Enhancing the hybrid media system model: The role of critical theory in media and communication research

Abstract

In this article, we propose a theoretical reconceptualization of the hybrid media system model by introducing structural and material conditions of contemporary media sphere with reference to critical theory. Our main thesis is based on the principle of historicization and the concept of social relations. Using this framework, we demonstrate that those who wield dominant power within the neoliberal capitalist economy also have influence over the logic of the hybrid media system. Following the premise that the “agency” is constrained by hierarchical social relations, we enhance the hybrid media system model to explicate not only cases where digital media have enabled successful civic activism leading to social change but also cases where newer digital technologies reinforce pre-existing social relations of power and subordination. The main contribution of the article is to show that critical theory strengthens the explanatory power of the current eclectic-empirical media models without fundamentally undermining their foundations.

Introduction

In recent decades, the media sphere has undergone significant technological transformations, driven by Internet 2.0 and digitalization trends. Both have contributed to the development of Internet 2.0 platforms and social media that coexist with (traditional) mass media (Chadwick, 2013, 2017; Pajnik, 2023). The technological advancement of contemporary media is intertwined with social changes, affecting, in Habermas's (2007) terms, both the system and the lifeworld. Beginning with neoliberal policies in the 1970s and 1980s in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), the media sphere has faced global deregulation and commercialization of mass media that increased concentration and centralization of media ownership (Bagdikian, 2004; Baker, 2007). Concentrated media ownership that violates the “democratic distribution principle”, namely the requirement for maximum dispersal of media ownership (Baker, 2007: 7) leads to a loss of democratic safeguards against the abuse of economic and political power and has a detrimental effect on the quality of public debate. Moreover, transnational corporations that own the most widely used social media (Facebook, Twitter ¹ ) and digital platforms (Google, Amazon) have established themselves as central players in “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2020), feeding their oligopolistic interests by way of algorithmic control of the public. Simultaneously, the public media have increasingly taken on a commercial character and are susceptible to instrumentalization by authoritarian and populist political forces (Freedman, 2021; Pajnik, 2023). Due to these technological and social changes, media and communication scholarship faces numerous theoretical, epistemological and methodological challenges when it comes to comprehensively analyzing phenomena and processes in the current media sphere.

In this article, we start from the assumption that the hybrid media system model (Chadwick, 2013, 2017) has the potential to comprehensively address the technological and social changes in the current media sphere in recent decades. Its main characteristic is an online digital environment that determines the forms of intertwining of older and newer media institutions, practices, discourses and content. It is a relevant starting point for any media analysis, as no phenomena or processes in the current media sphere occur outside of this interplay. Furthermore, this particular media model is likely the only one that clearly expresses its intention to encompass analytically the multitude and variety of media forms, audiences, participants and activities and to comprehend how their interactions shape the current media sphere. However, we argue that while the hybrid media system model effectively captures the technological developments in the contemporary media sphere, it does not provide a sufficient theoretical and epistemological background to understand the social aspects of the digital media environment, namely the social relations of power and subordination in the neoliberal capitalist economy (Harvey, 2005).

Another relevant contribution of the hybrid media system model to understand the current digitalization trends is its insistence on the role of agency of social actors and the recognition of the capacity of political subjectivities to act. With these strong explanatory points of the hybrid media system model in mind, we argue that the major epistemological shortcoming of the model is that it emphasizes the role of agency without conceptualizing the role of objective social relations of power and subordination in the neoliberal capitalist economy that determine the actor's position in the social structure. Following the premise that agency is bounded by hierarchical social relations, we aim to theoretically reconceptualize the hybrid media system model by introducing structural and material conditions of contemporary media with reference to critical theory. Our objective is to enter into a dialogue with the hybrid media system model by rethinking it through the prism of critical theory in order to enhance its ability to comprehensively analyze current media phenomena and processes. Critical research, especially the two most prominent schools of thought, the Frankfurt School critical theory and the critical political economy of the media (Fuchs, 2014: 52–3) have in recent decades provided a more thorough analysis of society's functioning and potential for change than administrative research, which runs the risk of reproducing the legitimacy of social reality (Splichal, 2008). For all their differences, both approaches engage with Marx's work and focus on commodity exchange as the crucial starting category of analysis. Relevant to these approaches, especially to the critical political economy of media, is the analysis of the macro context of communication, the examination of the structural and the institutional factors that determine communication and the structural “pressures” that influence the functioning of media (McChesney, 2013: 73). Moreover, both approaches emphasize the historicization of social phenomena and processes and focus on historical conditions and the relationship between society and oppression, exploitation and domination (Fuchs, 2011: 12).

