Key Assessment 2 - Newspapers
1. Compare how the set editions of the Times and the Daily Mirror construct representations and reflect the ideology of the producer [30]:
Looking into the Daily Mirror, a tabloid, it immediately becomes clear that the intention of their paper is created within the lexus of entertaining rather than informing, with the majority of their front page being blustered with inter-textual to services like Coral, and horse racing, as well as the Cheltenham Festival and the soap opera EastEnders taking up the majority of the screen, with what would be considered the more formal news upon Theresa May being delegated to a small portion of it; This is in stark comparison to The Times which tries to take a far more formal lexus and overall mode of address to the viewer in the form of a broadsheet. The cover image is an unflattering, large close-up of Theresa May that centres the page, with the majority of the page aside from the header being comprised of the story attached to the image in masses of body text, reflective of The Times composing their front page this way to try and give the implication that they are looking to inform the viewer rather than entertain, due to the choice in imagery and the somewhat humiliating headline attached to it, the viewer would come to making the assumption that they are passionately a left-wing paper, which though the Daily Mirror also throws Theresa May in a negative light, it seems more in the name of gossip rather than genuine political discourse. Unlike the Mirror, The Times does the polar opposite with their Cheltenham Festival advertisement and delegates it amongst the smaller stories divided by a slight gutter from the main May headliner, again reinforcing that their paper is not to be taken as entertainment but in turn educational.
Something in common that both papers hold is a similar expected reach to one another, with all of the intertextual references made by either paper being made within range of England,they come with the expectancy that the viewer has prior knowledge of the country to some degree, I.E. knowing who the prime minister is, of the local brands and events referenced, etc. - Both papers construct themselves in such a way that they'd like to represent their ideologies as being proudly British and for the people. The Times goes as far as to don the coat of arms upon it's logo and use their founding year within their header to further reinforce themselves as such, trying to represent their paper as trustworthy information. Albeit always with an agenda.
As I said prior, The Daily Mirror holds a vastly more informal mode of address to the viewership, and represents itself to have seemingly less of a care to the political stratosphere than The Times, it attempts to pander to the lower to Middle class more than any other group in comparison to The Times which seemingly tries to pander moreso to the upper-middle class. This is exemplary in their application of copious amounts of advertisements to services such as Coral, thus displaying that they as a group are supportive of gambling ones money, or lotteries, suggestive that those reading are more inclined to be entering for such due to their financial states, this is knowingly reflective as to their underlying exploitative nature. Looking at the title 'The Daily Mirror' , it implies some accurate quick reflection as to the day in passing, but near all of the front page of their paper is filler imagery or advertisement content, this is constructed in such a way by the editorial team of their paper that this is what is deemed the most important content for a passerby to observe.
Following the Z-line of the Daily Mirror set-text, we are brought from advertisement to advertisement, and the article on Theresa May is essentially missed if we take the technique into regard. Again, the Daily Mirror attempting to disregard politics as something crucial for the average person to be aware of, reflective of their supposed ideology. - Placing the same technique upon The Times' front page, its impossible to miss the lead image of the ex-prime-minister due to it's central placement, that and the headline is directly placed upon the Z-line in turn, the eyes only meet with the various deemed lesser important articles at the very end of it while the rest is fully engaged and focused upon the single story. Once more leaning into the opposite audience to The Daily Mirror, seeking out those who are more politically inclined. The viewership is lead to believe they carry the ideology that they deem politics first and foremost essential to them, rather than the entertainment-based stories. The Times' front page seemingly only having a small advertisement for the Cheltenham Festival as if only a brief reminder rather than something to make a big deal of- It implies less of an expectancy that their viewership would engage with such an event in comparison to The Daily Mirror that accentuate the scale of the event by giving it far more page space.
The Times is also far more symmetrical and compact than The Mirror with the way it spaces out it's content, there are far less spacings between gutters, text, and imagery- while The Mirror has a lot more open space and miles less information upon it overall.
2A: Conglomeration is what we refer to as the process of creating a conglomerate; A conglomerate is a grouping of companies in different markets and services. More often than not a parent company that holds many subsidiaries, for example Disney and it's many other subsidiaries, LucasFilm, Marvel, Pixar, etc.
2B: Conglomeration when taking into account the theories put out by Curran and Seaton on the subject overall lead to a lack in diversity within the media and hand in hand with such less chance for creative, and interesting voices having to shout to be heard.
Conglomeration is also negative in that the conglomerates begin to become monopolies and gain arguably excessive amounts of power and control, and the ability to assert their agendas without enough rival competition or opinion to suggest alternatively to them.
2C: Many such as theorists Livingstone and Hunt would consider regulation to be largely ineffective in our current digital climate, with official regulators having far too much content to be able to monitor it all and keep anything law-breaking or simply unethical from coming into fruition. For example, the case of the phone-hacking scandals at the now defunct 'News of the World' in which numerous editors had found a simple way to access the voicemails of many celebrities, politicians and the average person and exploiting it for the purposes of producing content for their paper with a lack of consideration for if what they were doing was ethical or even vaguely legal. It wasn't. - This is a prolific case but its far from the only one, the vastness of the online stratosphere makes regulation near impossible at this point and theres no arguing around it.
