Question
Analyse the way that Media Language is used to present social and cultural contexts in Source A (The Daily Mail) and Source B (The Guardian Online).
Apply Levi-Strauss theories about structuralism in your answer.
CONTEXT:
On March 7th, 2021, Meghan Duchess of Sussex gave an Interview to Oprah Winfrey in which she accused the Royal Family of racism. This came just a few hours after the Queen's speech to the British Commonwealth in which she stressed the importance of duty.
SOURCE A: DAILY MAILCOVER MARCH 8th 2021
INTRODUCTION
Levi-Strauss theorises that all narratives are organised into binary oppositions. By analysing the underlying oppositions within a text, we may understand the ideological positions that are being taken. In addition, these binary oppositions may be used as a shorthand to clarify ideas or as a way to make narratives compelling. They may also be used to construct easily identifiable character and to encourage audience identification.
TASK 1:
Look carefully at the paragraph below and use the mark scheme to grade it.
- As if it was the first paragraph in an essay.
- As if it followed the introduction above.
The two images encode a binary opposition between Markle - connoting selfishness and progressivism - and the Queen - connoting duty and traditionalism. Her smile and direct mode of address positions the reader to identify with the Queen, while Markle is looking off camera and appears smug. The text is constructing the underlying ideological assumption that it values traditionalism and duty (right-wing cultural values) over progressivism (a left-wing cultural value) and selfishness. This messaging appeals to the right-wing values of Daily Mail readers. The anchoring text furth encodes the opposition between the Queen making a 'Speech' as British monarch and Markle 'Speaking Out' against her treatment. Daily Mail readers are socially conservative and patriotic so they will respect the Queen being dutiful, but will view Markle's speaking publicly about private issues as distasteful.
MARK SCHEME
1. Answer the question [0,1,2] 2. Correctly characterise the theory [0,1,2]
3. Use specific and detailed examples [0,1,2] 4. Apply the theory to the examples [0,1,2]
5. Use Media Studies terminology [0,1,2]
TASK 2:
Take 15 minutes to write a second paragraph based on your discussion of:
- Banner Headline
- Sub headline
- Stand first
- Sub-headline 2
- and Teasers (MAYBE)?
- Image
- Anchoring Text
- Headline
- Sub-headlines
- Bullets
- Standfirst
- Copy (The body of writing)
- Read more (Treat it like a teaser)?
- Most viewed (Treat it like a teaser)?
https://strongameliachsmediablog.blogspot.com/2024/10/levi-strauss-analysis-task-2.html
ReplyDeletehttps://shcherbakmaksymchsmediablog.blogspot.com/2024/10/levi-strauss-analysis.html
ReplyDeletehttps://ccgrammarschool-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/19dennehyt_ccgrammarschool_co_uk/EQzr9PycLfpKjIyXdxLMg_4B6_O-mj7mfRhwl0-tGGQrew?email=AHaywood%40ccgrammarschool.co.uk&e=Rgl9Mk
ReplyDeletehttps://shikdertahirchsmediablog.blogspot.com/2024/10/levi-strauss-analysis-task_21.html
ReplyDeleteThe banner headline being titled "Duty means everything" includes binary opposition. As the opposite of 'duty' is selfishness while 'everything' is nothing. The message could therefore be saying selfishness means nothing to the Queen, having a done a speech on duty, which is mentioned in the stand first. This patriotic message may resonate with right wing readers of the Daily Mail, who may interpret this message at Markle who is breaking royal duty by accusing the royal family of racism. The binary opposition is further enhanced with words such as "bombshell" and "fallout" being used in the subheading. These words are a semantic field of warfare which further exemplify the alleged opposition between the Markle and the Queen.
ReplyDeleteThe cover of the Daily Mail effectively establishes a binary opposition between Queen Elizabeth and Meghan Markle, emphasizing their contrasting representations. The photos of both figures are strategically placed on opposite sides of the paper, with the Queen looking directly at the reader with a relaxed, friendly smile, while Meghan appears to look away with a “mocking” expression. This initial juxtaposition suggests a deliberate distancing between the two, thus reinforcing the narrative that the Queen is correlated to virtue and duty, whereas Meghan is depicted as arrogant and self-serving. The use of these images is utilized to guide readers to perceive the Queen as a benevolent figure and Meghan as someone whose words should be approached with caution.
ReplyDeleteThe banner headline further confirms this division, presenting the Queen as the 'hero' and Meghan as the 'villain.' By stating that "Duty Means Everything," the headline implies a moral superiority for the Queen, aligning her with values of service and loyalty that strongly relates with a traditional British audience (justified in the sub headline “Queen tells commonwealth...”). In contrast, the framing of Meghan suggests that she doesn't give as much effort to these values, positioning her as disloyal to the royal family. This narrative structure not only captures readers' attention but also leads them to favor the Queen’s perspective over Meghan’s, meaning they would rather stick with their existing beliefs.
