Girne American University

News Media and Ideology in the UK By Associate Professor Dr Richard Rooney

A paper presented at a lecture series organised by the

Communication Faculty, Girne American University, Turkish

Republic of Northern Cyprus, on 22 February 2010 and delivered at

the Senate Hall, GAU.

2

Introduction

Within the next four months there must be a general election in the United Kingdom. As in

all previous elections in the modern era the news media will play a crucial role in informing

the public of developments in the election campaign.

This is therefore a good time to examine the UK media’s ideological role and they ways in

which they can attempt to shape public opinion.

The media have an integral part to play in the functioning of democracy and some observers

argue that by providing increasing amounts of political news and opinion they have an effect

of educating and mobilizing citizens politically. Others argue the opposite and say that the

mass media do not educate but entertain and create political confusion and fatigue and are

responsible for creating a sense of political withdrawal and apathy among the electorate

(Sparks, 1995, 45, Brynin and Newton 2003, 59-60).

Then there is the question of effects. Do the media affect the voting behaviour of readers and

viewers? On this question the jury is still out.

In the UK there is a clear distinction between news broadcasting and the written press.

Broadcasting is impartial in its coverage of news and current affairs and in particular in its

coverage of the political scene. Newspapers on the other hand are partial and tend (especially

at election time) to support one or other of the UK’s two main political parties.

My presentation today begins by examining the media landscape in the UK and by explaining

the market for broadcasting and print media. It then looks at the structure and organisation of

media ownership and in the case of newspapers, how economic imperatives and the desire of

media owners to make profits drive editorial content and presentation.

There then follows a discussion on how the UK broadcasting’s commitment to public service

places impartiality at the centre of news and current affairs reporting.

I then look at national daily and Sunday newspapers in the UK and which of the UK’s two

main political parties they have supported in the past.

I will suggest that the national press in the UK is partial but although this is clear, it is less

clear that they affect how people vote at elections.

Media landscape of the United Kingdom

Let me start with the media landscape in the UK. The media sector is relatively open, with

participants from many countries active in almost all aspects – newspapers, television,

magazines, radio, film, books, advertising, music and public relations. At the same time, UK

media organisations have interests in many parts of the world (Bromley, 2005).

The most distinguishing characteristic of the written press is the existence of a large national

newspaper sector, comprised of ten daily and ten Sunday titles. In November 2009, the total

sales of national newspapers were a little more than 10 million per day for newspapers

published Monday to Saturday and just fewer than 10 million for those published only on

Sundays (ABC, 2009). Since, on average, more than one person reads each copy of a

3

newspaper purchased these circulation figures translate into readerships of about 25 million

people per day for daily and Sunday papers. (The UK adult population stands at 47.5

million). Compared with newspaper purchases elsewhere in Europe, this places the UK

neither at the very top, nor at the very bottom, but somewhere in the middle, of the newspaper

purchasing league table.

While, in many respects, the UK media landscape is a single entity, there are distinctive

English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh dimensions, reflecting the composition of the UK itself

(Bromley, 2005). The effect of this is that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their

own distinct newspapers which are published regionally and concentrate on news and

features from within those countries. In addition, editions of the national newspapers based in

London are available in these territories.

The distinctive characteristic of the UK newspaper market is a dominant national press based

in London, even though regional and local newspapers comprise 98% of titles in circulation –

most of these are weekly newspapers circulating in relatively small communities.

The entire national newspaper press is owned by eight companies, of which the largest two

(News International and Daily Mail and General Trust) had 55% of market share in 2005.

With Trinity Mirror (16%) and Northern and Shell (14.5%), the top four owners control 85%

of the market. A similar concentration of ownership is evident in the regional and local press.

Newspaper sales are generally declining and have been for more than 40 years (Bromley,

2005)

This national press is commonly divided into three sectors – ‘quality’, ‘middle market’ and

‘tabloid’

The ‘quality’ newspapers – e.g. the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent -

are generally considered the most prestigious and trusted of media outlets (Davies, 2008, 4;

Sparks, 1991).They have the smallest circulations among the national newspapers but are

read by people of considerable cultural influence who are mostly in professional or

managerial occupations. These newspapers are the closest in the UK national newspaper

market to the newspapers that, according to the classical ‘public sphere’ model of Habermas,

should contain information and other material that help citizens learn about the world, debate

their responses to it and reach informed decisions about what courses of action to adopt

(Rooney, 1998,102; Habermas 1989).

