In this essay I shall be comparing Tristam Hunts critique of The History Boys to Micheal Billingtons critique of The History Boys. Hunts thesis is that The History Boys though a good play “it’s satire is misplaced” (Hunt,P1) and is a lot more negative about the text. This is in contrast to Billington who writes nothing but positive things about The History Boys but also has a romanticised view of what the play means and he writes; “It’s not just about history. It also makes it” (Billington P1) which is a grand statement. One big difference between the two critical approaches is that one is from a literary critic and the other a theatrical critic so they will both be looking for different things in the text and would have experienced it in different ways.
Tristan Hunts analysis takes a more factual approach than Billingtons article, he goes into details about statistics about the education system stating; “A Recent study by the school of economics of eight comparative countries closely correlated social mobility with educational attainment – and put Britain lower than anywhere except the US” (Hunt P2). This gives the article a less emotional approach than Billingtons, but also backs up one of the main themes of The History Boys which is the elitism that exists in the school system. This can be seen in The History Boys when the headmaster says ; “Well taught, indubitably. But a little… ordinaire?” (The History Boys P9) which reflects the headmasters scepticism that these boys from this working class background though smart are too dull and not well bred enough for a Oxbridge education.
Even though Hunts review is a lot more fact based than Billingtons it still has very strong opinion though he says that he enjoys the play and he refers to it’s “brilliance” (p1 Hunt). He has strong objections with some of the ways that Bennet portrays the education system when he writes “Bennet seems off-beam” (Hunt p3) he tells us if we didn’t have the education system the way it was then we would have the “Patriotic narrative” that happens round the world. One of the strongest statements that he makes when analysing the play is calling the villain of the play Mrs Lintott who is the only strong female character in the book. Hunt says that Mrs Lintotts classes “neither inspired nor revolted”(P4,Hunt). I think this is not the way she was meant to be portrayed in The History Boys as I think in the book she is meant to be portrayed as an unappreciated character which you can see when she snaps at the boys saying “History is women following behind with the bucket” (P85,The History Boys). This portrays a character who is doing as much as she can but is now wary of life and doesn’t actually believe that the social structure will allow these boys to follow there dreams of an Oxbridge education.
Hunts review is much more of a literary review compared to Billingtons review. Billington is a theatre critic while Hunt is a literary critic and you can tell this from the way they approach the play. As the book is a play you would expect the theatre review to have the most authority but in my opinion the literary review has the most authority and the one I would select out of the two. This is because Billingtons review of the play is romanticised and at times he is almost gushing; “The History Boys defies categorisation” (p3,Billington). He acts more like a fan and a fan cannot be seen to subjective on the subject matter. He tells us that Bennet shows us; “Teaching at its best” which I disagree with because I feel that The History Boys tells us about the pressures and what is wrong with the school systems as they focus on only getting the best grades instead of actually producing a love for learning. This can be seen in The History boys when Hectors lessons are called by Dakin “A waste of time” (P41,The History Boys). This is a reflection of Irwins teaching style who represents the modern, no nonsense approach to teaching where as Hector is far more interested in the romance of literature and the joy of learning for the sake of learning. Alan Bennet even says that he has “No nostalgia for my Oxford Days” (P5,Alan Bennet London Review Of Books) and so I think in The History Boys he was trying to make a point about how the fact that the Oxbridge system is isn’t as fulfilling as it makes out to be if you don’t enjoy what you are doing. This reflects negatively on Billingtons review because he states in the first paragraph that he was public schooled so it comes across that he has a jaded romanticised view of what the grammar school life was like.
Micheal Billington does portray Hector is a positive light which is reflective of what I think Bennet was trying to achieve in the book. He talks about “Heroic Hector” (p1,Billington)and the use of alliteration has placed him as a tragic hero especially with his death in the end it was like he sacrificed his happiness for the education of these boys. Overall I feel like Billington makes some very valid points about how the mood of the piece is but he is jaded by being a big fan of Bennets work already.