Again, the sub-headline plays a crucial role in highlighting the conflict within the royal family while simultaneously highlighting the Queen's unwavering commitment to duty. The word choice suggests that Meghan's experiences are invalidated, thereby painting her as 'fake' and lacking appreciation for 'real service.' The language used in the sub headline changes the readers' perceptions, making them more likely to sympathize with the Queen's message and view Meghan's claims as complaints (new generation) rather than legitimate grievances (old generation).Moreover, The anchoring text accompanying the images further distinguishes their approaches: the Queen is portrayed as formally addressing the public, while Meghan is described as merely "speaking out," which implies a lack of seriousness and responsibility in her stance.
Ultimately, the Guardian’s frontpages’ encodes the construction of binary oppositions through its banner headline, sub-headlines, and visual elements, presenting a clear narrative that aligns with the values of its right-wing audience. The simplification of complex issues into easily identifiable characters, where the Queen represents honor and duty and Meghan signifies disloyalty, encourages readers to side with the 'good person' in the story. This not only reflects the social and cultural beliefs of the readership but also underscores the media's role in shaping public perception through selective representation and language.
ANALYSE THE EXAMPLES - APPLY THE THEORY
DeleteKEYWORDS INTO THE QUESTION TO CHARACTERISE THE THEORY
The cover of the Daily Mail shows the binary opposition between the Queen and Meghan Markle. The cover has many signs in the difference between Her Majesty and the Duchess of Sussex.
ReplyDeleteThe reader's attention is immediately drawn to the photographs, which are placed on different sides of the paper and tilted, as if to show that the monarchs are trying to distance themselves from each other. The photos themselves also emphasise the different treatment of their readers: the Queen looks directly at the reader with a slight smile, while the Duchess looks away from the reader with a mocking look, so that the reader is given to understand that everything that Meghan Markle says is not to be taken at face value. The editors made Elisabeth look like a kind old lady who only wants to do good, and Markle like an arrogant, self-righteous woman.
The newspaper's creators also showed the difference in the way both people treat listeners with the help of the photo caption. The Queen is giving a speech, which shows a formal address to the people. Whilst Meghan makes a speech which shows that she is complaining about something.
Subheading 2 shows that there has been a clash within the royal family, but despite this the Queen is giving a message of devotion to duty.
The heading shows that the truth is on the Queen's side. It also encodes a message of defiance. The newspaper cleverly uses contrasting description to create easily identifiable characters: Meghan as the ‘villain’ and Her Majesty as the ‘hero’. The Queen declares that duty means everything and must be honoured. All the components: the arrangement of the photos, the headlines, the text, give the reader a clear message that Meghan represents the opposition to Elizabeth and that Markle believes that the concept of duty is not important.
The first column makes the reader realise that the Queen's message is not only timely, but also more important than Maggan's supposedly sensational interview
The newspaper's creators specifically construct the opposition according to Levi Strauss' theory to show Meghan in a worse position. The paper is biased towards its core audience, conservative and patriotic people in their 60s, who will associate themselves with the Queen (old age (connoting wisdom), traditionalism (right wing)) but not with Meghan (youth, selfishness, progressivism (left wing)).
The reader is supposed to be led to believe that the values of the royal family and British values are one and the same, while the Duchess of Sussex opposes them.
I have the impression that readers of this paper who are not prepared to check the veracity of information and alternative opinions will remain convinced that everything in this paper is true. Which once again proves that the editors of the newspaper have built a binary opposition very well and have done their job.
answering 1/2 (no social and cultural things)
Deleteapplying theory 1/2
use examples 2/2
terminology 2/2
The banner headline is used to draw the reader's attention to the newspaper to read about the royal family's 'fallout' .The banner headline in this newspaper reads, "Duty means everything". It seems like the binary opposition would be that duty means nothing. Since this is said by the queen, it is subconsciously implied that Meghan is the one opposing it, that she thinks that duty means nothing. The word 'duty' has connotations to 'loyalty' and denotations to 'job' which enforces the binary opposition that the Queen is in support of this country and that it is her job to do so, but that Meghan Markle doesn't believe this, because she thinks that duty means nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe Stand First connects The Queen's speech to Meghan and Harry's interview. This implies that these situations are directly linked which enforces the Levi-Strauss theory that these myths are all caused by the idea of binary opposition. This is where most fables stem from.
In the sub-headline, Is says that The queen tells Commonwealth what real service is. Real opposes fake. This connotes that Meghan Markle is doing a fake service to England which opposes the loyalty and union that the Queen connotes.