In normal circumstances modern UK newspapers that devote the greater part of their content

to entertainment are more successful at gaining large audiences than those that are devoted to

public enlightenment. As a consequence UK newspapers have to varying degrees developed

their entertainment functions to at least as great an extent as their public sphere ones (Sparks,

1995, 54).

The tabloid or non-serious press – e.g. the Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Star - have the

largest market among national daily newspapers (Rooney, 1998, 96) and are read mainly by

people in skilled and unskilled occupations and clerical workers. These newspapers place the

private sphere before the public, in such a way the personal lives of people become an

increasing point of editorial competition, as does crime, sex, sport, personalities,

entertainment and pictures (Rooney, 1998; Rooney, 2000; Connell 1998).

4

As their name suggest, the mid-market newspapers – e.g. the Daily Mail and the Daily

Express - fall somewhere between the two tabloid (non-serious) and quality (serious). They

have a greater concentration on hard news than the tabloids, but still rely heavily on a news

diet of crime, sport, personalities and consumerist features.

The magazine sector which is outside the scope of this presentation is large and expanding.

There is an estimated number of 8,800-10,000 titles, the two-third of which are ‘business and

professional’ titles, the rest are ‘consumer’ magazines (Bromley, 2005). Many of these

periodicals are not available to the general public and are given away free of charge to

members of specific business or occupational communities.

Table 1 and Table 2 give details of the circulations of the daily and the Sunday national

newspapers. They demonstrate the huge circulation advantage that the non-serious tabloids

have on the serious / quality press. The Daily Star, the least successful in circulation terms of

the daily tabloids selling 823,000 copies a day comfortably exceeds the sale of the Daily

Telegraph (744,000), the best selling of the quality newspapers.

The second most successful daily newspaper in circulation terms is the Daily Mail – a mid-

market newspaper. It is only in recent years that the Mail has overtaken the Daily Mirror as

the UK’s second best selling newspaper. There are a number of reasons for this change in

fortunes that are outside of the scope of this presentation, but one major factor for the Mail’s

success, according to Nick Davies, is the willingness of the Daily Mail’s owners to invest

resources in the editorial department at a time when its rivals are doing the exact opposite

Davies, 2008 357-390). As a consequence of this investment the Mail’s circulation has risen,

while its rivals’ have fallen.

The circulation patterns of the Sunday titles are similar to the dailies with the tabloid News of

the World (owned by Rupert Murdoch, as is the Sun) leading the pack, with the Mail on

Sunday (a stablemate of the Daily Mail) in second place. Unusually for the UK newspaper

market, a quality newspaper, the Sunday Times, commands a readership greater than most of

the tabloids. The Sunday Times (also owned by Murdoch) has pursued a policy to expand

readership based on increasing the non-serious editorial in the newspaper (Davies, 2008,

328).

5

TABLE 1. Circulations of UK national daily newspapers, November 2009

Title by market sector Circulation (in thousands)

Tabloid

Sun 2,958

Daily Mirror 1,260

Daily Star 823

Mid-Market

Daily Mail 2,148

Daily Express 685

Quality

Daily Telegraph 744

Times 563

Financial Times 401

Guardian 305

Independent 186

Source: ABC / guardian.co.uk, adapted by author.

TABLE 2 Circulations of UK national daily newspapers, November 2009

Title by market sector Circulation (in thousands)

Tabloid

News of the World 2,923

Sunday Mirror 1,148

The People 533

Daily Star Sunday 354

Mid Market

Mail on Sunday 2,071

Sunday Express 594

Quality

Sunday Times 1,171

Sunday Telegraph 577

The Observer 372

Independent on Sunday 156

Source: ABC / guardian.co.uk, adapted by author.

Television

The major defining characteristic of the UK broadcasting media is the existence of a strong

public service broadcaster, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). Supported by a

6

universal compulsory television licence fee, the BBC is a major force in both radio and

television (Bromley, 2005).

