Click on a paragraph or list item to show or hide it!

Why is genre and narrative structure important in how we understand politics? Give an example

A Genre is a set of codes or conventions shared by producers and audiences. They are tried and tested formats. While there may be limited exceptions that deviate from these formulaic approaches to content creation, the vast majority stick to the same rules. For content to be consumed en masse, it must be “recognisably generic” such that audiences can relate to it in a way that makes sense in their lives. This can involve stereotyping and other ways to make content “make sense.”

Narrative structure is the structure of the narrative (duh). It concerns how the textual elements are organized, including patterns of space, time, and perspective. In some cases, narrative structure needs to bend the truth in order to create a compelling story. News stories that cover a community’s challenge with poverty, for example, can include a “community savior” who steps in and helps. This is obviously not a generalised solution to poverty, a continuing story with no real resolution or easy, ground-up solution. But we like seeing stories that end happy, and stories that have some sort of resolution, so programs may alter the presentation of facts (or, “narrative”) to be more palatable to a general audience.

Both narrative structure and genre are important to understanding politics. They set the stage for how an event will be covered. A program like 60 Minutes dedicates a large chunk of time to telling one story that another news program might only dedicate a few minutes to. Reporters have to make choices as to what is left out and what is included—in other words, they are entirely different genres with entirely different standard formats; similarly, a program that leans to the right politically will choose to highlight different elements of a story than a similar story that leans left. This dramatically changes the narrative. These programs will have entirely different narrative structures that will inherently produce entirely different stories of the same event.

What is the narrative structure, shared conventions, and qualities of the news? What does this mean in terms of content and effects on the audience? Why does it matter?

A narrative structure has the following qualities:

There are some shared assumptions and cultural values that work their way into the news. Some of these include being part of America or that America is important, and democracy is good. News networks, therefore, do not tend to run programs that bash America or suggest anything other than American exceptionalism.

These assumptions and conventions are important because journalists act as storytellers of our culture—we grant them a certain amount of power to curate “the truth.” The structure and narrative of the news alerts us to the importance of certain issues over others. So when the news collectively ignores a story because it doesn’t feel the story is beneficial to Americans (either because they feel it is not relevant or because they feel it will not sell well), it makes the story seem unimportant, and all but cuts the story out of the public’s scope of concern.

Why does ownership affect content or political perspective? Please give an example. Why does it matter? What is the difference between thematic and episodic coverage?

Ownership of media and political bias creates echo chamber pockets, self-reinforced by a commercial need to cater to what the viewership wants to see. Partisan reporting can create different versions of the same truth, and distort public perception of events, leading to widening of polarised attitudes.

Sinclair Broadcast Group gained notoriety when it forced local channels all across the country to broadcast, verbatim, the same scripted message to their audiences. The statement was not impartial—it had a discernible slant towards a particlar side of a public issue. According to Neilsen, “Local news reach is 18% higher than national broadcast news and more than double (46% vs 22%) that of cable news among adults 18 and older. Meanwhile, local news reach is 25% higher than national broadcast news and more than double (40% vs 17%) that of cable news among persons 25-54.”

Clearly, local news matters. It’s more viewed than national news. Most people expect news to maintain impartiality, or at least broadcast facts. Sinclair’s script would have been more appropriate in the form of a press release or statement to the public; instead, they misled the public into consuming opinion as fact.

Sinclair’s national bamboozle is a manifestation of a larger problem: news programs are run by viewership and a bottom line, and need to cater to what will get them views and ad revenue. Under this model, the impartial truth becomes a second-hand concern. While objectivity should be the first item on the agenda for any news network which is supposed to act as a check on the government (4th estate), there is no financial incentive for a private news network to do that sort of digging.

What is significant about how the news is framed? How is international conflict covered?

Frames are the socially shared/persistent organizing principles that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the world. They influence the way stories are produced and consumed, and highlight and evaluate perceived realities. Framing in the news is analogous to framing in a camera shot: what are/aren’t you showing and why? How does this portray a story?

For example, the UK and US frame all Islam and Muslim people as terrorists or related to terrorism because it simplifies a complex group and perpetuates the idea of fear—the more scared they are, the more they will look toward the news. When the news’s assumptions pan out, even in the slightest, the trust between reporter and viewer strengthens. This is called confirmation bias.

Why has ad revenue dropped for newspapers and how have they made up the gap? How has the online environment changed advertising and content? How are ways that traditional newspaper can fight back?

