Assignment - 15

Power and Media: A Cultural Studies Approach to Understanding Influence in the Digital Age

 Assignment Details:

Paper : 205A: Cultural Studies

Topic :  Power and Media: A Cultural Studies Approach to Understanding Influence in the Digital Age

Submitted to - Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English M.K.B.U.

Date of Submission: 07/11/2025

Personal Information:

Name: Khushi Raviya

Batch: M.A. Sem - 3 (2024-2026)

Enrollment Number: 5108240029

Roll No: 10

Table of contents

• Assignment Details 

• Personal Information

• Abstract

• Key Words

• Introduction & Historical Context

• Institutional Power: Media Organisations, Platforms and Control

• Discursive Power: Representation, Ideology and Everyday Life

• Networked Power: Algorithmic Visibility, Participatory Media and Resistance

• Intersections and Implications for Democracy, Identity and Everyday Life

• Challenges and Critical Reflections: Limitations and Future Directions

• Conclusion

• References

Abstract:

In the digital age, media have become central to the exercise, negotiation and contestation of power. Drawing on the frameworks of cultural studies, this paper examines how media organisations, digital platforms and social media structures mediate power relations, shape identity, direct audience reception and govern everyday life. It discusses how power is manifested through new media logics such as algorithmic control, platform governance and networked visibility, and how audiences are both subjects and agents in these power relations. Using key theoretical contributions from cultural studies and media studies, the paper argues that media in the digital age do not simply reflect power but actively produce and sustain power relations, while simultaneously offering spaces for resistance. The paper identifies three main dimensions of power: institutional (media corporations/platforms), discursive (representation, ideology) and networked (algorithmic, participatory), and explores how they interrelate. Finally, the paper highlights implications of this media-power nexus for democratic culture, identity formation and everyday life.

Keywords:

Media power; digital platforms; cultural studies; audience reception; algorithmic governance; everyday life; identity; networked media.

Introduction & Historical Context:

Media have always been implicated in power relations for example, the emergence of mass-circulation newspapers and radio in the early 20th century enabled the consolidation of public opinion, state propaganda and corporate influence. With the advent of television and later the Internet, media’s reach, speed and ubiquity increased dramatically. In the digital age, characterised by social media platforms, algorithmic curation and global connectivity, the nature of media power has evolved. The frameworks of cultural studies which emphasise how culture and power are intertwined, how audiences are active meaning-makers, and how everyday practices are sites of ideology and resistance become especially relevant. As Matt Hills and others argue, the central object of cultural studies is the entanglement of “culture and power”. 

In this context, understanding media power in the digital age demands a cultural studies approach that examines not only media texts but the broader institutional, discursive and networked systems that shape meaning, identity and social relations.

1. Institutional Power: Media Organisations, Platforms and Control

One dimension of power in the digital age lies with media organisations and digital platforms. As Cultural Studies emphasises, culture is never separate from power media institutions produce and distribute cultural forms that reflect, maintain or challenge power structures. 

1.1 Corporate and platform power:

For example, the ability of major digital platforms (social media sites, search engines, streaming services) to control distribution, data flows and user attention demonstrates their institutional power. In “A Cultural Exploration of Social Media Manipulators,” it is shown how social media can be used purposefully to deliver propaganda or persuasive messaging at scale. 

1.2 State and soft-power dimensions:

Further, media power is not only corporate but also state‐related: platforms may support or challenge state narratives, serve as instruments of soft‐power or governance. The architecture of the internet and platforms intersects with state regulation and surveillance. 

1.3 Platform algorithms and gatekeeping:

In the digital age, algorithms have joined gatekeeping functions: which content is promoted, which voices are suppressed, which networks are amplified becomes a matter of coded decision-making, reinforcing institutional power in new ways. “The Right to Know Social Media Algorithms” paper emphasises the black-box nature of platform algorithms and their implications for power and transparency. 

2. Discursive Power: Representation, Ideology and Everyday Life

Beyond the institutional realm lies the discursive power of media: how media texts, genres and representations shape meaning, identity, values and everyday life. Cultural studies emphasises that everyday life is a key site of meaning-production, and media are central in that.

2.1 Signification and ideology:

Media texts carry representations that embed ideologies. Although many of the classic cultural-studies texts pre-date the digital age, the digital affordances amplify representation dynamics. Media, by selecting what is visible and how it is framed, helps constitute power relations.

2.2 Audience reception and identity formation:

In digital media environments, audiences are not passive: they interpret, share, remix, and resist content. According to “The Story Logic of Social Media: Co-Construction and …” the architecture of social media produces new narrative phenomena, altering the meaning-making process. 

Audiences become part of the production of meaning, with identity and culture mediated through their engagements.

2.3 Everyday life and micro-practices:

Everyday uses of media smartphone scrolling, social media posting, streaming entertainment are practices where power is reproduced or contested. As the chapter “Digital Platforms and Algorithmic Subjectivities” indicates, the production of subjectivities (identities, roles) is embedded in platform logics and algorithmic regimes. 

3. Networked Power: Algorithmic Visibility, Participatory Media and Resistance:

The third dimension of media power in the digital age is networked power: how media, technology and audiences operate in a networked environment, altering traditional power relations.