The terrestrial commercial channels (mostly those owned by ITV: Independent Television,

but also Channel 4 and Five) also have a public service remit, but this has been eroded in

recent years by commercial considerations in the face of increased competition from satellite

and cable channels.

Even so, a basic legal ‘public service’ requirement that all television channels should be

impartial in news and current affairs coverage when it comes to matters of controversy still

holds firm. This also applies to satellite news channels based in the UK.

Satellite television was slow to take off in the UK but as of March 2009 the take-up of

multichannel television in UK households stands at 89.6% (Ofcom, 2009). BSkyB, controlled

by Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, is the major satellite provider with around 9.4 million

homes connected (Sky News, 2009).

Radio

The BBC operates five national radio stations; another five digital-only stations; the World

Service; regional stations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (including stations

broadcasting in Welsh and Scots), and 30 local stations (Bromley, 2005).

There are also about 300 commercial radio stations with the vast majority being local.

Online media

All significant media have online presences, a trend started in 1994 with the Electronic

Telegraph followed by Guardian Unlimited, whose site has made the paper the most widely

read in the world. BBC Online is one of the world’s most visited sites. BBC Online has

almost 10 million unique users and Guardian Unlimited more than a million (Bromley, 2005).

Structure and organisation of media ownership

I want now to turn my attention to the structure and organisation of media ownership in the

UK. Starting with the press and then going on to talk about broadcasting.

(i) The Press:

A major issue of the debate on the press in the UK has been whether or not the structure and

organisation of the press allows a variety of views to be heard, a situation necessary for

democratic political debate (Sparks, 1999, 41).

At their centre, newspapers are commercial concerns seeking to maximise profits by selling

copies of newspapers, and advertising space within them, to the largest number of people

possible (Rooney, 1998, 96).

Colin Sparks puts it bluntly,

7

‘Newspapers in Britain are first and foremost businesses. They do not exist to report

the news, to act as watchdogs for the public, to be a check on the doings of

government, to defend the ordinary citizen against abuses of power, to unearth

scandals or to do any of the other fine and noble things that are sometimes claimed for

the press. They exist to make money, just as any other business does. To the extent

that they discharge any of the public functions, they do so in order to succeed as

businesses’ (Sparks, 1999, 45-46).

As Brian McNair notes, the fact that most journalistic media are constituted as large and

lucrative capitalist enterprises means that they tend to support existing power structures in

their output. They are part of the supporting ideological apparatus of capitalism using their

media to reproduce and reinforce the values of free enterprise, profit and the market. The

cultural power of the media is harnessed to the maintenance of certain ideological and

political conditions, from which the health of the media enterprise derives (McNair, 1998,

103).

The press in the UK is stridently political, but they are not party newspapers in the formal

sense (Sparks, 1995, 45). The tradition of politically-owed newspapers is weak and there has

not since the closure of the Daily Herald in 1964 been a formally Labour newspaper in the

UK and there has never been a formally Communist newspaper (with the exception of the

Morning Star and the its predecessor the Daily Worker which have pitifully small circulations

and cannot be considered as ‘mass’ newspapers. The Morning Star officially abandoned

support of the Communists in 1988). There have been no direct subsidies either from political

parties or from partisan individuals, or indirectly from the state that have sustained a political

press as in much of the rest of Europe (Sparks, 1999, 45).

In the UK journalism is a private property, media companies are owned by individuals and

conglomerates and they are free to dispose of this property as they like within the law

(McNair, 1998, 101). The one exception to this model is the BBC which is state funded. Most

media owners have right of centre political views and put their newspapers in the service of

conservative ideological causes - this may not mean necessarily that they always support the

UK Conservative Party, but they tend only to support the UK Labour Party when it is led

from the political centre as in the case of Tony Blair’s ‘new’ Labour (McNair, 1998, 101).

(ii) Broadcasting:

While newspapers in the UK are partial, broadcasting is not.

News and current affairs reporting in UK broadcasting affirms to the public service remit of

‘impartiality.’ The UK, in effect invented the concept of public service broadcasting (PSB),

when the British Broadcasting Company - later Corporation - (BBC) was launched in 1922.

