“Political economy approaches see the fact that culture is produced and consumed under capitalism as the fundamental issue in explaining the inequalities of power, prestige and profit.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This statement by D. Hesmondhalgh captures the entire essence of the political-economic approach in one sentence and is a great starting point for studying the approach that gets more complex when looked at more deeply. Before doing any further investigation it is important to understand what this approach means and why we are studying it. It is important because from a liberal pluralist political perspective the cultural industries influence the democratic process and way of life. Now, the political economy approach to this is a macro approach that looks at large corporations that operate an oligopoly in the industry. There are mainly six media conglomerates also referred to as the Big 6, namely National Amusements, Disney, Time Warner, Comcast, News Corp, and Sony. These six companies own almost all media and with a combined wealth of around $430 billion would together form the 26th richest country in the world. So it's obvious what a huge impact they have on the world. The political economy approach takes this study of cultural industries and focuses on aiming it at social welfare. He is highly critical of these large estates and corporations and their behaviors which they often criticize in the interests of wealthy owners and their powerful allies, circulating only texts that profit them and burying those that would reflect negatively on them without consider the true value of the text or social welfare. In simple economic terms, this approach deals with supply and criticizes biases in the supply chain by manufacturers and distributors to their advantage, even if it is to the detriment of consumers. Political economy is very broad approach but here in this economic essay its scope is strictly limited to media. Peter Golding and Graham Mudrock (2005:P61-66) distinguish this media approach from other economic approaches in four simple characteristics; it is holistic, historical, concerned with the balance between capital enterprise and public interventions, and addresses fundamental moral questions of justice and inequality. I completely disagree with the characteristics listed by Peter Golding and Graham Mudrock simply because it would be very ignorant to consider this approach 'holistic'.1. As mentioned above, political economy is a macro approach that focuses on the production and circulation of media texts. This implies that the market for goods and the market for ideas are exactly the same thing. This not only ignores the distinction of media industries and media texts from other industries and products and puts them all in the same bag, but also ignores many complexities and cultural contradictions that arise during the production of a media text. Due to its one-dimensional approach to the market, it misses the essential features of the industry itself.2. Among other popular criticisms of this approach is its utter ignorance of popular media, media texts, and entertainment. As can be seen from this essay (among other articles written on political economy) the approach usually seems to talk about the media in terms of facts and figures. It kind of focuses only on news or real media and ignores the various other aspects of media such as popular media or entertainment. The political-economic approach considers the media as very serious content, whatwhich it is, but it ignores the other more relaxed forms of media in terms of film, music, etc., which make up a huge part of the media industries. The other popular criticism would be his lack of interest in the media text. It is true that the approach focuses only on production and distribution but not on what is produced or distributed. It focuses on distribution channels and the distorted channel structures within them, but never addresses the question of what is produced. The few limitations above are enough to say that the approach is not holistic at all. In reality it is very unbalanced in considering the media industry from the distributor's point of view and does nothing but raise the problem of distribution and inequalities within it. However, this does not detract from the approach as it still provides excellent arguments. Proponents of the political economy approach focus on the increased play of market forces that would lead to greater market freedom. The idea that a free market is a fair market. They are naturally critical of any intervention by the government or the public, perhaps in the belief that such an intervention would create a bias that would focus on the interests of the intervening party (while criticizing large corporations) instead of focusing on social aspects. well-being, which is what this approach aims to achieve. The role of such interventions and companies can easily seem larger than it actually is, however even in reality, with the (relatively) small role of these two agencies, it is very significant. Of course, consumers of media texts continue to make choices and make final decisions themselves despite the influence of other bodies, marketing and advertising. What the approach really disputes is that even when consumers make a choice, it is not real because their choices are limited in larger structures that these other forces come to create. Therefore, giving the consumer only the illusion of "real choice". This approach demonstrates that microcontexts are constantly shaped by economic dynamics and power plays between them, particularly taking an interest in the structures of communicative activities and its unequal distribution. of material and symbolic resources. These lines focus attention on instrumentalism. Herman and Chomsky (Manufacturing Consensus: Political Economy of the Mass Media) call it a "propaganda model", arguing that the powerful are in a privileged position to be able to control what the general public consumes through the media, what it sees, what it hears or think Di. In this way they are able to manage public opinion to a certain extent. This is true to some extent and shows the power held by people in more privileged positions, but they too work within constraints. For example: In a democratic country where the government has tight control over the media, it is possible to use the media to appear better than it actually is. Hitting their oppositions and all in all giving a very partial vision of the political situation in the country. Having several news channels constantly broadcasting news about the party's contributions to government, to make the whole issue seem much bigger than its actual effect on the country. This could be done in order to be re-elected for the next session and remain in power or for any other agenda. Such practices take place in real “democratic countries” and are not entirely hypothetical. The public forms their opinions about political parties mainly based on what they see or hear about them in the media and votes accordingly. Such practices threaten the democratic way of life and are more common than one might think. The speeches are.