Newspaper Portrayals of Boris Johnson - Literature review Example

?NEWSPAPER PORTRAYALS OF BORIS JOHNSON IN THE BRITISH NEWSPAPERS Review of Literature 1 Media’s role in British Society In Britain, the media’s role is clearly defined. This is indeed an accolade that most researchers have said is the envy of the media elsewhere (Brown, 2009). This is because unlike other places of media and journalistic practice where the role of the media is virtually not given any recognition or clearly defined rooms for operation, it has been argued that in Britain, there is convention that sees the media as the fourth arm of the democratic practice of government (Fisher, 1978). Naturally, the arms of government are defined as the legislative, judiciary and executive. Each of these has a constitutional role that they play in the democratic practice of government. To this end, it is these three arms of government that are officially accepted for all or any former duties (Angel, 2012). But as times went by in the practice of freedom of expression and freedom of the press through the provisions of democratic governance, the media was one area that was seen to have taken so much advantage of the provision, making its impact felt in almost every aspect of British life. It was for this reason that the media its self and the public started referring to the media as the fourth arm of government, necessary for undertaking the role of correcting and directing the society; especially government. Research has showed that one of the best and most favorable conditions that make it possible for the British media to have such influential role in British society is because media practice has been clearly diversified in Britain (Gunter, 2000). What this means is that in almost every aspect of social practice, there is a line of media practice that caters for that aspect. For example in it will be noted that Britain is a socio-cultural community with the people following social passions such as religion, sports, politics, economics, tourism, show business, education, and the likes. For each of these areas also, there will be a kind of media outlet that clearly distinct itself in providing the needed information that followers of the said passion seek after (Williams and Carpini, 2000). There is another school of thought that states that the role of media in British society could be grouped into three major key functions and these are to entertain, educate and inform society (Berger, 1991). What this means is that the media in Britain is responsible to offering entertainment to the society through the combination of a number of society paradigms including show business and sports. The media is also expected to educate the society by providing authentic and unadulterated facts that correspond to current and historic issues. Finally, the media informs the public by bringing them up to date with what takes place in Britain as a country and the international world. 1.2 Media and politics In Britain, the media and politics are both considered as independent and interrelated. As far as independence is concerned, it can be said that both the media and politics are considered as two agencies that have extremely different roles to play in society (Dimmick, 1974). Each of these can also play its role without necessarily needing support or help from the other. Between the two agencies, this phenomenon of independence of the media and politics has generally been in place as a means of ensuring fairness in the delivery of their duties. Studies have actually showed that when the media does its work in a manner that it needs no support and assistance from any political personality or political party, it is possible that the media can go about its tasks more fairly and devoid of any political favouritism and biases that may be seen in various reportage as a form of payback for any good done to the media by the political agency (Dennis, 2000). In the same way, when politicians go about their roles in a manner that clearly shows that they do not need any assistance from the media to survive, it is possible for the politicians to function in a manner that pleases the larger British population and not just the criticisms of some few media houses who give their support to the politician in question. In terms of interrelated functionality, it has been warned that it is important not to confuse politics in the media with media and politics (Fairclough, 1995). This is because politics in the media has for long been used to depict a situation whereby a group of media outfits use their outputs to champion the works and activities of certain political personalities and political groups. Interrelated functionality of media and politics rather refers to the use of the media to serve the larger interest of the population on what the public wants and needs to know about the political climate in the country (Devaraj and Kohli, 2000). This is done in the absence of any political sensationalism to please a limited group of persons, mostly politicians. In Britain, a number of examples can be given with historical antecedents of how the media has successfully merged with politics to get the public up to date with key issues of national importance and coverage. Examples of these are the roles played by the media in the UK General Elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 where the media took up key debating issues of national relevance to help the public make effective electoral judgements. The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, The Leveson Inquiry, Campaign for Freedom of Information and Glasgow University Mass Media Unit are all examples of key political roles played effectively by the British media (Hansen, te al, 1998). 