SGUK Episode 153 6th April 2025
The Media Tools of Control
Introduction
Join me as I take on the challenge of visualizing the complex concept of ‘Media Tools of Control’ in a few quotations and reports trying to clarify how the media gets their stories across! Media tools of control are all around us, shaping our perceptions, influencing our decisions, and impacting our daily lives in profound ways. They’re the unseen forces that govern the information we consume, and it’s essential to understand their relevance in today’s society.
Recognizing these tools can be a daunting task, as they often operate beneath the surface of our awareness. Media tools of control have become so ingrained in our culture that we frequently overlook their presence, let alone their influence. The impact they have on our lives is substantial, from the way we form opinions to the actions we take. Our daily lives are filled with examples of media tools at work, from the advertisements we see to the news stories we read. The challenge lies in identifying and visualizing these tools, which is crucial for making informed decisions and maintaining control over our own lives.
Media tools of control can be incredibly subtle, making them difficult to detect. They can take many forms, from the algorithms that curate our social media feeds to the biases present in news reporting. These tools are designed to shape our perceptions and influence our behaviors, often without us even realizing it. The sheer scale of their impact is staggering, with the potential to sway public opinion and drive cultural trends.
Social media algorithms, for instance, can significantly impact what we see and interact with online. These algorithms prioritize certain types of content over others, creating personalized feeds that can reinforce our existing beliefs and biases. News biases are another significant factor, as they can shape our understanding of current events and issues. By recognizing and understanding these tools, we can begin to see the world in a different light.
Delving deeper into specific examples, it becomes clear that media tools of control are not just limited to news and social media. They can be found in advertising, entertainment, and even education. Each of these areas has the potential to shape our perceptions and influence our behaviors, often in profound ways. By examining these examples, we can gain a deeper understanding of how media tools of control operate and how they impact our lives.
Certain metaphors can help illustrate the concept of media control, making it more relatable and memorable. For example, considering the media as a lens through which we view the world can be incredibly powerful. This lens can distort, focus, or filter our view, influencing what we see and how we interpret it. By recognizing the lens through which we’re viewing the world, we can begin to see beyond it, gaining a clearer understanding of reality.
This lens can also be thought of as a filter, sorting and prioritizing information based on certain criteria. In the context of social media, this filter can create echo chambers that reinforce our existing beliefs. By acknowledging the presence of this filter, we can take steps to broaden our perspectives and seek out diverse viewpoints. The power of this metaphor lies in its ability to simplify the complex concept of media control, making it accessible to a wider audience.
The concept of media control can also be represented as a matrix, with different tools and influences intersecting and overlapping. This matrix can be incredibly complex, with many different factors at play. However, by understanding its structure and operations, we can navigate it more effectively, making informed decisions and maintaining control over our own lives. This matrix is constantly evolving, with new tools and influences emerging all the time.
The main points discussed highlight the importance of being aware of media influence and encouraging critical thinking. By recognizing the media tools of control that surround us, we can take the first step towards regaining control over our own lives. This awareness is crucial in today’s society, where the lines between reality and illusion are increasingly blurred.
What is the Political Economy of Media?
- “Ownership and control: Who owns the media, and how does ownership influence what is produced and broadcast? In many countries, a few powerful corporations dominate the media landscape, controlling a substantial share of television channels, newspapers, and online platforms.
- Commercial interests: Media, like any other industry, is driven by profit motives. Advertisers, sponsorships, and subscription models directly influence content creation, often leading to the prioritization of profit-generating content over educational or public interest programming.
- Political power: Governments and political actors influence media systems through policies, regulations, and sometimes direct control. In some countries, media serves as a tool for propaganda, while in others, political forces exert their influence more subtly through lobbying, media ownership, or even through legal restrictions on media content.”
The Relationship Between Media Ownership and Content Production
“One of the most significant areas of concern in the political economy of media is ownership. Media ownership dictates the flow of information to the public and shapes the content available to audiences. The concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few large corporations or oligarchies can lead to monopolistic practices, stifling diversity in content and perspectives.”
Concentration of Media Ownership
“In many countries, a small number of media conglomerates control a majority of the news, entertainment, and digital platforms available to the public. This concentration of ownership raises critical questions about the diversity of viewpoints available in the media. With fewer voices controlling the information ecosystem, there is a risk of corporate or ideological bias dominating public discourse. For instance, news outlets owned by large corporations may avoid reporting stories that conflict with their business interests or political affiliations”
The Impact on Content Creation
“When media companies are controlled by powerful corporate interests, there is often a shift towards content that prioritizes commercial success rather than the public good. In this environment, news outlets might focus more on sensationalism, entertainment, or celebrity culture to attract larger audiences, rather than on hard-hitting journalism that addresses societal issues. This trend can diminish the role of media as an informed and critical public sphere, where citizens engage with complex issues and make informed political decisions”
The Commercialization of media and its implications
“Commercialization has become one of the defining features of modern media. Today, media outlets are not just vehicles for public service or information—they are business entities that rely on profits. This shift has substantial consequences for how media operates within society, especially in terms of the content that is produced, how it is distributed, and the values that are promoted.”
Social Media Unbound: Disrupting Governance and Empowering the Masses
(By Syed Atiq ul Hassan, Sydney Australia) Full report included in the Reference Sources list
“The rise of social media globally has shattered traditional barriers of establishments, and empowering individuals to become arbiters of their own narratives. Through social media users-generated contents, ordinary citizens can now share their perspectives, experiences, and insights with a global audience instantaneously. The era of gatekeeping by mainstream media, establishment and governmental agencies is gradually giving way to a new era of decentralized information dissemination.
Today, digital mobile user is doing a job of a reporter or journalist with passion and gaining financial benefits from subscribers. Generation Z (Gen-Z) has emerged as a potent force in this paradigm shift. Equipped with smartphones and social media accounts, today’s generation has become adept at uncovering governmental secrets and challenging established power structures and ruling class. Political events, whether they unfold domestically or internationally, now unfold in real-time on social platforms, often preceding coverage by traditional media outlets.
In fact, today, the impact of social media is perhaps most palpable in the realm of politics, where it has disrupted entrenched power dynamics and strategies. While the proliferation of unsolicited content and fake news presents significant challenges, social media has also served as a powerful tool for holding governments accountable. Instances of governmental agencies misconduct and covert agendas are increasingly brought to light through people’s reporting and grassroots activism on social platforms.
The justification for examining the power of social media in reshaping governance and power dynamics extends beyond its immediate impact on political events and societal movements. It explores into the very essence of democracy and the principles of transparency, accountability, and civic engagement”.
The Roots of Information Control: From Ancient Kings to Modern Giants
Controlling information is an old tool of power. From ancient kings who first wrote laws to the powerful church that controlled religious texts, those in charge have often held tight to information to shape society. In this post, we’ll look at two important times in history when leaders controlled information. These stories show us why open access to knowledge is so valuable today.
- Knowledge is Power — Why the Kings of Ancient Mesopotamia Recorded the First Documents
In ancient Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), kings quickly understood that writing could give them more control. At the time, few people could read or write, so those who could had an advantage. Kings used writing to record laws, trade agreements, and religious practices. By making these records official, the kings could keep order and secure their rule.
- The Church’s Grip on Knowledge — Why the Medieval Church Monopolized Information
In medieval Europe, the Catholic Church was the main authority, not just spiritually but also in terms of knowledge. At this time, important religious texts, especially the Bible, were written in Latin, which most ordinary people didn’t understand. Only priests and scholars who were educated in Latin could read and interpret these texts. This meant that the Church had control over religious knowledge.
By keeping religious texts in Latin, the Church could control how people understood their faith, morals, and even the world around them. People had to trust priests to tell them what the Bible meant, giving the Church enormous influence over their lives.
The Church’s control over information shows us what happens when knowledge is restricted to a few people. When access to information is limited, only a select group has the power to shape how others think. Today, we don’t have to learn Latin, but similar challenges remain. Large organizations and governments still sometimes control what we know and see, shaping our understanding of the world.
Ownership and Control of the Media
Trends in Ownership and Control
KEY POINT – Recent trends in media ownership and control suggest that the number of companies controlling global mass media has significantly shrunk in recent years. Bagdikian (2004) notes that in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the USA, but by 2004 media ownership was concentrated in seven corporations.
