Assessment brief: Write an essay answering the following question:
Choose ONE nation/country* and (using appropriate academic and other credible sources) research the extent to which it could be said to have free media and communication. Outline the media and political system in that country, and then examine the main restrictions and pressures on journalists working there. Explain how those restrictions and pressures affect journalists’ ability to serve the public interest.
* A nation is defined by national identification rather than political borders. You may use a nation that is part of a larger country but has distinct media and devolved political administration, for example, Scotland or Hong Kong.
Please read this detailed walkthrough for working on your essay over the first four weeks of the module carefully. This document gives much more detail on what the question asks of you and how to research your country effectively.
Word count: no more than 1,800 words, excluding bibliography and title (see penalties for over-length essays above). Please state your final word count at the end of the essay.
Further support: The first four seminars are designed to support your essay research and writing skills as well as your understanding of the material covered. Please also read the above walkthrough closely before starting, as well as consult the additional resources signposted there and in the module overview section of Moodle.
1. Comparative global media and political systems
-
In this first week of this module, we will explore the range of different political systems and associated media systems. This will provide you with the theoretical grounding for your essay. We will also explore some useful resources for identifying some of the key characteristics of your chosen country.
Essential reading: Voltmer, Katrin (2008) Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West , Central European Journal of Communication.
In the first lecture I will start by outlining the module as a whole, explaining the assessments and answering questions, and then we will jump straight in to the material you will need to engage with for your first essay, due at the end of this first section of classes.
The essay asks you to examine the political and media system of a case study country of your choice and its implication for media and communication freedom, and for the public interest. You need therefore to be able to identify what kind of system your country has. In this section of the class you will learn about the various types of system and how they compare.
Think about which country you are interested in focusing on for your essay – which political system do you think it has? Explore Freedom House’s Global Freedom map (https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022) for inspiration (click on the country for a summary and then click through to the full report).
Next, how free do you expect its media and communication to be? Consult the Reporters San Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) World Press Freedom Index to check. https://rsf.org/en/index
If your country is not a western democracy, you may also find it in the Bertelsmann Transformation Index and if your country is in Eastern Europe you can also consult the Freedom House Democracy map. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=nit&year=2020
Finally, add pertinent details and links to the map on Padlet. Please don’t just copy and post the whole of the RSF report, but summarise key information from the various different sources, mark direct quotes as such and link to your sources (I’ve added Botswana and Belarus as examples to get you started): https://uniofnottm.padlet.org/ajzjrb1/media-and-political-systems-map-mk5l60ou9raeu5tv
One of the key aspects of media freedom is ownership – but are state or private, corporate owners more likely to allow journalists freedom? Media ownership can give those owners the power to restrict communicative freedom in the interests of those powerful owners – so is the best check on that power consumer sovereignty or democratic legal regulation?
In this section of the lecture we will consider these questions and explore other ownership models that try to avoid the pitfalls of either. You might find it useful to read this short OpenDemocracy article about media ownership and editorial independence in the UK to support your learning on this topic.
Now think about this in relation to your case study country. Are state restrictions on media power serving state/elite power or serving the public interest? If the media is commercially owned, does that finance the production of quality news or just quality entertainment? Next week we will pick up on this question of what the media is for, in terms of the concept of the public interest, and will unpack how state controls may serve it or not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/
Reading for this topic:
Hallin and Mancini (2004) Comparing Media Systems. Cambridge University Press LINK
Hallin, Daniel C. & Mancini, Paolo (2017) Ten Years After Comparing Media Systems: What Have We Learned?, Political Communication, 34(2): 155-171, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1233158
Voltmer, K. (2012) ‘How Far Can Media Systems Travel?’ in Hallin and Mancini (eds.) Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World. Cambridge University Press LINK
Hallin, D. and Mancini, P. (2017) ‘Ten Years After Comparing Media Systems: What Have We Learned?’, Political Communication, 34(2): 155-171. LINK
Aalberg, T., Van Aelst, P., and Curran, J. (2010) ‘Media Systems and The Political Information Environment: A Cross-National Comparison’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(3): 255-271 LINK
Books with chapters on a range of different countries
Curran, J, & Park, M (eds) 2000, De-Westernizing Media Studies, Taylor & Francis Group, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central
Morrison, J., Birks, J., & Berry, M. (eds.) 2021, The Routledge Companion to Political Journalism, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central
Hachten, W.A., & Scotton, J.F. (2015) The World News Prism: Digital, Social and Interactive, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, New York. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central
Curran, J. (2002) Media and Power, Taylor & Francis Group, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central
Fenton, N. (2012) Telling Tales: Press, Politics, Power and The Public Interest. Television & New Media 13(1): 3-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411425252
Larsen, H. (2014) The legitimacy of public service broadcasting in the 21st century: the case of Scandinavia, Nordicom Review 35(2): 65-76 LINK
Allern, S. & Pollack, E. (2019) ‘Journalism as a public good: A Scandinavian perspective’, Journalism 20(11): 1432-1439 DOI: 10.1177%2F1464884917730945
Browne, H. (2010) Foundation-funded journalism, Journalism Studies, 11(6): 889-903, 10.1080/1461670X.2010.501147
Carvajal, M., José A.G. and José L.G. (2012) Crowdfunding and non-profit media, Journalism Practice, 6(5-6): 638-647 10.1080/17512786.2012.667267
2. Restrictive political action: regulation & censorship
-
This week we will focus on what Manning calls ‘restrictive political action’ by the state. This includes media censorship and regulation. The distinction between the two is rather fuzzy, and based primarily in whether it serves those in power or the public interest. We will therefore start this week with a discussion of the public interest, and because it is so crucial to understanding this topic – and to answering the essay question – will also pick that topic up in the seminar. Then we will explore a range of forms of restrictive action, including state ownership, licensing, censorship of specific content, restriction of access to specific content via classifications or broadcast watershed, as well as sacking, arresting, and even killing journalists. Throughout, the crucial question will be: who benefits from these controls?