Although the relevance of critical theory has been extensively discussed so far (e.g., Fuchs, 2011, 2014, 2021; May, 2002; Mosco, 2009), it has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated that it can enhance the precision of empirically oriented media models without undermining their foundations. In this context, we contend that critical theory not only analyses power relations in capitalism but also engages in a fruitful theoretical dialogue with other theories and concepts to explain social reality. In this way, it retains the ability to complement eclectic-empirical media models, such as the hybrid media system model, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of social reality that can inspire acts of contestation. This resonates with the idea emphasized by Fuchs (2011: 85) that the role of critical theory is to foster a productive dialogue between various disciplines and approaches. This paper therefore attempts to reassess the hybrid media system model through the lens of critical theory in order to improving its theoretical coherence and empirical applicability.

Hybrid media system model debate: lack of critical theoretical dialogue

Although the hybrid media system model has significantly influenced media and communication, as evidenced by its adoption in numerous studies (as discussed later in this section), there is still a lack of critical engagement with it. This is probably due to the fact that it is based on a somewhat eclectic set of different theories, approaches, concepts and underlying assumptions. Consequently, the model cannot be assigned to a particular theoretical tradition to which one could possibly “cling” conceptually.

The few debates that are critical tend to develop arguments against hybridity as a research principle (Artieri & Gemini, 2019; Hallin et al., 2023; Witschge et al., 2019) and do not usually systematically engage with the hybrid media system model as a set of underlying premises and concepts, as outlined in the book The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (Chadwick, 2013, 2017). Even attempts to conceptually improve the hybrid media system model do not lead to a dialogue with its underlying assumptions. For example, Mattoni and Ceccobelli (2018) outline the main advantages and disadvantages of Hallin and Mancini's theoretical framework as a tool for understanding the interaction between media and politics in the digital media environment but do not assess the theoretical value of the hybrid media system to which they refer in their discussion. In none of these few debates is the hybrid media system model associated with critical theory.

While theoretical considerations of the hybrid media system model are rare, empirical research on the topic is more widespread. These studies utilize the model in three main ways: as a theoretical starting point for examining how the interaction between older and newer media influences their agendas (e.g., Badr, 2021; Langer & Gruber, 2021; Wong & Wright, 2020); to demonstrate that there are numerous types of actors in the current media sphere who use different media logics to pursue their (political) goals (e.g., Beratis & Wright, 2022; Wells et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2024); and to illustrate how the routine practices of journalists are no longer based solely on the older media logic but also on the newer media logic (e.g., Splendore & Iannelli, 2022; Voltmer et al., 2021). Similar to the theoretical discussion, empirical studies combine the hybrid media system model with other theories that take a stronger epistemological position. As a result, the hybrid media system model is usually considered less exposed, without theoretical significance, and merely an empirical framework. For instance, when Badr (2021) reconstructs the issue cycle and intermedia “spill-over effects” to analyze agenda-building processes in hybrid media systems during the Arab Spring, the hybrid media system model is only mentioned as a framework for addressing “spill-over effects” from online to print media.

Theoretical contextualization and epistemological shortcomings of the hybrid media system model

We begin the theoretical contextualization of the hybrid media system model by noting that it is essentially based on two principles: eclecticism and empiricism. We interpret this model as eclectic in the sense that it combines different concepts, assumptions, and works of authors from sociology, cultural studies, media and communication studies in an attempt to capture contemporary media developments. However, the combination of different perspectives does not increase its analytical strength in explaining contemporary social phenomena and processes in the media sphere. On the contrary, the lack of a clearer theoretical positioning risks robbing the hybrid media system model of its analytical power. This is evident from the fact that the model never appears as a coherent and self-sufficient conceptual framework in existing research, and that there are hardly any attempts to enter into a critical dialogue with it, as was shown in the previous section.

