenes of our dependable media. Likewise, we want to use the television to get information on reality, but mostly to escape it. Their sitcom is a way to laugh, forget, and relax after a hard day’s work. It is unnerving to know that those producing this product we love so much are all power-hungry, disagreeable, and possibly don’t even want to be on the screen to begin with (Matthew Perry’s character). It is more pleasing and reassuring to assume that those in the business on and off the screen WANT to be there, that their labor is enjoyable, and that we can therefore sit back and enjoy their product in peace. We viewers seem to prefer coping or false consciousness. So Sorkin’s show was just too meta, I guess. J A show inside of a show of this nature just didn’t meet the status quo.