Essential reading:
Jacquette, Dale (2010) Journalism ethics as truth-telling in the public interest, in Stuart Allan (ed,) Routledge Companion to News and Journalism. London: Routledge, pp.213-222 Link to Talis Elevate version for collaborative annotation
All countries have some controls on media power, for instance libel laws to prevent people’s reputations and lives being destroyed by unfounded rumours, hate speech laws to prevent incitement to racial violence, or controls on the circulation of adult content (e.g. explicit sex, swearing, or violence) to prevent children from viewing it. However, some countries have more controls than others, which may include laws and other forms of regulation and punishment that try to ensure a fair and unbiased platform for all political views, or conversely that try to suppress opposing views.
Key to the fuzzy distinction between the former (state regulation of media power) and the latter (state censorship to retain ruling power) is the concept of the public interest. However, it is a rather amorphous, slippery concept, that is hard to define, so we will spend some time on it in the first part of this week’s lecture, and in the seminar.
Here is a recent example of a public interest ruling that also illuminates the potentially illiberal uses of libel laws in liberal democracies as a form of censorship: Aaron Banks loses libel case against journalist Carole Cadwalldr – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/arron-banks-loses-libel-case-against-journalist-carole-cadwalladr)
Reading for this topic:
Jacquette, Dale (2010) Journalism ethics as truth-telling in the public interest, in Stuart Allan (ed,) Routledge Companion to News and Journalism. London: Routledge, pp.213-222 [on Talis here]
Fenton, Natalie (2012) Telling tales: press, politics, power and the public interest. Television & New Media 13(1): 3-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411425252
Coleman, Stephen (2012) It’s time for the public to reclaim the public interest, Television & New Media 13(1): 7-11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411426883
Hafez, K. (2002) ‘Journalism Ethics Revisited: A Comparison of Ethics Codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia’ in Political Communication, 19(2): 225-250 link
Lunt, P. and Livingstone. S. (2011) Media Regulation. London: Sage. link to ebook: chapters 1&2 recommended
Chakravartty and Sarikakis (2006) Media Policy and Globalization. Edinburgh University Press link to ebook
Chan-Meetoo, C. (ed.) (2013) Media ethics and regulation: insights from Africa. Cameroon: Langaa R&P link
Readings on censorship
Tai, Q. (2014) China’s Media Censorship: A Dynamic and Diversified Regime, Journal of East Asian Studies, 14(2): 185–210 doi: 10.1017/S1598240800008900
Shao, L. (2018) The Dilemma of Criticism: Disentangling the Determinants of Media Censorship in China. Journal of East Asian Studies, 18(3): 279–297 DOI: 10.1017/jea.2018.19
Zheng, Yongnian (2009) ‘The political cost of information control in China’ in Zhang and Zheng (eds.) China’s Information and Communication Technology Revolution Abingdon: Routledge.
Reporteurs San Frontieres (2021) The Great Leap Backwards of Journalism in China, online report available from: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/2021-12-07_china_report_en_1.pdf
Lee, F.L.F. and Lin, A.M.Y. (2006) ‘Newspaper editorial discourse and the politics of self-censorship in Hong Kong’, Discourse & Society 17(3): 331-358 DOI: 10.1177%2F0957926506062371
Tin Chi Wong, Wai Han Lo & Mei Fung Meily Cheung (2021) Shifting Power Centers and News Sources: The Practices and Struggles of Hong Kong’s Political Journalists Since the Handover, Journalism Studies, 22:14, 1964-1986, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1979424
Nain, Zaharom (2000) ‘Globalised theories and national controls: The state, the market and the Malaysian media’, in Curran and Park (eds) De-Westernizing Media Studies. London: Routledge, pp.139-53. link
Freedom House (2023) Freedom on The Net 2023: The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence,
available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2023/repressive-power-artificial-intelligence
Rajkhowa, A. (2015) ‘The Spectre of Censorship: Media Regulation, Political Anxiety and Public Contestations in India’, Media, Culture & Society 37(6): 867-886 link
Zheng, Yongnian (2009) ‘The political cost of information control in China’ in Zhang and Zheng (eds.) China’s Information and Communication Technology Revolution’ Abingdon: Routledge.
