SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT - LFTVD

 

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/social-and-historical-context-lftvdpptx-715c/267637586

NEWSPAPERS - CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL (AND MAYBE SOME SOCIAL)

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. ALSO, PLEASE KEEP READING ALL THE WAY TO THE END...

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

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

·         Answering the question

·         Using specific and detailed evidence

·         Analysing 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.

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. 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. 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 the only newspaper with a predominantly female readership). In 2023, 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 the last sentence. This is core of my essay. You should know this position very well by now. Remember, 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.

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 Lock Down, BLM Rioting etc.

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

So how does this difference manifest in the 21^st 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. 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 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 21^st century has been the influence of the Internet. The 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. So, its coverage of the Kardashians in 2023 is essentially the same process as its imperialist messaging during the Boer War; it has identified a subject that its audience (albeit online audience) perceive as culturally significant and is giving them what they want. 

As with the previous paragraph, I am letting the examiner do some of the work in connecting the core together. 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 appeal to its readers’ cultural values.

 

I HOPE THIS HELPS. 

NOW LETS HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS IF I CHANGE THE WORD CULTURAL TO SOCIAL

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

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

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

·         Answering the question

·         Using specific and detailed evidence

·         Analysing 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.

The Guardian and The Daily Mail’s relationships with their audiences are shaped by the social and historical context of their creation. The Guardian was founded in 1821 with the intention of promoting socially liberal values. 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. 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, appealing to the social values of its audience, including an increasing focus on entertainment and a surprisingly progressive recognition of the potential market for female readers (it remains the only newspaper with a predominantly female readership). In 2023, 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 the last sentence. This is core of my essay. You should know this position very well by now. Remember, 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.

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 SOCIALLY (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 Lock Down, BLM Rioting etc.

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

So how does this difference manifest in the 21^st 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 SOCIAL 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. 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 SOCIALLY 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 SOCIAL  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 SOCIAL 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 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 SOCIALLY significant change in the 21^st century has been the influence of the Internet. The 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, UNTIL RECENTLY?  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 SOCIAL values. So, its coverage of the Kardashians in 2023 is essentially the same process as its imperialist messaging during the Boer War; it has identified a subject that its audience (albeit online audience) perceive as culturally SOCIALLY significant and is giving them what they want. 

As with the previous paragraph, I am letting the examiner do some of the work in connecting the core together. 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 appeal to its readers’ cultural SOCIAL values.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT - NEWSPAPER QUESTION

Discuss the way that historical context shapes the way that audiences respond to different stories in newspapers. 

Historical context plays a significant role in shaping the ways audiences respond to stories in different newspapers, particularly when considering outlets like The Guardian and The Daily Mail, which have distinct editorial stances and reader demographics.

The Daily Mail was established in 1896, and has traditionally taken a more right wing political stance, in keeping with its middle England readership. In a 2004 interview with the Independent, owner Jonathan Harmsworth, identified this as the ongoing priority of the paper, suggesting that their social and political stance may have changed over its 100 year (or so) history, but that its desire to serve its readers has not. Throughout its history, The Daily Mail has often reflected and amplified prevailing societal attitudes and anxieties, particularly around topics such as immigration, crime, and national identity. Its response to the historically significant felling of the statue of Colston that took place during the Summer of 2020 exemplifies this, with the cover proclaiming this event as ‘Lawless and Reckless’ and evoking the figure of Churchill to demonstrate its allegiance to its conservative readers and to the importance of British history. Given Harmsworth's assurance that his ownership of the newspaper has no impact on its editorial stance and that his editor (at the time Paul Dacre) has full editorial freedom to serve their readers, it seems very likely that the readership of The Mail will have responded negatively to this historical event, in line with the papers reporting. Moreover, their consistent messaging reinforces the idea that they are fully aware of their audience's right wing response. For example, their cover following the death of Queen Elizabeth was deeply patriotic and its headline "Our hearts are broken" suggested complete value alignment with its readership regarding this historical event.

Conversely, the Guardian was founded in 1821 as a response to the Peterloo Massacre in 1819 and since then, has consistently positioned itself as a liberal voice, advocating for progressive causes, social justice and holding government to account. The newspaper's editorial stance has been shaped by key historical events and its audience has a reputation for being political left-leaning, interested in global affairs, liberal and educated. As such, stories in The Guardian are often framed from a perspective that emphasises liberal values or political neutrality. For example, their reportage of the incident that took place during the historic BLM protests of 2020, simply presented the now famous image of the incident, while their lead story held the government accountable following an accusation of ‘ignorance’ on UK racism. So, we can see that the Guardian manages maintaining its reputation for unbiased journalism and its liberal dedication to holding the powerful to account. Even its reporting of the death of the queen maintained its political neutrality, with its front cover simply presenting an image of her coronation and the dates of her life. Even with an historical event as seemingly unifying as the death of the monarch, the Guardian holds to its unbiased messaging allowing its audience to make up their own minds. 

Clearly, historical context shapes the content of both papers, but their response remains consistent; the Guardian are focused on their ongoing mission to provide a liberal voice that speaks truth to power, while maintaining its reputation for neutrality, while the Daily Mail continue to give their audience the kind of commentary that reinforces their right wing values.