PSB goes beyond just the concept of impartial reporting to include providing information,

entertainment and education for people of all ages and social groups. It plays an active role in

presenting and promoting national culture and can contribute to strengthening notions of

identity and community and establish adequate interaction between citizens and their

immediate wider communities (Rumphorst, 2003, 74; Yaakob, 2003, 96) Rooney, 2000).

8

Over the years the ideology of ‘public service’ has played an active role in underpinning both

programme making practice and the structure of the system in the UK (Holland 2003).

Today, the BBC in its own declaration of editorial values states with justification that it is

‘independent of both state and partisan interests’. It says its decisions ‘are influenced neither

by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests’ (BBC, 2005, 7).

In news and current affairs specifically, the BBC states that it is committed to delivering the

highest editorial standards in the provision of its programming which balances ‘our rights to

freedom of expression and information with our responsibilities’ (BBC, 2005, 6-7).

Its guidelines require BBC journalists to be ‘fair and open minded and reflect all significant

strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views’. Journalists must be

‘objective and even handed’ in the approach to a subject.

The BBC recognises that at election times it has a particular responsibility to ensure news

judgements ‘are made within a framework of democratic debate which ensures that due

weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies of all

parties’ (BBC, 2005, 97).

The way in which due accuracy and impartiality is achieved between parties will vary. It may

be done in a single item, a single programme, a series of programmes or over the course of

the campaign as a whole (BBC, 2005 98).

The fact that broadcasting is impartial is important because viewers in the UK rely heavily on

television for news and information at election times. A survey of viewers attitudes to

television coverage of most recent UK General Election in 2005 undertaken by Ofcom (an

independent organisation which regulates the UK’s broadcasting, telecommunications and

wireless communications sectors) found that a range of different sources were used to obtain

information on political issues, but television in general (four-fifths of respondents), and

news programmes in particular (around one-half) were named as the main sources. Radio and

national newspapers also came narrowly behind party campaign material, local newspapers,

and conversations with other people (Ofcom, 2005, 4-10).

In common with previous research carried out by the Independent Television Commission,

television was claimed to be the medium of choice for gathering information on political

issues by a majority of the population. Over four-fifths of all adults in the survey claimed

they used television as a source of information on political issues.

Respondents reported that television coverage explained issues either quite (55%) or very

well (14%), and the majority believed that news coverage of the Election was fair, accurate,

balanced, informative and impartial.

BBC1's coverage was rated the most accurate, interesting and informative of all channels.

Although electors say that television is the medium they use and trust the most that is not the

same as saying TV is the medium that has influenced them the most. As Ivor Gaber notes

correctly, researchers still do not know the extent to which television or other news media

play a decisive role in determining voting behaviour. There is evidence that television fulfils

an important role in determining what issues people think about – an agenda-setting role –

9

but it does not prove that it determines what conclusions people reach about those particular

issues (Gaber, 2005, 28).

Newspaper coverage of general elections

I want to say more about how newspapers in the UK cover general elections. Unlike UK

broadcasters, most national newspapers in the UK take an explicit party political position;

making it clear in their editorials and sometimes in their reporting of the news as well, which

party they support (Brynin and Newton, 2005, 63).

At this point it might be useful to say something about the UK political structure. The voting

system (the first-past-the-post) favours two main political parties, the Conservative Party and

the Labour Party and one or other of these parties usually wins enough seats in parliament to

form a government on its own. There have been no coalition governments in the UK since the

end of the Second World War in 1945. The Conservative Party won the elections in 1979,

1983, 1987 and 1992. The Labour Party won in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

At general election time a national newspaper will declare support for either the

Conservatives or Labour. In rare cases a newspaper will not endorse any party. Rarer still

does a newspaper support the Liberal Democrats, the UK’s ‘third’ party, which regularly

wins seats in parliament but has no chance of forming a government.

From an overwhelmingly pro-Conservative editorial bias in the general election of 1992, the

UK’s national newspapers had moved to Labour five years later, backing Tony Blair in both

the 1997 and 2001 elections (Labour received 62 per cent and 56 per cent of editorial support

in 1997 and 2001 respectively). Even Rupert Murdoch, Labour’s scourge before Blair’s

emergence as leader, had learned to love the Left, or at least the version of it represented by

New Labour (McNair, 2002, 43).

