Radical media political economies: the monopoly capital and
digital capitalism schools
Radical media political economies have a long and diverse set of in" uences
that have shaped their development. One thing held in common, however,
is that the neoclassical claim to being a “value-free” science is seen as being
neither tenable nor desirable (Babe 1995; Murdock and Golding 2005; Mosco
2009a).
I want to initially focus on the scholarship of Robert McChesney because
he has been a key ! gure in the monopoly capital school for over a decade.
Many critics claim that the monopoly capital school, and McChesney’s work
speci! cally, is thin on theory; weak on history, method, and evidence; and that
it rests on the dubious media effects tradition (Hartley 2009; Hesmondhalgh
2009a; Holt and Perren 2009). Some of these claims hit their mark, but many
critics misconstrue the monopoly capital school, and McChesney’s work
speci! cally, and thus are wide off their target.
McChesney takes the media industries as serious objects of analysis, both in
the United States and globally, and places greater emphasis on the “public good”
characteristics of journalism and media goods than neoclassical economists.
This is not because he is prone to wishful thinking but because information
and media goods are “public goods,” as we saw earlier. Seen in the light of
free press principles and theories of democracy, we all bene! t from living in a
society where quality journalism and a rich media environment exist, whether
we directly consume these “goods” or not. Indeed, it is hard to argue with the
idea that it is better to live in a society of knowledgeable and tolerant citizens
rather than ignorant and parochial ones (cf. Baker 2007).