Explain how the political context in which newspapers are produced, influences their ownership and regulation. Refer to The Guardian and The Daily Mail newspapers you have studied to support your answer. [10]
1. Explain the political significance of the concept of 'press freedom' and its relationship to representative democracy. Why do you think freedom of the press is important? How much influence do you think the government should have about the things reported in the UK press?
I personally feel that the use of a free press has both positives and negatives, and therefore shouldn't be totally self-regulated. The invasion of privacy of those in the public eye is becoming more common, with reporters taking stories too far and gaining private information. This is happening due to the demand the readers give, responding well to stories that seem exclusive. However, I feel that when a scoop is no longer I the publics interest then it shouldn't be printed and hence should be regulated, as reporters are gaining both unwanted information and information which is too invasive.
The concept of 'press freedom' has political significance as newspapers are able to support any political ideology, printing stories backing this ideology. Due to this, even though the government has little control of the press, politics remains one of the most covered topics. This relationship between 'press freedom' and its political significance helps to represent the democratic society in Britain; allowing readers to chose which ideology, and therefore newspaper, they follow and buy, without any regulation against them. Just as everyone is entitled to an opinion when voting for the future of the country, with the majority gaining power.
I also feel that the government should oversee what is covered within the press, though shouldn't be able to control; what can and cant be published. The press should be covering stories and events with the publics interest as a priority, and I eel that I the government had control over the press the this would be forgotten.
I personally feel that the use of a free press has both positives and negatives, and therefore shouldn't be totally self-regulated. The invasion of privacy of those in the public eye is becoming more common, with reporters taking stories too far and gaining private information. This is happening due to the demand the readers give, responding well to stories that seem exclusive. However, I feel that when a scoop is no longer I the publics interest then it shouldn't be printed and hence should be regulated, as reporters are gaining both unwanted information and information which is too invasive.
The concept of 'press freedom' has political significance as newspapers are able to support any political ideology, printing stories backing this ideology. Due to this, even though the government has little control of the press, politics remains one of the most covered topics. This relationship between 'press freedom' and its political significance helps to represent the democratic society in Britain; allowing readers to chose which ideology, and therefore newspaper, they follow and buy, without any regulation against them. Just as everyone is entitled to an opinion when voting for the future of the country, with the majority gaining power.
I also feel that the government should oversee what is covered within the press, though shouldn't be able to control; what can and cant be published. The press should be covering stories and events with the publics interest as a priority, and I eel that I the government had control over the press the this would be forgotten.
How are newspapers regulated and why do you think this is necessary? Can you refer to an academic idea we have studied in class?
The main organisations that regulate newspapers consist of: Editor's code of practice, Press Complaints Commission (PCC), and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). This is necessary so that newspaper companies are protected by these organisations so that stories are checked to make sure there is no obligation to those stories which could harm the company involved if there was a problem with story coverage.
Curran and seaton argue that ownership and regulation is the most significant factors in how the media operates. This contributes to the media not having a broad range of opinions and perspectives as companies such as News UK own multiple news outlets which leads to the same opinion coming from the same person being put out into the media, this comes from a capitalist structure, newspapers such as the guardian are ran by trust boards and not by one person so their news comes form a wider perspective and has less bias.
Curran and seaton argue that ownership and regulation is the most significant factors in how the media operates. This contributes to the media not having a broad range of opinions and perspectives as companies such as News UK own multiple news outlets which leads to the same opinion coming from the same person being put out into the media, this comes from a capitalist structure, newspapers such as the guardian are ran by trust boards and not by one person so their news comes form a wider perspective and has less bias.
What examples of editorialised content would not fit 'impartial' television news (e.g. social or political opinion) from The Guardian and The Daily Mail print or online editions.
Editorialised content means that its not advertising based in the act that they pursue direct sales intensions. This is the reason in which customers purchase or subscribe to these news outlets. News outlets of this type manipulate and distorts news values in order to broadcast impartial judgments of peoples beliefs and what they want to hear.
What examples of ownership models, e.g. The Guardian’s trust ownership and The Daily Mail’s proprietor model, could show the opportunities offered by the latter model for control by ‘press barons’.
Ownership models like the Daily mail’s proprietor model offer a prime example of how media can be controlled to influence public political views. Press barons like Rupert Murdoch, who controls most UK tabloids, can be seen to share his political opinions in each of his newspapers; this allows for an unfair opinion to be shared with the UK.
How much power does the press have to shape political debate, e.g. the influence of proprietors on politicians to support policies promoting cross-media ownership or holding back from regulation.
The press can develop power through ownership of newspapers which consequently can shape political stances due to their ideologies and therefore political debate through the widespread circulation which has the power to influence politicians in their debates. The owners of newspapers can influence the editorial stance of a newspaper. Newspapers will also attempt to influence how the public vote in elections. It is important that newspapers stick to a code of conduct or rules set out by independent organisations in order to avoid this. If one large business or one singular man owns a company their ideologies can filter down into the papers. This relates to Hesmondhalgh's theory on cultural industries as DMGT (owner of the Daily Mail) also owns multiple other companies. This therefore shows the integration and conglomeration of cultural industries which follows the normal capitalist patterns seen in Hesmondhalgh's theory.
Explain the political affiliations of the two newspapers, e.g. The Daily Mail as a right wing newspaper is partly defined by its support for the Conservative party, The Guardian as a centre-left newspaper is partly defined by its support for Labour or the Liberal Democrats, and how this is clear from an example you have studied.
To begin with, the Daily Mail is a clear right wing (capitalist) newspaper, which evidently portrays these views through its stories and layout. The Daily Mail tends to have a great focus on money and prices in modern life - even when not especially relevant to the story. The Mail does this because of its political affiliation, due to the wealthy being interested in the price of things. Another point, is that the Mail favours right wing people and the wealthy, which is clearly shown in their bias to some stories. An example of this, was the paradise papers coverage, which involved the queen being under fire for not paying tax and also for the elites dodging tax. In this, the Mail back up the queen and made it as if those lesser off were wrong, and the queen was simply a victim.
In contrast to the Mail, we see the Guardian adopts left wing (socialist) ideologies because of its support for labour. The Guardian is very much a hard news paper, and so what it conveys tends to be less biased and more factual. Despite this though, there is a slight lean in what it has written towards the socialist side of things, and so the rich tend to look worse. Interestingly, the Guardian also says a lot about tax at the minute, though what it says is how the rich should really help the poor, and so they should be taxed a greater amount.