In class I feel that through class discussions that a lot of my opinions of characters in the play have changed and I have given some characters more of a chance like Irwin and Dakin who before I little sympathy for but through listening to peoples opinions in class I have changed my views.
In conclusion I feel that the two pieces are both praising of the play overall but Tristan Hunts had a lot more negative connotations and in my opinion a lot more honest about the school system where as Billington speaks like he knows a lot about the school system when in my opinion he had a fantasy view of what things were like. I also think that Hunts version had more authority as it had some facts and statistics in it where as Billingtons critique was a lot more emotional.
:)
Thursday, 22 January 2009
To Kill A Mockingbird
In To Kill A Mockingbird Harper Lee explores the themes of education and intelligence through the way characters interact with each other and using the school to convey the differences in class and what that means for which people are educated. Through events in the plot and the language that she uses Harper Lee conveys the point that though you may be educated that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re more intelligent. In this essay I shall explore some of these concepts and analyse them.
Through the characters Harper Lee puts across points about education. Scout is a very important character in this sense as it is her point of view that the story is being told from. Harper Lee portrays Scout as an educated character and also as intelligent but as Scout is so young this is not always seen as a good thing; “she discovered I was literate and looked at me with more than faint distaste.” (P19) In this instance it is seen that being educated is a negative thing as it is different from the average student. Harper Lee is showing a fear of people who are educated who shouldn’t be. Miss Caroline portrays this with her dislike of Scout for being able to read. This shows education as something that is seen as positive only if it fits in with society. This fits in with the theme that just because you are educated doesn’t mean that you are intelligent as Scout is portrayed as an intelligent but in this instance it is seen as a bad thing. This leads to Scouts distaste for school and rather than teaching her academic lessons, school for Scout teaches her more about the ways that the world works with social class. This can be seen with the way the school and the town treats the Ewell family. Scout learns this in class when on the first day of school Atticus explains to him about why the Ewells only go to school for the first day; “Ewells are members of an exclusive society made up only of Ewells”
The Ewells are seen as uneducated and Harper Lee in this instance makes this a negative thing as they are seen as the villainous characters In To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time we get introduced to the family is in the setting of the school which is important as it shows that they are uneducated. This can be reflected in the lexis that Mr Ewell used; “I ain’t touched her, Link Deas, and ain’t about to go with no nigger”(P275) The use of “ain’t” is poor grammar and colloquial and makes him seem uneducated compared to someone like Atticus who generally has good grammar and constructs his sentences with what people would see as good English. The derogatory language used by Ewell as well makes him seem even more uneducated and xenophobic. Harper Lee has purposely has used the difference in language to show the difference in education. The juxtaposition between Atticus and Ewell can also be seen as good and evil and this boils down to how much they’ve been educated. This puts the educated people in a good light as they are more open to people and there ideas where as Bob Ewell is seen as uneducated and scared and bitter towards the things he’s knows not much about.
Atticus is seen in To Kill A Mockingbird as a morally good character. He is well respected throughout the town of Mayfair and this is seen as a reflection of his education. Harper Lee has purposely made Atticus educated and open to all ideas and one of the first things you learn about Atticus is his education; “Atticus went to Montgomery to read Law” (p4) I think the character of Atticus is there to show the reader that through education you can become a good person and be open to other peoples beliefs and ways of life. Having Atticus as an educated character is important because he then passes his wisdom onto his children Scout and Jem. Scout and Jem are both portrayed by Harper Lee as intelligent characters and this is a lot to do with Atticus who they both look up too.
You can see the difference between education an intelligence here when Miss Caroline is shocked by the fact that Scout can read. Miss Caroline is portrayed as an educator but not always in the best light she is shown as fragile. Scouts disillusionment with the school system is way for Harper Lee to portray that academic education isn’t everything and her and Jem learn a lot more through life experiences like watching the injustice of the trail. Harper Lee portrays Atticus as a better teacher than Miss Caroline as he is not only teaching them to read he is also teaching them to have a social conscience; “Most people are Scout when you finally see them” (p309) This is at the end of the book and it is important that Atticus still believes that after all this injustice people still have good in them and he is passing these beliefs onto his children. I believe Harper Lees portrayal of this story through Scouts eyes lets us know that she has learnt the most not from school but from watching the injustices of the world which takes them from innocence to adulthood and the more there educated the less innocent they become.
