Political Context Question:
Mark Scheme
1. Clearly answers the question - QUESTION [0,1,2]
2. Has a coherent argument throughout - COHERENT [0,1,2]
3. Uses a wide range of specific and detailed examples - EXAMPLES [0,1,2]
4. Analyses/Interprets every example - ANALYSE/INTERPRET [0,1,2]
5. Writes like a Media Studies student - TERMINOLOGY [0,1,2]
How do political contexts shape the way newspapers represent events, issues, and individuals? Refer to The Guardian/Guardian Online and The Daily Mail/Mail Online to support your answer.
Introduction: This could work for Historical, Cultural or Political context
The Daily Mail and The Guardian are both national institutions whose historical, cultural and political significance were established at their inception and have hardly changed over the last two centuries. The Guardian was founded in 1821 in response to the Peterloo massacre. It's liberal founders intended the paper to provide a voice for the marginalised and to hold the powerful to account. It has maintained its reputations for journalistic integrity and rigour ever since. Today, while it does still have an excellent reputation for largely unbiased journalism, it does also face some criticism for its tendency to support more left wing political positions. By contrasts, The Daily Mail, is unabashedly right leaning and conservative in its messaging and has been since its founding in 1896. In the 130 years since its first publication its owners and editors have maintained the stance that it does not actively support any political party, but rather that it serves its middle class readership, whose views have tended to align with the Conservative party. It is and has always been a politically populist publication and this has shaped its response to the representations of individuals, ideas and events.
SECTION 1: BREXIT
The three judges who 'blocked Brexit' | Daily Mail Online
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXl1s9XgAQl8sH?format=jpg&name=large
1st, Mark the example in the comments section.
2nd, Write your own example and then post in the comments section.
SECTION 2: COVID
#/media/File:Daily_Mail_-_Enemies_of_the_People.png){kind=link}
he Daily Mail: "Enemies of the People"
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail published one of its most famous and controversial front-page headlines in history, branding the three presiding High Court judges as "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE".
• The Stance: The paper furiously attacked the judiciary, claiming the ruling defied the democratic will of the 17.4 million British citizens who voted to leave the EU.
• The Framing: It singled out the judges personally, portraying the decision as an attempt by an out-of-touch, elitist legal establishment to block or frustrate Brexit.
📰 The Guardian: Defending the Rule of Law
In contrast, The Guardian focused its coverage on the critical importance of constitutional process and heavily condemned the tabloid backlash against the judges.
• The Stance: In its editorial, "The Guardian view on Brexit ruling," the paper argued that an independent judiciary is the vital bedrock of a democratic society.
• The Framing: The Guardian framed the High Court's ruling as a victory for parliamentary sovereignty. It strongly criticized the Daily Mail and other right-wing media outlets, calling their coverage a "hysterical" attack that threatened to undermine public confidence in the law. It also reported extensively on MPs and legal figures who called for the government to step in and defend the judges from media vitriol.
• Daily Mail: On November 4, 2016, the Daily Mail published a front-page splash with the headline "Enemies of the people" (written by James Slack and approved by editor Paul Dacre). It launched a fierce attack on the three senior High Court judges (Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales) who ruled that Parliament—and not the Prime Minister using royal prerogative powers—must vote to trigger Article 50. The paper also accused the judges of declaring a "war on democracy".
ReplyDelete• The Guardian: On November 4, 2016, The Guardian welcomed the High Court's ruling as a victory for parliamentary sovereignty, stating that unrestrained executive power cannot override the laws set by Parliament. In its editorial coverage and commentary, The Guardian strongly condemned the Daily Mail and other right-wing tabloids for launching a "vitriolic" and dangerous attack on the independence of the British judiciary, highlighting criticism from MPs and legal figures who argued that the attacks undermined the rule of law.
Daily Mail
ReplyDeleteThe unelected 'activist' judges who mounted a 'power grab': High Court trio who blocked Brexit are led by one who founded group dedicated to furthering European integration
Three of the country's most senior judges made the controversial ruling.
One is the country's top judge, who founded a European law group.
The ruling has ignited a row over how British judges are appointed.
Ukip politicians today accused the judiciary of a 'power grab'.
See more Daily Mail on Google - save us as a Preferred Source
By RICHARD SPILLETT FOR MAILONLINE
Published: 11:34, 3 November 2016 | Updated: 08:04, 4 November 2016
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/brexit-parliament-article-50-mps
ReplyDeleteThe ruling on article 50 is a huge opportunity. It would not be anti-democratic to try to stop what many other countries see as economic suicide
The most significant political event (or series of events) in the last 25 years is the ongoing coverage of the Brexit Vote and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline attacked High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, using incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. It's online content went a step further referring to the three high court judges as 'activist' and claiming that their actions were a 'power grab.' While this content was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, it was likely intended to engage the paper’s Pro Brexit, right-wing readership rather than reflect the personal views of the writer and editor.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, The Guardian’s headline on the same day read “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit” took a more neutral tone, aligning with its historical reputation for journalistic integrity and political neutrality. However, it is also notable that the Guardian's cover teases an Op Ed by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking 'havoc.' Her online article went so far as to suggest that Britain was 'on the Titanic' and that Boris Johnson was the Captain. While the Guardian can maintain that it operates within a position of political neutrality, it is clear that it has a globalist, pro European bias.
