The media plays a central role in shaping how we view the world, influencing public opinion, and framing social issues. From a Marxist and neo-Marxist perspective, media representations are not neutral; they reflect the interests of the dominant class and can help maintain social inequalities. Scholars such as Ralph Miliband, Antonio Gramsci, the Glasgow University Media Group, and Stuart Hall have each offered influential insights into how media operates within society, building on and extending classic Marxist ideas.
Ralph Miliband: Media as an Instrument of Elite Power
Ralph Miliband, a prominent Marxist theorist, argued that the media serves the interests of the ruling class. His work emphasized that media owners, often wealthy individuals or corporations, control what gets reported and how events are interpreted. This means that media content frequently reflects the ideological priorities of those in power rather than presenting an impartial or balanced view of society.
Miliband suggested that the media acts as an instrument for political and economic elites to shape public consciousness, subtly influencing opinions on issues like government policy, economic reform, or social unrest. By presenting certain perspectives as “common sense,” the media helps secure consent for the existing social order. While he acknowledged that journalists could have some autonomy, he stressed that structural constraints—ownership, funding, and advertising pressures—limit their capacity to challenge dominant ideologies.
Antonio Gramsci: Hegemony and the Media
Antonio Gramsci extended Marxist thought by focusing on the concept of cultural hegemony. Unlike classic Marxists, who often emphasised direct economic control, Gramsci argued that the ruling class maintains power by shaping ideas and beliefs. Hegemony refers to the process by which dominant groups convince subordinate groups to accept their worldview as natural or inevitable, often through consent rather than coercion.
Media is central to this process because it disseminates the values, norms, and beliefs that support the status quo. For example, television programs, news reporting, and advertisements can reinforce ideas about consumerism, work ethic, or national identity in ways that appear ordinary and unquestioned. According to Gramsci, resistance is possible when alternative cultural narratives—what he called “counter-hegemonic” ideas—challenge these dominant norms. Media can thus be a site of struggle, where competing visions of society clash, but the dominance of elite perspectives often limits the reach of oppositional voices.
The Glasgow University Media Group: Bias and Ownership
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG) conducted empirical research into media representations, particularly in news coverage. They were primarily concerned with how newspapers and broadcast media reported political events, labour disputes, and social issues.
The GUMG’s work demonstrated that news is not objective or purely factual. Instead, editorial choices, framing, and language subtly shape the audience’s perception of events. For instance, reports on industrial disputes often emphasized conflict, disruption, and economic loss, while downplaying workers’ grievances or structural inequalities. This, the group argued, reflected the influence of media ownership, professional norms, and the political leanings of journalists.
Their research showed that even when journalists strive for fairness, structural biases—linked to class, power, and ideology—persist. The GUMG’s work is particularly valuable because it combined Marxist theory with empirical analysis, providing concrete evidence of the patterns that Miliband and Gramsci theorized about. It highlighted how media content is produced within a social system that privileges elite interests, shaping public understanding of social and political life.
Stuart Hall: Encoding, Decoding, and Representation
Stuart Hall, a leading neo-Marxist, further developed the understanding of media by exploring how audiences interpret messages. His “encoding/decoding” model argued that media producers encode texts with particular meanings, often reflecting dominant ideologies. However, audiences do not simply absorb these messages passively; they interpret them in various ways.
Hall identified three potential decoding positions: dominant-hegemonic, where the audience accepts the intended meaning; negotiated, where viewers partly accept and partly resist the message; and oppositional, where the intended meaning is rejected entirely. This framework highlights that while media representations are influenced by elite interests, audiences are not completely powerless—they actively negotiate meaning.
Hall also examined how media representations construct identities and social categories, particularly around race, ethnicity, and class. His work revealed that stereotypical portrayals in television and film often reinforce societal hierarchies and power relations, subtly shaping public perceptions of marginalized groups. In doing so, Hall built on Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, showing that media not only maintains elite power but also mediates cultural understandings in complex, contested ways.
Fredric Jameson: The Political Unconscious in Media
Fredric Jameson, a prominent Marxist literary theorist, introduced the concept of the “political unconscious” to analyze cultural texts, including media. In his seminal work The Political Unconscious (1981), Jameson argued that all cultural artifacts are inherently political and reflect underlying social conflicts. He posited that media representations are not merely reflections of reality but are structured by ideological forces that serve to perpetuate the status quo. By examining media through this lens, Jameson emphasized the importance of understanding the historical and social contexts that shape media narratives and representations.
Conclusion: Media as a Site of Power and Struggle
Together, these Marxist and neo-Marxist perspectives offer a rich understanding of media representations. Miliband emphasized the structural power of elites, Gramsci highlighted cultural consent and hegemony, the Glasgow University Media Group provided empirical evidence of bias, and Hall examined audience interpretation and identity construction. Collectively, their work shows that media is never neutral: it is a social institution shaped by power relations, serving as both a tool of dominance and a potential site for resistance.
Understanding these perspectives equips students to critically engage with media, question whose interests are being served, and recognize the subtle ways that ideology operates in everyday life. In an age of digital media and social networks, these insights remain highly relevant, reminding us that media analysis is a key tool for understanding and challenging social inequality.
You can download a teaching PowerPoint of some of these views from the link below:
Leave a Reply