A text to compare Harper Lees views on education is Carol Anne Duffys Education For Leisure which is a poem and a dramatic monologue which I think is about the characters disillusionment with the education system. The persona in the poem says :”I breath out talent on the glass to write my name” This reflects the characters disappointment that education has done nothing for her as she is still unemployed and signing on in the job center. This is in contrast to Harper Lees view of education as something you need to make the most out of life.
In class discussions I found that my views changed on intelligence and education as you can see in both Carol Anne Duffys poem and Harper Lees work that education does not automatically make you intelligent and that highly educated people still can be seen as stupid by other people. In class discussion I realised that intelligence is subjective to the person and the situation that they are in as I’m sure even Bob Ewell was intelligent in the way that he knew a million and one ways to get out of working.
In conclusion I think that Harper Lee is trying to portray the fact that though you may be educated that doesn’t necessarily mean that you know a lot. Harper Lee puts across the meaning that you learn just as much from life experiences than you do in education and I think this is similar with Carol Anne Duffy who’s poem shows that education isn’t everything but not having enough education can be very dangerous.
:)
javascript:void(0)
Through the characters Harper Lee puts across points about education. Scout is a very important character in this sense as it is her point of view that the story is being told from. Harper Lee portrays Scout as an educated character and also as intelligent but as Scout is so young this is not always seen as a good thing; “she discovered I was literate and looked at me with more than faint distaste.” (P19) In this instance it is seen that being educated is a negative thing as it is different from the average student. Harper Lee is showing a fear of people who are educated who shouldn’t be. Miss Caroline portrays this with her dislike of Scout for being able to read. This shows education as something that is seen as positive only if it fits in with society. This fits in with the theme that just because you are educated doesn’t mean that you are intelligent as Scout is portrayed as an intelligent but in this instance it is seen as a bad thing. This leads to Scouts distaste for school and rather than teaching her academic lessons, school for Scout teaches her more about the ways that the world works with social class. This can be seen with the way the school and the town treats the Ewell family. Scout learns this in class when on the first day of school Atticus explains to him about why the Ewells only go to school for the first day; “Ewells are members of an exclusive society made up only of Ewells”
The Ewells are seen as uneducated and Harper Lee in this instance makes this a negative thing as they are seen as the villainous characters In To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time we get introduced to the family is in the setting of the school which is important as it shows that they are uneducated. This can be reflected in the lexis that Mr Ewell used; “I ain’t touched her, Link Deas, and ain’t about to go with no nigger”(P275) The use of “ain’t” is poor grammar and colloquial and makes him seem uneducated compared to someone like Atticus who generally has good grammar and constructs his sentences with what people would see as good English. The derogatory language used by Ewell as well makes him seem even more uneducated and xenophobic. Harper Lee has purposely has used the difference in language to show the difference in education. The juxtaposition between Atticus and Ewell can also be seen as good and evil and this boils down to how much they’ve been educated. This puts the educated people in a good light as they are more open to people and there ideas where as Bob Ewell is seen as uneducated and scared and bitter towards the things he’s knows not much about.
Atticus is seen in To Kill A Mockingbird as a morally good character. He is well respected throughout the town of Mayfair and this is seen as a reflection of his education. Harper Lee has purposely made Atticus educated and open to all ideas and one of the first things you learn about Atticus is his education; “Atticus went to Montgomery to read Law” (p4) I think the character of Atticus is there to show the reader that through education you can become a good person and be open to other peoples beliefs and ways of life. Having Atticus as an educated character is important because he then passes his wisdom onto his children Scout and Jem. Scout and Jem are both portrayed by Harper Lee as intelligent characters and this is a lot to do with Atticus who they both look up too.
