Media mania
John Grigg
No observer of contemporary Britain could fail to be struck by the almost symbiotic relationship between academics and the media. It all began, perhaps, with the BBC Brains Trust programme during the war but since then more and more dons have been appearing in print or on the air as instant experts on every kind of problem, ranging from good and evil to the latest industrial dispute.
At the same time mass communications have been receiving serious attention in some British universities and polytechnics, either as one aspect of the main social 'sciences' or as an independent study. At the university of Leicester, for instance, there is a centre for mass communications, and at the university of Birmingham a centre for contemporary cultural studies (including study of the media). Some polytechnics run full courses in 'communications studies'.
Now one of the colleges of London university is planning to make a new and distinctive contribution to the process. Last July the warden of Goldsmiths' College, Dr Richard Hoggart — who was formerly the first director of the Birmingham centre that I have just mentioned, as well as professor of English at Birmingham — announced to his colleagues that a small steering committee had been set up to establish in 1978 'a research and study centre on communications and society' at Goldsmiths'. Dr Hoggart, author of a famous book, The Uses of Literacy, is a prime example of the media-oriented academic.
The case for establishing such a centre is argued as follows in the brochure circulated by Dr Hoggart: 'The relationships of modern communications (broadcasting, the press, advertising, public relations, etc.) to the main estates of the realm (government, industry, the political parties, the trade unions, the City) arouse great concern and strong opinions. The main political parties' are likely to claim that they are unfairly treated, as are the Trade Unions and Industry. Others, outside these areas, are just as likely to assert that the communicators are in a conspiracy with the main centres of public power.
In fact, not enough is yet known about these relationships. The institutions themselves conduct only scanty research on such questions. Is the situation one in which a set of unquestioned and hardly-conscious attitudes merge so as to encourage a consensus (through the processes of recruitment, through shared unspoken assumptions, through unofficial personal contacts between people of like interests or background, and through constant repetition in the mass media)? How are relationships between those in public life and the people they serve shaped or altered by what • appears in the media? Are there considerable overt or hidden pressures in play? If so, by whom and on whom? What forms do they take? The answers to these and related questions clearly need more research.
The proposed centre would 'seek to advance knowledge' and `to be a place where professionals in the field and academic researchers' could study the subject together. It would begin by applying two forms of analysis. 'First, analysis of the output itself so as to define better its assumptions, stresses, selectivities, implied frames of reference; second, the media's formal and informal structures and relationships, whether for production or for control or for advice or for recruitment'. (One of the uses of literacy is surely to avoid sentences like that.) While admitting the existence of 'a few other mass communications centres in Britain', the brochure nevertheless claims that 'none of them has precisely the focus described above, namely the provision of research and academic experiences which can usefully be fed back into public life and into the communications systems themselves.'
How would the centre be staffed? 'The first appointment must be of an outstanding figure. . .trained in the social sciences or the humanities who has already made impressive studies on mass communications'. He would be the director, but can there be many who would qualify for the job? Once appointed, he would 'quickly need an immediate deputy' (sic), so that the first research work and seminars could begin. Thereafter further staff could be added as funds became available 'from general donations, grants for specific projects or bursaries'. The minimum cost for the first full year would be £21,000, but further subventions 'of any shape or size and for any length of time' would be welcome — for instance, 'guarantees to fund annual fellowships (cost £6,000 p.a.)'. It is intended that the money should be raised from unofficial sources.
So far, one large industrial concern has stumped up, and there is talk of a consortium of trade unions to help finance the project. But not a penny has yet been obtained from any newspaper or TV company. All the same Mr P.A. Baynes, dean of the school of adult and social studies at Goldsmiths', and a member of the steering committee, tells me that he still hopes the centre will be established 'during the calendar year 1978'.
At a time of grave unemployment among teachers and journalists there may be something to be said for a project which offers relief to a small number in both categories. Moreover, the proposed investigations maY appeal to some businessmen as a way of uncovering subversive left-wing influences in the media, and to some trade union leaders as a way of demonstrating that the media are part of a capitalist conspiracy against the working class. But objectively the merits of the scheme are more problematical. For a start, is it really true that there is 'great concern' about the relationship between 'modern communications' and 'the main estates of the realm'? If so, what is the evidence? Of course there is always grumbling by politicians and others about their treatment in the media — neglect being more resented than criticism — but only a very small minority suggests that the communicators are in cahoots with 'the main centres of public power'. But even if the premise upon which the Whole scheme is based were unquestionably sound, it would still be doubtful if the proposed subject-matter would be suitable for the treatment proposed. Even when we try to study events, institutions and personalities of the past it is dangerous to adopt too analytical an approach. When we are looking at the current scene academic analysis is virtually a waste of time, and the inclusion of a few lay researchers with practical experience cannot make it significantly less so.
Goldsmiths' College is an admirable place, deserving the support of benefactors. But it seems to me that if upwards of £21,000 a year is to be raised for a new project, there must be many more worthwhile and more truly educational purposes to which the money could be devoted.
Previous page