6
Delete1. QUESTION [1] - Issues, Events, Individuals
Delete2. COHERENT [1] - Make sure to reiterate the points that you made.
3. EXAMPLES [2] - Very clear and specific
4. ANALYSE/INTERPRET [2] - Needs to do this more explicitly. Connect interpretation to example.
5. TERMINOLOGY [1] - Encode, Decode, Target Audience, Ideology, Positioning, Preferred Read etc.
6/10
DeleteThe contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias.
DeleteFrom the start of The Guardian's establishment in 1821 (in response to the Peterloo massacre of 1819), The Guardian publication's sole purpose/identity was to hold the powerful to account and to deliver news with "rigour, truth and integrity", with a high standard for unbiased journalism. The Guardian took neutral tone, aligning with its historical reputation for journalistic integrity and political neutrality which The Guardian has stood by for many years. However, whilst upholding this unbiased tone, it is also notable that the Guardian's cover teases an Op Ed by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking 'havoc.' While the Guardian can maintain that it operates within a position of political neutrality, it is clear that it has a globalist, pro-European bias.
The Daily Mail’s political stance tends to map onto support of the conservative party, but this is only because its readership tends to support the conservative party. The Daily Mail has not changed since it began; its representation of political values or ideas is designed to appeal to its readers rather than to support any one specific political party. The headline attacked High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, using incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. While this content was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, it was likely intended to engage the paper’s Pro Brexit, right-wing readership rather than reflect the personal views of the writer and editor which is clear as Viscount Rothermere himself, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), keeps his politics out of the public eye.
6
ReplyDelete6/10
ReplyDeleteQUESTION - 1
COHERENT - 1
EXAMPLES - 2
ANALYSE/INTERPRET - 1
TERMINOLOGY - 1
The most significant political event (or series of events) in the last 25 years is the ongoing coverage of the Brexit Vote and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias and ideological positioning.. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline attacked High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, using incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. Its online content went a step further, referring to the three High Court judges as “activist” and claiming that their actions were a “power grab.” This language encodes a preferred reading that the judges were obstructing the democratic will of the British public, potentially appealing to the paper’s pro-Brexit, right-wing target audience. While this content was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, it was likely intended to reinforce the newspaper’s ideological position and engage its readership rather than simply reflect the personal views of the writer and editor.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, The Guardian’s headline on the same day, “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit,” took a more restrained tone, emphasising political instability and Parliament’s democratic role. However, it is also notable that The Guardian’s cover promoted an opinion piece by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking “havoc.” Her online article went so far as to suggest that Britain was “on the Titanic” and that Boris Johnson was the captain. It clearly represents Brexit as a disastrous decision in the field of politics and encourages the readers to cast doubts on Brexit supporters. While The Guardian claims to be politically objective, these cases show that it is ideologically biased towards liberalism and Europe. However, both papers reveal how media organizations use specific language to encode certain political messages to the audience.
One of the most significant political events of the last 25 years is Brexit and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on 4 November 2016 highlights how media framing reflects political bias. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline attacked High Court judges who ruled that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50. Its emotive language, imagery and online descriptions of the judges as “activist” and their decision as a “power grab” reinforced its pro-Brexit stance, representing the judiciary as obstructing democracy and positioning readers against the judges. Written by James Slack under editor Paul Dacre, this framing may have appealed to the paper’s right-wing, pro-Brexit target audience, although their personal motives cannot be assumed.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, The Guardian’s headline, “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit,” adopted a more restrained tone. However, its promotion of Polly Toynbee’s opinion article, which described Brexit as wreaking “havoc” and compared Britain to the Titanic, reveals a critical, pro-European perspective. This demonstrates how selection, language and representation can communicate ideological values even when news reporting appears neutral. Ultimately, both newspapers framed the same political event differently, reflecting contrasting editorial perspectives and influencing how audiences interpreted Brexit and its constitutional consequences.
this is a 10/10 essay from riley reynolds hope u enjoy.
9/10 - As with the previous one, missing issues, events and individuals - But definitely improved
DeleteThe most significant political event (or series of events) in the last 25 years is the ongoing coverage of the Brexit Vote and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias and how the newspapers choose to represent events, issues, and individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe guardian established in 1821 in response to the Peterloo massacre and historically has intended its identity/purpose to centre on holding powerful people and institutions to accounts – speaking truth to power. From its earliest incarnation the guardian values its journalistic rigour and integrity, and it highly values its reputation for unbiased reporting, and it retains this reputation to this very day. This means that the guardian tries to be politically neutral and critical of whichever party is in power, regardless of whether they're left wing or right wing. The Guardian’s headline on the 4th November 2016 day read “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit” took a more neutral tone, aligning with its historical reputation for journalistic integrity and political neutrality. However, it is also notable that the Guardian's cover teases an Op Ed by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking 'havoc.' Her online article went so far as to suggest that Britain was 'on the Titanic' and that Boris Johnson was the Captain. While the Guardian can maintain that it operates within a position of political neutrality, it is clear that it has a globalist, pro European bias, shaping its representation of events, issues and individuals within certain political contexts.
