Pluralists tend to support the idea that the media respond more to public demand than vice versa. The media don't simply advance the interests of the capitalist class as Marxists would argue. People actually use the media to satisfy different needs e.g. relaxation, entertainment, information...
Pluralists also believe that society is made up of different competing groups - people don't exist as isolated individuals at the mercy of dominant groups in society.
Unlike Marxist theorists, pluralists believe that wealth and power does not shape public opinion. Power in society is shared between competing political, social, and cultural groups.
And this diversity of different opinions in society is matched by different sources of media information, which helps people to make their choices. Individuals can accept, challenge or reject these sources of information.
The media themselves are relatively independent in respect of the state, political parties, pressure groups. They are also relatively autonomous in their production of media content. Rather than serving the interests of class capitalism, the control of the media rests with a managerial elite who allow a degree of flexibility.
The media give access to a wide range of opinions, rather than the views of a dominant elite as the Frankfurt School would have argued. In theory everyone has a voice in the media - and gradual change is possible through the competition of different groups and different ideas. This contrasts with the ideas of the Frankfurt School who believe that the media reinforce the status quo.
According to this pluralist view, the media are only one influence on society and other social factors (e.g. family and friends) and institutions are also significant in influencing people's actions.
However, some pluralist approaches do emphasize the power of the media to inform - as opposed to persuade. What do we mean by this - the idea that the media are crucial for informing the public i.e. what we know about the world around us is increasingly dependent on the media and what they tell us. We are dependent on the media for finding out about situations outside our own direct experience. If we are dependent on the media for finding out about the world (e.g. political choices), the media are then potentially powerful in helping us to define our views about the world. They are also powerful because they set the agenda of what is covered in debate. We are dependent on the media and some media potentially have more power than others e.g. television news which is respected as a truthful source of information.
Pluralists argue that modern society has produced discriminating cultural consumers. People are more literate, more aware of what's going on in the world, and class distinctions are now less important in influencing individual choice. People can choose from a wide range of options, and the WC are just as likely to watch Panorama as anyone else, while soap operas are watched by all. To support these arguments pluralists point to the way high culture now reaches a mass audience e.g. opera on TV. They point to the greater affluence of people where they have the money to buy a range of media products. The individual simply has the freedom to make his or her choice based on personal preference.
CONCLUSION
So on the surface we have very opposing views from the Marxists and Pluralists, but in fact they aren't so incompatible:
The perceived differences between Marxist and Pluralist theories are no longer so clear cut.
Marxists used to be seen as grand theorists; whereas Pluralists were viewed as number-crunchers because of their emphasis on empiricism. They started with totally opposing methods - but pluralists are now more prepared to examine the relationship between state institutions and the mass media. Marxists are now more prepared to look at empirical evidence, but usually shaped by an explicitly stated theory or theories.
Also seen some changes in view - the first pluralist studies disputed the power of the media totally. However, there is now evidence to suggest from this approach, that although the media don't persuade us directly, they do affect what we know and what we think is important. Because the media are nowadays the sole source of information for many events, issues etc.
But key differences do remain between the two and these relate to the following:
- The extent to which the media are autonomous/independent in determining the content and form of the messages. I.e. liberal pluralists believe the media are relatively independent, whereas the Marxists don't.
- The nature of the relationship between the state and the media - the LP's believe the relationship between the two is relatively uncomplicated and independent, whereas the Marxists don't.
- The nature of the media audience - LPs place emphasis on choice of the audience - whereas Marxists believe choice is limited for a number of reasons.
Like all the other theories we have looked at we can be critical of the pluralist approach:
Pluralist accounts of media power seem to assume that the media just reflect different forces in society; they are not an independent power in themselves. But this view of the media as a market place of ideas ignores the fact that weaker or less well-organized groups often find it difficult to get access to the media - to put forward their ideas to the public in the first place.
It could be argued that pluralists ignore economic factors. I.e. Market pressures often reduce the plurality of the media. For example, media concentration often militates against choice - there may be many newspapers and TV channels - but who owns all these media outlets.
Also have to deal with outside interference from state/commercial interests - self-censorship
Also media products can become bland to offend the least people and make money. It could be argued that rather than responding to people's tastes, the media create them, that they are conditioning people to enjoy certain types of products, without offering any alternatives.
And this is a key criticism by Marxist theorists of pluralist theories: remember Marxist theorists believe the media are the instrument of the ruling class.
As I said earlier the two approaches - Marxism and Pluralism - are not completely separated in their approach. The mass media are no longer simply viewed on the one hand as having limited influence, grounded on empirical research against an alternative concept of mass media as powerful agencies informed by an exclusively Marxist/critical perspective.
The differences between the two approaches are partly a result of misunderstanding and partly a result of the tendency of both traditions to study the mass media in different contexts. This is a consequence of their differing ideological and theoretical preoccupations.
Summary
Generally pluralists give media varying degrees of independence or autonomy with regard to other institutions like the state, political parties - and in their production of media content. But also underline dependence - e.g. state depends on mass media to propagate its information and mass media depend on state to provide this information.
Pluralist approaches believe the media are not controlled by a few but represent a multiplicity of sources and a diversity of messages. They also believe that the media are only one force or influence in society - there are other influences too which can overrule any independent effect the media might have.
According to the pluralist view of the world the established order is not fixed. Institutions and groups compete for power, and power in society is diffused/spread out. It isn't concentrated in the hands of a few. Through the competition of ideas, gradual change can take place.
In contrast Marxist analysis emphasizes the established and fixed nature of the distribution of power - which is centered within a few institutions.
Both pluralist and Marxist Positions are derived from an understanding of the nature of power and its distribution.