3.1 Social media and visibility:

Social media platforms have created new forms of visibility and network participation, which shift power. The “Algorithmic ‘We’: Belonging in the Age of Digital Media” piece explains how algorithmic profiling interfaces form collectives and subjectivities, revealing how media architecture participates in power. 

3.2 Algorithmic governance and attention economies:

In networked media, attention is a currency. Algorithms determine what becomes visible, what remains hidden, thus shaping public discourse, cultural trends, and influence. For example, platforms may amplify certain voices or messages, thereby exercising power. The book “Algorithms and the End of Politics” explores how the logic of networked media and platforms influences political power. 

3.3 Resistance, remixing and cultural agency:

However, networked media also open spaces for agency and resistance: remix culture, alternative media, participatory communities challenge dominant narratives. The narrative logic of social media enables co-construction, subcultures, and counter-publics. The “Story Logic of Social Media” article addresses how users become co-authors of media logic. 

4. Intersections and Implications for Democracy, Identity and Everyday Life

In this section we bring together the institutional, discursive and networked dimensions of media power, and discuss their implications for democratic culture, identity formation and everyday life.

4.1 Democracy and public sphere:

If media power shapes agenda-setting, visibility and discourse, then the democratic ideal of a free, pluralistic public sphere is challenged. The presence of opaque algorithms, platform monopolies and concentrated power raise concerns about participation and equity. The “Right to Know Social Media Algorithms” article argues that transparency is essential for democratic participation. 

Harvard Law School Journals

4.2 Identity, subjectivity and culture:

Media power influences how identities are formed gender, race, nationality, class via representation, algorithmic sorting, participation or exclusion. Everyday life becomes colonised by media logics, and cultural studies reminds us that identity is performed, mediated, contested. The “Algorithmic ‘We’” article highlights belonging and collective formation in digital platforms. 

4.3 Everyday life, consumption and culture:

In the digital age consumption of media is continuous: streaming, social media, memes, influencer culture. These become sites where power is exercised (through shaping tastes, attention, norms) and potentially contested (by subcultures, user-generated content). The “Media Studies and the Internet” article outlines how internet practices build on earlier media forms while expanding cultural reach. 

5. Challenges and Critical Reflections: Limitations and Future Directions:

Finally, a cultural studies approach to media power in the digital age also must face its limitations and provocations for the future.

5.1 Transparency and algorithmic accountability:

The shift to algorithmic media means much of the power is hidden, coded. Cultural studies must adapt to analyse algorithmic labour, platform governance and opaque power structures. The “Right to Know” article spells out how algorithmic secrecy is a legal, social and cultural issue. 

5.2 Agency versus structure:

While digital media open participatory opportunities, structural inequalities (digital divide, platform monopolies, global-north dominance) persist. The cultural studies emphasis on everyday life and agency must be balanced with structural critique. The article on social media manipulators shows how persuasive media operations can undercut genuine audience agency. 

5.3 Global dynamics and cultural imperialism:

Power in media also has a global dimension: platform imperialism, global flows of culture, asymmetries of power. Cultural studies must account for transnational media, global north-south divides, and how digital media reproduce or challenge those. Although not covered by one article here, this remains a critical frontier

Conclusion:

In sum, examining media power in the digital age through a cultural-studies lens reveals the multi-layered ways in which media shape influence, identity and everyday life. Institutional structures (platforms, algorithms, corporations) hold power in their ability to gatekeep and frame discourse; discursive practices (representation, ideology, audience reception) configure how meaning is made and resisted; networked media (social media, participatory platforms) change the topology of power but do not automatically democratise it. A cultural-studies approach helps us understand that media are not neutral channels but active sites where power is produced, contested and reconfigured. For students and scholars of culture, the task is to trace these relations, understand their implications for democracy and identity, and investigate how everyday practices participate in or resist media power. As media continue to evolve, critical attention to algorithmic governance, platform regimes and global flows of culture will remain central.

References:

- Dawson, Paul, and Maria Mäkelä. “The Story Logic of Social Media: Co-Construction and Emergent Narrative Authority.” Style, vol. 54, no. 1, 2020, pp. 21–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/style.54.1.0021. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

- Kangaskoski, Matti. “Algorithmic ‘We’: Belonging in the Age of Digital Media.” Style, vol. 54, no. 1, 2020, pp. 36–47. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/style.54.1.0036. Accessed 27 Oct. 2025.

- Kompare, Derek. “Media Studies and the Internet.” Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, vol. 59, no. 1, 2019, pp. 134–41. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26844137. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

- Prat, Andrea. “Media Power.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 126, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1747–83. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26550509. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

- Schudson, Michael. “How Culture Works: Perspectives from Media Studies on the Efficacy of Symbols.” Theory and Society, vol. 18, no. 2, 1989, pp. 153–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/657530. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

- Shirky, Clay. “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, no. 1, 2011, pp. 28–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800379. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

- Warren, T. Camber. “Not by the Sword Alone: Soft Power, Mass Media, and the Production of State Sovereignty.” International Organization, vol. 68, no. 1, 2014, pp. 111–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43282097. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.

Words:1854

Images: 3

Thank You