Although Meghan Markle may not share these beliefs, because we see her as an opposition, we believe that her beliefs would oppose what The Queen's beliefs are. This makes us view The Queen the 'Hero' and Meghan Markle the 'Villain' in this situation because we stand with what The Queen says.
Answer question:1
DeleteCharacterise theory:2
Clear use of examples:2
Apply theory to examples:2
Terminology:1
8/10
More answering the question and better terminology
In the sub - headline “Queen tells Commonwealth what real service is” the binary opposite is implied as the word real is the opposite to fake. This suggests that the Queen is real, whilst Meghan is fake. This could be used here to paint the Queen in a better light to the readers who read the Daily Mail as they would be fairly old - suggesting how they’re quite traditional and nationalist in their beliefs so they would easily establish how the Queen is good and Meghan is bad. Despite the readers being nationalists, they’re encouraged to pick the side of the Queen as “real” suggests how she is committed to her country and cares for her people. However, the implied binary opposite shows Meghan to be fake which could suggest how she is lying a part of a cunning plan. This binary opposite clarifies how the Queen and Meghan are not in favour of each other. This idea is also reinforced by the sub - headline two which contains the language of “fallout” and “bombshell” which intensifies the binary, making it more compelling. This is due to how the two words highlight how they’re not in favour of one another as it suggest a conflict due to the words being semantic fields of war. The readers are also encouraged further to take the Queen’s side, acknowledging she is the good person here, as the conflict was started by Meghan as the sub - headline two states “ royals face fallout from Meghan and Harry’s bombshell interview” which suggests how this is not the Queen’s fault, but Meghan’s which encourages the readers to understand how Meghan is the bad person here and they should be on the opposite side to hers.
ReplyDeleteThere is another implied binary opposition in the banner headline which states “duty means everything” (said by the Queen in her speech to the Commonwealth). The Queen outlines “duty” and the binary opposition to that is selfishness, suggesting how Meghan is somewhat selfish for “speaking out” to the public to accuse the Royal Family of racism. This presents Meghan is a villainous way to the readers, encouraging them to side with the Queen as she is presented as benevolent in how she is committed to her people rather than rejecting people selfishly like Meghan. Another implied binary opposition is presented through how the Queen gives “everything” and Meghan gives nothing as they’re opposites. This makes the idea that the readers should side with the Queen as she presents good morals and commitment stronger as it suggests how the Queen is willing to give anything for her country, presenting her as respectable but Meghan does nothing, presenting her as a more hated person to the readers to persuade them to take the side of the Queen.
The stand first reinforces the idea from the sub - headline as there is a clear binary opposition between the Queen who delivered a “powerful message” whilst Meghan and Harry had a “bombshell interview”. The binary opposition here creates the clear idea that Meghan and Harry are villainous people here as it is as if they dropped a ‘bomb’ on the Royal Family from the release of the interview, suggesting how they started a conflicts makes the narrative more compelling as it shows a complete opposite between the Queen and Meghan and Harry, whilst in painting the Queen in a good light due to how hers was “powerful” but theirs was just a “bombshell”. Due to this, the reader may be encouraged to side with the Queen as she seems dutiful here whilst Meghan and Harry just seem like they’re complaining in attempt to ruin the Royal Family by starting a ‘war’ with them. The way the stand first also says how the “Palace braced itself for Meghan and Harry’s bombshell interview” suggests that the Royal Family are innocent and are being attacked by the pair, which reinforces the idea that they’re both malevolent people here which encourages the reader to be on the opposite side to them.
ReplyDeleteIn this article/front page, the banner headline is used to show how staying dutiful to one's country is all-important. The fact that most readers of the Daily Mail are in their late 50s or early 60s and may be more traditionalist, means that they are more inclined to agree with statements such as ‘Duty mean everything’. The use of the word everything shows how there is nothing else important than serving your country. The sub headline is used as a precursor to the banner headline and says that the queen is talking about what ‘real service’ is, and again, as most readers are traditionalist, they would be interested/drawn to a heading talking about serving the country. The stand first uses words such as ‘powerful’ to describe the queens message, and ‘dedication’ when describing her talking about duty showing how important her message was, and also how one needs to think about their duty. The second sub headline describes Meagan and Harry’s interview as a ‘bombshell’, this describes it as not well for the ‘royals’ and they ‘face fallout’ following the interview.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnswer the question, everything else stems off this. 5/10
DeleteThe split between the queen and Meghan Markle is a clear attempt to split the two characters and show them as enemies. It makes an obvious divide between the two which can be inferred as the void that has formed between Meghan and Harry, and the royal family. I believe that this is an outward opinion of the matter that the Daily mail is trying to push through imagery and Binary Opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe split is further expressed by the banner headline between them which describes the interview as a ‘Bombshell’. This shows that the two groups are out to get each other and that the split is growing and will not be fixed any time soon.
