‘Now where were we, miss, when that fellow interrupted us?’
The strike, seen as a Socialist Revolution at the time, has been belittled in order to maintain the established order and values of society. Source 4 reveals the view of the establishment towards anything ‘Bolshevik’.
Source 5, an extract by Aldgate details the systematic and calculated distortion of events and use of propaganda in the news broadcasting on the Spanish Civil War. It indicates the purposeful failure of producers to educate ‘the masses’ on the realities of the event.
The advent of the Cinema made the media of film, in particular newsreels on significant events accessible to the working class. Selective and highly edited coverage of the Civil War diminished the educative value of the newsreels.
‘If pictures were limited and partial, then they were deliberately so.’
It follows that this brand of political bias was rampant throughout most if not all of the media coverage of events such as those detailed in sources 1, 2 and 5. These sources are of little value in civilizing ‘the masses’. They do, however, educate and inform the majority according to socio-political requirements and desires of the producers and supervisors of the media productions. Sources 1 and 2 are corrupted by a scope to advance politically. Source 5 highlights how news on poignant events can be used to channel propaganda rather than to inform.
‘(E)ngendering a consensus response’
John Reith’s principle in source 3 asserts the ‘ethical and educational value’ of the BBC’s productions. Implicit in his philosophy is the need for ‘the masses’ to be educated through a ‘universal medium of communication’. Reith depicts the BBC as being on a moral crusade to improve the worldly awareness of the majority. Their intention is to remedy the recognised ‘problem’ by bringing the ‘best of everything into the greatest number of homes’. However, source 4 shows this naïve and patronizing ideology to be flawed. The underlying implication of the ideology is the informing and educating of ‘the masses’ according to political agendas. Guidelines in source 4 from the British Board of Film Censors imply a design to promote value consensus; a range of media, which is highly selective, vetted and edited so as not to contain anything, which could be interpreted as anti-establishment. Subversive content such as ‘propaganda against the monarchy’ or the use of ‘Bolshevik propaganda’ was therefore outlawed.
Governmental control over the media limited the freedoms of media producers and most probably reduced the educative value of news coverage. Patriotism and jingoism were used within the media as a form of political and social control over ‘the masses’. Through the media, they were educated only to accept the social order, thus maintaining upper class supremacy.
Sources 6 and 7 describe to an extent the process of the media following the advent of the ‘free press’ after 1914. The opinion in both on the value of such a development contrasts greatly. Sources 2 and 5 prove that even after 1914 the ‘free press’ was not (as asserted by Taylor in source 6) free from political control. Source 4 and the strict maxims of the BBFC are the main attributing factor to the king of bias seen in source 5 and the broadcasting of news on the Spanish Civil War. It would not be in the interests of the government if ‘the masses’ were educated about either Fascism or Bolshevism. The nature and scope of the media at the time, after all, was to get ‘the masses’ to accept the social order. These sources show intent to inform along political lines. Private ownership certainly does not equal political impartiality as seen in source 2.
Taylor reports the disappearance of he ‘long reports of political speeches’ and s shift to presenting news in an ‘interesting way’. Source 1, however, which was published before 1914, was hardly a ‘long report’ but a highly opinionated article. This reported change had implications for the educative worth of the media. It could be argued that verbatim on parliamentary speech would be less biased than a report form a journalist. The media was possibly more misleading and less informative than it had been previously.
Royle’s account in source 7 illustrates the lack of information presented to ‘the masses’ within the ‘free press’. A new emphasis was placed on entertaining rather than educating the public in order to achieve maximum sales. The ‘free press’ had made the media accessible to ‘the masses’ yet offered little more than ‘ephemera’ (source 7).
‘(R)un at a loss…. dependant upon mass advertising.’
Therefore, profits dictated the content.
In conclusion, the government before 1914 gave media producers limited freedom of expression or speech. Political and social factors that curtailed these liberties came in the form of censorship as shown in source 4. Propaganda highlighted in sources 1, 2 and 5 rendered information given in news coverage of little value. Ironically, the development of the ‘free press’ left news coverage subject to a new confinement on the broadening and civilizing capacity. Editors and journalists were now slaves of capital, every section of the publications engineered to make maximum profit. John Reith’s ethical mission to rid the majority of their cultural ignorance was supplanted by a tabloid culture, which was set to permeate into all media genres.
Source 3 remains the only evidence to show an intention of media producers (namely John Reith) to educate ‘the masses’. John Reith, however, was hardly representative of those he wished to educate and could be described as ‘middle-aged, middle-class and middle-minded.’ Sources 1, 2 and 5 show an intention of the media, influenced by politicians, to misinform and miseducate the public. Sources 6 and 7 show the cheapening and devaluing of media coverage. In contrast to sources 1, 2 and 5 (which show rampant distortion) sources 6 and 7 do not show a deliberate design to distort or mislead ‘the masses’, but a complete lack of interest in educating and informing them.
1270 words