Looking into the Daily Mirror, a tabloid, it immediately becomes clear that the intention of their paper is created within the lexus of entertaining rather than informing, with the majority of their front page being blustered with inter-textual to services like Coral, and horse racing, as well as the Cheltenham Festival and the soap opera EastEnders taking up the majority of the screen, with what would be considered the more formal news upon Theresa May being delegated to a small portion of it; This is in stark comparison to The Times which tries to take a far more formal lexus and overall mode of address to the viewer in the form of a broadsheet. The cover image is an unflattering, large close-up of Theresa May that centres the page, with the majority of the page aside from the header being comprised of the story attached to the image in masses of body text, reflective of The Times composing their front page this way to try and give the implication that they are looking to inform the viewer rather than entertain, due to the choice in imagery and the somewhat humiliating headline attached to it, the viewer would come to making the assumption that they are passionately a left-wing paper, which though the Daily Mirror also throws Theresa May in a negative light, it seems more in the name of gossip rather than genuine political discourse. Unlike the Mirror, The Times does the polar opposite with their Cheltenham Festival advertisement and delegates it amongst the smaller stories divided by a slight gutter from the main May headliner, again reinforcing that their paper is not to be taken as entertainment but in turn educational.
Something in common that both papers hold is a similar expected reach to one another, with all of the intertextual references made by either paper being made within range of England,they come with the expectancy that the viewer has prior knowledge of the country to some degree, I.E. knowing who the prime minister is, of the local brands and events referenced, etc. - Both papers construct themselves in such a way that they'd like to represent their ideologies as being proudly British and for the people. The Times goes as far as to don the coat of arms upon it's logo and use their founding year within their header to further reinforce themselves as such, trying to represent their paper as trustworthy information. Albeit always with an agenda.
As I said prior, The Daily Mirror holds a vastly more informal mode of address to the viewership, and represents itself to have seemingly less of a care to the political stratosphere than The Times, it attempts to pander to the lower to Middle class more than any other group in comparison to The Times which seemingly tries to pander moreso to the upper-middle class. This is exemplary in their application of copious amounts of advertisements to services such as Coral, thus displaying that they as a group are supportive of gambling ones money, or lotteries, suggestive that those reading are more inclined to be entering for such due to their financial states, this is knowingly reflective as to their underlying exploitative nature. Looking at the title 'The Daily Mirror' , it implies some accurate quick reflection as to the day in passing, but near all of the front page of their paper is filler imagery or advertisement content, this is constructed in such a way by the editorial team of their paper that this is what is deemed the most important content for a passerby to observe.
Following the Z-line of the Daily Mirror set-text, we are brought from advertisement to advertisement, and the article on Theresa May is essentially missed if we take the technique into regard. Again, the Daily Mirror attempting to disregard politics as something crucial for the average person to be aware of, reflective of their supposed ideology. - Placing the same technique upon The Times' front page, its impossible to miss the lead image of the ex-prime-minister due to it's central placement, that and the headline is directly placed upon the Z-line in turn, the eyes only meet with the various deemed lesser important articles at the very end of it while the rest is fully engaged and focused upon the single story. Once more leaning into the opposite audience to The Daily Mirror, seeking out those who are more politically inclined. The viewership is lead to believe they carry the ideology that they deem politics first and foremost essential to them, rather than the entertainment-based stories. The Times' front page seemingly only having a small advertisement for the Cheltenham Festival as if only a brief reminder rather than something to make a big deal of- It implies less of an expectancy that their viewership would engage with such an event in comparison to The Daily Mirror that accentuate the scale of the event by giving it far more page space.
The Times is also far more symmetrical and compact than The Mirror with the way it spaces out it's content, there are far less spacings between gutters, text, and imagery- while The Mirror has a lot more open space and miles less information upon it overall.
2A: Conglomeration is what we refer to as the process of creating a conglomerate; A conglomerate is a grouping of companies in different markets and services. More often than not a parent company that holds many subsidiaries, for example Disney and it's many other subsidiaries, LucasFilm, Marvel, Pixar, etc.
2B: Conglomeration when taking into account the theories put out by Curran and Seaton on the subject overall lead to a lack in diversity within the media and hand in hand with such less chance for creative, and interesting voices having to shout to be heard.
Conglomeration is also negative in that the conglomerates begin to become monopolies and gain arguably excessive amounts of power and control, and the ability to assert their agendas without enough rival competition or opinion to suggest alternatively to them.
2C: Many such as theorists Livingstone and Hunt would consider regulation to be largely ineffective in our current digital climate, with official regulators having far too much content to be able to monitor it all and keep anything law-breaking or simply unethical from coming into fruition. For example, the case of the phone-hacking scandals at the now defunct 'News of the World' in which numerous editors had found a simple way to access the voicemails of many celebrities, politicians and the average person and exploiting it for the purposes of producing content for their paper with a lack of consideration for if what they were doing was ethical or even vaguely legal. It wasn't. - This is a prolific case but its far from the only one, the vastness of the online stratosphere makes regulation near impossible at this point and theres no arguing around it.
Comments
Post a Comment