You can see the difference between education an intelligence here when Miss Caroline is shocked by the fact that Scout can read. Miss Caroline is portrayed as an educator but not always in the best light she is shown as fragile. Scouts disillusionment with the school system is way for Harper Lee to portray that academic education isn’t everything and her and Jem learn a lot more through life experiences like watching the injustice of the trail. Harper Lee portrays Atticus as a better teacher than Miss Caroline as he is not only teaching them to read he is also teaching them to have a social conscience; “Most people are Scout when you finally see them” (p309) This is at the end of the book and it is important that Atticus still believes that after all this injustice people still have good in them and he is passing these beliefs onto his children. I believe Harper Lees portrayal of this story through Scouts eyes lets us know that she has learnt the most not from school but from watching the injustices of the world which takes them from innocence to adulthood and the more there educated the less innocent they become.
A text to compare Harper Lees views on education is Carol Anne Duffys Education For Leisure which is a poem and a dramatic monologue which I think is about the characters disillusionment with the education system. The persona in the poem says :”I breath out talent on the glass to write my name” This reflects the characters disappointment that education has done nothing for her as she is still unemployed and signing on in the job center. This is in contrast to Harper Lees view of education as something you need to make the most out of life.
In class discussions I found that my views changed on intelligence and education as you can see in both Carol Anne Duffys poem and Harper Lees work that education does not automatically make you intelligent and that highly educated people still can be seen as stupid by other people. In class discussion I realised that intelligence is subjective to the person and the situation that they are in as I’m sure even Bob Ewell was intelligent in the way that he knew a million and one ways to get out of working.
In conclusion I think that Harper Lee is trying to portray the fact that though you may be educated that doesn’t necessarily mean that you know a lot. Harper Lee puts across the meaning that you learn just as much from life experiences than you do in education and I think this is similar with Carol Anne Duffy who’s poem shows that education isn’t everything but not having enough education can be very dangerous.
:)
javascript:void(0)
Journalistic Practices
The function of journalism in society has two main roles which are to inform the audience and entertain the audience. Journalism whether it be broadcast journalism or written journalism can have a massive effect on social trends and political events. In this essay it will try to examine some of limitations journalists come across such as the law and ethical challenges and the way that truth can be bent in the media. Journalists have to be socially responsible while informing the world about things that they do not always want to hear. A good example of this is the Ethiopian food crisis which no-one was aware of until a famous BBC news report in 1984 by Micheal Buerk. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4015231.stm) This news report had a massive impact across the world and led to band aid and millions of pounds of aids being sent to Africa. This is a great example of how journalism can influence the news and the world and contradicts Edward G.Robinsons quotation.
A.Boyd said “News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values” (Broadcast Journalism, Techniques of Radio and TV News 1994). This reflects the ethical choices that journalists have to make everyday. An example of this is the recent death of Baby P. In the media the child is named Baby P out of privacy for the members of the family involved under eighteen. This is the law which journalists have to follow and also so that journalists wouldn’t want to cause the unnecessary stress to the family members.
The type of paper also helps set the papers values. A more right wing paper such as The Times will more likely focus on the positive side of issues such as The Royal Family and generally are in favour of a conservative government. This is in contrast to The Observer which is seen as a left wing paper politically. In The Guardian they are more likely to be behind the Labour party and focus on more foreign issues than papers like The Times or The Daily Mail. This goes against Robinsons point once again as he says journalists do not influence the news but in papers like The Daily Mail they put a clear political or personal spin on things. An example of this is the recent Mohammed Al Fayed story about the alleged sexual relations with an underage girl. The Daily Mail has had a long running feud with Mohammed Al Fayed and they made sure that this story became front page news. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085502/Sex-assault-claim-Harrods-boss-Al-Fayed-moved-crime-unit.html) This was made front page news to clearly push the papers own agenda while papers like The Guardian still printed the story but gave it a far less prominent place in there paper.