1.2.a Agenda setting theory Agenda-setting theory has been used in media practice for several decades now and though it has its criticisms as to why it may be a negative influence on the practice, it has continued to exist in most developed and developing democracies including that of Britain. Generally, agenda-setting theory is a practice whereby the media give credence to specific news topics with the aim of making it popular among the people so that the people will regard it as more important (Hissam and Daniel, 2009). In fact, studies have showed various ways in which agenda-setting theory may come about. Popular among these is the propaganda approach, which has been explained as a deliberate affair by which a sect in the media practice, and belonging to a specific group, organization, political party, movement or religion, set an agenda to intentionally influence public discourse and gain public sympathy over the issues they raise. In Britain, agenda-setting theory has been linked so much to the political atmosphere than any other aspect of social debate. This may be very reasonable to explain as politics has been defined as the passion of the nation (Jensen, 2002). Therefore, there are a series of political related issues and topics that the agenda setting theory has been used to influence towards the benefit of the agenda setters. As far as new studies are concerned, there have been a new school of thought that refuses to admit that agenda-setting theory establishes an automatic and direct influence on the audience. Researchers who argue this way use the Audience-Contingent Effects of Agenda-Setting to express their point (Humphrey, 2001). The merit of the debate put in by the latter is that the audience always has pre-existing sensitivities about issues that go on in all three types of agenda-setting namely public agenda setting, media agenda setting and policy agenda setting (Jensen, 2002). Therefore, depending on the level of contingency that an audience gives to an issue, the agenda-setting approach would produce the same level of effect. In the British media for instance, for each of the three types of agenda setting identified, they is a line of following that most people tag themselves with. In effect, they only pursue agenda that relates to the lines they tag themselves with. To get people in the neutrality may also be position but this has been identified not to be much (Riffe, et al, 1998). In effect, it is common experience that every British would have a political, sports, religious or other forms of tags that they associate themselves with. Therefore, open agenda-setting do not have as much influence as targeted agenda setting. Between two parties for instance, it will be the one who will be able to psyche his followers best with set agenda that can be assured of their loyal votes in any election. 1.3 Media in Politics in Britain As far as political sensationalism and passion is concerned there has always been a debate if the British media is not the fiercest in global politics. But even if the British media may not be tagged as the most political loud outlet, it is an open secret that it is one of the most passionate when it comes to political discourse (Krippendorf, 2004). Indeed, the media has been used in a number of ways in British politics. Using Boris Johnson as a very typical scenario, the place of the media in British politics could be seen in two major perspectives. The first is the ability for the British media to give politician and their political ideologies public spotlight. As a journalist with the print media himself, Boris Johnson had played the role for other politicians and so when he decided to run for a public political office as Member of Parliament for Henley in the 2001 general election, he had all the media attention in terms of campaigning and making his political intentions known. In fact, the level of media attention given to Mr. Boris Johnson back in 2001 has always been said to be responsible for this successful election as the MP in 2001 (Krippendorf, 2004). The fact that he continued to hold his position as the editor of the Spectator in the first term that he was an MP would also come to be a reason a key factor in his elevation into the position of Conservative candidate for the 2008 London mayoral election where he defeated the incumbent (Jones, 2013) and his re-election in 2012. The other place of media in British politics is that they criticize politicians and their political ideologies if these fail. Indeed, the fairness of the media in doing this has been praised because it is said that they are able to criticize politicians and their ideologies whether or not they were the once who helped in bringing him to power. Mr. Boris Johnson remains another credible example of how the media criticizes squarely in ensuring that politicians deliver according to what they promise the electorates. In the case of Mr. Boris, there are a number of incidents of harsh public and media criticisms that were leveled against him in his term as an MP and Major. Examples of these were labeled as “Stuart Collier, Theft of Cigar case, people of Liverpool, allegations of racism, Damian Green arrest” (Machin, 2007) and a number of allegations of sexual affairs with women including those of Petronella Wyatt, Veronica Wadley and Helen Macintyre. In effect, the media is in politics to help people make the right choices as the choices that the people make constitute the kind of society they are going to have. With this said, it can be concluded that the media is powerful enough to make and unmake political kings and queens (Machin and Van Leeuwen, 2005). 1.4 Media Representations Theory Generally, media representation refers to the processes and products involved in media practice (Kurtz, 2005). Once the processes and refined to become products, they are expected to go through a construction in certain aspects of reality such as people, events, and cultural identities. It is the representation that the construction gives to the various components and constitutes of society that comes to constitute media representation theory (Rutherford, 1994). For a specific medium such as the print media, for which the newspaper industry belongs, it is important to note that representation does not only involve the identities are constructed but also the level of reception that the people whose identities are constructed give to the text (Machin and Van Leeuwen, 2003). Subsequently, representation becomes complete only after the affected people have had a fair chance to react to the construction that is made. A typical example of this scenario could be the class stratification syndrome that Britain is commonly tagged with. In