Page 279 - Culture Society and the Media

CULTURE, SOCIETY AND THE MEDIA 269
the four newspapers and that a number of themes emerged as the most salient.
These were: immigration (in particular control of coloured immigration);
relations between black and white (in particular intergroup hostility and
discrimination); legislation to control immigration and counter discrimination;
and the politician Enoch Powell.
In their content analysis they eschewed as unreliable any attempt to classify
press coverage according to whether a particular attitude is conveyed. Thus an
article about, say, immigration control will be placed in the same category
whether it takes a restrictionist or an anti-restrictionist position. But they go
further than this: in their view to measure the extent to which the various
newspapers adopt different positions and display various attitudes is not merely
likely to be unreliable, it is also seen as much less important than establishing
that otherwise divergent newspapers agree on what the issues are. In other words
the role of the media is to be sought in the way that they create awareness of
issues and establish what is on the agenda for public discussion rather than in
what they say about these issues or in the degree to which what is said may
change opinions.
For example, of ‘immigration’, the topic to which the press devoted most
attention, Hartmann et al. write:

It did not greatly matter that the material classified under this heading was
a mixture of news reports about control measures instituted, or politicians
urging stricter control or defending the right of Kenyan Asians to enter, of
explanations of how the control measures might be evaded, or of reports of
coloured people being refused entry, or of editorials or letters taking up
opposing sides on the issue—and indeed the material contained all this.
What is important is that central to this coverage is the theme of keeping
the blacks out. That, according to our papers is what immigration is mainly
about. (Hartmann, 1974, p. 128)

It may be objected that the method of content analysis chosen by Hartmann et al.
on grounds of reliability leads almost by sleight of hand to this conclusion. For it
is one thing to say it is very difficult to measure reliably differences in tone and
flavour, and another to say such differences are not very important. Even though
it might not be very reliable, a division between ‘favourable’, ‘unfavourable’ and
‘neutral’ items would demonstrate the distinct differences between the various
newspapers. It is hard to imagine the Guardian or The Times publishing
something like: ‘Cities like Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bradford and Reading…
the whole character has undergone an astonishing transformation. They now bear
a closer resemblance to Bombay or Johannesburg than they do to the rest of
England’ (Daily Express, quoted in Harland, 1971, p. 453). There may also be
important differences in content. For example, in its coverage of race the
Guardian contains a good deal of what may be called ‘hard information’ on such
topics as housing, employment and migration of labour. It is worth citing several