Journalists have many different types of limitations. One of the main limitations of a journalist will be making sure he stays on the right side of the law and can’t get sued for libel or slander. “Journalists who break the law will be subject to the same penalties as everybody else.” (p66,Newspaper Journalism A practical Introduction Susan Pape and Sue Featherstone Sage Publications) Journalists can’t forget that they are not above the law and journalists are known to occasionally use underhand means to get the story that they want. One story that in my opinion used underhand ways to achieve there goal was The News Of The World with a story about Max Mosley as they apparently bribed a prostitute to film a extreme sex act with the formula one boss. Max Mosley then sued the Daily Mail for invasion of privacy and won the lawsuit for the amount of sixty thousand pounds. Max Mosley was reported as saying; “they had no right to go into private premises and take pictures and film adults engaged in activities which are no one’s business but their own to know” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4388746.ece) The News Of The World tried to defend itself by saying that as he is the boss of formula one then it is in the publics interest. This is backed up by; “the editors code of practice allows for the use of subterfuge, provided it is in the publics interest and that the story cannot be obtained by any other means.” (P189, Newspaper Journalism A Practical Introduction) Even though The News Of The World had to pay Max Mosley sixty thousand pounds, the profit that they made from the paper and the pictures would probably be higher than the legal pay out. So even if the law is a limitation for journalists there are ways to get around it but it can be highly unethical.
Journalists have to factor in ethical decisions when they write a story. The amount of thinking a journalist puts into an ethical decision to do with a story can be to do with whether you are writing for a tabloid newspaper or a broadsheet. Tabloid papers focus more the celebrity and scandal or soft news where as broadsheet newspapers focus more on hard news such as current political and world events. Tabloids papers such as The Sun are known to use phone bugging to catch out celebrities in compromising positions. In this respect Journalists are actually creating the news by setting up certain people with bugs and honey traps and this again disagrees with Robinsons point. Journalists only don’t effect the news when it is a major world event like the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers but seven years on you get left and right wing papers telling the same story in different ways. Tabloid papers like The Sun or The News Of The World will focus more on personal stories which people can relate to whereas The Guardian and The Times more broadsheet newspapers will focus on more facts and statistics to back there stories up. Journalists will have to factor the safety of who they write about as well as some journalists will hold a story back if it feels like it would jeopardise there own health or someone elses. An example of this is the author of the book and now movie ‘Gomorra’ who after writing his book ;“ lives with a constant police escort. Now they give me three policemen and a bulletproof car.” (http://www.viceland.com/int/v15n8/htdocs/taking-on-italian-mafiant-146.php?country=uk) Journalists have to think If the importance of the story is worth there health.
What gets printed in the newspapers has to be relevant to what is going on in the current day. Hrkup and O’nell said that the agenda of news was including the power elite such as the George Osborne scandal, celebrity, good news, bad news, the magnitude of the story and the relevance of the story. The relevance of the story has to be important because millions of things happen every day but the way you decide what stories you are going to publish has a lot to do with what is relevant at the time. A good example of this is the rise in knife crime stories that are published as a lot of these stories would not of got published a year ago but now because it is a current issue almost every day you will see a story about knife crime in the papers.
Journalism has a very important effect on society as it can effect social, cultural and political change. Politicians can be friendly with certain journalists when they know they will favour them over the opposition and can be a key tool for winning elections. The recent increase in the power of online media means that journalism is becoming more and more socially powerful and people have more mediums that they can access news and information on. Journalism can have huge power in it’s campaigns for example with The Sun and there Madeline McCann coverage which some people said was unfair but it reached a huge audience to supposedly help the investigation into her disappearance.
The function of journalism is to give the audience and the advertisers what they think they want to read. Readers now are a lot more media savvy than they used to be so they will have there chosen paper that they will want to buy and will have certain expectations on the stories they will read from what type of paper it is and what type of political leaning it has. News now is far faster than it was ten years ago with the BBC website claiming that it’s “updated every minute.” (www.bbcnews.co.uk) This and the creation of 24 hour news channels means the influence of journalism is huge because it’s around us all the time and with the rise in people using blogs for news it means that anyone now can be a journalist.
