Media, Politics and Society Take Home Test Question 1.

Have new digital media platforms diluted the power of 'old media' and opened up opportunities for alternative voices?

The proliferation of new media formats and platforms has been explosive and, many claim, game changing. Does this 'new media' represent a 'democratisation' of the media and information dissemination more generally; does it represent the death of 'real' journalism and ethical standards in news and current events reporting; or does it merely represent 'more of the same'? The answer perhaps is: a little bit of all of them.

The world wide web is little more than a decade and a half old but it has quickly become ubiquitous (McNair 2006, p. 119). Many now seek their news online, either from new sources like web logs (blogs) or from online versions of traditional media sources.

The internet's ascendancy as a news source both coincided with and exacerbated a sharp decline in newspaper sales and other traditional media. This decline presented, according to Rupert Murdoch, both a threat and an opportunity for news organisations (cited in McNair 2006, p. 120) as they either innovated or failed. In an attempt to stay financially viable the traditional media has increasingly relied on entertainment news, soft news and 'tabloidization' to retain audiences while growing their online presence in order to compete with new media sources.

Among the millions of blogs worldwide, many are simply online diaries relating to the author's dayto-day activities of, but huge numbers of them cover news and current events. This phenomenon has been hailed as a democratisation of the public sphere (McNair 2006, p. 124) as it allows anyone with internet access to share their opinion on current events. However, purveyors of online media

can be separated into four different categories: professional-institutional actors, professionalindividual actors, non-professional-institutional actors and non-professional-individual actors (McNair 2006, p. 119) and while most bloggers are non-professional-individual actors, the majority of readers seek professional and institutional blogs and websites. Today online media is dominated by a relatively small number of blogs and websites, most of them run and written by professionals and institutions. Does this mean the same people are being read but minus the ethical standards of traditional media?

A decline in journalistic norms and ethical standards of neutrality threatens democracy because it produces 'group polarisation' as audiences choose media consistent with their existing belief and are never confronted with conflicting, perhaps important, ideas and opinions. Many conservatives express joy that the internet is an opportunity to balance what they see as media pro-liberal bias (McNair 2006, p. 125).

Online media could, indeed represent a 'democratisation' of the media but the freedom to express any and all views in the public sphere is only positive in the presence of a strong, neutral traditional media, able to balance online rhetoric with well researched facts. Instead what can be seen is traditional media increasingly losing both neutrality and ethical norms in competing with new media. Consequently the media, at least the corporate, profit seeking media, are converging on populist conservatism; it is easier to sell people the stories that they already believe and want to hear.

Overall the modern media landscape offers more diverse viewpoints but these require effort to track down and their veracity is often questionable. Money and traditional media contacts are still able to 'buy' popularity for a blog or website meaning freedom of the press exists only for those who can afford to own one and the price tag keeps getting higher (Croteau 2000, p. 89). The game change

has been more to do with a significant loss in the ethical standards and neutrality of the traditional media in attempting to compete for market share with online media sources able to openly pursue partisan and ideological agendas.

Question 4.
Who has power in the political broadcast interview: the politician or the journalist? What factors determine who 'wins' the interview?

The relationship between politicians and journalists is a complex one; at once symbiotic, combative and volatile. The question of who has the greater power or who 'wins' in an interview situation depends on a large number of factors.

This relationship is typically understood to be one of shared interests, complementary, if not collusive (Franklin 2003, p. 47), in which the politician or political source trades 'insider' political knowledge for 'column inches' and favourable coverage. The power balance in this trading relationship depends on both the power and influence of the politician or political source and the value of their 'insider' information on the one side and that of the journalist and the media organisation with which they are affiliated on the other. This power balance can, in some circumstances result in a fight for control, a phenomenon common to radio where a journalist and a politician regularly interrupt and contradict each other in the course of an interview. The balance can also be affected by public opinion in that a politician's position will be weaker or stronger depending on the ease or difficulty of 'selling' their particular message to the public; an easy to 'sell' message needs less media assistance.

An illuminating example of this power 'balance' was seen in the UK. The previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, led an astounding campaign, relabelling his party 'New Labour' and using an aggressive media strategy to, not only surge to electoral victory, but exert tremendous control over the media while in office. This aggressive strategy, involving the centralisation of all government

communication through No. 101 and Press Secretary Alistair Cameron, allowed the government to be the key and primary definer in media discussions of policy, to ensure the consistency of the government line and to minimise the media articulation of dissenting voices (Franklin 2003, p.49). This strategy may have been less successful were Tony Blair not extremely close friends2 with media mogul Rupert Murdoch3. This shift in the power balance can lead to a dangerous situation where the conventional division between public information and party propaganda has been blurred (Ward 2007, p. 3).

Research points to a significant difference in the power balance between local and national politics. Local politicians are more likely to be restricted in their media options because of the local monopoly situation which most local newspapers enjoy which can lead to a situation where the local paper is kingmaker (Franklin 2003, p. 57). Concentration of media ownership is higher in Australia than the majority of industrialised nations, with Rupert Murdoch owned New Ltd. having a huge media presence4. Murdoch's media, it is argued, pursue an ideological agenda at the expense of non-partisan, 'straight' reporting and in doing so exert huge influence on the content and character of national political debate. It has been claimed that his newspapers are fiercely partisan and involved in campaigning against Labor and the Greens5.

The power balance between media and politician is volatile with sources and journalists enjoying different and shifting fortunes in diverse situations (Franklin 2003, p. 59). Who 'wins' in an interview situation or, more broadly, in any fight for control, depends on the power and influence of the individuals involved as well as the organisations whom they represent. In a situation of high media concentration or monopoly the balance can tip increasingly in favour of the media. This is especially true in situations where the politicians message is one that is difficult to 'sell', leading to
1 2 3 4 5 UK government headquarters. He is in fact godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's children. Who has a huge media presence in the UK, including 40% of newspapers. Including 70% of newspapers and the ONLY national newspaper. The Australian openly stated in an editorial that it would work to ensure the Greens were destroyed at the ballot box.

the very real danger that democracy will be weakened by politicians' inability to educate the public and win support for necessary but unpopular decisions.

Bibliography Croteau, David & Hoynes, William 2000, 'Regulating Ownership and Control' and 'Regulating Media Content and Distribution', pp. 88-113 in Media/Society: Industries, Images, Audiences. Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA Franklin, Bob 2003 'A Good Day to Bury Bad News?: Journalists, Sources and the Packaging of Politics', pp. 45-62 in Cottle, S [ed] News, Public Relations and Power. Sage: London McNair, B 2006 'Mapping the global public sphere II: online journalism and the blogosphere' in Cultural Chaos. Routledge Ward, Ian 2007 'Mapping the Australian PR State', pp. 3-18 in Young, S. [ed] Government Communication in Australia. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press