In the main heading of the story below, they use a quote from the queen in which she states what ‘real service’ is and that, ‘Duty means everything’. This is important as, despite not being directly stated, the quote is actually saying what is wrong with Meghan as well as what is good about the queen.
This binary opposition is shown when the newspaper refers to ‘real service’ which infers that, unlike the queen, Meghan is ‘fake’ and not the real deal. This is further backed up by the queen saying that, ‘Duty is everything.’ According to the laws of Binary Opposition, this shows Meghan as being someone with a lack of responsibility and that duty means nothing to her. This makes it clear to us that the Daily Mail has an agenda when it comes to Meghan and wishes to make her appear as the villain of the story whilst making the queen the hero.
In addition to this, you can see that the images have been carefully selected to portray the two in very different lights. The first is of Meghan Markle who is looking rather snide and is almost smirking. This is a strong contrast from the image of the queen who is caught with a natural happy looking face. Yet again, this is a great use of Binary Opposition to state the different roles of the characters in the Daily Mail’s narrative.
This is also in alignment with the subtitles beneath each image in which one describes Meghan as ‘Speaking out’ which shows her as a rebellious and potentially troublesome character, far from the queen, a figure of authority and prestigious rule who was described to be addressing the commonwealth.
Improvement - Need to answer question using words from the question ' social' and 'cultural'. Need to include more features of Levi Strauss. Apply theory more carefully. More sophisticated media studies language.
ReplyDeleteThe banner headline effectively draws the attention of the reader. Encoding a binary opposition of selfishness vs duty. This implies that the Queen’s speech is being helpful to the country, she wants what is best for us and wats improvement of a society, painting her as a wise, hero-like figure. This is completely juxtaposed by Meghan Markle’s “speaking out” of racism she faced from the royal family. Readers may believe that this is selfish of her as they have very right-wing views. The age demographic is also around 50-60 years old, who may view Markle as young and rebellious in comparison to the Queen who is old and wise. There is also a binary opposition of “everything” vs “nothing” highlighting that The Queen’s speech is everything to the country, whereas Meghan’s speaking out means nothing to them, and is almost seen as a nuisance/waste of time, painting Markle out to be a “villain”. This encodes Strauss’ idea of easily identifiable characters and audience identification. The use of simplistic language in the headline also is a shorthand to clarify ideas. The Sub-Headline of this article creates a binary opposition of “real” vs “fake” service, meaning that The Queen is a really trusted leader, and Meghan Markle is just the stereotypical stupid youngster, giving possible false allegations to the readers of this newspaper. The standfirst of this article uses sensationalist language such as “bombshell.” This connotes conflict and warfare, creating a more compelling narrative to the reader and further developing the binary opposition of “hero” vs “villain.”
ReplyDeleteimprovements: include more social and cultural aspects.
DeleteThe Daily Mail cover draws a clear contrast between Queen Elizabeth and Meghan Markle, using visual and textual elements to highlight their differences. The photos of the Queen and Meghan are strategically placed on opposite sides of the page, as if to suggest they are distancing themselves from each other, or are on opposing sides. The Queen is shown smiling warmly and looking directly at the reader, while Meghan appears to look away with a more cynical expression, encouraging readers to view the Queen as kind and trustworthy, while Meghan is portrayed as arrogant and insincere. This arrangement sets the stage for a clear binary opposition between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe captions accompanying the images reinforce this divide by highlighting the distinct ways both women communicate. The Queen is depicted as giving a formal speech, emphasizing her role as a figure of authority and duty, whereas Meghan’s speech is framed as a complaint, painting her as self-centered and childish. The subheading, which references a clash within the royal family, underscores the Queen’s devotion to her duties despite the ongoing tensions. This further builds the narrative that the Queen is steadfast and reliable, while Meghan is seen as disruptive and ungrateful.
The headline itself cements this opposition by declaring that “Duty Means Everything,” aligning the Queen with the values of loyalty, service, and tradition, ideals that resonate with the paper’s (usually) conservative audience. Meghan, by contrast, is portrayed as someone who undermines these values. This creates a narrative where the Queen is the hero, representing traditional British values, while Meghan is cast as the villain, challenging those values. The binary opposition used simplifies the complexity of the situation, steering readers toward siding with the Queen without much thought.
1/2 more socio-cultural talk
Delete2/2 examples
2/2 applying theory
1/2 terminology
8/10 yay!!!!!!!
1/2 answering the question: include the words social and cultural
ReplyDeletemore sophisticated terminology and language from the question
Levi Strauss suggested that the Medias use the technique of binary opposition to show in a more favourable light their point of view. A binary opposition represents two opposites be it cold/heat, day/night. These binary oppositions help to create contrast and bring the necessary information to the forefront of the reader's mind unobtrusively
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss studied structuralism, which is the study of hidden rules that govern a structure. These are represented as binary opposition, which are categorised into 4 different ways that they are used, as a shorthand to clarify ideas, make narratives compelling, to find easily identifiable characters and to construct easily identifiable characters.