Curran (2003) notes that ownership of British newspapers has always been concentrated in the hands of a few powerful ‘press barons’, e.g. in 1937 four men owned nearly one in every two national and local daily newspapers sold in Britain. Today, seven powerful individuals dominate the ownership of British national daily and Sunday newspapers.
The content of commercial terrestrial television is mainly controlled by one company, ITV plc, whilst access to satellite, cable and digital television in Britain is generally controlled by two companies – Sky and Virgin Media. Streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus have more recently started to run advertiser funded subscriptions putting them into direct competition with ITV, Sky and Virgin.
Global Conglomeration
KEY POINT – The major difference in media ownership and control compared with forty years ago is the movement of media corporations into the global marketplace. The major media companies are now global conglomerations – transnational corporations (TNCs) with a presence in many countries.
Horizontal and Vertical Integration
Ownership and control of the mass media is a complex business as the following examples illustrate. Some media companies are characterised by horizontal integration or cross media ownership – this refers to the fact that global media corporations often cross media boundaries and invest in a wide range of media products. NewsCorp, for example, owns newspapers, magazines, book publishers, terrestrial and satellite television channels and film studios in several countries.
Some media companies have focused on increasing economic control over all aspects of the production process in order to maximise profits, e.g. film corporations not only make movies, but distribute them to their own cinema chains. This is referred to as vertical integration.
Diversification, Synergy and Technological Convergence
Some media corporations are not content to focus on media products, but have diversified into other fields. The best example of this is Virgin which began as a music label and record shop chain, but has expanded into a wide range of products and services including cola, vodka, banking, insurance, transport, digital television, cinema and wedding dresses.
Media companies often use their very diverse interests to package or synergise their products in several different ways, e.g. a film is often accompanied by a soundtrack album, computer game, ring tone or toy action figures. A company may use its global interests to market one of its own films through its television channels, magazines and newspapers in dozens of countries at the same time.
Technological convergence is a recent trend which involves putting several technologies into one media product. Companies that normally work in quite separate media technology fields are joining up or converging in order to give customers access to a greater range of media services across technologies such as interactive television, lap-tops, MP3 players and mobile phones.
Theories of Media Ownership and Control
KEY POINT – Doyle (2002) suggests that examination of ownership and control patterns is important for two reasons.
- All points of view need to be heard if society is to be truly democratic.
- Abuses of power and influence by elites need to be monitored by a free media.
Doyle argues that too much concentration of media ownership is dangerous and unhealthy because the media have the power to make or break political careers and have a considerable influence over public opinion.
The Pluralist Theory of Media Ownership
Pluralists argue that media owners are generally responsible in the way that they manage information because media content is mainly shaped by consumer demand in the marketplace. They therefore only give the buying public what they want. Moreover, editors, journalists and broadcasters have a strong sense of professional ethics which act as a system of checks and controls on potential owner abuse of the media.
Pluralists suggest that the mass media are an essential part of the democratic process because the electorate today glean most of their knowledge of the political process from newspapers and television. Pluralists argue that owners, editors and journalists are trustworthy managers and protectors of this process.
Furthermore, pluralists argue that media audiences are the real power holders because they can exercise the right to buy or not to buy. If they did not like the choices that media owners are making available to them, or if they suspected that the media product was biased, such audiences would respond by not buying the product. The media, therefore, supply what the audience wants rather than what the owner decides. If some viewpoints have a greater range of media representing them, this is not necessarily biased. It merely reflects what the audience wants or views as important.
Pluralists also argue that concentration of ownership is a product of economic rationality rather than political or sinister motives. It is driven by the need to keep costs low and to maximise profits. Globalisation too results from the need to find new audiences rather than from cultural imperialism.
Pluralists argue that it is practically impossible for owners to interfere with the content of newspapers and television programmes because their businesses are economically far too complex for them to regularly interfere in the day-to-day running or the content.
Public Service Broadcasting
Pluralists point out that a significant share of the media market in Britain is taken up by public service broadcasters (PSB), i.e. media outlets controlled by the state such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC has a legal obligation to inform, to educate and to ensure that all programming is pluralistic and diverse, i.e. that all sections of society are catered for. Pluralists argue that PSB is impartial and objective, and balances out any potential bias in the private sector.