In terms of empiricism, it should be emphasized that the functioning of the hybrid media system model is illustrated with empirical sensitivity, with detailed case studies of civic activism (e.g., the British 38 Degrees movement), political communication (e.g., the 2008 and 2016 US election campaigns, the 2010 UK election campaign) and journalistic practices (e.g., interviews with journalists and editors in the US and the UK) that demonstrate the hybrid nature of information flows in the digital media sphere. Despite the comprehensive empirical presentation of the case studies, the conclusions drawn from them lack theoretical “thickness”, remaining at the level of truisms that suggest conclusions such as “[h]ybridity empowers and it disempowers” (Chadwick, 2017: 286). Such generalizations that encompass all possibilities and cannot be refuted, run the risk of being ineffective from an analytical perspective. We contend that the lack of a theoretical framework that would allow for a more nuanced interpretation of case studies is the primary reason why only general and abstract conclusions are drawn from them.

The hybrid media system model is not positioned in a specific theoretical tradition from the field of media and communication, and a thorough reading reveals the “glue” that binds the various concepts, assumptions and authors: the focus on “agency” over “structure”. In other words, the main epistemological line of the hybrid media system model can be explained by two fundamental approaches to society: “objectivism”, which emphasizes the role of structures in determining how actors function, and “subjectivism”, which emphasizes the role of agency in shaping structures (Giddens, 2004).

A strong emphasis on the role of “agency” is reflected in the understanding of actors as users who can easily influence the structure of online communication: “Actors create, tap, or steer information flows in ways that suit their goals and in ways that modify, enable, or disable the agency of others, across and between a range of older and newer media settings” (Chadwick, 2017: xi). Although the hybrid media system model is “a perspective that discusses the systemic characteristics of political communication” (Chadwick, 2017: 4), the structural approach is rejected on the grounds that “such a perspective must […] be firmly rooted not in abstract structural prejudgments, but in empirical evidence and specific illustrations of these forces in flow” (Chadwick, 2017: 4). By emphasizing “action” over “structure”, an optimistic perspective of newer media technologies is subtly reproduced (Curran, 2012), which conceives of the hybrid media system as a framework that facilitates collective action and social mobilization to achieve social change.

A similar emphasis on “agency” over “structure” is also present in Castells” “network society” (2010; 2013), which does not take into account that the role of agency in the network structure is weakened and the autonomy of users is constrained due to the technocratic superiority of the network structure (Miconi, 2022; Van Dijk, 1999). With digitalization, the networked and the hybrid digital sphere was seen as an egalitarian extension of the possibilities to engage communicatively. The prevalent emphasis on “agency” in both approaches appears to be related to the enthusiastic embracement of Internet 2.0 practices of creative, self-motivated “producers” (Bruns, 2006). This gives the false impression that users as “active” co-creators of online content have equal autonomy and power that they can take action against existing structures, or that structures do not constrain their activities. To add, such a perspective tends to ignore the continuing power of media industries and their concentrated ownership that drives the profit-oriented operation of networks' centers.

Due to a lack of critical approaches in the analysis, the hybrid media system model proves insufficient to explain some key societal challenges related to the decline of the public sphere, such as the slide into technological autocracy, the hindering of opinion expression by datafication of the public sphere (Splichal, 2022), the increasing social polarization and the spread of disinformation (Van Bavel et al., 2021), and the appropriation of media by right-wing populist political elites (Freedman, 2021). Even though the 2017 edition of The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power added an extensive chapter on Trump's political communication, detailing some of the “negative” aspects of media hybridity such as its susceptibility to political instrumentalization, the theoretical premises in the introductory chapters remain unchanged from the first edition of 2013. These “negative aspects” are explained as “dysfunctional hybridity” (Chadwick, 2017: 271) defined as “processes in which the interdependence among older and newer media logics may contribute to the erosion of democratic norms” (Chadwick, 2017: 271). Since “interdependence” is created by actors, these “negative” features are not considered in their relation to the structural conditions of the contemporary media sphere, but as a result of the activity of “agency”. The lack of analysis of the structural and material conditions of the hybrid media system implies that democratic backsliding will disappear if users alter their behaviour.

By supplementing the hybrid media system model with perspectives from critical theory, we aim to overcome the epistemological discrepancy of the “agency-structure” dichotomy ² and refine the hybrid media system model with postulates for examining the structural and material conditions of the current media sphere. Doing so, we want to preserve the epistemological validity of the model and enhance its explanatory power.