media representation theory, it is possible that the working class for example would have a certain line of construction of which the media always tag them with. But this will not be termed representation until such a time that the working class themselves have had a receptive audience to the construct. In the image below, media representation theory is given further explanation three models on which the theory operates. The models are reception, production, and reference. From the illustration, the major idea that is being put across is that media production of certain news items alone may never be enough to be called influential until they have gone through a receptive critic and reference critic by the public and people directly affected by them. Source: Aberystwyth University (2010) Using Mr. Boris Johnson as a typical example, a case can be made of the media’s representation that they wanted to give to him and the Conservative Party at large when his allegation of racism came up (Lasorsa, 2002). In a very short while after his election, the British media started labelling Mr. Boris as a hard core racist who would not protect the interest of the Black communication due to allegations made by Doreen Lawrence. But even though the reception of this text could go down with some electorates, the reference of the news established that the realities associated with the claims could not be founded and so regardless of the allegations, Mr. Boris and for that matter the Conservative Part continued to win elections and the mandate of the people. 1.4.a Framing Theory Kernochan (2004) explains framing theory by comparing it to the central concept of rational choice theory by saying that the two are opposite in that “Framing theory and the concept of framing bias suggests that how something is presented (the “frame”) influences the choices people make.” With respect to the media and the newspaper industry for that matter, framing theory could be used in a number of ways and for a number of purposes. But research has showed that for framing theory to be very effective, a lot depends on the end user of the data or information that is being put across, whereby the making of rational choices is left as a responsibility of the end user (McNelly, 1959). To this end, the level of influence that the media wants to make with the news it carries must be examined in relation to the acceptability scale with which the end user receives news (Lewin, 1947). It is for this reason that it is always important for the media to have an identified coverage or scope, commonly referred to as audience. The mistake that most media outlets have often made is that every other listener or reader or viewer is hungry for news and so would accept just anything that is put up in the airways. But this has been criticized to be a very wrong way of viewing the audience. Once enough research is done into the media receptive behaviour of a group of people, the right kind of framing can be done with news for them so that they will easily accept this. With media outlets that are very skilful with their framing, it has been said that it is even possible to undertake negative campaigns, once they will be done in the context of positive campaigns (Newcomb, 1953). This means that regardless of the point stated above, it is still possible to penetrate an audience that is not ready to accept one’s line of news or information broadcast if the right framing strategies are used. To achieve this, cognitive linguistics has been advised to be used in all contests of framing when the audience is seen to be hostile to the kind of news that is being put forth (National Academies Press, 1994). And to make use of the cognitive linguistics, there are a number of levels of lines that one must be ready to take into consideration. In short, this line has been regarded as the end justifies the means principle whereby the conveyor of the information will not be in a rush to getting the actual context of the information to the audience. Rather, one will be patient enough to start with the ideal case of any given issue and then pick frames in the ideal case that can be positively valued (Kernochan, 2004). Thereafter, enough time is spent on justifying the basis of the issue rather than tackling an opposite issue and criticizing it. So instead of condemning an issue that the end user cherishes, framing theory is used to magnify the context of the issue that the message holder wants the end user to accept. 1.4.b Common Knowledge Paradigm Theory Common knowledge may very much be referred to as an old phenomenon of making use of an idea, fact or piece of information that is generally accepted to be known by everyone within a vicinity (Jones, 2013). Common knowledge was more popular in communication and academic studies as issues with plagiarism became popular. However, there is a more complicated twist to common knowledge where is has gradually cripped into media practice, coming to be known as the common knowledge paradigm theory. Paradigm as used here gives the implication the system is quite new and a shift from old practice. This is because as professional media practice demands, pieces of news and information are supposed to be coming from highly reliable sources that can easily be quoted and authenticated for argumentative proof. However, the common knowledge paradigm theory more or less provides that when a piece of information comes to the public domain and it becomes generally accepted by the people, it can be used in both private and public discourse and argument without actually caring about where the original sources of the information is (Bennett, 2004). In most professional journalistic practice, the subject of common knowledge paradigm theory has been criticised as a theory that defeats the very basis for professionalism and respect for scholastic appraisal (Bass, 2001). This is because common knowledge gives room for most people to abuse the freedom of expression and freedom of the press by putting up stories and information that lacks any professional touch and research (Reese and Ballinger, 2000). On the other hand however, there are those who debate that common knowledge paradigm theory takes the observance of freedom of expression to the door step of the ordinary person in Britain, such that one does not have to be an academia before he or she can be part of public discourse and debate. If for nothing at all, such people who lack the basis to undertake critical scholastic such of issues would have their own line of subject matters that they can add their voices to when public debates are going on. But the caution is that it is important for the public to distinguish between what comes under common knowledge and what comes under a fact that has been said by another person. This is because the mere fact that another person said something in the public domain does not make that case a common knowledge (Reese and Ballinger, 2000). 