ReplyDeleteto encourage audience identification**
DeleteTahir Shikder
Levi Strauss' theory uses binary oppositions (juxtaposing ideas) so that it provides the reader with character identification along with the underlying ideologies that can be inferred from the binary oppositions. This character identification to the reader can encourage them to make a decision on who they will favour and who they will be against.
ReplyDeleteLevi-Strauss theory of binary opposition is used to evoke a reaction from the audience. By using binary opposition, readers are encouraged to take a side because of the easily identifiable characters. Most of the time it is good vs evil which allows the audience to understand the position that they need to take and side with. it also creates a clear contrast between two different ideologies making the narrative clearer.
ReplyDeleteLevi-Strauss studies where most myths and fables came from. He developed the idea 'Binary Opposition'. He concluded that most myths come from binary oppositions, like hot and cold, or raw and cooked. He suggests that they don't have to be directly opposing either, like male and female. Although they are binary opposites, the idea of male doesn't oppose the idea of female, unlike raw and cooked. This creates easily identifiable characters and a more compelling story.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss states that, in media, the technique that he calls binary opposition in order to promote an opinion or ideology that they hold. Binary opposition can be shown as light vs dark or male vs female and is an effective way to highlight the sociological differences between their point of view and the binary opposite.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss claims that binary opposition exists in media texts as a shorthand to clarify simple ideas for audiences. This creates easily identifiable characters for audiences to choose to side with while also making narratives more compelling and engaging.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss created the idea of 'binary opposition' within narratives- an idea that implies something will always have an opposite. For example, hot vs cold. This can be used to shorten ideas and create a clear contrast between two things. It can make an insert of text more interesting, create identifiable characters to engage readers and help them understand a storyline or encourage audience identification.
ReplyDeleteLevi–Strauss' theory of binary opposition outlines how everything is ruled by a structure of opposites. It allows the information to be shown to a reader within the media and lets them focus both on the side presented and their opposite.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss refers to the idea of structuralism and the binary opposition, this focuses on the system of language or thought by which two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another. It provides the idea of character recognition and ideologies so that readers can take sides and choose which character they would like to connect with.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss formulated the theory of narratives being organised into binary oppositions. These can be implemented to create a short-hand to clarify ideas, therefore, creating easily identifiable characters and encourage audience identification. This also creates more compelling narratives to the reader.
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss uses Binary opposition to represent two opposites, for example hot/cold, new/old, duty/self to surround myths. These create contrast within a newspaper, and create a compelling story. A contrast between underlying ideologies is made clear to the reader to highlight the sociological differences within society.
ReplyDeleteLevi-Strauss argues that binary opposition is a vital narrative device in media, simplifying complex ideas for audiences. By having binary oppositions such as hero and villain, character identification is much easier. This technique not only creates a more compelling narrative but also boosts audience engagement and emotional investment, encouraging audience identification
ReplyDeleteThe image in source B depicts Meghan and Harry sitting on chairs whilst facing each other. This image was chosen in particular as it shows their unity and togetherness. The dark colours that Meghan Markle is wearing contrasts the light clothes that Harry is wearing. The binary opposition between light verses dark represents the broader societal views on race and identity which is what Meghan is trying to combat in the royal family. The anchoring text mentions that most of the people who support the couple are American, this creates a tension as America stands for the society they have created, which supports diversity and individualism whereas the British stand for the original British culture that is the Royal Family. The Progressiveness of America verses The Conservatism of England. The Headline mentions people's reactions from the interview. The usage of the term 'vitriol' may convince people to support Harry and Meghan more as the term has negative denotations. It is the opposition to praise which the couple have also received. The standfirst demonstrates the 'deep divide' as it shows how two people think of them, a woman of colour, and a white male. Serena Williams considers Meghan selfless. The opposition of progressiveness and conservatism is brought back as people are more likely to side with a woman of colour on topics such as racism, rather than a white male. This creates easier audience identification as even if you are not sure what side to support, The Guardian makes Meghan's side more appealing to the audience. It helps that they are mostly left-wing already which would compel them to side with diversity and acceptance. The term 'culture war' makes the story more compelling as war is a word with strong, negative, connotations which means the more positive side will feel more of the correct belief.
Task 3
Delete8/10 An excellent response making strong use of examples, but build on the application of theory.
Delete1. Answer the question [1]
Good answer, but needs more solid and consistent reference to the language of Levi-Strauss.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [2]
Definitely does this in the first paragraph, but would have been good to see that throughout.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [2]
Thorough and well considered examples.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
Clear attempt to apply theory to each example. To really, make it excellent here, try to engage with how each example manages to be used as shorthand, clarify the narrative etc.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [2]
Good control of vocabulary throughout.