Pluralists note that the power of media owners is also restricted by state, or government, controls, e.g. in some societies, owners are not allowed to own too much media or different types of media. Many countries also have crossownership rules preventing people from owning more than one type of media. Furthermore, newspapers, television and radio in Britain are subject to legal controls and rules imposed on them by The Press Council and the Office for Communications (Ofcom).
Media Professionalism
Pluralists stress that the professionalism of journalists and editors also constrains the power of owners. They argue that journalists are fierce in their pursuit of the truth and consequently they have too much integrity to be biased regularly in favour of one particular perspective. Investigative journalism also has a good reputation in uncovering abuses of power and corruption among the ruling elite.
Agenda Setting
The result of this journalistic consensus, argues the GUMG, is that the media set the agenda and decide what issues are discussed by society and which ones are not. This is known as agenda setting. The GUMG argues that the media consequently present society with a fairly narrow agenda for discussion. Agenda setting therefore results in cultural hegemony. The basic principles of capitalism – private enterprise, profit, the free market and the rights of property ownership – dominate media content and are presented as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. There is actually little choice for audiences in that there is no radical alternative to the mainstream newspapers and dissenting views on subjects like the monarchy are rarely presented.
Conclusion
Media as a Tool of Power
As we close this episode, it’s vital to shine a light on the reality of media power here in the UK — a reality often glossed over in academic theory and polite debate. While much has been said about journalistic integrity, regulatory bodies, and freedom of the press, very little addresses the deeply corrosive influence of UK tabloids over the last five decades. The truth is: UK media is toxic.
Let’s not dress it up. The vast majority of newspapers consumed daily by the British public are owned and operated by a handful of powerful right-wing entities. Their influence is not limited to opinion pieces — they shape the very framework of public discourse. The sensationalism, the slant, the bullying — it’s not accidental. It’s by design. It makes money. It drives traffic. It keeps advertisers happy. And most dangerously of all, it steers national sentiment in a direction that serves the interests of those at the very top.
The notion that UK journalists are held to account is, frankly, a myth. The so-called regulatory body IPSO is not a watchdog — it’s a shield. It exists to protect reporters, not the public. Its complaint system is performative, inaccessible, and overwhelmingly ineffective. Successful complaints are rare, and meaningful accountability is virtually non-existent. When the people overseeing press conduct don’t represent the full spectrum of the society they claim to serve — and when not a single person of colour is present in the room — what kind of fairness can be expected?
Worse still is the deeply embedded symbiosis between the press and power. UK tabloids don’t just report on politics; they influence it, feed it, and, at times, dictate its terms. From glorifying far-right ideologies in decades past to their ongoing harassment of individuals — including those who have taken their own lives — they operate with impunity under the banner of free speech.
There is no clearer example of propaganda disguised as reporting than their royal coverage. These stories aren’t news — they are distractions. Manufactured dramas, selective narratives, and a rotating scapegoat serve as smoke screens while larger political and economic structures are shifting behind the scenes. It’s all sleight of hand.
Meanwhile, as the industry shifts online, and advertising revenue becomes the top priority, articles are locked behind paywalls, pushing readers to clickbait and gossip in droves. And the public, many of whom understandably don’t have the time or tools to dissect media bias, take what they read at face value. That’s the point. The media shouldn’t require readers to be media literacy experts to avoid being manipulated — and yet, in this climate, that’s exactly what’s required.
Across the Atlantic, some of the same patterns are now appearing in the USA — where media corporations are entangled with political funding, where narratives are crafted for influence rather than truth, and where populist platforms spew misinformation with little to no consequence. The media, in both nations, is no longer just a fourth estate. It’s a co-conspirator in the concentration of power.
If you take anything away from this podcast, let it be this: Power is not just in politics, or policy, or finance. It’s in what we read. It’s in what we don’t read. It’s in what stories get top billing, and which voices are silenced. And if we don’t call it out — if we don’t name it — we give it permission to grow.
Ivy Barrow
6th April 2025
Reference Sources
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-658-34048-3_70-2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/media-concentration
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zjw2rmn#zmy646f
https://tribune-intl.com/the-impact-of-social-media-on-power-dynamics-and-governance/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276460664_Power_Plays_on_Social_Media
https://pwonlyias.com/editorial-analysis/working-of-surveillance-capitalism/
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/12/surveillance-capitalism-personal-information