AS ALWAYS, WHEN YOU READ THIS EXAMPLE, LOOK FOR:
Coherent argument --- Specific and detailed examples --- Analysis of examples
ALSO, FOR THIS TYPE OF QUESTION
EVALUATION
Look carefully at the following example.
What would you/could you remove?
What would you/could you add?
Question:
Evaluate the usefulness of Curran and Seaton in understanding the extent to which media ownership influences the content of news stories.
Curran and Seaton argue that newspapers follow the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration of ownership in fewer hands leading to a narrowing of the range of viewpoints. They theorise that News conglomerates have successfully defended their oligarchy in the online landscape.
The Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they seek donations explicitly stating that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT (and billionaire, Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing The i. Curran and Seaton's work predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The i provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication). This seems to contradict Curran and Seaton, but their theory remains useful as it draws our attention to the fact that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic with a range of content.
By drawing attention to issues of risk and profitability, Curran and Seaton are arguably useful in terms of understanding the way that the content of news stories is shaped by the need to appeal to audiences. However, in prioritising the effects of ownership and control on the content of newspapers this theory may not aid in understanding how ideologies, audience choice or media language conventions may determine content. For example, in January of 2021, Boris Johnson called for a second UK lockdown due to rising Covid cases. The Guardian (a left wing publication) supported Johnson (a right-wing prime minister), presenting him in a positive light, while the Daily Mail chose derogatory images and accusatory language to condemn his decision (a reversal of their usual partisan concerns). While Curran and Seaton may be used to highlight the economic context that justifies these decisions around story content (The Mail catering to its middle class audience and the Guardian maintaining journalistic integrity) they do nothing to help us understand or analyse the way that meaning is/was constructed in these stories.
Another aspect of Curran and Seaton’s work is their dismissal of the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism and state censorship still affect the content of news stories and there are indications that this may be true in countries like China and Russia. However, in the West, freedom of the press is enshrined in law, and there is an increasing demand for diversity of opinion, especially online. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion expressed in its content and in 2018 appointed Joseph Harker to the role of senior editor in charge of diversity and development. We might therefore argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory. Moreover, theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media, including the rise of citizen journalism. While Curran and Seaton’s work on the subject took shape in 2003, Shirky rose to prominence around 2010, so it is likely that the contradictory messages about news content stems from the swift development of online media participation. Does this invalidate Curran and Seaton? As a lone theory yes, but it also allows us to recognise the rapidity of change and the need for theory to shift and change in relation to the changing world.
The Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they seek donations stating that this model of funding allows them to focus on quality and journalistic integrity in their news stories. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT (and billionaire, Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, DMGT increased concentration by purchasing The i. Curran and Seaton predict that this would lead to the range of opinion in the content of news stories narrowing. However, when Ofcom made a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The i provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication). This seems to contradict Curran and Seaton, but their theory remains useful as it draws our attention to the fact that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic with a range of content.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian has the same concerns and views about the narrowing of range and loss of quality as Curran and Seaton; they have even advertised on their website that they need donations from readers. However, they have explicitly stated that by being funded this way will allow them to focus on the quality of the news stories that they are putting out. The Scott Trust Ltd. Has always worked to protect Guardian journalism and the content control of the owners, moreover, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT, and in 2019 DMGT followed a very typical capitalist pattern of buying another big newspaper company, The i. Using Curran and Seaton’s theory, we can then predict that this act will cause the narrowing of the range of different opinions across different newspaper companies.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian has the same concern as Curran and Seaton’s about the narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they ask for donations stating that this funding allows them to keep a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in their news stories. The Daily Mail is owned by DMGT (and Viscount Rothermere), in 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing The I. Curran and Seaton's predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom produced report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The I provided letters that told government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The I changing its content to be similar with The Daily Mail. This contradicts Curran and Seaton, but their theory is still useful as it draws our attention to the fact that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic with a range of different content.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concerns. On their website they seek donations, stating that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT and billionaire Viscount Rothermere. In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing The i. When Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both the publications provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication). The range of viewpoints isn’t narrowed in the publications which contradicts Curran and Seaton’s theory, but it remains useful as it draws our attention to the fact that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic with a range of content.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they seek donations explicitly stating that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories, as they dp not want any external political influence to affect them. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT. In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing the i. However opposing Curran and Seatons beliefs, when Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The i provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial influence into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication), as the owner Harmsworth believes that “it would be unfair to put my views into the public arena,”, so plurality remains.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they seek donations explicitly stating that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT ( Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing the I. Curran and Seaton predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The I provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The I ( centre left ) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (right wing ). This seems to contradict Curran and Seaton, their theory remains useful as it shows us that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic rather than increasing the saturation of their views.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Curran and Seaton’s work is their dismissal of the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism and state censorship still affect the content of news stories this may be true in countries like China and Russia. However, in the West, there is an increasing demand for diversity of opinion, especially online. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion expressed in its content and in 2018 appointed Joseph Harker to the role of senior editor in charge of diversity and development. We might therefore argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory, but Curran and Seaton can be defended, as their research took place in 2003, when the internet was wildly different, so it is likely that the contradictory messages about news content stems from the swift development of online media participation.
