POLS20026 Take home exam

8/4/2019 POLS20026 Take home exam

1/7

Media, Politics and Society Take Home Test

Question 1.

Have new digital media platforms diluted the power of 'old media' and opened up

opportunities for alternative voices?

The proliferation of new media formats and platforms has been explosive and, many claim, game

changing. Does this 'new media' represent a 'democratisation' of the media and information

dissemination more generally; does it represent the death of 'real' journalism and ethical standards

in news and current events reporting; or does it merely represent 'more of the same'? The answer

perhaps is: a little bit of all of them.

The world wide web is little more than a decade and a half old but it has quickly become ubiquitous

(McNair 2006, p. 119). Many now seek their news online, either from new sources like web logs

(blogs) or from online versions of traditional media sources.

The internet's ascendancy as a news source both coincided with and exacerbated a sharp decline in

newspaper sales and other traditional media. This decline presented, according to Rupert Murdoch,

both a threat and an opportunity for news organisations (cited in McNair 2006, p. 120) as they

either innovated or failed. In an attempt to stay financially viable the traditional media has

increasingly relied on entertainment news, soft news and 'tabloidization' to retain audiences while

growing their online presence in order to compete with new media sources.

Among the millions of blogs worldwide, many are simply online diaries relating to the author's day-

to-day activities of, but huge numbers of them cover news and current events. This phenomenon has

been hailed as a democratisation of the public sphere (McNair 2006, p. 124) as it allows anyone

with internet access to share their opinion on current events. However, purveyors of online media


2/7

can be separated into four different categories: professional-institutional actors, professional-

individual actors, non-professional-institutional actors and non-professional-individual actors

(McNair 2006, p. 119) and while most bloggers are non-professional-individual actors, the majority

of readers seek professional and institutional blogs and websites. Today online media is dominated

by a relatively small number of blogs and websites, most of them run and written by professionals

and institutions. Does this mean the same people are being read but minus the ethical standards of

traditional media?

A decline in journalistic norms and ethical standards of neutrality threatens democracy because it

produces 'group polarisation' as audiences choose media consistent with their existing belief and are

never confronted with conflicting, perhaps important, ideas and opinions. Many conservatives

express joy that the internet is an opportunity to balance what they see as media pro-liberal bias

(McNair 2006, p. 125).

Online media could, indeed represent a 'democratisation' of the media but the freedom to express

any and all views in the public sphere is only positive in the presence of a strong, neutral traditional

media, able to balance online rhetoric with well researched facts. Instead what can be seen is

traditional media increasingly losing both neutrality and ethical norms in competing with new

media. Consequently the media, at least the corporate, profit seeking media, are converging on

populist conservatism; it is easier to sell people the stories that they already believe and want to

hear.

Overall the modern media landscape offers more diverse viewpoints but these require effort to track

down and their veracity is often questionable. Money and traditional media contacts are still able to

'buy' popularity for a blog or website meaning freedom of the press exists only for those who can

afford to own one and the price tag keeps getting higher (Croteau 2000, p. 89). The game change


3/7

has been more to do with a significant loss in the ethical standards and neutrality of the traditional

media in attempting to compete for market share with online media sources able to openly pursue

partisan and ideological agendas.


4/7

Question 4.

Who has power in the political broadcast interview: the politician or the journalist? What

factors determine who 'wins' the interview?

The relationship between politicians and journalists is a complex one; at once symbiotic, combative

and volatile. The question of who has the greater power or who 'wins' in an interview situation

depends on a large number of factors.

This relationship is typically understood to be one of shared interests, complementary, if not

collusive (Franklin 2003, p. 47), in which the politician or political source trades 'insider' political

knowledge for 'column inches' and favourable coverage. The power balance in this trading

relationship depends on both the power and influence of the politician or political source and the

value of their 'insider' information on the one side and that of the journalist and the media

organisation with which they are affiliated on the other. This power balance can, in some

circumstances result in a fight for control, a phenomenon common to radio where a journalist and a

politician regularly interrupt and contradict each other in the course of an interview. The balance

can also be affected by public opinion in that a politician's position will be weaker or stronger

depending on the ease or difficulty of 'selling' their particular message to the public; an easy to 'sell'

message needs less media assistance.

An illuminating example of this power 'balance' was seen in the UK. The previous Prime Minister,

Tony Blair, led an astounding campaign, relabelling his party 'New Labour' and using an aggressive

media strategy to, not only surge to electoral victory, but exert tremendous control over the media

while in office. This aggressive strategy, involving the centralisation of all government


5/7

communication through No. 101 and Press Secretary Alistair Cameron, allowed the government to

be the key and primary definer in media discussions of policy, to ensure the consistency of the

government line and to minimise the media articulation of dissenting voices (Franklin 2003, p.49).

This strategy may have been less successful were Tony Blair not extremely close friends2

with

media mogul Rupert Murdoch3. This shift in the power balance can lead to a dangerous situation

where the conventional division between public information and party propaganda has been

blurred (Ward 2007, p. 3).

Research points to a significant difference in the power balance between local and national politics.

Local politicians are more likely to be restricted in their media options because of the local

monopoly situation which most local newspapers enjoy which can lead to a situation where the

local paper is kingmaker (Franklin 2003, p. 57). Concentration of media ownership is higher in

Australia than the majority of industrialised nations, with Rupert Murdoch owned New Ltd. having

a huge media presence4. Murdoch's media, it is argued, pursue an ideological agenda at the expense

of non-partisan, 'straight' reporting and in doing so exert huge influence on the content and

character of national political debate. It has been claimed that his newspapers are fiercely partisan

and involved in campaigning against Labor and the Greens5.

The power balance between media and politician is volatile with sources and journalists enjoying

different and shifting fortunes in diverse situations (Franklin 2003, p. 59). Who 'wins' in an

interview situation or, more broadly, in any fight for control, depends on the power and influence of

the individuals involved as well as the organisations whom they represent. In a situation of high

media concentration or monopoly the balance can tip increasingly in favour of the media. This is

especially true in situations where the politicians message is one that is difficult to 'sell', leading to

1 UK government headquarters.

2 He is in fact godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's children.

3 Who has a huge media presence in the UK, including 40% of newspapers.4 Including 70% of newspapers and the ONLY national newspaper.

5 The Australian openly stated in an editorial that it would work to ensure the Greens were destroyed at the ballot

box.


6/7

the very real danger that democracy will be weakened by politicians' inability to educate the public

and win support for necessary but unpopular decisions.


7/7

Bibliography

Croteau, David & Hoynes, William 2000, 'Regulating Ownership and Control' and

'Regulating Media Content and Distribution', pp. 88-113 in Media/Society: Industries,

Images, Audiences. Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA

Franklin, Bob 2003 'A Good Day to Bury Bad News?: Journalists, Sources and the

Packaging of Politics', pp. 45-62 in Cottle, S [ed]News, Public Relations and Power. Sage:

London

McNair, B 2006 'Mapping the global public sphere II: online journalism and the

blogosphere' in Cultural Chaos. Routledge

Ward, Ian 2007 'Mapping the Australian PR State', pp. 3-18 in Young, S. [ed] Government

Communication in Australia. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press

POLS20026 Take home exam

Documents

Transcript of POLS20026 Take home exam