Critical theory-based reconceptualization of the hybrid media system model

In the preface to the second edition of The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (Chadwick, 2017: xi–xiii), four concepts of the hybrid media system model are identified: “hybridity”, “media logic”, “system” and “power”. The core concepts refer to the technological advancements perceived as a “chaotic transition period induced by the rise of digital media” (Chadwick, 2017: xi), while “social” aspects are not considered. Thus, we commence the reconceptualization of the hybrid media system model's concepts specifying their social implications by historicizing them. As one of the fundamental principles of critical-theoretical research, historicization is a necessary starting point for any study of the phenomena and processes of the current state of media and communication. In the following, the concepts of the hybrid media system model are reconsidered through historicization perspective, that is, the spatial and temporal localization of social processes and phenomena.

Accordingly, to understand the functioning of the current media sphere and the analytical validity of the hybrid media system model's concepts, as well as to envision social change, we argue that it is not sufficient to define the hybrid media system model in technological terms; it should also be defined in terms of the social processes that shape it in a specific historic moment. Namely, historicizing the hybrid media system model requires the acknowledgment that it develops in neoliberal capitalism (Harvey, 2005), the dominant socioeconomic paradigm of the last decades, in which contemporary media institutions as private companies compete in the market for profit. The neoliberal transformation of the media sphere impacts not only the macro level but also the mezzo level, characterized by the precarization of work in media institutions and competition for online attention, as well as the micro level, where content creation is driven by the logic of virality and clickability, encouraging scandalous content that depoliticizes the public and turns them into consumers (Pajnik, 2023). This broader neoliberal frame where the algorithmic control of communication feeds the oligopolistic concentration of media and Internet 2.0 corporations is objectively fixed and it dictates the rules of the “game” (Fuchs, 2021), to the extent that it is reproduced in journalism practices and in narratives that privilege neoliberal logics (Phelan, 2014). In order to analyze the specific structural conditions of a given media phenomenon or process, we believe that any analysis of the contemporary hybrid media system should begin from this historical juncture.

In the following, we theoretically reconsider “hybridity”, “media logic”, “system” and “power” through the lens of critical theory in order to make them more tangible for theoretical and empirical research. Our emphasis is on rethinking the fundamental assumptions in the first chapters of the book, while we do not concentrate on the empirical cases.

Hybridity

Hybridity is understood as a research principle that “reveals how older and newer media logics in the fields of media and politics blend, overlap, intermesh, and coevolve” (Chadwick, 2017: 5). In the context of the hybrid media system model, hybridity is recognized as “a powerful mode of thinking about media and politics because it foregrounds complexity, interdependence and transition. Hybrid thinking rejects simple dichotomies, nudging us away from “either/or” patterns of thought and towards “not only, but also” patterns of thought. It draws attention to flux, in-betweenness, the interstitial, and the liminal” (Chadwick, 2017: 4–5).

We agree that examining the dynamic relationship between “older” and “newer” media institutions, practices and content, while adopting a non-linear perspective on media historical development, is a crucial guiding principle for the study of the contemporary media sphere (Chadwick, 2017: 28–48). However, the concept of hybridity has notable shortcomings that require epistemological revision. It obscures the social relations of dominance and subordination by incessantly emphasizing “complexity”, “in-betweenness” and “transition” incessantly. Despite the technological complexity of contemporary media, social relations are clearly structured by the prevailing neoliberal social context. The problem with the concept of hybridity is that it accepts (technological) complexity as a self-evident social reality without questioning its structuration. As emphasized by Melucci (1996), social action requires contestation of technocratic power; the contestation of hierarchical positions is the key to reversing the existing social order.

The difficulty with hybridity is also that it has become an all-purpose notion that replaces a more precise analysis and conceptualization of individual forms. To conceptualize phenomena as “hybrid” is to present them as derivatives of other, more recognized forms, and diverts attention from conceptualizing them on their own terms (Hallin et al., 2023). Also, in relation to media, the reference to “hybrid”, “in flux” or “blurred boundaries”, ceases to recognize autonomy of media and does not allow for understanding the reciprocal connections between various media (Artieri & Gemini, 2019). Acknowledging critical theory scholarship enables us to go beyond the all-purpose argument of “complexity” and demonstrates that it actually functions to legitimize and reproduce existing dominant structural relations. Therefore, we agree with Witschge et al. (2019) who point out that we need to emphasize new conceptualizations, terminology and vocabulary rather than labeling what is complex as hybrid.