Levi Straus formulated the theory of narratives being organised into binary oppositions. These can be implemented to create shorthand to clarify ideas, forming easily identifiable characters and encouraging audience identification. Therefore, this creates more compelling narratives for the reader.
ReplyDeleteThe image in Source B creates a very clear binary opposition of male vs female. However, the mise en scene portrays the close proxemics of Harry and Meghan. This shows that they aren’t actually in opposition, we can tell by the matching eyeline alongside the smiles they are sharing. This encodes an idea of togetherness creating easily identifiable characters for the reader. You can also see Harry and Meghan touching their wedding rings, highlighting their societal views on marriage to the mainly left-wing readers of this newspaper. The Headline also has a clear binary opposition of praise vs vitriol. This binary opposition illustrates the different divisions in public opinion to Meghan and Harry’s views. The sociocultural implications of this may reflect tensions regarding the royal family and its relevance in today's society. Left wing readers believe that progressivism and multiculturalism is the way to rule, which Harry and Meghan stand by. However, this is completely juxtaposed to the remaining of the royal family which believe traditionalism is the way to rule and Harry and Meghan challenge this, sparking both praise and vitriol. This conflict between the two beliefs can create more interesting narratives for the reader, and greater audience identification as they can see who praises the couple, and who despises them. The Guardian readers believe in left wing values, meaning they are most likely to side with Harry and Meghan. The Headline encapsulates the juxtaposing views and the different social and cultural views, leading to the Praise of Harry and Meghan, or the Vitriol of them.
10 Pretty close to faultless answer. Impressive.
Delete1. Answer the question [2]
Good answer, really manages to cover all the key elements of the question.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [2]
Definitely does this in the first paragraph, and continues to reference theoretical elements throughout.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [2]
Thorough and well considered examples.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [2]
This is especially impressive as it continually calls back to the elements presented in the opening paragraph.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [2]
Good control of vocabulary throughout.
-asya
ReplyDeleteLevi-Strauss initiated the idea that all narratives are catagorised into ‘binary oppositions’- two theoretical oppositions, strictly defined to go against one another. This creates a shorthand for ideas and narratives, creating easily identifiable characters, encourages audience identification and engagement. Strauss’ theory helps us to understand ideological positions which can simply make an insert of text more exciting and understandable for readers.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian’s left-wing article about The Royal matter uses the title “Meghan and Harry draw praise and vitriol...” to initiate an opposition between good vs bad. The word “praise” has connotations of good while “vitriol” has connotations of being ‘bitterly harsh’ and therefore bad or evil. We can apply Levi Strauss’ theory of structuralism and binary opposition to this idea of good vs evil, creating a clear and compelling story that Meghan and Harry are ‘good’. We can tell this from the use of the language “vitriol”, creating an unpleasant image and idea that Meghan and Harry are being unnecessarily slated by some members of the audience who are ‘bad’. This presents a left-wing socio-cultural point of view that Meghan and Harry should have the freedom and rights to continue their lives with as much equality as everyone else, painting an image that people hate on them unjustly, implying Meghan and Harry are innocent.
The image selected for this article shows representation of binary oppositions. The most obvious would be man vs woman, showing two opposite gender roles. Harry appears very masculine with a beard and wears a suit while Meghan appears very feminine with a long dress, jewelry and makeup. The binary opposition of man vs woman isn’t being used to put them against each other; it’s used to conveys their relationship with one another. Considering they are closely sat together as husband and wife looking at each other, as an audience, we get no sense of patriarchy within this binary opposition, implying that they are on the same level of respect, displaying equality. This is a clear left-wing value, implying that their relationship is progressive in opposition to The Royal family who are considered ‘traditionalists’.
8 A very strong essay, but now think in terms of how you can make it crystal clear to the examiner that you have thorough knowledge of the theory.
Delete1. Answer the question [2]
You have clearly applied the theory and referenced socio-cultural context.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [1]
The initial paragraph characterises the theory, but could you be a little more succinct.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [2]
Thorough and well considered examples.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
You generally did a solid job here, but you could have made more of the elements of theory that are present in the text. Think about the way things make the narrative more compelling for example.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [2]
Good control of vocabulary throughout.
Levi Strauss's theory is that human thinking creates images for binary opposition as a universal means of describing the world. It considers two opposing concepts, one asserting a quality and the other negating it to introduce contrast into the narrative.
ReplyDeleteThe bold headline indicates that Meghan and Harry's participation on Oprah Winfrey's show elicited conflicting feelings, both praise and criticism. Analysts note that these differences are so deep they verge on a culture war.
