Advertisement

Neoliberalism and the Production of Enemies: The Commercial Logic of Yahoo! News

  • Christopher M. BinghamEmail author
  • Eric Kramer
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice book series (IPSPAP)

Abstract

The study of commercial media offers one of the best ways to gain an understanding of the role of violence in contemporary society, not in terms of an instrumental concern with “the effects” of violence on individuals, though this question has some limited importance, but rather in the sense of how, within the contemporary neoliberal context, media systematically normalize and justify violence as an outcome of their commercial organization. Such an approach focuses on several aspects of how media operate including (1) how commercial media collapse the distinction between news, entertainment, and advertising, (2) how conceptualizing audiences as commodities leads to their segmentation and isolation, (3) how this process of segmentation breaks down the possibility of reasonable democratic deliberation while (4) reinforcing biases and other polarizing dynamics among audiences, (5) how violence and the production of enemies serve useful marketing goals within commercial content, and (6) the role of commercial media in the broader neoliberal political economy. This chapter examines these intertwined questions by taking Yahoo! News as a case study of commercialized media content and exemplar of contemporary sophism.

Keywords

Neoliberalism Violence Journalism Yahoo! Online news Advertising Third sophistic 

References

  1. Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  2. Basney, B. (2014). Brands as publishers: Using content and paid media to fuel a brand transformation. Journal of Brand Strategy, 3(2), 101–111.Google Scholar
  3. Boorstin, D. J. (1971). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  4. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube. Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda (2nd edn.). New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordelia, F. (2006). A mind of its own: How your brain distorts and deceives. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, P., & Kramer, E. (2012). Coarseness in U.S. public communication. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
  9. DiGangi, C. (2014) Debt collectors harass debt-free woman for years. Yahoo! Finance. “http://finance.yahoo.com/news/debt-collectors-harass-debt-free-120000528.html.”.
  10. Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119–141. (Reprinted in Media Power in Politics, 6th ed., D. Graber (Ed.), Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press).Google Scholar
  11. Entman, R. M. (2010). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory (pp. 390–397). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Ewen, S. (1996). PR!: A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Frankfurt, H. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fritz, B., Keefer, B., & Nyhan, B. (2004). All the president’s spin: George W. Bush, the media and the truth. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  15. Gerbner, G. (2002). Against the mainstream: The selected works of George Gerbner. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Gerbner, G., & Mowlana, H. (1996). Invisible crises: What conglomerate control of media means for America and the world. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Grensing-Pophal, L. (2014). Consumers coming to accept native advertising done right. Econtentmag.com, 8–10.Google Scholar
  18. Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  20. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2006). A propaganda model. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 257–294). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobson, M. F., & Mazur, L. A. (1995). Marketing madness: A survival guide for a consumer society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. John, A. (2014). Ad paints President Obama an awful lot like an abusive boyfriend. Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/ad-paints-president-obama-awful-lot-abusive-boyfriend-130958144.html.
  23. Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the enemy: Reflections of the hostile imagination. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, T. (2007). Disagreement, dogmatism, and belief polarization. The Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 611–633.Google Scholar
  25. Kramer, E. M. (1997). Modern/postmodern: Off the beaten path of antimodernism. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  26. Kramer, E. M. (2013). Dimensional accrual and dissociation: An introduction. In J. Grace & E. M. Kramer (Eds.), Communication, comparative cultures, and civilizations (Vol. 3, pp. 123–184). New York: Hampton.Google Scholar
  27. Kuklinski, J. (Ed.). (2009). Thinking about political psychology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Leiss, W., Kline, S., Jhally, S., & Botterill, J. (2005). Social communication in advertising: Consumption in the mediated marketplace (3rd edn.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Levendusky, M. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lichtenberg, J. (2010). Foundations and limits of freedom of the press. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory (pp. 172–182). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowery, S., & De Fleur, M. L. (1983). The people’s choice: The media in a political campaign. In Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects (pp. 85–112). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Lynch, J. (2014). Yes, Obama’s White House is more secretive than Bush’s. The Week. http://theweek.com/article/index/264536/yes-obamas-white-house-is-more-secretive-than-bushs.
  35. McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  36. McChesney, R. W. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  37. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCombs, M., & Stroud, N. J. (2014). Psychology of agenda-setting effects. Mapping the paths of information processing. Review of Communication Research, 2(1), 68–93.Google Scholar
  39. McGee, M. C. (1999). The “Ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 425–440). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  40. McQuial, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Meirick, P. C., Nisbett, G. S., Jefferson, M. D., & Pfau, M. W. (2011). The influence of tone, target, and issue ownership on political advertising effects in primary versus general elections. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 275–296. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/22/3570132/religious-conservatives-finally-admit-what-they-really-want-out-of-hobby-lobby/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mooney, C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science and reality. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Murphy, E., & Schram, R. (2014). What is it worth? The value chasm between brand and influencers. Journal of Brand Strategy, 3(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  44. Patrick, K. (2014). Obama’s LGBT executive order threatens religious liberty, say advocates. Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lgbt-executive-order-threatens-religious-liberty-advocates-201628842.html.
  45. Pope, D. (1983). The making of modern advertising. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  47. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sivulka, J. (2012). Soap, sex, and cigarettes: A cultural history of American advertising (2nd ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  49. Smythe, D. W. (2006). On the audience commodity and its work. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 230–256). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Stableford, D. (2014). Read Hillary Clinton’s 1971 letter to Saul Alinsky. Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-letters-155526953.html.
  51. Tuchman, G. (2010). Making news: Time and typifications. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory (pp. 260–269). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Williams, E. (2014). Going native. Creative Review, 34, 12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations