News Q3 practice.

b) 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 marks]

In this essay, we will be examining the political context in which newspapers; The Guardian and the Daily Mail, are produced and how they influence ownership and regulation. The news industry here is oligopolistic which contradicts the concept of a free press if it is controlled by the elite, upper-class. 

The Guardian, left wing, labour, is owned by the Scott Trust, which is a British company that owns other businesses as well, not just The Guardian since 1936. This type of ownership can be seen to allow freedom in speech for its journalists as the Trust only governs the structure of the paper and doesn’t have a say in content or leader lines, which is beneficial for journalists. The profits made are reinvested back into the Trust, and quality journalism rather than financial dividend is the Trust’s goal.

In terms of further regulation, the Leveson report believed that the relationship between the press and politicians was too close. They believed that the press were easily influenced by the politicians, and were not in the interest of the public. But despite this, there is evidence for the fact that the newspapers are both linked to political parties, their influences, as well as their affiliations (whom they're sided to). For example, one of The Guardian's front covers says "Half UK's young black men are out of work" which could easily be identified with the Labour party, as the labour party is for the idea of full employment for everybody. Whereas one of the Daily Mail front covers, says "This lady's not for turning!" with Theresa May on the front, which could signify that the newspaper clearly supports the Conservative party and is for the idea of Brexit. The political context doesn't entirely affect the production of the two newspapers, but it can be argued that the news itself can influence the political context.

Moreover, the two newspapers, or any newspaper in the UK, is regulated by a new self-regulatory body called IPSO. It is independant and was set up due to the Leveson report, and the phone hacking scandal that took place in July, 2011. However, this could suggest that if newspapers are regulated, they would not be able to express their freedom, which is contradictory. Though, newspapers like The Guardian are free to leave the regulatory body IPSO and be independent, but other newspapers that do not join the IPSO, would be confined to direct regulation by OFCOM.

In conclusion, the relationship between political contexts, ownership and newspaper regulation is complex and affected by a number of factors. The importance of press freedom and the relationship that newspaper owners enjoy with political parties can be seen to be influenced by the political context in which newspapers are produced. But, at the same time, the political contexts in which the press functions are also influenced by press ownership and the press’ response to regulation.

News Q2 practice question.

Sources A and B cover the same news event but are from two different newspapers. How far has the combination of elements of media language influenced meaning in the sources? In your answer you must:

• explain how the combination of elements of media language influences meaning in newspapers

• analyse how media language has been used to construct meaning in the sources



• make judgements and reach conclusions about how far the combination of elements of media language has influenced meaning in the sources. [15 marks]

PLAN:

• The Sun: right wing, conservative, popular
• The Times: centre-right wing, conservative, quality

• The Sun: informal language, more pictures, less text, individualism paper;  that each individual is acting on his or her own, making their own choices, and to the extent they interact with the rest of the group, it's as individuals. The sun is conservative, therefore would be against the idea of someone non-British in the royal family. Picture of Markle is not as enlarged, could mean they're belittling her, undermining her; "princess pushy".
• The picture of Meghan and Harry are seperate, which could signify, again, that The Sun does not welcome her into the family. 
• The Times: formal language, less pictures, more text, collectivism paper; views the group as the primary entity, with the individuals lost along the way. The Times on the other hand, is centre-right wing, so it would be in favour of the royal family; "welcome to the family", the picture of the daughter and mother is enlarged, which could mean that they're proud to welcome them into the royal family. The image is also in the centre of the paper, which means the paper wants this story to be the audiences' prime attention. 

Source A and source B cover the same story about the royal family, but are from two different newspapers; The Sun and The Times. The Sun, is a right-wing, conservative and popular newspaper, which means it covers stories like gossip and examples as such. Whereas source B, is The Times, which is also center-right, conservative, but it's a quality newspaper, which is more formal compared to popular. In terms of analysing how media language has been used to construct meaning in the sources, we can derive that from source A; The Sun, has the codes and conventions of informal language that consists of sans-serif font, such as "Princess Pushy", which conforms to the codes and conventions of a popular newspaper. Furthermore, there seems to be less text and more pictures, which again, conforms to a popular newspaper, but it could also signify that it's audience is aimed at a working class, rather than a middle class. In contrast to this, The Times has a formal use of language with the use of serif font, which could signify classiness, with less pictures and more text, which conforms to the codes and conventions of a quality paper. The use of more text and less pictures could be targeted at a middle and upper class, rather than a working class.

