Page 64 - Communication and Citizenship Journalism and the Public Sphere

RETHINKING THE MEDIA AS A PUBLIC SPHERE 53

17 C.W.Crawley (ed.), War and Peace in the Age of Upheaval (1793–1830),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18 For example, E.P.Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class,
London: Gollancz, 1963; Patricia Hollis, The Pauper Press, London:
Oxford University Press, 1970; Dorothy Thompson, The Chartists,
Temple Smith, 1984.
19 James Curran, ‘Capitalism and control of the press, 1800–1975’, in
James Curran, Michael Gurevitch and Janet Woollacott (eds), Mass
Communication and Society, London: Edward Arnold, 1977; cf. James
Curran and Jean Seaton, Power Without Responsibility, 4th edn, London:
Routledge, 1991.
20 Stuart Hall, ‘Deviancy, politics and the media’, in Mary McIntosh and
Paul Rock (eds), Deviance and Social Control, London: Tavistock, 1973;
Mark Hollingsworth, The Press and Political Dissent, London: Pluto
Press, 1986; Media Coverage of London Councils, Goldsmiths’ Media
Research Group Interim Report, London: Goldsmiths’ College,
University of London, 1987 (mimeo); Simon Watney, Policing Desire,
London: Methuen, 1987.
21 Habermas, op. cit., 1989, p. 184. Habermas is not alone in following the
trajectory of Whig argument, against his own instincts. Thus, Raymond
Williams wrote: ‘the period from 1855 is in one sense the development
of a new and better journalism, with a much greater emphasis on news
than in the faction-ridden first half of the century…most newspapers
were able to drop their frantic pamphleteering’ (Raymond Williams, The
Long Revolution, London: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 218), though Williams
at least later changed his view. See Raymond Williams, ‘The press and
popular culture: an historical perspective’, in Boyce, Curran and Wingate
(eds), op. cit, 1978.
22 Curran and Seaton, op. cit., 1991, ch. 2.
23 Habermas, op. cit., 1989, p. 185.
24 Donald Read, Press and People, 1790–1850, London: Edward Arnold,
1961.
25 A.J.P.Taylor, Beaverbrook, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1972.
26 The rise of the Daily Herald, a working-class newspaper established by a
small group of radicals in 1912 which became the largest circulation
daily in Britain in the early 1930s, appears at first glance to show that
there continued to be broad, unqualified access to the public sphere. In
fact, its detailed history (currently being researched by my doctoral
student, Huw Richards) reveals the opposite. The Daily Herald’s early
development was blighted by lack of resources, causing it to charge
double the price of its rivals for a paper half the size, without offering the
inducements like reader insurance then widely deployed to promote
sales, and with the further major disadvantage of lacking a northern
printing plant. It was saved in 1922 by the TUC but only became a mass-