‘it is highly questionable that the nuclear industry, premiership football, cinemas, West End theatres and tube trains can operate safely’(as a result of
this action).
(Maguire K. p 1).
In this case the government has attempted to undermine the firemen (through the media) by insinuating that their actions are putting innocent peoples lives at risk. However rather than accepting this argument the public chose to side with the firemen due to the large ‘degree of sympathy generated by the September 11th factor’ (Maguire K. p1). In this example media bias is evident by publication of the governments opposition to a pay increase for the firemen, but rather than assent to the official argument, the public have actively interpreted newspaper reports and formed an opinion opposing the elite. The autonomic analysis by the public (rather than acquiescence) of the ruling ideas, forms the basis of reception analysis theory (a pluralist perspective).
Critics of reception analysis theory such as Van Djik use research into ethnic prejudices to illustrate their hegemonic argument. From August 1995 to January 1986 Djik examined news that was of an ethnic nature reported in 3 broadsheets and 2 tabloids (The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Sun). He registered use of frequent adjectives in headlines of newspaper articles, and found that the word ‘police’ was the most common. Djik concluded that because of their frequency, words such as ‘police’, ‘riot’ and ‘violence’ had an effect on people’s preconceptions. 95
‘ethnic prejudices are predominantly acquired and confirmed through various communication media’
(Djik V. in Jones M., Jones E. p129)
Prejudices and racist thinking are considered to be a trait of the political right (elitist ideology). Djik’s evidence demonstrates ‘trial by media’ with the use of elitist perspectives, and it is the audience’s perception and subsequent prejudices that emerge as the implications of ‘trial by media’.
Hall claims that it is the journalist’s use of homogenous sources such as parliament, the church, and royalty that help to legitimise their reports and reinforce public opinion. Moreover, hegemonic theorists believe it is this use of official sources that gives the elites of society the chance to amplify their opinion. (Esher (2002) Mass Media, Crime and Ethnicity ()
In contrast to the Marxist hegemonic theory, pluralists argue that it is the public that have overall autonomy over media and media products; it is the media that are influenced by the public.
‘This argument has been frequently used to defend nudity in national newspapers: if 12 million people read the Sun they must enjoy what is in it’
(Jones M., Jones E. p46)
Whale, quotes The Sun Newspaper’s history - a broadsheet between 1964 and 1969 -
as a supporting pluralist argument. He argued that ‘the broadsheet Sun had struggled to interest working people principally through their intellect’ Whale J (1997) The Politics of the Media p75 Between theses years, sales of The Sun (broadsheet) dropped massively (Whale J. p75) Murdoch (owner) dropped the intellect approach and transformed the paper to entice a working class readership. By 1976 sales had risen to 4 million copies (Whale J. p75). From arguments such as Whale’s, the power of the audience over the media is demonstrated through ‘buying power’ – the public will not purchase what they don’t want, and thus control the media. However contradictorily, it is argued that in this technological age, ‘national audiences are fragmenting’ (Bilton et al (2002) Introductory Sociology 4th ed p348) because the audience have a wide choice of different media such as terrestrial/digital television and the Internet. With such a selection of media, arguably audience-buying power is considerably diluted between different sources, and therefore audience effect over media is weakened. Another factor that contradicts the pluralist approach, and therefore strengthens the hegemonic argument is the monopoly of ownership of the media. In Britain today, there are only seven companies that account for all national sales of newspapers, with News International owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch claiming the biggest share with 35 percent of circulation sales. (Jones M., Jones E. p24) With such a concentration of ownership Marxists such as Hall claims it is the elite rather than the public that have autonomy over the media. He cites from research conducted into headlines of the 1970’s and argues ‘crime figures were used as political weapons at times of economic crisis to justify a failing capitalist economy’
(Hall S. in Esher.co.uk)
Using the example of mugging he makes claims of exaggerated and racist reporting of ‘black criminality’ in 1970’s newspapers. Referring to elitist concerns in the economy (such as high unemployment and high inflation figures) he asserted that media was used to distract attention from these concerns and in doing this, it insured that ‘the ruling elites capitalist economic polices are preserved’.(Hall S. in Esher.co.uk)
Whilst claiming that the elites used the media to distract fears over economic concerns, Hall adds weight to Van Djik’s argument of elitist ideology perpetuated through the media. In this case more ethnic prejudices are subject to inculcation by the audience. The effect on the audience of ‘exaggerated and racist reporting’ has led Hall to the theory of deviancy amplification.
Deviancy amplification theory claims that the media highlight an issue of deviancy i.e.; mugging, the audience then react to this issue, which as a consequence generates further deviance. Stanley Cohen related deviancy amplification to a moral panic and defined it as ‘ a condition, an episode, person or group of persons emerge to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests’ (Jones M., Jones E. p142) He claims society react by creating legislature such as longer prison sentences and stricter laws. Princess Diana’s death and ensuing criticism and blame of the paparazzi in 1997 led to tougher privacy laws which clearly demonstrates both moral panics and evidence in support of the pluralist argument of public autonomy. (Whale J. p70) However Goode and Ben Yehuda argue that ‘it is interesting to analyse the contexts of moral panics because they invariably occur when powerful interest groups in society are facing troubled times’ (Jones M., Jones E. p142) , which thus advocates the elitist autonomy.
This essay has sought to provide an insight into the main theoretical debates concerned with ‘trial by media’ and it’s implications. It has largely proved that ‘trial by media is the norm with references to the firemen, Van Djik’s evidence of racial prejudice through the media, and support from Cohen’s mugging research. With reference to the public autonomy versus elitist autonomy debate, arguments have provided proof of both effects being visible in the media. However there appears to be more strength and evidence of elitist ideology perpetuated through the media, and arguably this maintains the capitalist economy structure. The visible ways in which the elite maintain capitalism are referenced in Cohen’s argument, where media becomes a tool to manipulate the public in both diverting attention and increasing control over the public by introducing stricter laws that restrain the individual. Thus, ‘trial by media’ is the norm, implications are both positive and negative; they serve to maintain the capitalist structure economically and ideologically though hegemonic rule that legitimates itself through the media. This legitimisation arguably creates an audience that is both acquiescent of the media and inculcated with an elitist perspective.
Bibliography
1. Maguire K. (2002) The Guardian (Manchester)
2. Jones M., Jones E. (1998) Mass Media (Hampshire – Palgrave)
-
Esher (2002) Mass Media, Crime and Ethnicity ()
-
Whale J (1997) The Politics of the Media (London : Fontana)
-
Bilton et al (2002) Introductory Sociology 4th ed(Palgrave Hampshire)
-
Tunstall J. (1996) Newspaper Power (Oxford – USA)
-
McQuail D (1989)Mass Communication Theory ( Sage – London)