Media logic

In general, the concept of media logic characterizes the functioning of particular media (Altheide & Snow, 1979; Altheide, 2013; Chadwick, 2013; 2017). It refers not only to media content but also encompasses “technologies, genres, norms, behaviors, and organizational forms” (Chadwick, 2017: xi) that are specific to certain media. Altheide and Snow (1979), used it to examine the factors that influence the functioning of mass media and the impact of mass media logic on other spheres of society, including politics, economics, culture and science.

Regarding media logic, the following premise is essential in the context of a hybrid media system model: “Older and newer media logics sometimes flow independently, but increasingly flow together, creating arrangements for the conduct of political communication that are, on balance, more expansive and inclusive than those that prevailed during the twentieth century” (Chadwick, 2017: 290). Given that “platform capitalism” (Srnicek, 2017) in the “attention economy” (Goldhaber, 1997) has launched newer digital tools at an unprecedented speed that can no longer hide the built-in biases to manipulate users, we think that it is not theoretically productive to romanticize the democratic potential of newer media and underestimate the monopolization processes associated with technological development. Moreover, this premise overlooks the increasing concentration and centralization of media ownership. The trend of excessive media concentration has been identified as the rise of “the megamedia” (Alger, 1998), namely, the dominant dozens of media conglomerates that own the global media market, and since the 2000s, also most popular Internet 2.0 platforms and social media. In addition, the assumption that contemporary media logics are more inclusive is likely founded on the premise that anyone can create their own media content via social media. However, the “architecture” of social media does not provide all users with the same structural opportunities to express their views. The “rules” according to which a particular medium functions, its media logic, are determined and created by the media owners, not by the users themselves. In Marx's sense, users can create the content of a particular social medium, but its media logic is constituted by structural conditions that users have not chosen themselves; rather, they have to accept these rules and communicate in accordance with them if they want to gain visibility among other users.

Revising his conceptualization from the 1970s in the digitalized ecology of communication, Altheide (2013: 225) warns that technological media per se cannot be the only explanation for social conduct. While newer technologies and formats enable plurality of voices, they simultaneously reinforce surveillance and provide opportunities for the construction of fear (Altheide, 2013: 228), amplifying populist communication (Pajnik, 2023). Media logics are thus always situated in defined objective constraints that cluster rules of how media operate. In his recent analysis of “further” structural transformations of the public sphere, Habermas (2022: 158, 166) argues that the expansion of communication opportunities by digitalization that supposedly benefits citizenry and the public sphere is largely directed to those who have the political power to act, such as populist politicians seeking “plebiscitary approval” via Twitter on a daily basis.

Specifically, the brevity of Twitter posts, a fundamental aspect of its media logic, favours the propagation of populist discourse that is unwilling to engage in dialogue. The debate on Twitter is frequently appropriated by right-wing populist elites, while many other social groups (e.g., activists from non-governmental and humanitarian organizations) do not participate, because they are not provided with equal structural opportunities to express their views, as short posts do not offer the conditions for argumentative and comprehensive debate on a given topic. The egalitarian character of the relationships between participants that were originally envisioned as “the hallmark of the new media” has today been “drowned out by the desolate cacophony in fragmented, self-enclosed echo chambers” (Habermas, 2022: 159).

Moreover, Twitter is a social platform managed by a private company whose primary goal is not to facilitate a democratic, in-depth, and pluralistic exchange of differing viewpoints on a particular topic. Rather, communication on Twitter is about generating revenue by advertising the services and products of numerous companies. Twitter conversations about current political and social events primarily serve as a “cover” to expose users to advertising as consumers. Twitter users are “interpellated” as citizens capable of engaging with public affairs, yet they are constructed and managed as commodities targeted by advertisers, rather than being regarded as citizens who resonate on public issues. Users' communication patterns are then sold to advertisers in the form of metadata so that they can target their advertising to specific user groups. Twitter's policy is to keep users on the platform for as long as possible and algorithmically suggest content to maintain their attention (Fuchs, 2021). Algorithms are invisible to users and, in Marx's terms, “fetishized”, although they are an essential part of social media logic. Due to the invisible operation of algorithms and the entire infrastructure that drives the logic of social media, Beyes (2022) defines “secrecy” and “opacity” as key characteristics of a platform society. As argued by Habermas (2022: 163), “the description of platforms as “media offerings for networking” […] is, in the view of the far from neutral performance of algorithm-steered platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, if not naïve, at least incomplete”.