In election campaigns since Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory for the Conservatives, most

newspapers endorsed the winning party. Thatcher’s electoral success cemented a relationship

between her party and the so-called ‘Tory press’. These papers remorselessly attacked

Labour and its leadership. Conservative victories in 1987 and 1992 led some observers to

conclude that the press might have a certain degree of influence over voter attitudes (Linton,

1995).

Like the outcome of the election itself (in which the Labour Party won the largest majority in

parliament in modern times) the pattern of press realignment during the 1997 election was

dramatic. Once Conservative papers now supported the seemingly invincible Tony Blair’s

Labour. At the very least, this removed a public impediment to Labour. During the 2001

election press support for the party actually increased (Wring, 2002).

The press support for Labour continued into the 2001 and 2005 elections. As Table 3 and

Table 4 show, Labour was supported by most of the UK national press at both elections. An

unusual distinction in these elections was the lack of support given to the Conservatives.

Even the historically staunchly Conservative Daily Mail could not bring itself to offer

endorsements, preferring instead only to tell its readers not to vote Labour. There seems to be

a tendency in the UK for newspapers to support the winning party at election time, which

perhaps tells us that the newspapers are following public opinion rather than leading it. As

election results for 2001 and 2005 showed the Conservatives were a long way off (and in

10

2001, a very long way off) having the support of the electorate. In some cases it seems that

newspapers did not want to be seen to be too far out of step with their readers.

TABLE 3 Partisanship and circulation of national daily newspapers at the general

elections of 2005 and 2001. Preferred

winner Circulation (000s)

Readership (000s)

2005 (2001)

TABLOIDS Sun

Labour victory

(Labour) 3098 (3288)

8825 (9591)

Daily Mirror Labour victory

(Labour) 1602 (2056)

4657 (5733)

Daily Star Labour victory

(Labour) 735 (585)

1965 (1460)

MID MARKET Daily Mail

Not a Labour victory

(Not Labour)

2278 (2337)

5740 (5564)

Daily Express Conservative victory

(Labour) 884 (929)

2132 (2168)

QUALITY Daily Telegraph

Conservative victory

(Conservative) 868 (989)

2181 (2235)

Times Labour victory (Labour) 654 (667)

1655 (1575)

Guardian Labour victory

(Labour) 327 (362)

1068 (1024)

Independent More Liberal Democrats

(Not the Conservatives)

226 (197)

643 (571)

Financial Times Labour victory (Labour) 132 (176)

453 (598)

Source: University of Essex

11

TABLE 4 Partisanship and circulation of national Sunday newspapers qat the general

elections of 2005 and 2001.

Preferred Winner

Circulation Readership

2005 (2001) (000s) (000s)

TABLOIDS News of the World

Labour victory

(Labour victory)

3417

9490

Sunday Mirror

Labour victory (Labour victory) 1441 4851

The People

Labour victory (Labour victory) 870 2217

MID MARKET Mail on Sunday

Not Labour

(Conservative victory)

2336

6329

Sunday Express Conservative victory

(Labour victory) 866 2214

QUALITY Sunday Times

Conservative victory

(Labour victory)

1197

3272

Observer Labour victory

(Labour victory) 405 1163

Sunday Telegraph

Conservative victory

(Conservative victory)

660 2045

Independent on Sunday

Increased representation for Liberal Democrats

(Labour victory) 176 666

Source: University of Essex

Discussion and conclusions

I think I have shown beyond doubt that the UK press are partisan when it comes to political

coverage at election times and that they display a distinct political ideology. What we must

now consider is whether this obvious partisanship has any discernible effect on the readers.

I think it is fair to say that the evidence one way or another is inconclusive.

Certainly, in contrast to the broadcast media, who in the UK are restrained by an obligation to

be objective, the press are aware of their ability to contribute to public opinion and perceive

one of their roles is to give an opinion (McNair, 1999).