1.4.c Schema Theory Schema theory deals with the ideology that every piece of knowledge is made up of a series of singular units (Lasorsa, 2002). This means that for a larger or collective knowledge, there is a representation of substantial fragments of ideas that are put together to constitute this knowledge. In media practice, schema theory may well apply when talking about the constitute nature of information that the media always put into the public domain. First, the schema theory is expected to give an idea to media practitioners for every piece of information that they put in the public domain, the audience already have some level of schemata, which is the name given to the units in the schema (Breed, 2005). Subsequently, it is totally a wrong practice for the media to treat its audience as a group of novice who have no idea or absolutely no knowledge of the kind of information they give to them. Once this understanding is developed by practitioners that their listeners or reader or viewers are no totally new to any piece of information or knowledge, the practitioners will be more cautious in ensuring that fulfil their parts of the bargain by ensuring comprehensive research into the reportage they put up (Angel, 2012). In Britain, the audience to various media outlets have been described as people who always have an experience with each line of news (Bass, 2001). The audience there begins each day with schemata, constituted in the experience with the news or script. Therefore, once the audience begins taking service from the media, there is always a preconcerned direction that the audience expects the news to take. Any deviation is therefore easily detected and given various interpretations. The level of schema that a group of audience will have, have been identified to depend on a number of factors and principles (Bennett, 2004). In the first place, it is said that in a population where there are more educated people who can use as many avenues of media outlets including the electronic, audio-visual, print and audio, there is higher probability that the schema of these people will be higher because they have experience with the news from various sources (Lasorsa, 2002). The level of passion that an individual audience also have to a particular line of information has also been found to have a lot of influence when it comes to the level of schema. In effect, whiles one person will have more schema on sports information, another will have his with politics (Rogers, 1994). 1.4.d Gatekeeping Theory Gatekeeping theory is regarded as one of the oldest mass communication theories that can be traced back to the early days after the World War II when social psychologist Kurt Lewin was known to have studied it in 1943 (Bennett, 2004). Gatekeeping has been used not just as a theory but also as a model of professional and ethical media and communication practice (Bissell, 2000). This is said because through gatekeeping, information is well filtered so that only the best results of what is publicly consumable are disseminated to public domain (Shoemaker, 1996). Also all aspects of media practice use gatekeeping in one way or the other. In print media or publication, gatekeeping is used right at the point where the reporter decides on which sources of information to use and which sources may not be suitable for the course of the work being done. After reporters select their sources of information, there are further acts of gatekeeping done by editors to extract only the best forms of reports and news for publication. In most cases, researchers have said that gatekeeping is best enhanced with the criteria for filtering of information is made to revolve round the need to ensure ethical standards rather than asking the simple question of ‘which news will sell fastest’ (Reese and Ballinger, 2000). In other forms of media such as electronic media also, gatekeeping is done. In modern times, much focus among reviewers have been on internet based gatekeeping where internet broadcasters will appreciate the need to have a common code of practice that defines what is good for public consumption and what is not appropriate (Shoemaker et l, 2000). Indeed, discussing internet gatekeeping is an appropriate topic for 21st century gatekeeping backed by the gatekeeping model identified by Lewin (1943). The first part of the model says that information is prepared through a step by step channel and these channels often differ. Indeed, in the case of internet, some of the steps include typing out the information, editing and then broadcasting in a web portal (Shoemaker, 1991). The second part states that all information passes through a channel, where in this instance, the channel is the internet. Thirdly, information are governed by forces, some of which may be opposing forces. In the case of the internet, most of these forces are actually with the end users who take the information. The forth point is that there could be several channels bringing up a common result and a clear exemplification of this is what a person gets when a search engine is used. At every point in time, there are as many channels producing the same results as possible. Finally, it is said that gatekeeping will be controlled by different actors. For internet broadcasters therefore, they must see gatekeeping as a way to always bringing their information atop of what end users will be seeking to have (Bleske, 1991). 