Sheen GC-H, Tung HH, Wu W-C (2021) Citizen journalism reduces the credibility deficit of authoritarian government in risk communication amid COVID-19 outbreaks. PLoS ONE16(12): e0260961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260961
3. Promotional political action: PR (‘spin’) & propaganda
Much like the line between regulation and censorship, the line between acceptable forms of persuasive communication – between political PR (sometimes referred to as ‘spin’) and the more deceptive practices generally referred to more pejoratively as ‘propaganda’ – is blurred, and based on interpretation of the public interest and what Fisher in this week’s essential reading refers to as the ‘public’s right to know’.
This is closely connected to censorship in as far as it can involve strategic omissions, denials and distractions, but whereas last week we explored the structures in law, government policy, and media ownership that restrict what journalists can report, this week we are focusing on the ways in which politicians and their communication professionals (press officers, communications directors, etc – sometimes called ‘spin doctors’) present information selectively, interpret its significance in ways that may be partial or misleading, and the ways that they try to close down negative stories.
Essential reading:
Fisher, Caroline (2017) Re-assessing the “Public’s Right to Know”, Journalism Studies, 18:3, 358-375, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065196
Propaganda used to be regarded as a benign form of persuasive direction to an ignorant electorate, until two World Wars gave it a bad reputation – then propaganda became what the enemy does. Edward Bernays rebranded propaganda as ‘public relations’ to distinguish ‘good’ persuasive communication from ‘bad’, but of course that distinction is not always accurate. In this first section of the class, we will look at the development of persuasive political communication from ancient Greek rhetoric to contemporary computational propaganda.
In the second part of the lecture, we’ll look more closely at some of the forms and techniques of persuasive communication, and consider where we might draw the line between acceptable spin and manipulative propaganda. In particular, we will consider the extent to which it a claim is factually accurate, and whether it is transparent about who has written or paid for it, including any personal benefit they might gain from the outcome it advocates. Communication that is untrue or misleading, that uses ‘front groups’ to hide the real authorship, and that attempts to manipulate people, we describe as ‘black’ propaganda.
The most obvious example of propaganda in current time is Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s case for war in Ukraine – though Putin forbids anyone to call it a war or invasion, it must be euphemistically termed a ‘special military operation’ because Putin considers Ukraine to be part of Russia already. The justification for the operation is given as de-Nazification, which takes a kernel of truth about a far-right populist party and twists it to generate hate for Ukrainian leaders, and frame the invasion as a ‘liberation’. Of course, here Putin is riffing on the US and UK’s discourse of ‘liberating’ Iraq and Afghanistan, much as other authoritarian countries have picked on illiberal anti-terrorist discourse as justifications for oppression in their own countries.
This fascinating BBC report uncovers black propaganda by a “new pro-Kremlin online media outlet” with alleged connections to the Russian government, that was launched in a briefly Russian-occupied region of Ukraine. There are also reports of Russian operatives faking attacks that they attribute to Ukrainians as ‘false flag’ operations to justify an aggressive ‘response’. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60470089)
The 2016 US Presidential Election and UK Referendum on membership of the European Union were seen as something of a watershed; as heralding the victory of so called ‘post-truth politics’, in which voters no longer care if politicians’ claims are true or not, or believe them in defiance of evidence to the contrary. The very short essays in this report are a good primer on this.
In office, Trump continued to make dubious and outright false claims, not least on Covid 19, the seriousness of the disease and his handling of the pandemic. His own contraction of the virus was received with schadenfreude in some quarters and presented a PR problem for the president. This news report from Channel 4 News discusses Trump’s spin on his own recovery, and its resemblance to the kind of myth-making propaganda of authoritarian regimes. Trump lost the 2020 election, indicating the limitations of propaganda in countries with a free press, and yet, the margin was tight and Trump still has many fervent supporters.
More recently, Brazil’s 2022 election was marked by waves of disinformation about both candidates that was framed in quasi-religious terms of good and evil, which one Brazilian interviewed in this news article termed ‘conspirituality’: “It’s something that came from the US and is happening here – this fusion of spirituality and conspiracy theories,” he explains. “You mobilise people because you mess with the religious sentiment of good and evil – but it’s guided by a conspiracy theory.”
