Historical (and cultural) context question

THIS IS INTENDED TO TALK YOU THROUGH THE KIND OF THINGS YOU MIGHT WISH TO INCLUDE IN AN ESSAY ON HISTORY AND/OR CULTURE. YOU WOULD NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHICH PARTS WORKED FOR WHICH, BUT REMEMBER THAT HISTORY SHAPES CULTURE.

 

TITLE: EXPLAIN HOW CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS INFLUENCE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCERS WITHIN THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY.

REFER TO THE GUARDIAN AND THE DAILY MAIL TO SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER

NB: As you read through this essay, remember what you are meant to be looking for:

• Does it answer the question?
• Does it use specific and detailed evidence?
• Does it analyse the evidence?

THE BITS IN RED ARE INTENDED TO TALK YOU THROUGH THE THINKING PROCESS BEHIND THIS ESSAY.

So, in paragraph one, I am trying to show the examiner that I know about the history of the two newspapers.

Paragraph 1:

The Guardian and The Daily Mail’s relationships with their audiences are shaped by the historical context of their creation. The Guardian was founded in 1821 with the intention of promoting liberal values and holding government and powerful private interests to account. In 1872 CP Scott became the editor, pledging to uphold those values. In 1936, ownership was passed to the Scott Trust Ltd. whose trustees still protect the Guardian’s focus on journalistic integrity and speaking truth to power. The Daily Mail was founded in 1896, and by 1902 had the largest circulation of any newspaper in the world, likely because of its populist content, including an increasing focus on entertainment and a surprisingly progressive recognition of the potential market for female readers (it remains one of the only newspapers with a predominantly female readership). In 2024, The Guardian is still focused on journalistic integrity, while The Mail is intent on giving its audience what they want by appealing to their cultural values. <<<< Notice this last sentence (in bold). This is the core of my essay. I can defend it with evidence, but that doesn’t mean it is correct. You can adopt a different perspective if you think that the evidence points in a different direction. But whatever you choose, it needs to be consistent, even if you are reaching an ambiguous conclusion.

 

ANYWAY! By this point, I’m pretty sure that the examiner thinks I understand the founding and development of the papers (HISTORICAL CONTEXT), so now I need to focus on a culturally (and historically if possible) significant event to illustrate my understanding of how this is manifest today. It needs to come from evidence I have in my head. So, I could write about: 

• Brexit, 
• The Death of the Queen, 
• Attitudes to Immigration, 
• Second Lockdown,  
• BLM Rioting etc.

I’m going with Brexit as I can remember the evidence well and because it supports my argument.

 

Paragraph 2:

So how does this difference manifest in the 21st Century? One of the most historically significant events of the last 20 years was the Brexit vote. The Mail’s infamous ‘ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE’ (November 4th 2016) cover, was stridently right-wing, but the cultural context is very significant. Without doubt, the headline is intentionally incendiary, but writer James Slack likely intended it to be supportive of the readership’s pro-Brexit stance. So, we could argue that the paper is simply living up to the historical basic for its news agenda, by offering its middle class English readers a populist reading of the events of the day. The Guardian’s cover of the same day was measured, presenting a factual account of the judicial ruling, as is their historical position. However, like the Daily Mail, the Guardian is aware (and likely supports) its culturally progressive, left wing readership, and so the cover featured a call out to Polly Toynbe’s op-ed about Brexit wreaking ‘havoc.’ The Guardian is not averse to presenting left wing views, but the paper acknowledges that this is Toynbe’s opinion, not that of The Guardian, thereby defending its cultural and political neutrality and its historical reputation for journalistic integrity.

 

The two parts I have highlighted are referencing the core of the essay. For the sake of timing (word count) I have not called back to the core in a concluding sentence. If you have time, you can do that. For example:

So, in relation to Brexit, the historical position of the two papers remains intact, with the Guardian retaining it journalistic integrity and the Mail appealing to its reader’s cultural values.

 

By this point I have written just over 300 words. If I have to stop here I should still get 7 marks, because I’ve answered the question, used evidence FROM BOTH PAPERS to support my response and I’ve analysed the significance of my evidence. But I want to shoot for 10/10 or thereabouts, which means I need a third paragraph. So, I can write about another one of my list of significant events or I can take the opportunity to include something about The Internet. As you will see, I chose the latter.

 

Another culturally significant change in the 21st century has been the influence of the Internet. The cultural and historical context shapes the two paper’s reactions to these changing technological contexts. The Guardian online very closely resembles its print counterpart, using live updates, video content etc. to enhance its liberal messaging rather than allowing itself to become populist; moreover, its donation model seeks revenue without recourse to capitalist control. Its front screen even proclaims that it is seeking donations in order to avoid a “billionaire owner” and compromise its focus on journalistic rigour. Conversely, the content of the MailOnline is significantly different to its print counterpart. Some of its right-wing messaging is toned down and there is more attention paid to soft news and international news. But the influence of historical context is still on display. The MailOnline is aware that its readers are younger and that its circulation reaches a worldwide audience, hence their different cultural values. Evidence of this is visible in the way that it markets itself to Snapchat users; with more than 30 editors and a Snapchat subscriber count of around 15 million people it is clear that MailOnline understands that its youth audience is a vital demographic, while its print circulation makes no such attempt to capture younger readers.

As with the previous paragraph, I am letting the examiner do some of the work in connecting the core together for the sake of time/word count. However, if you are not comfortable with that - and there is a good reason not to be - you can give a minute to a final sentence.

 

As with Brexit, the historical position of the two papers remains intact with regard to the influence of the Internet; the Guardian retains its journalistic integrity and the Mail continues to focus on appealing to its readers’ cultural values.