I decided to re-read this as it seemed to give a solid general historical overview of the press in the UK but also as it helps paint the picture of a time in history when newspaper ownership seemed to work for the people, in a much more democratic way than it seems to now.
"financially independent newspapers became 'great organs of the public mind' which empowered the people and made governments accountable" (pg 8)
It is this aspect of the press that perhaps has been lost in recent years and it would be interesting to see whether crowdfunding could have an impact of this nature. Creating financial independence and therefore more freedom and a greater range of opinions within the press.
"The emergent free press is also said to have made a vital contribution to Britain's maturing democracy in the second half of the nineteenth century by becoming more responsible and providing the factual information needed for people to make balanced and informed political judgements... the radical historian, Alan Lee, portrayed the late Victorian period as a 'golden age' of British Journalism." (pg 8)
Despite the acknowledgement that not all historians were agreed on this, it is clear that the state of the press at this time is far away from the partisan political support the majority of the main newspapers today.
The development of newspapers into a mouthpiece of the middle and upper classes can be seen around the time of the 1840s when the press taxes were introduced.
"The intention of these press taxes was two fold: to restrict the readership of newspapers to the well to do...and that is was potentially dangerous to teh social order to allow the lower orders to read newspapers at all." (pg 11)
Linking this history back to my project, we can see that funding is crucial to the press and where there is access to the funding required a greater amount of press freedom follows. With a crowdfunded where more funds are allocated to new start ups its possible that these could become established against the current major players.
"The initial capital required to set up a radical paper in the early part of the nineteenth century was extremely small... Consequently radical unstamped newspapers needed to attain only a small circulation in order to become economically viable... Because publishing costs were low the ownership and control of newspapers could be in the hands of (the) people." (pg 14 & 15)
The greater autonomy and sense of pride within the journalist was also changed in this period.
"They sought to describe and expose the dynamics of power and inequality rather than to report 'hard news' as a series of disconnected events. They saw themselves as class representatives rather than as disinterested intermediaries and attempted to establish a relationship of real reciprocity with their readers." (pg15)
Part of my rationale for this project is that I have speculated that an increase in funding for smaller publications could increase the readership of newspapers, potentially from the working classes. When combined with the work of Adorno and Gramsci this mobilisation of the people to publications outside of the cultural Hegemony could also change the political will and opinions of the nation.
"The radical press not ony helped to erode political passivity based on the fatalistic acceptance of the social system as 'natural' and 'providential', but also began to dispel the collective lack of confidence that had inhibited working class resistance." (pg 19)
One of the key issues levied against the British press is the huge influence of individuals. The News International example is hard to ignore. Rupert Murdoch is an individual that wields incredible influence through his network of newspapers and broadcasting companies. As the recent Hacking trials have revealed his regular chats and even editing of content at his papers was a regular occurrence. Courted by politicians his influence over the political process and the electorate is undeniable.
"A subsequent editor of the News of the world, Barry Askew, also records Murdochs extensive editorial interventions when he was in London. 'He would come into the office', Askew recalls, 'and literally rewrite leaders which were not supporting the hard Thatcherite line.' Askew, who was not a Thatcherite enthusiast, lasted only nine months." (pg 74)
The famous headline 'Its the sun what won it' in 1992 election is an example of just how important the Britain's most read newspaper has become in deciding the outcome of the general election. This manor of influence by the press Barons is nothing new:
"The Daily Mail, on the other hand, projected a more static, hierarchical world in keeping with Northcliffe's more traditional brand of conservatism and catered, as Northcliffe patronizingly put it, for 'people who wouldlike to think they earned £1,000 a year'." (pg 47)
"What made the press magnates different is that they sought to use their papers, not as levers of power within the political parties, but as instruments of power against the political parties." (pg 49)
However its unlikely in reality that the power of the papers and their proprietors is that clear cut.
"Some historians have interpreted the relative failure of the press barons to persuade people to vote for the new political parties and causes they championed as evidence that they exercised no significant political power." (pg 51)
It is more likely that the impact of the press was a more subtle shift in the selection and framing of the stories. Gramsci's theory of Hegemony and the work of other Marxist theorists such as Althusser cite the press as form of state apparatus that help keep the discourse aligned with the elite and powerful.
"The press also tended to select and interpret the news within the dominant framework. Most national newspapers, for instance, portrayed the 1926 General Strike as a conflict between a minority and the majority... The press controlled by the barons helped to sustain the dominant culture by stigmatizing radical opponents of the political order." (pg 52 & 53)
This influence is one that the Frankfurt school theorists would be extremely interested in. Does a concentrated ownership from the political right result in a one sided presentation of stories? And what influence, if any does this have on the general public?
No comments:
Post a Comment