The picture encodes people of opposite sexes with different colored clothes and social statuses.Their gazes are directed at each other, facial expressions joyful, and hands holding rings. These contradictions and coincidences suggest that people of opposite sexes and different social statuses think alike.
Under the photo, the editorial board notes that the largest number of people who agree with Meghan and Harry are in the USA, connoting a contrast with readers from Britain.
The first two paragraphs under the photo present Serena Williams' negative opinion about Meghan, expressed before the interview. Viewers of the Oprah Winfrey show could verify that Serena Williams' opinion was not wrong.
The text informs that there are both supporters and opponents of Meghan and Harry's position in Britain, with more opponents implied. The article shows that the majority of Brexit supporters do not support Meghan and Harry, while young people with left-wing beliefs do.
From what we have learnt so far, we can conclude that the majority of middle-aged and older British people who are centrist and right-wing and have a positive view of Brexit will not share the beliefs and statements of Meghan and Harry. At the same time young people with left-wing and progressive views are supporters of the Duke and Duchess. Thus it can be concluded that supporters and opponents of Meghan and Harry's views are from completely opposite cultural and social backgrounds.
5/10 Take some time to read some of the ones that scored very highly. Notice how they take a very systematic approach to including the elements needed for a high grade response.
Delete1. Answer the question [1]
You managed to get social context into it by the end, but try to get it throughout.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [1]
The initial paragraph characterises the theory, but you need to work on being more clear and succinct with it. Look at some of the other ones, especially those that scored 2/2 in this area.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [1]
A good range of examples, but check for accuracy. For example, you claim that Serena Williams has a negative opinion about Meghan.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
Generally sound ideas about each example, but you need to turn each one into analysis of theory.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [1]
Tending to read a little too much like a narrative. Look over some of the ones that achieved 2/2. Notice the way they pack things with Media Theory.
Levi-Strauss theorises that all narratives are organised into binary oppositions. By analysing the underlying oppositions within a text, we may understand the ideological positions that are being taken. In addition, these binary oppositions may be used as a shorthand to clarify ideas or as a way to make narratives compelling. They may also be used to construct easily identifiable characters and to encourage audience identification.
ReplyDeleteOur attention is immediately drawn towards the image, showing binary opposition of Meghan and Harry. However, they are not in opposition but in unity, as we see them smiling with open body language and holding onto their wedding rings. Seeing such a happy couple will more likely cause a positive audience identification with them. The subheading further exemplifies binary opposition with its use of alliteration in ‘deep’, ‘divides and ‘war’ showing division. While the headline claims there has been ‘praise’ and ‘vitriol’ to their interview connoting clear opposition in audience reactions. The standfirst further proves the opposition, as Serena Williams claims Meghan is ‘selfless’. As a black progressive and famous women, Williams words are likely to appeal to the progressive sociocultural values of Guardian readers- they will likely identify her as a hero, compared to Piers Morgan, a white British male who called her ‘repulsive’.
As a shorthand to clarify ideas, the paper has an underlying ideology that the US and UK have binary opposition in terms of their opinion of Meghan. This is because the UK seems to attack Meghan calling her ‘repulsive’ and ‘pious’ while the US are her most ‘prominent defenders’ as seen in the caption. This shows their binary opposition in terms of social and cultural attitudes. The most viewed section also supports this ideology, with one headline being titled how Afghan families are evicted, it shows how the UK seems to have underlying dislike of people of colour.
10/10 Really strong, but do look carefully at the areas I have identified as potential weaknesses. Be absolutely clear that you are totally secure.
Delete1. Answer the question [2]
You were clearly focused on the social and cultural context.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [2]
The initial paragraph characterises the theory very well, and you referenced back to this enough to get 2/2, but there were some opportunities for referencing missed which would make this absolutely secure.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [2]
A good range of examples, but be even more descriptive when covering the image and anchoring text. Does enough for 2/2, but as with theory, ensure that you are absolutely secure.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [2]
Solid analysis throughout.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [2]
Sound application of terminology throughout.
Joe
ReplyDeleteLevi-Strauss' theory of binary oppositions suggests that a system of myths or fables are ruled by a structure of opposing terms such as good/evil, or win/lose. It allows readers to see contrast in a narrative or idea. The photo in the article shows two people of opposite gender. One is clearly male, as is dressed in a suit opposing to the others dress. The headline of this article shows the binary oppositions displayed by Meghan and Harry during Oprah Winfrey’s interview, of ‘praise and vitriol’. These words vastly oppose each other and reinforces Strauss’ theory of binary oppositions. The anchoring text under the photo tells us that the majority of Harry and Meghan’s supporters are in the US, rather than from the UK which is a binary opposition within itself. The first paragraph shows Oprah Winfey’s positive views towards the duke and duchess, and Piers Morgan’s negative views. These are opposing and connoting who is left or right wing. As the majority of The Guardian readers are younger, they are more likely to be left wing and are more likely to notice Serena Williams as a strong female figure in both sport and politics. Older people tend to be more right wing, and so may not agree with the views of Harry or Meghan, whereas left wing readers are more likely to agree. From this it can be concluded that those who support Meghan and Harry and those who oppose them come from different social and cultural standpoints.