Power and system

Similarly to “hybridity” and “media logic”, the “system” is also associated with elusive terms such as “flexibility, adaptability, and evolutionary change emerging from the sum of social interactions” (Chadwick, 2017: 20). Consequently, “structures that make up a system […] may be relatively loose, spontaneous, and supple, and continually adapted and readapted according to the goals being pursued” (Chadwick, 2017: 22). Regarding “power”, the hybrid media system model is founded on two fundamental premises. First, power “is exercised by those who are successfully able to create, tap, or steer information flows in ways that suit their goals and in ways that modify, enable, or disable the agency of others, across and between a range of older and newer media settings” (Chadwick, 2017: 285). In other words, those who adapt better to the hybrid media logic are more effective at achieving their (political) goals and are consequently more powerful. And secondly, “power” does not only mean “conflict and struggle but also how media are used in relational processes of adaptation and interdependence in the pursuit of political goals” (Chadwick, 2017: xii). Here, interdependence implies that “even the most powerful in any system must cooperate with those who are less powerful, in the pursuit of collective goals” (Chadwick, 2017: 20).

To revise the “power” and the “system”, we utilize Marx and Engels' concept of “social relations”. In The German Ideology (1846/1972), they articulate historical materialism, which emphasizes the historicization of social phenomena and processes for materialist analysis, and break away from classical political economy which relies on an abstract and ahistorical subject as the basis for societal analysis. The focal point is shifted towards “social relations” which exhibit a certain variability depending on the prevailing mode of production. Marx and Engels are concerned with the actual embedding of the individual in the specific historical social relations that comprise a specific social formation. Consequently, social phenomena and processes within the hybrid media system are intrinsically historical and determined by the “structure”.

Our proposal is therefore to shift the emphasis from “flexibility” and “spontaneity” of structures to the objective social relations in the neoliberal capitalist economy. While acknowledging the impact of hybridity resulting from the merging of diverse media logics on the contemporary media system, we contend that this phenomenon does not necessarily lead to the dissolution of social power relations and subordination, despite the proliferation of actors utilizing Internet 2.0 and social media. Indeed, studies from the field of critical political economy of media and communication demonstrate that newer digital technologies have reinforced existing social relations of dominance and subordination (e.g., Baker, 2007; Berry, 2008; Fuchs, 2011, 2014, 2021; Herman & Chomsky, 2002; May, 2002; Mosco, 2009). Specifically, hybridity represents a significant opportunity for established media actors, as they have structural advantages that enable them to pursue it successfully. For instance, Baker (2007: 112) employs the US media sphere as an exemplar to illustrate how the preponderance of the most extensively perused news websites are owned by media conglomerates that also hold sway in the non-online media environment. Similarly, Herman and Chomsky (2002: xvi) contend that the success of media players in Internet 2.0 is contingent upon their prior establishment in the media market, as they possess sufficient financial resources and a sizable target audience in the digital media environment. The economic power of a selected few has been amplified by the privatization of online hardware, deregulation of the media, and the growing concentration of media ownership in hybrid media sphere. These processes have impeded the ability of Internet 2.0 to function as a democratic public sphere that provides equal representation for all. The public sphere which “has been stripped down to “like” and “dislike” clicks, rests on a technical and economic infrastructure” (Habermas, 2022: 166) that pushes for a reproduction of self-directed and fragmented eco-chambers resulting in a persistent polarization of public discourse (Habermas, 2022: 159, 165).

But just as existing studies demonstrate how the current media sphere reinforces existing social relations, they also reveal that digital media can foster social change (Badr, 2021), empower new and/or disadvantaged social actors (Maniou & Bantimaroudis, 2021; Wong & Wright, 2020) and enable social media to establish “weak” public discourses (Siapera, 2019). It should therefore be acknowledged that the hybrid media system provides opportunities for “weak” publics to manifest their agency. However, in order to understand the conditions under which existing social power relations are “defeated”, it is necessary to analyze them in terms of critical theory, that is, as structurally situated. For instance, to understand the Arab Spring, which is often portrayed as social media-fuelled mobilizations, it is crucial to consider not only the students' skilful use of social media but also the key structural conditions that enabled mobilizations. These include the fact that the protesters were mainly young, educated individuals in urban centers with internet access who were dissatisfied with the poor economic and socio-political conditions. Social media not only facilitated mobilization and communication among them but also served as a vital information source for international media such as Al Jazeera, extending the reach of the movement to (rural) populations without internet access and on an international level (Badr, 2021).

