Page 86 - An Introduction to Political Communication Third Edition

THE POLITICAL MEDIA

coverage changed to reflect this (1986). Kevin Williams agrees that
‘for most of the war the media shared the same framework for
understanding 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 affair 6 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 legitimacy 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,

65