But it is almost impossible to prove a clear cause-and-effect relationship between media and

public opinion, even though as key opinion leaders and agenda setters, the media occupy a

potentially powerful place in political debate (Firmstone, 2003, 4).

12

In the 1997 General Election for example a Labour Government was elected for the first time

since 1979 and there were claims (and counter claims) that the press had an influence in this

shift in voting behaviour. As Brian McNair notes, on the one hand some argued that the press

affected the electorate’s decision to change political parties. On the other hand, some

observers assert the newspaper coverage only reflected a shift in voting intensions that

already existed. But if it was the second case, what part did the press play in facilitating those

shifts? (McNair, 1998, 102).

What can be easily demonstrated is that not all parts of the political spectrum gets a fair

hearing in the press. The UK labour movement has been consistently marginalised,

denigrated, and abused by the press, despite its social conservatism, democratic credentials

and enduring popular support. Despite the wishes of the electorate expressed in general

elections over the years (45% consistently, with the exception of the 1983 election), the UK

Labour Party had never, until the election of 1997, received anything like a corresponding

share of press support (McNair, 1998, 105).

It is not only the labour movement that gets marginalised. Ordinary or suppressed people

rarely get their opinions aired at election time or any other (Hardman, 2008 24 – 26).

Some UK newspapers believe they do have an important influence on their readers at election

time.

Most famous of these is the Sun newspaper, the UK’s biggest selling tabloid. It has since its

launch in 1969 variously supported the Labour and Conservative parties. During the

premiership of Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1990, the Sun was the leading cheerleader for

Mrs Thatcher’s brand of rightwing Conservatism.

In 1992, John Major, Mrs Thatcher’s successor as leader of the Conservative Party and UK

Prime Minister, had a surprise victory at the General Election. The Sun newspaper which

vigorously supported the Conservatives at the time claimed triumphantly IT WAS THE SUN

WOT WON IT for the Conservatives.

What the Sun meant was that the editorial support it gave to the Conservatives during the

election campaign swung enough of its readers to vote for the Conservatives to give them

victory.

This claim by the Sun has since 1992 given it a privileged position in political discourse in

the UK. No party, the Sun would say, can win an election without its support.

Of course, the reality is not so simple. Opinion pollsters and academics have disproved the

Sun’s claim that it had a significant effect in voter behaviour in the 1992 election as, among

Sun readers, Conservative and Labour support rose by more or less the same amount over the

course of the 1992 campaign (Curtis, 2001). Even though the evidence doesn’t support the

Sun’s claim, even today, politicians believe they must court the Sun’s support if they are to

have success at the election.

The Labour Party leadership took the supposed power of the Sun sufficiently seriously to

devote considerable effort during the course of the 1992-7 parliament to persuading the

paper’s staff and above all its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, that ‘New Labour’ was a party

they could back (Curtis, 1999).

13

In 1997, the Sun backed Labour – as did the majority of the UK national press. According to

John Curtis, the Sun’s change of allegiance was simply the most dramatic of a number of

such changes amongst the UK’s newspapers in 1997. Although The Star had not formally

endorsed the Conservatives in 1992, their coverage was strongly pro-Conservative; in 1997

the newspaper backed Labour. The Independent switched from being neutral in 1992 to

backing Labour in 1997, albeit also calling for a tactical vote for the Liberal Democrats

where appropriate. Meanwhile, instead of backing the Tories as they had done in 1992, The

Times encouraged its readers to back candidates who were hostile to the European Union of

whatever partisan persuasion. Overall, during the 1997 campaign more than twice as many

people were reading a newspaper that backed Labour as were reading one that supported the

Conservatives. The traditional Conservative advantage amongst the press was dramatically

broken for the first time in post-war UK politics (Curtis 1999).

The Sun also thinks it is a major player in the forthcoming election. In September 2009, it

announced it would not support the present Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the next

election and began a campaign of hostile reporting against Brown. The Sun’s shift in

allegiance may, however, be an example of the newspaper following its readers since opinion

polls suggest 42% of Sun readers back the Conservatives, against 29% supporting Labour

(Observer, 2009)

So, we can see the UK press is partisan, but does this matter? Do readers make their political

choices based on what their newspapers tell them to do?

Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw discovered in the 1960s that the power of the news

media to set a nation’s agenda, to focus public attention on a few key public issues, is an

immense influence. Not only do people acquire factual information about public affairs from

the news media, readers and viewers also learn how much importance to attach to a topic on

the basis of the emphasis placed on it in the news (McCombs and Shaw, 1972).

Newspapers provide a host of cues about the salience of the topics in the daily news – lead

story on page one, other front page display, large headlines, etc. Television news also offers

numerous cues about salience – the opening story on the newscast, length of time devoted to

the story, etc. These cues repeated day after day effectively communicate the importance of

each topic. In other words, the news media can set the agenda for the public’s attention to that

small group of issues around which public opinion forms (McCombs and Shaw, 1972).

That is the classic model of ‘agenda setting’, but what is the evidence that it this theory

applies to UK general elections?

Malcolm Brynin and Kenneth Newton, examining the UK general elections of 1992 and

1997, found that other things being equal, the UK press has a direct, measureable and

statistically significant association with voting turnout, just as it has an association with party

voting. They also found that the Conservative dominated press did not so much help the

Conservatives as it disadvantages Labour (Brynin and Newton, 2003, 79).

However, Pippa Norris, in her study of the 2005 general election, could not find ‘a clear-cut

and unambiguous answer’ to whether any particular media or other communication channel

was more influential in affecting voter behaviour than any other (Norris, 2005).

14

So where does that leave us?

I’m with McCombs and Shaw, the architects of the agenda setting theory. They remind us

that although the influence of the media agenda can be substantial, it alone does not

determine the public agenda. Although the media has a substantial influence, they have not

overturned or nullified the basic assumption of democracy that the people at large have

sufficient wisdom to determine the course of their nation, their state, and their local

communities.

In particular, the people are quite able to determine the basic relevance – to themselves and to

the larger public arena – of the topics and attributes advanced by the news media. The media

set the agenda only when citizens perceive their news stories as relevant (McCombs and

Shaw, 1972).

As it is with the news agenda, so it is with the political agenda. Despite the partisan press,

democracy is safe in the UK.

REFERENCES

Audit Bureau of Circulations (2009), circulations, national newspapers, in the Guardian 11

December 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2009/dec/11/abcs-national-

newspapers1 retrieved 1 February 2010.

Anon (2009), BSkyB Posts Healthy Profits After HD Boost, Sky News online 30 July 2009

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/BSkyB-Announces-Rise-In-Subscribers-And-

Full-Year-Profits-Of-780m/Article/200907415349281?f=rss) retrieved 16 February 2010.

Anon (2009), The Sun is not leading its readers away from Labour but following them, in

The Observer, 4 October 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/04/sun-labour-

desertion-follows-readership/print retrieved 16 February 2010.

BBC (2005) Editorial Values. British Broadcasting Corporation,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/editorialvalues/ retrieved 1

February 2010.

Bromley M. (2005), The Media Landscape – United Kingdom, European Journalism Centre,

http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/united_kingdom/ retrieved 5 February 2010.

Brynin M. and K. Newton (2003), ‘The National Press and Voting Turnout: British General

Elections of 1992 and 1997’, Political Communication 20: 59-77.

Connell I. (1998), ‘Mistaken Identities: Tabloid and Broadsheet News Discourse’, Javnost /

The public, 5, 3: 11 – 31.

Curtis J. (1999), Was it the Sun wot won it again? The influence of newspapers in the 1997

election campaign, Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends, Working Paper

Number 75, September 1999

15

Curtis J. (2001), No, it wasn't 'The Sun'. Newspaper support makes no difference to votes, in

The Guardian, 9 March 2001, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-it-wasnt-

the-sun-newspaper-support-makes-no-difference-to-votes-695366.html retrieved 16 February

2010.

Davies N. (2008), Flat Earth News, London: Chatto & Windus.

Firmstone J. (2003). ‘Britain in the Euro?’: British newspaper editorial coverage of the

introduction of the Euro, Centre for European Political Communications, European Political

Communication Working Paper Series, Issue 5/03, 2003.

Gaber I, (2005), ‘Dumb and dumber: does TV count?’, British Journalism Review, 16, 1: 24-

28.