History Of Journalism
Journalism has changed significantly in the last 250 years along with changes in politics, cultural trends and society. When newspapers first started out they had small circulations and were generally only read by academics and the upper classes. This has changed as modern day newspapers have huge circulations in comparison as reported in the following quotation;
“the Express and the Mail, sold an average of 3,007,507 copies each day” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/05/abcs.pressandpublishing 11/11/08). This represents a huge leap in circulation and shows how diversity of audiences has increased significantly with people from all classes and backgrounds able to find a newspaper that suits them.
Newspapers appeared following the invention of the printing press in the 15th century by Johann Gutenburg . In 1500 Wynkyn De Worde set up a printing press in Fleet Street. Fleet Street became a centre for Journalists, Editors and Proprietors until the 20th century when newspapers started to move to cheaper buildings away from the city centre;
“after the Second World War, the Telegraph and Express were the only major papers occupying premises on Fleet Street itself.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4091172.stm 9/11/08) The Telegraph and Express have now moved from Fleet Street to new offices. The Telegraph is now based on Buckingham Palace Road.
The first newspaper to be printed was The Oxford Gazette in 1665 which was created when the plague hit London .The aristocracy, led by King Charles II fled to the relative safety of Oxford. The Oxford Gazette had a very small readership (outside academics and clerics) and served the needs of the, “Crown and the Executive” (http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ GazettesHistory.aspx? GeoType =London 11/11/2008). It carried basic news stories. In peace time foreign correspondents were the British Embassies abroad and in war time the generals themselves provided reports on the fighting. Once the threat of the Black Death receded, the court moved back to London and the paper changed its name to the London Gazette which it remains today.
Newspapers increased their circulation with the spread of coffee houses throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By 1739 there were 551 Coffee Houses in London where The London Gazette was read and discussed. The coffee houses were seen by Charles II as “places where the disaffected met, and spread scandalous reports concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers” The aristocracy by the late eighteenth century felt threatened by the French Revolution. Newspapers were seen as something dangerous, filled with scandal and sedition. One French visitor, the writer Abbe Prevost said it was; “where you have the right to read all the petitioners for and against the government" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeehouse). Newspapers were censored by the press restriction act.
The first daily newspaper was published in 1702 and called the Daily Courant .It ran from 1702 to 1735. The Daily Comet started in 1735 and had a circulation of 800. There was a paper tax until 1861 once this was lifted it became a lot easier and cheaper for newspapers to be published. The audience for newspapers was still small as the majority of the country was illiterate and uneducated.
Newspapers and gazettes were seen as a way to get more liberal views heard. Newspapers which focused on gossip and scandal such as The Tatler which was founded in 1709 circulated around London’s coffee houses with the main aim of publishing the scandal and gossip that was heard around the coffee houses of the time. The Tatler also had a political preference towards the Whigs rather than the Tories. Modern newspapers display a political preference with papers such as The Guardian being more left wing and papers like The Times having a right wing point of view. This is reflected in the articles they publish and the influence and emphasis they place on certain stories. The Daily Mail (politically classed as a right wing paper) placed the Mohammed Al Fayed stories regarding alleged sexual relations with an underage girl as front page news. The Mail displays a clear agenda against Mohammed Al Fayed as the paper has a long standing feud with him since 1984. (http://www.guardianlies.com/Pre-DTI%20press/page13.html). This contrasts with The Guardian’s treatment of the story. The paper (which is believed to have left wing views) gave the Al Fayed story a less prominent place in its paper. As political climates change papers often change their political stance. The Sun switched (from Tory support) to back Tony Blair six weeks before the 1997 election with The Suns headline; “THE SUN BACKS BLAIR “.This banner headline is often credited with winning the Labour Party their landslide majority so can be viewed as very influential. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3654446.stm 9/11/08)The Tatler was one of the earliest papers to establish a political standpoint (on a small scale).