1.5 Media Representations of Politicians The media in Britain have over the years represented different politicians through different perspectives. Generally, it is believed that the kind of representation that a politician has with the media depends on a number of factors including how open the politician is and how friendly the politician is with the media. This notwithstanding, there is no guarantee that a politician will have either positive or negative representation by the mere fact that the politician opens up to the media (Breed, 2005). The general believe in Britain is that the deeds of a politician determines the type of representation received. But be it a positive or negative representation, the one who is more approachable by the media gets more of this. Yet again, Boris Johnson remains a crucial example in this scenario as his history as a media man made him more found with the media as a politician as compared to other equally active politicians like he was. With his experience, he knew how best to get to the media and understood what the media expected from him when they came to him. Regardless of all these, it was not all the time that he had the media representing him in a way and manner that he desired. In his career as a politician, even though the media gave him so much popularity through the promotion of his ideas and ideals, there were also times that highly debated controversies such as People of Liverpool and Petronella Wyatt affairs run through (Bass, 2001). 1.6 Hypothesis It is hypothesised that the media in Britain controls the audience by dictating the nature of information to be received. 1.7 Reference Aberystwyth University (2010). Media Representation. Accessed http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Modules/FM34120/represent.html Angel U. T. 2012. Codes of Publishing Studies. Ultimate Press Limited: New York. Bass, A.Z. 2001. Redefining the journalistic concept: A U.N. radio case study. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 59-72. Bennett, W. L. 2004. Gatekeeping and press-government relations: A multi-gated model of news construction. In L. L. Kaid Ed., Handbook of political communication research. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Berger, A. A. 1991. Media Analysis Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bissell, K. L. 2000. A return to “Mr. Gates”: Photography and objectivity. Newspaper Research Journal, 213, 81-93. Bleske, G. L. 1991. Ms. Gates takes over: An updated version of a 1949 case study. Newspaper Research Journal, 124, 88-97. Breed, W. 2005. Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces 334, 326-335. Brown, R. M. 2009. The Journalist reassessed: A return to Lewin. Journalism Quarterly, 593, 595-601, 679. Dennis J. C. 2000. Privacy and Confidentiality of Health Information. Jossey-Bass Inc Devaraj S.and Kohli R. 2000. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 41–67. Dimmick, J. 1974. The gate-keeper: An uncertainty theory. Journalism Monographs, 37. Fairclough, N. 1995. Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Richardson, J. E. 2007. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fisher, B.A. 1978. Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Gunter, B. 2000. Media Research Methods. London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R., & Newbold, C. 1998.. Mass communication research methods. London: Macmillan. Hissam S and Daniel P. 2009. Communication in the Real World: A Case Study in Risk Discovery and Repair. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute: Pittsburgh, PA Humphrey, W. S. 2001. Managing the Computer Process. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., Jensen, K. B., Ed. 2002. A handbook of media and communication research: qualitative and quantitative methodologies. London, Routledge. Jensen, K-B Ed. 2002. A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. London and New York: Routledge. Jones, S ed., 2013. Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Kernochan R. 2004. Framing and Framing Theory. http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm Krippendorf, K. 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. London, Sage. Krippendorf, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 2nd Edition. London: Sage. Kurtz, H. 2005, February 13. In the blogosphere, lightning strikes thrice. Washington Post, p. D1 Lasorsa, D. 2002. Diversity in mass communication theory courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 573, 244-259. Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143-153. Machin, D. 2007. Global Media Discourse - a critical introduction. London: Routledge Machin, D. and Van Leeuwen, T. 2003. Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan in Journal of Sociolinguistics 74. pp: 493 – 512. Machin, D. and Van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Language style and lifestyle: the case of a global Pub, May McNelly, J. T. 1959. Intermediary communicators in the international flow of news. Journalism Quarterly, 361, 23-26. National Academies Press. 1994. Biographical memoirs v. 64. Retrieved February 11, 2005, from http://books.nap.edu/books/0309049784/html/320.html. Newcomb, T. 1953. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404 Reese, S. D., & Ballinger, J. 2000. The roots of a sociology of news: Remembering Mr. Gates and social control in the newsroom. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 784, 641-658. Riffe, D., Lacey, S., & Fico, F. G. 1998.. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rogers, E. 1994. A History of Communication Theory: A biographical approach. New York: The Free Press. Rutherford, P. 1994.. The new icons? The art of television advertising. Toronto, London: Toronto University Press. Shoemaker, P. J. 1991. Communication concepts 3: Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage. Shoemaker, P. J. 1996. Media Gatekeeping. In M. B. Salwen & Stacks, D.W. Ed., An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shoemaker, P. J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. 2000. Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 782, 233-246. Williams, B. A., & Carpini, M. X. D. 2000. Unchained reaction: the collapse of media gatekeeping and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Journalism, 11, 61-85. Read More