ReplyDeleteCurran and Seaton dismiss the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like censorship still affect the content of news stories and there are indications this may be in countries like China and Russia. However, in the West, freedom of the press is enshrined in law, and there is an increasing demand for diversity of opinion. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion and in 2018 appointed Joseph Harker to senior editor in charge of diversity and development. We might therefore argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory. Theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media, including the rise of citizen journalism offering an alternative view on online media.
ReplyDeleteCurran and Seaton dismiss the internet as offering diversity outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism still affect the content of news stories, and this may be true in some countries but in the West, the press is freer, and many people believe in diversity of opinion, especially online. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion expressed in its content and they appointed a senior editor in charge of diversity for this. We could argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory. Also, theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media. While Curran and Seaton’s work on this started around 2003, Shirky rose to prominence around 2010, so the contradictory messages about news content may come from the swift development of online media participation. This invalidates Curran and Seaton as a lone theory, but it also allows us to see the rapidity of change and the need for theory to shift in relation to the changing world.
ReplyDeleteCurran and Seaton draw attention to the issues of risk and profitability and are useful in understanding how content in news stories is shaped to appeal to audiences. By prioritising the effects of different ownerships have on the content of the newspaper this theory may not help the understanding of audience interpretation or media language conventions determining the content. For example, in January of 2021, Boris Johnson called for a second UK lockdown due to rising Covid cases. The Guardian (a left-wing publication) supported Johnson (a right-wing prime minister), presenting him in a positive light, while the Daily Mail chose derogatory images and accusatory language to condemn his decision (a reversal of their usual partisan concerns). Curran and Seaton do nothing to help us understand the meaning being constructed in these stories as this theory may not be used to highlight economic context that justifies decisions around story’s content.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian seems to agree with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their Facebook page, they seek donations explicitly stating: "With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can investigate and challenge the status quo, and amplify the stories that need to be told." Moreover, The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the dictatorial control of an owner like Rupert Murdoch, whose dictatorial control of content across News Corps' platforms is well known. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT (and billionaire, Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing The i. Curran and Seaton's work predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The i provided letters that assured government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication). This seems to contradict Curran and Seaton, as their theory fails to predict that DMGT value audience reach over control of ideological messaging, but examples like News Corps suggest that they may be exceptions.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Curran and Seaton’s work is their dismissal of the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism and state censorship still affect the content of news stories and that News organisations have defended their oligopoly. The Guardian Online and MailOnline, both receive monthly traffic in excess of 350 million views and remain two of the most popular news sources in the UK, indicating that Curran and Seaton may be correct. However, theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media, including the rise of citizen journalism. In addition, we know that Gen Z favour Tik Tok as their preferred news source, indicating that the domination of news by powerful news conglomerates may not last much longer. Does this invalidate Curran and Seaton's work? Not entirely, but it does indicate that they may be out of date. Moreover, we might conclude that the online landscape defies theory to some degree as it changes so very rapidly.
DeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they have asked for donations since 2023 by using a pop up which has explicitly stated its use to be to invest in independent reporting, the funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories. The Guardian says, “With no billionaire owner, we are committed to journalism defined by truth, rigour and integrity.”, this is evidence of The Guardian agreeing with Curran and Seaton as their concerns are about the impact of ownership on quality and viewpoint of diversity. The Scott Trust Ltd. Has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners, they are responsible of appointing the editor. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT ( and billionaire, Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, GMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing the i. Curran and Seaton’s work predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories, showing their understanding is less useful through The Daily Mail. However, when Ofcom
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail follows Curran and Seaton’s predicted trend of capitalist narrowing of ownership, thereby reducing the range of opinions in the media. This is seen when in 2019, the DMGT, the conglomerate owning the Daily Mail headed by Viscount Rothermere, bought the i newspaper, meaning more opinions in the media were controlled and owned by the company. Endeavouring to assure this action was not according to Curran and Seaton’s theory of oligarchies, Ofcom received letters from the editors of both of The i, which identified as centre-left, and The Daily Mail, ensuring that Rothermere had no influence or interest in influencing the opinions and bias of either newspaper. This ensured the government and general public that the viewpoint of The i would not become more in line with The Daily Mail, a right wing newspaper. This would appear to act against Curran and Seaton however the theory nonetheless remains true as, no matter the intention, the ownership of media publications was concentrated with the DMGT’s acquiring of The i. The Guardian however agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern for the reduction in range of opinion. Thusly, they ask for donations to preserve the Guardian’s focus on quality and integrity over oligarchical ownership and opinions that the Guardian value themselves as having. This is also seen through the ownership system of The Guardian, the Scott Trust, which directly defies an oligarchy by functioning to protect the Guardian’s news from single-owner influence.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they seek donations explicitly stating that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories. The Scott Trust Ltd. has always functioned to protect Guardian journalism and content from the control of owners. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT (and billionaire, Viscount Rothermere). In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist pattern of increasing concentration by purchasing The i. Curran and Seaton's work predicts that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom prepared a report on this purchase, the editors of both The Daily Mail and The i provided letters that assured the government that Rothermere had no editorial input into The Daily Mail and that the purchase would not lead to The i (a centre left publication) changing its content to align with The Daily Mail (a right wing publication) which contests Curran and Seaton's ideas of control and prefer audience reach. Their theory remains useful as it draws our attention to the fact that DMGT values the ability to reach a wider demographic with a range of content.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian agrees with Curran and Seaton’s concern about narrowing range and loss of quality. On their website, they ask for donations and make it very clear that this model of funding allows them to retain a focus on quality and journalistic integrity in the content of their news stories. The Scott Trust Ltd. Has functions to make sure the owners are not in control of the Guardian’s content. Conversely, the Daily Mail is owned by DMGT and Rotheremere. In 2019, DMGT followed the normal capitalist patter of increasing concentration by purchasing the i. Curran and Seaton’s work states that this would lead to a narrowing of the range of opinion in the content of news stories. However, when Ofcom made a report on the purchase the editors for Daily Mail and The i stated that Rothermere has no input on what the editos write and that the purchase would not lead to the i – a centre left publication – changing its content to align with the Daily Mail - a right wing publication -.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Curran and Seaton’s work is their dismissal of the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism and state censorship still affect the content of news stories and there are indications that this may be true in countries like China and Russia. However, in the West, freedom of the press is enshrined in law, and there is an increasing demand for diversity of opinion, especially online. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion in 2018 appointed Joseph Harker to the role of senior editor in charge of diversity and development. We might therefore argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory. Moreover, theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media, including the rise of citizen journalism. Curran and Seaton’s work on the subject took shape in 2003, which means it is likely that media has evolved entirely since then with large movements such as 2020-2021 ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign which was entirely media based,
ReplyDeleteso it is likely that the contradictory messages about news content stems from the swift development of online media participation. Does this invalidate Curran and Seaton? As a lone theory yes, but it also allows us to recognise the rapidity of change and the need for theory to shift and change in relation to the changing world.
As well as their observations on oligarchies, Curran and Seaton dismiss the notion that the internet acts as a method of spreading a diverse chorus of voices outside the established news oligarchy. Suggesting that censorship and nationalism, evident in countries like China or Russia, inhibit this diversity of voices. However, it is hard to argue that in the West, where freedom of speech and press in central to societal law, there is not an increasing volume of diverse opinions available especially online. The Guardian, for example, pride themselves on their diversity of opinion. We can see this when in 2018, Joseph Harker became senior editor of diversity and development, arguably disproving the idea. We can introduce theorists Jenkins and Shirky, noting that a participatory aspect of online diversity is on the rise, leading to an increase in civilian journalism. Granted that Curran and Seaton’s work emerged from 2003’s state of the internet and that Shirky became prominent 7 years later, we can determine that these conflicting opinions are formed from the flux state of the internet from 2003 to 2010, especially in participation enabling diversity. These later theorists then arguably disprove Curran and Seaton but also makes us aware of the constant fluidity of the internet and the need for re-analysis to keep up with it.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Curran and Seaton’s work is their dismissal of the internet as offering diversity of voices outside of the news oligopoly. They suggest that constraints like nationalism and state censorship still affect the content of news stories, however, in the West, freedom of the press is enshrined in law, and there is an increasing demand for diversity of opinion, especially online with citizen journalism. The Guardian prides itself on the diversity of opinion expressed in its content and in 2018 appointed Joseph Harker to the role of senior editor in charge of diversity and development. We might therefore argue that this somewhat invalidates the theory. Moreover, theorists like Jenkins and Shirky point to the increasingly participatory nature of online media. A lot of people have begun to gain their news through sources such as YouTube and TikTok, some of these commentators are able to gain more viewers than the large news services such as The Guardian and Daily Mail, leading to Curran and Seaton’s theory to be less useful in 2024 after such a rapidity of change in technology and social media, since 2003 (the year the theory was created), there is a need for the theory to shift and change in relation to the changing world.
ReplyDelete