The Times was first published in 1785 as the Universal Daily Register by John Walters and adopted its current name in 1788. The Times was the first newspaper to employ proper War Correspondents. In 1807 Henry Crabb Robinson became their first dedicated correspondent;
“If William Howard Russell was the greatest war correspondent, Henry Crabb Robinson was the first.” (P22, We Thundered Out 200 years of The Times, Phillip Howard, Times Books London) Robinson was sent out to report back on The Napoleonic Wars. This was a big leap forward for reporting as reports were now received direct from the front line in France. The general public was increasingly interested in the Napoleonic Wars and the news reflected the public’s needs. This continued when one of the most famous British war correspondents William Howard Russell started reporting on the Crimean Wars in the 1850s.
Howard Russell started out as a young reporter and was sent to cover the English support of Russia by The Times editor John Delane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Russell). The stories that he sent back to the UK were frank and vivid and opened the public’s eyes to the reality of warfare. This led to the government re-evaluating their treatment of troops. This is significant as it shows how the media can shape and influence public opinion. The power of newspapers and journalism was increasing leading to a change in government policy. The circulation of newspapers was increasing as the level of literate people grew higher. Now more people could read, the circulation of newspapers expanded as did the influence of journalism.
Newspapers were increasingly influenced by advertising after James Perry became the first man to make real money from advertisements in papers. Newspaper adverts started off as classified advertisements and throughout the 19th and 20th century advertising became the main source of profits for newspapers;
“Many Reporters will quietly and reluctantly admit that a newspaper would struggle without advertising revenue.” (p12, Newspaper Journalism A Practical Introduction, Susan Pape and Sue Featherstone, Sage Publications) This is reflected in modern journalism as the stories the paper reports must reflect the advertising demographic of the magazine or paper. As advertising becomes more important in newspapers it is increasing the editor’s job to make sure his or her stories suit the advertisers’ needs;
“commercial matters take up much of the editors time and they will be involved in meetings dealing with the business end of advertising” (P2, Newspaper Journalism A Practical Introduction, Susan Pape and Sue Featherstone) This has changed over the last 250 years previously journalists were primarily writing for their audience now they are writing for the advertisers as the main aim now is to increase profits.
The proprietors of newspapers have changed over the last 250 years. Many newspapers used to be owned independently and the editor was usually the proprietor and closely involved in what stories were printed at the time. Now you have monopoly ownership of newspapers which means people like Rupert Murdoch own a third of the newspaper markets with papers like The Sun and The Times. This means reporters are often told to report on certain stories which reflect the owner’s agenda. Rupert Murdoch and his company News International own a 35.5% share of the market. The only papers that are independent are The Guardian and The Observer who are owned by The Guardian Media Group. In theory this means that the only place you should be able to get unbiased news reporting is in The Guardian or Observer but they are widely regarded as having their own left wing/liberal agenda. An example of how this works is the recent story of the George Osborne/ Peter Mandelson/ Russian Oligarch scandal. Neither The Times nor The Sun mentioned that Rupert Murdoch was also on the yacht as he is their boss. The truth can be distorted depending on what paper you work for and who your boss is.
Journalism has changed dramatically over the last 250 years. The biggest changes have been the increased value of advertising in newspapers and the effects of monopoly ownership on newspapers. The increase in tabloid sales means that reporters have an economic incentive to report the sensational and the scandalous and news values may, therefore, be compromised for profit. The role of editor has also changed over the last 250 years as they have a stronger business role now than ever before and are a lot more involved in meetings than the writing aspect of the paper. Since the 1700s papers have had various political leanings and this continues today as all papers are known for having some sort of political stance. This means that the same story in different papers could come across as completely different. Over the last ten years the newspaper industry has had to deal with the growth in the internet and news websites .This has resulted in the decline in the circulation of print media and the advance of online journalism which means anyone can now be a reporter.
OH MY ESSAYS
This will be a collection of my essays and articles that I have written for uni and alot of articles and interviews that aern't exciting enough for my main blog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)