Page 80 - An Introduction to Political Communication Fifth Edition

Intro to Politics Communication (5th edn)-p.qxp 9/2/11 10:55 Page 59

THE POLITICAL MEDIA
The hegemonic model has itself been criticised, however, for its overly
simplistic reading of how the media reports politics. Daniel Hallin’s study of
the Vietnam War showed, on the one hand, that coverage in the initial phase
of the conflict was consistent with a ‘hegemonic’ role for the media, but that
as consensus around US policy in the conflict fragmented in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, coverage changed to reflect this (1986). Kevin Williams agrees
that ‘for most of the war the media shared the same framework for under-
standing events in South East Asia as the [US] government’, but that ‘after
public opinion had moved decisively against the war the media [began] to
regularly challenge the official explanation’ (1993, p. 306). This, for Williams,
reflects the fact that ‘elite sources are not always successful in their attempts
to dictate the agenda. The political elite is not homogeneous and the divisions
are reflected in the media’s reporting’ (ibid., p. 326).
David Murphy’s analysis of how the media reported the John Stalker
6
affair is similarly sceptical of the hegemonic model, arguing that the media
in this case actively promoted an anti-establishment conspiracy theory to
explain Stalker’s treatment in Northern Ireland. Referring specifically to
the press (but in terms which apply equally to broadcasting) he notes that
their account of the Stalker affair ‘conflicts utterly with the conventional
academic picture of a right-wing dominated press, producing an ideological
justification for the status quo and the forces of control’ (1991, p. 8). In this
case the media ‘largely arrived at a consensus which challenged the legiti-
macy of the state in its handling of the affair’. Coverage of the Stalker affair
revealed a willingness on the part of journalists ‘to call into question not
simply the wisdom of government policies or the good faith of individual
politicians, but a questioning of the good faith and legitimacy of the state
and its agents, and of the establishment which is seen as lying behind them’
(ibid., p. 262).
It has been argued, on the other hand, that in reporting objectively
manifestly corrupt or unethical behaviour by the political class, which may
be causing fragmentation and disunity amongst the establishment (such as
the Watergate scandal in America, or cash-for-questions in Britain) the media
are contributing to a wider popular belief in the self-rectifying properties of
the system. They may be doing this, but they are also carrying out what
journalists regard as their professional duty, independently of the political
class. Liberal journalism has evolved over three centuries or more as an
autonomous cultural and political force, the power and prestige of which is
measured at least in part by the readiness of journalists to act as a ‘fourth
estate’, looking out for and exposing the abuse of political power. Much of
the critical political coverage which emerges from the application of this
professional ethic may be viewed as tokenistic and superficial, posing no real
threat to the centres of power in capitalist societies. ‘Monicagate’, for
example, in which the US media were filled with full and explicit coverage
of a president’s sexual habits, did not threaten American capitalism, although

59