5/10 Take the time to review some of the higher scoring examples.
Delete1. Answer the question [1]
You managed to get on to referencing social and cultural contexts by the end, but would have been better served by referencing them more regularly.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [1]
The initial paragraph characterises the theory fairly well, but is lacking in some of the important details. Review some of the higher scoring responses.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [1]
A reasonable range of examples, but take more care to describe the images and accompanying anchoring text and to describe the elements more clearly.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
Use a wider range of elements of the theory in your response.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [1]
Largely sound throughout, but now you need to take EVERY opportunity to show off your use of theory.
Levi-Strauss Analysis Source B
ReplyDeleteLevi Strauss’ theory uses binary oppositions so that it provides the reader with character identification along with the underlying ideologies that can be inferred from the binary oppositions. This character identification to the reader can encourage them to decide on who they will favour and who they will be against.
Firstly, the headline outlines a direct binary opposite with “praise” and “vitriol” which is shorthand to clarify how there are mixed views about their interview, creating a social divide. The use of the word “vitriol” presents the idea that the Guardian wants the reader to favour Meghan and Hardy rather than the rest of the royals. This is because the word infers how whoever favours the rest of the royals is acting in bitter criticism and malice – so it encourages the reader to not be the person to act in extreme hatred.
The anchoring text reinforces the idea that the reader is encouraged to favour Meghan and Harry due to the implied binary opposite of the attacker vs the defender as majority of their defenders were in the US, inferring the UK citizens are attackers which creates a binary opposite between the cultural attitudes as the UK are more biased to favour the Queen.
The stand first reinforces the cultural divide, still using the implied binary opposition, due to the use of Serena Williams as Meghan’s defender in the US (who is a far more likeable character socially) and Piers Morgan in the UK as Meghan’s attacker (who is a least liked character socially). This is a direct binary opposition between the Williams and Morgan as they both have opposing views about Meghan. The Guardian may have specifically chosen Morgan as the example for the UK to imply further how they’re the attackers and also persuade the reader to favour Meghan over the other royals due to Morgan being an easily identifiable unlikeable character socially due to his controversial views which then could disregard his viewpoint on Meghan, belittling him in comparison to Williams.
6/10 Clear focus, but take some time to review the highest scoring paragraphs. Look especially carefully at the way they introduce the theory in a clear and succinct way..
Delete1. Answer the question [2]
You were clearly focused on the social and cultural context and referenced them throughout.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [1]
Re-read your first paragraph and then review some of the others. Look especially at those that are thorough and succinct. Try to include more of the key elements of the theory.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [1]
A good range of examples from the text, but don't forget to consider the images more carefully.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
Your analysis is solid, but need to use the elements of the theory a little more carefully to prove your understanding.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [1]
Needs to take more opportunities to apply terminology. Construct, Ideology etc.
Levi-Strauss's theory of binary opposition highlights how media narratives simplify complex ideas through contrasting concepts, aiding audience identification and engagement. In the *Guardian* article on Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview, the headline juxtaposes “praise” and “vitriol,” framing a cultural divide and encouraging readers to sympathize with Meghan and Harry. The article reinforces this opposition by contrasting Serena Williams, a progressive and socially admired figure defending Meghan, with Piers Morgan, a polarizing UK critic, casting the UK as conservative attackers and the US as progressive defenders. This binary extends to broader cultural contrasts—America as diverse and individualistic versus Britain as traditional and conservative. The image of Meghan and Harry further symbolizes unity, with contrasting clothing colors reflecting societal divisions on race and identity, central to Meghan’s critiques of the royal family. Overall, the *Guardian* employs these oppositions to favor progressive, left-wing values, aligning its audience with Meghan and Harry in a perceived "culture war" between modernity and tradition.
ReplyDelete7/10 There is a clear indication that you can write very well, but you are leaving things unsaid that need to be clarified.
ReplyDelete1. Answer the question [2]
You were clearly focused on the social and cultural context.
2. Correctly characterise the theory [1]
You managed to do a really good job of outlining the theory in hardly any words, but you stripped away a little too much of the meaning. Read over one or two of the highest scoring versions.
3. Use specific and detailed examples [1]
A good range of examples from the text, but you need to be more detailed in describing them.
4. Apply the theory to the examples [1]
The analysis you have included is very good, but there is too little of it. You can't leave your examiner to do the work of analysing because they don't know what you are leaving unsaid.
5. Use Media Studies terminology [2]
Strong control of terminology.