Pass 4, Merit 2, Distinction 1

Pass 4 Merit 2 Distinction 1

Evaluating the independence of the media from owners, revenue generators & politicians. 

The world is obsessed with news, scandalous gossip and stories; whether it’s about their favourite celebrity, football team or local church, news sells. But how much of this news portrayed in the media can we trust? Perhaps we’re just reading the opinions or views of that particular company’s owner, wanting to get his views across to the nation; subliminally brainwashing them into thinking that piece of news is the be all and end all.

Most journalists would more than likely enjoy speaking the truth; but without financial clout, they powerless! And like the old saying goes, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’

But when it comes to looking at the independence the media has from their revenue generators it paints a fairly similar picture – if you have the money you can pretty much twist and turn any news story into anything you want the public to hear. News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s business) had annual full year revenue of $32.8 billion, which is earned primarily from;

-          Advertisers who pay TV channels and newspapers to display their products.

-           The public buying newspapers, watching TV and using the internet.

-           And in this country; the government who charge licensing fees in aid of non -commercial (advertising) public friendly television. (BBC)

It’s quite simple to evaluate a media outlet’s independence from the revenue generator, if a certain product (for this instance a TV show) viewing figures drastically drops, this is likely due to something happening or being said on the show. Now if the TV channel it was broadcasted on has a family entertainment image, it will more than likely cut the show. This is a perfect example that media has very little independence from their revenue generator. The Bill can demonstrate this, for years it was broadcasted week in week out but ITV thought it to be getting too violent so cut it, outraging many die-hard fans. http://www.newscorp.com/Report2010/letter_to_stockholders.html(page 2 of “a letter from Rupert Murdoch” for the 2010 figures)

Media & Politics have always had a history; some even describe it as dog-eat-dog. But there is very little in way of evidence to suggest that media is totally independent of politicians. We’d be absolutely lost if we didn’t have media to keep us informed on day to day happenings in parliament, even the slightest of embarrassing moments for a politician could make interesting reading for us in the general public, so is it any wonder that politicians want to control the media? Well in some countries they do, media outlets are eradicated and journalists find themselves harshly incarcerated for speaking their opinion!

Picture by: Matt Allison

A very well-known example of laws controlling the media occurred last summer in the height of the 2011 super-injunctions controversy; where in a nutshell celebrities, politicians, journalists’ gagging order’s in court were all brought to light and revealed. One particular story I have picked out occurred on April 26 2011; BBC political correspondent Andrew Marr abandoned his super injunction about an extramarital affair with a fellow journalist; Marr dropped his case after discovering he didn’t actually father a child with her, after a DNA test. When asked how he felt about the situations he replied with:                                                            

“Am I embarrassed by it? Yes. Am I uneasy about it? Yes. But at the time there was a crisis in my marriage and I believed there was a  young child involved.
'I also had my own family to think about, and I believed this story was nobody else's business.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380546/Andrew-Marr-abandons-injunction-affair-fellow-journalist.html#ixzz1wJUIx9cf

After further reading example of super-injunctions and tight government control on media, I can only conclude that there is little to no independence from politicians.

Evaluating the independence media has from its owners can be a tricky business, this is because different newspapers and TV outlets have built up specific ‘characters’ overtime, usually reporting the same topic – I.E The Sun will print gossip and fabricate the truth, whereas The Guardian will focus mainly on reporting the actual facts of a story and pick up on the main points, not just the ones which are more likely to sell papers, in other words they build up a specific Style & Stance.

Style is what is in a nutshell what I explained in the previous paragraph, different papers reporting different stories aimed and different members of the public (usually the lower middle/working class)

Stance is what political views each one has, whether it’s right wing or left wing.

Owners can influence the style and stance of their media companies to either make more money or express their own views to the nation (as if it’s correct and proper). Major influence on media is definitely a negative thing, demoting free speech, reducing objectivity & most alarmingly – distort the news. A big example of this is media tycoon Rupert Murdoch (pictured above). This is the most powerful man in media today; he owns The Sun, a stake in Sky TV and most of the media outlets in Austrasia. Proving that Murdoch has influence over his media is easy to suspect but hard to prove as he watches he tracks; if his branches put print stories or opinions on stories it could well be his opinion, however it could also be there’s; they could well be trying to self-promote their own careers.

Story by Matthew Allison.

Researches: Ben Browne, Ryan Hall-Galley, Tom Purling.

Edited by Jedward Benton