Habermas J. (1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Hardman D. (2008), Political Ideology and Identity in British Newspaper Discourse, Ph.D

Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK, http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/601/ retrieved 2

February 2010.

Holland P. (2003), Conceptual Glue: Public service broadcasting as practice, system and

ideology, paper presented to MIT3 Television in Transition, MIT Cambridge Massachusetts

US, http://web.mit.edu/cms/mit3/papers/holland.pdf retrieved 6 February 2010.

Linton M. (1995), ‘Was it the Sun wot won it?’, Seventh Guardian Lecture, Nuffield College,

30 October 1995.

McCombs M.E. and Shaw D. L. (1972) ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of the Press’, Public

Opinion Quarterly, 36: 176-87.

McNair B. (1998), The Sociology of Journalism. London, Arnold.

McNair B. (2002), ‘What a difference a decade makes’, British Journalism Review, 13, 3: 42-

48

Norris P. (2005), Did the Media Matter? Persuasion, Priming and Mobilization Effects in the

2005 British General Election Campaign, paper presented at the annual conference of the

Elections, Parties and Public Opinion group of the PSA (EPOP) University of Essex 9-11

September 2005 retrieved 17 February 2010.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/EPOP%202005%20Did%20the%20Media%2

0Matter.pdf

Ofcom (2005), Viewers and Voters: Attitudes to television coverage of the 2005 General

Election, Ofcom, Office of Communications,

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/election/ retrieved 3 February 2010.

Ofcom, (2009) Digital television uptake 2009 retreived 15 February 2010

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dtv/dtu_2009_01/

16

Rooney R. (1998), ‘The Dynamics of the British Tabloid Press, Javnost / The Public, 5, 3:

95–107.

Rooney R (2000), ’Thirty Years of Competition in the British Tabloid Press: The Mirror and the Sun

1968 – 1998’, in Sparks C. and J. Tollouch (eds), Tabloid Tales, Global Debates Over Media

Standards, Lanham and Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield, pp.91-110.

Rooney R. (2006), ‘Revitializing Radio With Community Emphasis’, in (Eds.) I.Banejee and

K. Seneviratne (eds), Public Service Broadcasting in the Age of Globalization, Singapore:

Asian Media Information and Communication Centre / Nanyang Technological University,

pp. 327 -342.

Rumphorst, W. (2003). What is Public Service Broadcasting? In S. Eashwar (Ed.), Responses

to Globalization and the Digital Divide in the Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Asia-Pacific

Institute for Broadcasting,

Sparks C. (1991), ‘Goodbye Hildy Johnson: The vanishing serious press’. in P. Dahlgren and

C. Sparks (eds), Communication and Citizenship, Journalism and the Public Sphere in the

New Media Age, London: Routledge.

Sparks C. (1995), ‘The Media as a Power for Democracy’, Javnost / the Public 2, 1: 45-61.

Sparks C. (1999), ‘The Press’, in Stokes J. C. And A. Redding (eds), The Media in Britain:

current debates and developments , Houndmills and London: Macmillan Press.

University of Essex (2009), The British Election Study, 2009, University of Essex,

www.essex.ac.uk/BES/EPOP%202005/Papers/Tables%20all.doc retrieved 1 February 2010.

Wring D. (2002), ‘The 'Tony' Press : media coverage of the election campaign’, in A.

Geddes, A. And J. Tonge. (eds), Labour's second landslide. Manchester : Manchester

University Press

Yaakob, K. (2003). PSB in the Asia-Pacific. In S. Eashwar (Ed.), Responses to Globalization

and the Digital Divide in the Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Asia-Pacific Institute for

Broadcasting,.

Dr Richard Rooney is an associate professor in the Department of Journalism and

Broadcasting, Faculty of Communication, Girne American University, Turkish Republic of

Northern Cyprus. He was a newspaper and magazine journalist in England for 15 years. His

journalism has appeared in more than 60 different publications worldwide. He has taught in

universities in England, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland. He has a Ph.D in

Communication from the University of Westminster, London, UK. He has published on media

and their relationship to good governance, democracy and freedom of information, as well as

tabloid journalism, in journals and books across the world.