Based on the above, we might assume that the postulate that those who are better adapted to hybrid media logic are more effective in achieving their (political) objectives and are therefore more powerful is not so straightforward, as differences in structural predispositions (e.g., social status and economic resources) may influence an actor's probability of attaining social change or political success. For instance, Chadwick (2017: 283) stated that “Trump himself proved to be adept at exploiting the power resources that the hybrid media system provides”. But Trump has effectively utilized the power resources offered by the hybrid media system, not necessarily due to his skill but rather because of his privileged social position which has enabled him to augment his power in the digital media sphere, particularly on Twitter.

In relation to the second postulate, which states that even the most powerful in a system must cooperate with the less powerful to achieve collective goals, it is noteworthy to explicate that social groups have different interests depending on their position in the social structure. Twitter, for instance, fosters a “class-structured attention economy” that favours posts from economically powerful users leading to asymmetrical power relations. A company with a large advertising budget can rapidly gain attention on Twitter, while this is more difficult for an “ordinary” user without financial background. The most influential actors” posts are shared by “ordinary” users; additionally, users” data are sold as a commodity to advertisers so that the company can target advertising to particular user groups (Fuchs, 2021: 206–207).

Conclusively, drawing from the critical theory perspective's reconceptualization of “power” and “system”, it can be concluded that media technology in itself is not capable of influencing social relations. Rather, for societal transformation to occur, it is imperative that modifications are made to social relations determined by technocratic power, and not just the media technologies.

Concluding remarks

In this article, we have presented structural and material conditions of contemporary media with reference to critical theory in order to theoretically reconceptualize the hybrid media system model. Our discussion aimed to enhance the ability of the hybrid media system model to explicate both cases where digital media have enabled civic activism leading to social change and cases where newer digital technologies have reinforced pre-existing social hierarchies of power and subordination.

Drawing on historicization and the concept of social relations, we argue that those who hold hegemonic power in the neoliberal capitalist economy also dictate the “rules of the game” in the current media sphere. Put differently, the principles of the game, namely the logic of the hybrid media system, are already integrated into the hegemonic structure (Schradie, 2019). With digitalization the networked public sphere and the hybrid media have been enthusiastically seen to enhance the ability to engage communicatively in various spheres of social life, everyday communication, politics and civil society. As argued by Splichal (2022: 90), the fascination with the Internet 2.0 and social networking activities as a “proxy for the public sphere” promoted a “liberalized version” of the public sphere as a network that embraces “peer relationships in a pluralistic interaction structure”. Lacking a critical perspective such optimism neglected that the hybrid media system replaced communicative action by “(any kind of) behaviour” (Splichal, 2022: 90), praising the technical features designed by online platform owners. We therefore underline that media analysis that fails to incorporate the theoretical insights from critical theory may contribute to perpetuating the prevailing social relations and hierarchical structures.

However, we do not make the absolute claim that social change cannot take place in the present media sphere. But in order to comprehend the conditions under which social relations of power and subordination are reproduced or “defeated” in a neoliberal capitalist economy, it is imperative to undertake a structural analysis of these conditions through the lens of critical theory. Stated differently, to comprehend a theoretical understanding of the circumstances in which “agency” prevails over “structure”, it is necessary to examine social circumstances as structurally presented from the perspective of critical theory. In this way, we attest that the main epistemological shortcoming of the hybrid media system model lies not in its emphasis on “agency”, but rather in its inability to acknowledge the structural circumstances that defeat or give rise to the “agency”, and its inability to account for conditions in which a structure overcomes “agency”. We believe that both shortcomings can be overcome by applying critical theory to the hybrid media system model, thereby remedying the presented deficiencies and strengthening its explanatory power for examining contemporary social phenomena and processes in the hybrid media sphere.

Our main contribution is to show that critical theory can be used to enhance existing empirical media models without profoundly undermining their foundations, that is, the role of agency in the hybrid media system model. The integration of critical theory yields a theoretical framework that enables a more comprehensive analysis of media reality, in terms of its theoretical depth. Therefore, we believe that the epistemological enhancements proposed in this article give the hybrid media system model considerable potential for application in the further analysis of contemporary digital media.