So what does that mean for the ‘post-truth politics- thesis? Do people still care what is true and what isn’t, and what, if anything, can responsible journalism do about it?
Reading for this topic:
Manning, Paul (2001) News and News Sources: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage download scan
Negrine, R. M. (2007). The Professionalisation Of Political Communication. Bristol: Intellect link (chapters 1 and 11)
Franklin, B. (1994) Packaging Politics: Political Communication in Britain’s Media Democracy. London: Arnold. download scan
Stanyer, James (2007) Modern Political Communication: Medicated Politics in Uncertain Times. Polity: London. (Chapter 6)
Jones, Nicholas (1996) Soundbites and Spin Doctors: How Politicians Manipulate the Media, and Vice Versa. London: Indigo
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features. Political Communication, 16(3): 209-230 DOI: 10.1080/105846099198596
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver (2017) Ukraine, Mainstream Media and Conflict Propaganda, Journalism Studies, 18:8, 1016-1034, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2015.1099461
Zelenkauskaite, A. (2022). Creating chaos online: Disinformation and subverted post-publics. University of Michigan Press
Birks, J. (2021) ‘Evolving Journalism Norms: Objective, Interpretive and Fact-checking Journalism’, in Morrison, J., Birks, J., & Berry, M. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to political journalism. Taylor & Francis Group, pp.62-72. linkMichailidou, A., & Trenz, H.-J. (2021). Rethinking journalism standards in the era of post-truth politics: from truth keepers to truth mediators. Media, Culture & Society, 43(7): 1340–1349. DOI:10.1177/01634437211040669
Hannan, J. (2018). Trolling ourselves to death? Social media and post-truth politics. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 214–226. DOI: 10.1177/0267323118760323
4. Media power: watchdog, lapdog or attack dog?
In the the previous two weeks’ classes we have looked at state power and how politicians can use restrictive and promotional instrumental actions to try to get more favourable media coverage for their leadership and policies. This week we turn to media power – the extent to which the news media can hold politicians to account and whether they can be too aggressive in pursuit of that objective.
Essential reading:
Fowler, Andrew (2021) ‘Publish and Be Damned: Mainstream Media and the Challenge of Whistleblowing Techniques’, in Ward, Stephen J.A. Handbook of Global Media Ethics. Springer International Publishing AG, ProQuest Ebook Central.
Schudson, M. (2008) Why We Need an Unloveable Press. Cambridge: Polity link to chapter 2 and link to annotate on Talis
Reading for this topic:Schudson, M. (2001) ‘The Objectivity Norm in American Journalism’, Journalism, 2(2): 149–170. doi: 10.1177/146488490100200201.
Schudson, M. (2008) Why We Need an Unloveable Press. Cambridge: Polity link to chapter 2
Nielsen, R.K. (2017) ‘The One Thing Journalism Just Might do for Democracy’, Journalism Studies, 18:10, 1251-62 link
Voltmer, K. (2014) ‘Making Sense of Press Freedom’ in Voltmer and Canel (eds) Comparing Political Communication across Time and Space. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.157-171. link
Tuchman, G. (1972) ‘Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen’s Notions of Objectivity’, in American Journal of Sociology, 77(4): 660-679. link
Curran, J. (2002) Media and Power, Taylor & Francis Group, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central
Hanitzsch et al. (2011) ‘Mapping Journalism Cultures Across Nations’, Journalism Studies 12(3): 273-93. link
Ettema, J. and Glasser, T. (1998) Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue. Columbia Univ. Press
Tong. J. and Sparks, C. (2009) ‘Investigative Journalism in China Today’ in Journalism Studies 10(3): 337-352 doi: 10.1080/14616700802650830
Lewis et al (2008) ‘A compromised fourth estate?’ Journalism Studies 9(1):1-20 doi: 10.1080/14616700701767974
Blumler, J. and Gurevitch, M. (1995) The Crisis of Public Communication. Taylor and Francis link to ebook
Salgado, S. and Stromback, J. (2011) ‘Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings’, Journalism 13(2): 144-161 link
Neveu, E (2014) ‘Revisiting narrative journalism as one of the futures of journalism’, Journalism Studies 15(5): 533-542. link
Borges-Rey, E (2016) ‘Unravelling Data Journalism: A study of data journalism practice in British newsrooms’, Journalism Practice 10(7): 833-843 link
Lundell, Åsa Kroon & Ekström, Mats (2013) INTERPRETING THE NEWS, Journalism Practice, 7:4, 517-532, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2013.802490
Reunanen, Esa & Koljonen, Kari (2018) Not Partisans, But Participants, Journalism Studies, 19:5, 726-744, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1204940
Soontjens. Karolin (2019) The Rise of Interpretive Journalism, Journalism Studies, 20:7, 952-971, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1467783
-