Lower class television

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lower class television is a derogatory term for certain television channels and programs , mostly for commercial private broadcasters. The term presupposes a uniform media use of a social group and evaluates it in a (derogatory) way.

use

The term was first used in 1995 by the satirical magazine Titanic . In the English-speaking world, Tichenor, Donohue and Olien warned as early as 1970 that television was creating an increasingly pronounced knowledge gap and that “clever people would be smarter and stupid would be dumber”, that is, a media class society was developing. The media scientist Jochen Hörisch then explicitly used the term “lower class television” in the spring of 2001 for the private broadcasters RTL and Sat.1 . Paul Nolte's book Generation Reform (2004) uses the word in the sense of a “new lower class”, which is a sign of a lack of education. Nolte explicitly refers to the lack of education, which also includes those with above-average income and he removes the issue from the pure aspect of prosperity. However, the word only became popular through Harald Schmidt , who used it in a program in 2005 in relation to his former employer Sat.1. Shortly afterwards, however, Schmidt announced that he would no longer use the term in the future. The reason he gave was that he did not want to see the perception of his person linked to a cliché again in view of the great media impact of the term.

Media studies use

The cultural studies arguing television theory describes "lower classes television," not as an empirical fact, but examines the speech, which is sparked by this term, its presuppositions and consequences. In this sense - and with reference to the theories of governmentality - the media scientist Thomas Waitz describes "lower class television" as a "government technology". Criticizing an affirmative use of the term, Waitz examines discourses that construct such an alleged television and asks how assumptions about social conditions (and their changeability) are inscribed in the ideas thus developed. According to Waitz, it is characteristic that what is called “lower class television” is at the same time “an object and an instrument of political intervention” (p. 55). The governmental function of speaking of "lower class television" is based on the fact that it constitutes its object in such a way that it becomes accessible to knowledge production and at the same time to regulating intervention, while there is always the possibility of distinction:

“An interdiscourse is formed about him [the subject of 'lower class television'], which enables communication following specialist knowledge of the economy, welfare state or media education. 'Lower class television' is not a previous phenomenon, not an 'outgrowth', not a 'problem' that needs to be solved in one way or another, but rather a problematization. "

- Thomas Waitz : “'Lower Class TV '. A government technology ”, in: kultuRRevolution - magazine for applied discourse theory, No. 55/2009, pp. 55–59, here: p. 58

And this “problematization”, according to Waitz, has an exclusive effect: “lower-class television” is what bourgeois media criticism can set itself apart from (ibid.)

criticism

The mostly negative term " lower class " for low-income and " uneducated " members of society forms the basis on which the term "lower class television" also attributes a lack of taste and education to them. The term “lower class television” conveyed the fear of impoverishment among the middle class: “Don't look at the dirty kids”. Also Norbert Bolz criticized this underlaid about attribution, since it is no longer possible to distinguish media use class-specific.

In April 2005, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG presented a study that was supposed to show that high-earning and above-average educated people also consume private television . However, the interpretation of the data by the marketing company SevenOneMedia , which belongs to the group, is controversial, as on the one hand the independence of the investigation can be questioned and on the other hand the statement about all content of the private television only limited statements about the specific composition of the addressed consumers of Allow affect TV and reality TV .

literature

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Titanic No. 9/1995, p. 10.
  2. ↑ Phillip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue, Clarice N. Olien: Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. In: The Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 1970, ISSN 0033-362X, pp. 159-170.
  3. ↑ a b Christoph Amend: What are you looking at? In: Die Zeit , No. 11/2005
  4. ↑ Esteban Engel: TV replaces the real world . In: Stern , November 1, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2010
  5. ↑ Thomas Tuma: I take what comes . In: Der Spiegel . No. 22 , 2005, pp. 172 ( online ).
  6. ↑ Thomas Waitz: “'Unterichtenfernsehen'. A government technology ”, in: kultuRRevolution - magazine for applied discourse theory, No. 55/2009, pp. 55–59.
  7. ↑ Thomas Waitz: “'Unterichtenfernsehen'. A government technology ”, in: kultuRRevolution - magazine for applied discourse theory, No. 55/2009, pp. 55–59, here: p. 58
  8. ↑ Norbert Bolz: Taste is not a question of social class . In: faz.net , April 28, 2005