Media, Power and Political Information

Free, and answerable

A democracy needs citizens who know what those in power are doing, and the media is how most people find out. That gives it a job nothing else does: holding power to account. But the same reach that lets it inform people also lets it persuade them, and the same freedom that lets it publish what those in power would rather hide also lets it publish things that are inaccurate or intrusive. So the argument in this topic is never about whether the media has influence. Everyone agrees it does. It is about where to put the line between a press that is free and a press that is answerable, and every question here is a version of that.

What the media owes

Six terms. The first four are the responsibilities this specification names alongside freedom of the press.

Medium to what it does best

Which duty is at stake?

A report names a person who is not a public figure and prints details of their private life that have nothing to do with the story. Which of the responsibilities the specification names is most directly at issue?

• Respecting privacy and dignity, because the person did not choose to be in the news
• Accurate reporting, because private details are hard to verify properly
• Holding power to account, because reporting on individuals is part of that job
• Freedom of the press, because the media should be able to publish what it finds

Two things pulling apart

Both columns describe things a democracy wants. That they conflict is not a flaw in anyone reasoning; it is the actual problem, and an answer that pretends otherwise cannot reach the top marks.

Responsibilities the spec names

Alongside freedom of the press, the specification names responsibilities the media has. Select the TWO that are among them.

• Reporting accurately
• Respecting privacy and dignity
• Giving every political party exactly equal coverage at all times
• Supporting the government of the day in the national interest

Who owns it, and does it matter

The specification asks you to consider the impact of ownership on content, and this needs handling carefully in an answer. It is not a claim that any particular outlet prints what its owner tells it to. The argument is structural: those who own media outlets decide who edits them, what they invest in, and which subjects get resources, and it is argued that this shapes what gets covered even where nobody is instructed. Others argue that competition, professional standards and the audience limit that influence. Write it as an argument with two sides, name no outlet, and you have said something examinable rather than something you would have to defend.

Duty to what it protects

The media in a paragraph

The principle that the media may publish without government control is freedom of the _____. Against it sit responsibilities, including reporting _____ and respecting the privacy and _____ of people caught up in a story. The specification also asks about the impact of _____ on what gets covered. And the argument about whether the state should exercise greater _____ over the press is the point where the two sides of this topic meet.

How a message reaches a voter

Put the stages by which a political message reaches a voter into order.

• Those putting the case decide what they most want understood
• They choose the kinds of media that suit that message and that audience
• Editors and producers decide whether to carry it, and how prominently
• The audience encounters it, often alongside competing messages
• Individuals judge it, using what else they know and whom they trust

The inquiry as a reference point

The specification points at the findings of the Leveson Inquiry when it raises the argument about greater state control. What is the most accurate thing to say about its place in this topic?

• It examined the press and how it should be regulated, and its findings are the reference point the argument is conducted around
• It settled the question, so the argument about state control is now closed
• It was a law passed to control what newspapers are allowed to publish
• It concerned broadcasting rather than the press, so it does not apply here

State control, argued both ways

Question: discuss the arguments for and against greater state control of the media. Model answer: those who argue for greater control say that inaccurate reporting can damage people who have little means of answering it, that people with no public role can find their lives disrupted by coverage they did not invite, and that a remedy arriving long afterwards repairs very little. Those who argue against say that a press which can be controlled by government cannot hold that government to account, that much wrongdoing has been exposed only because someone was free to publish it, and that any power to decide what may be printed can itself be misused. Both cases rest on real risks rather than on bad faith, which is why the argument continues. The specification points at the findings of the Leveson Inquiry as the reference point for it. A reasonable conclusion is that the question is not whether the press should be free or accountable but which mechanism can deliver accountability without handing the decision to those the press exists to scrutinise. Notice that the answer commits to a conclusion, and that it does so without saying either side is acting in bad faith.

Reporting or asserting?

On this paper an answer that asserts a verdict instead of setting out a position loses marks. Select the ONE sentence below that asserts rather than explains.

• Supporters of greater regulation argue that inaccurate reporting can damage people unfairly.
• Opponents argue that a press government can control cannot hold that government to account.
• Anyone who defends press freedom is simply protecting the interests of wealthy owners.
• Both sides accept that the media has considerable influence on public opinion.

Where the principles collide

Each situation below puts two of this topic principles against each other. Identify the tension, as an analyst would, without deciding who should win.

• A report exposes wrongdoing by a senior official, using information the official wanted kept private. Which two principles are in tension?
• The official is a public figure and the wrongdoing concerns their public role. How does that bear on the argument?
• A second report makes a similar allegation about a person with no public role, and it turns out to be wrong. What does that show?
• A question asks whether the state should control the press more tightly. What does a top-band answer do?

Argue it both ways

Discuss whether the state should exercise greater control over the media. Set out both cases and reach a conclusion.

• Explain what freedom of the press means and why a democracy values it
• Name two responsibilities the media has alongside that freedom
• Give two arguments for greater state control, in the form their supporters would state them
• Give two arguments against, in the same form and at the same length
• Explain why the impact of ownership is part of this argument, without naming any outlet
• Reach a conclusion and give the reason that decided it, without saying either side argues in bad faith