On the other hand, on the same day, The Daily Mail (founded in 1893, a populist newspaper targeting the growing middle classes) used the infamous headline “Enemies of the People” attacking High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50. It used incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. It's online content went a step further referring to the three high court judges as 'activist' and claiming that their actions were a 'power grab.' However, the daily mails political stance tends to map onto support of the conservative party, which is only because its readership tends to support the conservative party, so the daily mail's representation of events, issues and individuals does not change due to political context, but to the appeal of its readership. This representation is shown through the content that was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, and it was likely intended to engage the paper’s Pro Brexit, right-wing readership rather than reflect the personal views of the writer and editor.
8/10 - Missing Issues, Events and Individuals. Coherent, but gets a bit bogged down in wordiness and loses some clarity.
DeleteThe most significant political event (or series of events) in the last 25 years is the ongoing coverage of the Brexit Vote and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4th, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline attacked High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, using incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. It's online content went a step further referring to the three high court judges as 'activist' and claiming that their actions were a 'power grab.' While this content was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, it was likely intended to engage the paper’s Pro Brexit, right-wing readership rather than reflect the personal views of the writer and editor. This could be due to the fact the daily mail started off by appealing to their readers, and what they want to see, rather than supporting any specific political party. Ever since the newspaper’s founding in 1896, they seem to be very biased towards the conservative party, and their decisions surrounding Brexit. They have always claimed to be unbiased, however they have a right-leaning history.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, The Guardian’s headline on the same day read “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit” took a more neutral tone, aligning with its historical reputation for journalistic integrity and political neutrality. However, it is also notable that the Guardian's cover teases an Op Ed by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking 'havoc.' Her online article went so far as to suggest that Britain was 'on the Titanic' and that Boris Johnson was the captain. They disguised their opinion within hers, and used her article to voice what they really thought about the situation without facing backlash, or starting to obviously become quite biased. While the Guardian can maintain that it operates within a position of political neutrality, it is clear that it has a globalist, pro-European, left-wing bias. Ever since the founding of The Guardian in 1821, in response to the Peterloo massacre, they said they would hold powers into account and be unbiased. They partly stood by their values, as their stance of Brexit seemed neutral,
9/10 - Missing Issues, Events and Individuals. Meanders away from the point from time to time, but is close enough and clear enough to get 2/2 for being coherent.
DeleteThe most significant political event (or series of events) in the last 25 years is the ongoing coverage of the Brexit Vote and its aftermath. The contrasting coverage by The Daily Mail and The Guardian on November 4, 2016, highlights how media framing reflects political bias.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail, is unabashedly right leaning and conservative in its messaging and has been since its founding in 1896. In the 130 years since its first publication its owners and editors have maintained the stance that it does not actively support any political party, but rather that it serves its middle class readership, whose views have tended to align with the Conservative party and a right wing ideology. It is and has always been a politically populist publication and this has shaped its response to the representations of individuals, ideas and events. The Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline attacked High Court judges for ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50, using incendiary language and images of the judges to reinforce its pro-Brexit stance and attack the judiciary. The Daily Mail’s political context of supporting Brexit in their middle class target audience’s interest, uses the sensationalist headline with the word “enemies” to create a preferred meaning that the judges are against the middle-class, representing the event of trigger Article 50 as an attack against the middle class. It's online content went a step further referring to the three high court judges as 'activist' and claiming that their actions were a 'power grab.' While this content was written by James Slack and must have been approved by editor Paul Dacre, it was likely intended to engage the paper’s Pro Brexit, right-wing readership rather than reflect the personal views of the writer and editor.
The Guardian was founded in 1821 in response to the Peterloo massacre. It's liberal founders intended the paper to provide a voice for the marginalized and to hold the powerful to account. It has maintained its reputations for journalistic integrity and rigour ever since. Today, while it does still have an excellent reputation for largely unbiased journalism, it does also face some criticism for its tendency to support more left wing political positions. The Guardian’s headline on the same day read “Turmoil for May as judges rule that parliament must decide on Brexit” took a more neutral tone, aligning with its historical reputation for journalistic integrity and political neutrality. However, it is also notable that the Guardian's cover teases an Op Ed by Polly Toynbee, which accused Brexit of wreaking 'havoc.' Her online article went so far as to suggest that Britain was 'on the Titanic' and that Boris Johnson was the Captain. This shows that although the Guardian wish the remain informative and unbiased, their political context of having a left-wing ideology and being anti-Brexit is shown as they used Polly Toynbee’s quote to voice their own personal opinions, representing the event of Brexit to be a mistake, encoding a message that Brexit will cause chaos. While the Guardian can maintain that it operates within a position of political neutrality, it is clear that it has a globalist, pro European bias.
10/10 - This one does the lot.
Delete