In terms of other use of media language and how it's been used to construct meaning in the sources, The Sun's image of Princess Meghan is seen to be small, which could connote they're belittling her, undermining her; "princess pushy", and the fact that they're conservative, they'd possibly be against someone non-British joining the royal family. In addition to this, the image of Princess Meghan and Harry are seen to be separate, which again, could mean that they're not for the idea of Princess Meghan being in the royal family. On the other hand, The Times priorities the image of both Meghan and her mother by enlarging the image and centering it in the middle, which could connote that they're proud to welcome them into the royal family, and having the image centered could signify that they want the image to capture the audiences attention. In addition to this, The Times is center-right wing, so it would be in favor of the royal family; "welcome to the family".

In making judgements and reaching conclusions about how far the combination of elements of media language has influenced meaning in the sources, both sources cover the same exact story, but from two different perspectives and from two different newspapers; The Sun, which is right wing and The Times, which is center-right wing. In analysing the different use of media language over the two sources, we can come to the conclusion that source A provides a negative view of Meghan Markle and her joining the royal family, whereas source B provides a warm and more positive view of Meghan Markle and her joining the royal family. 

News Q1 practice question.

Q1. Analyse the different representations of gender, social class and / or ethnicity in Sources A and B. Apply one appropriate theory of representation in your answer. [10 marks]
In terms of representation of gender for this front cover of The Sun, we can apply:

•  Van Zoonen's feminist theory.
• Being very sexualised; chest area exposed, wearing red; connotes seductiveness & promiscuity, her face is airbrushed, which means stereotypically, she is supposed to look perfect because she is a woman, and society believes women are supposed to be beautiful and desirable, hence why Van Zoonen says women are treated as sexual objects in the media.
• Gillroy's "otherness" theory; in this cover, she is connoted as a white person rather than a mixed person; this could signify that since the Sun is right wing, they're not as for mixed people, as they are for white people. 

In terms of representation for this cover, we can apply: 

• Disprove Van Zoonen's feminist theory (in contrast to source A..) unlike Source A, this cover rejects Van Zoonen's feminist theory; two women are seen as respectable and they're being represented in a positive light. 

In the two sources, both newspapers cover the same story, which is about Meghan Markle and her marriage to Harr, however in some aspects, there are elements that are quite different. For example, in source A, we could apply Van Zoonen's feminist theory as in the front cover, Meghan is painted as a sexual object, and we can tell this by the way she looks; she's wearing a red, exposing dress, which could connote seductiveness, power/strength and desire. She is also being represented here as though she is promiscuous. Moreover, we can also see that her face is airbrushed, which could support Butler's feminist theory as well; gender is not natural, it is culturally determined and constructive, and in this case, this is true, because women are stereotypically, supposed to be perfect and be beautiful, they should be desirable and aim to please men. So therefore, Meghan seems to be conforming to this stereotype; Butler would also agree with Van Zoonen, that women are indeed represented as sexual objects. In further use of Van Zoonen's feminist theory, the text "Don't fall for my little sis, Harry, she'd be the next Princess Pushy" which again, puts Meghan in a negative light, she's being connoted as pushy, forceful and selfish. This is an understandable point of view, as The Sun newspaper, is right-wing/conservative, so perhaps they'd want someone as a citizen of Britain to be in the royal family, and not someone who used to be an American actress. Van Zoonen's theory here is definitely painting a negative light towards Meghan Markle, she indeed is being sexualised and signified as an object. 

In contrast to source A, source B is centre-right, so it has a different worldwide view of the royal family, or in this case, Meghan Markle and her mother. In the cover, they're being represented as a respectable and royal family, which would reject Van Zoonen's feminist theory of women being signified as sexual objects. Here, the two women are dressed appropriately and are covered up, without any skin being on show, whereas in source A, Markle is seen as promiscuous and seductive with her skin out on show. The headline "Welcome to the family" also portrays them in a significant and positive light, it's welcoming them to the Royal family. "Kindness to mother leaves Meghan touched" could also support the connotation of a positive light being shone on them.  Whereas in source A, the text "Exclusive: Meghan 'shallow'" in all capitals and red font, completely reject the positive light and instead, shine negative light onto Meghan.

In conclusion, both sources can be easily applied to Van Zoonen's feminist theory; in source A, the woman is being very sexualised and undermined as a woman, whereas in source B, it completely rejects Van Zoonen's theory, and instead, portrays two respectable women.