Ad revenue from newspapers used to be made up largely from classified space sold to companies. Newspapers are no longer the most efficient way to advertise, with the advent and revolution of digital and targeted advertising.

Newspapers have managed to recoup some of this lost revenue by innovating their digital products. Paywalls that restrict access to those who have paid fees allow newspapers to continue charging for the sale of information. Papers also sell native/branded content. Native content is article space and testimonials sold in such a way that it appears naturally integrated with the articles the paper publishes. Combined with ads and editorials, the ad client gets exposure, the audience is receptive to the product, and the paper makes money. Win win win.

Rather than caving to paid native content, papers can fight back by going hyperlocal so that they are the only (or one of the very few) sources of local information. Audience interested in local news would have no other outlet to turn to.

What does it mean to be objective? Are there times when it is impossible to be neutral? Can you think of an example? Why do you think Americans do not believe that the media is not doing a good job? How do Americans feel about social media? How have Internet platforms changed how people interact with the news?

Objectivity refers to telling just the facts, without room for bias, slant, or fragrant abuse of framing to distort the truth of a story.

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train,” so goes the famous saying. Issues society fundamentally opposes, such as child marriage, are unethical and disgusting in our culture. It’s difficult for journalists to look at it from a neutral standpoint. Those stories will inherently be presented in a negative light.

Americans do not think that the media is doing a good job because generally they struggle to separate fact from opinion. Political polarisation among news networks have created news bubbles. Polarising views of Fox and CNN, for example, enable networks to present the same story in two entirely different lights while still passing their product off as objective news. This is entirely dependent on their political audiences, and who is willing to consume their content and feed their bottom line.

Americans don’t like social media as a news source but do value internet news (without targeted ads) in general. Despite this, most Americans obtain their news through social media. The consensus is that social media is opinionated and isn’t as much news as it is an echo chamber of ideas among friends/followers. This is reinforced by algorithms which, like news organisations, seek too feed users with information they’re likely to interact with and enjoy. Facebook and Twitter have no financial incentive to provide a user with a wide variety of political opinions.

Internet platforms have changed news by enabling publishers to post articles more quickly and to engage their audiences more directly. The news is a never-ending, 24-hour cycle, and pressing events can be relayed to the public with unprecedented speed—gone are the days of waiting for the morning paper or scrambling to fit it into the broadcast. Additionally, audiences can immediately comment on the news either in a section under the article or on their own social profiles—while this encourages conversation, it more often than not provokes unproductive arguments among opposing political parties.

What are semiotics? Define denotation v connotation. Why are words never neutral? Please give an example. What is the connotation or the narrative behind “the war on terror?” Why do we need/have a war on terror? What does it mean that “words have reality-making effects?’ Please give an example.

Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and how they portray meaning.

Denotation is the literal meaning of a word, whereas connotation is the meaning behind the word. For example, terrorist literally means one who causes terror, but in the US we have come to associate the word “terrorist” with the connotation of Islamic extremism.

Words do not exist in a vacuum; they are therefore never neutral. They always portray some meaning or tone, which can vary with usage and with social norms (for example, “social welfare” might have totally different connotations in a Fox News article compared to an MSNBC article).

The connotation, or narrative, behind the War on Terror is not dissimilar to the narrative used during the Cold War: we have an enemy with inherently opposing ideals. Summed by hyperbole: “Diabolical and insane terrorists plot to rain down weapons of mass destruction across western cities, while heroic warriors of freedom risk their lives in foreign lands.”

Having a War on Terror enables us to:

  1. Normalize and legitimize the current counter-terror approach
  2. Empower authorities and shield them from criticism
  3. Discipline domestic society by marginalizing dissent and protest
  4. Enforce national unity

Words can be said to have a reality-making effect because they are indicative of the message the author intended to send. By choosing a particular set of words in a particular order, an author constructs a narrative that creates an interpretation of the reality they choose to portray. One can write about a “conflict” or a “genocide” while referencing the same event; a “revolution” or an “insurgency.”

Why do we want to separate into groups? Define in-group v out-group. What happens when we assign people to an in-group? What are the effects? Why is this important? Why do we make people part of an out-group? What are the effects? Where do we see this in the media or entertainment?

Social separation enables us to assign people to broad social categories, simplifies the world, and creates and defines our places in the world. An in-group is a group of people who are assumed to share some similar characteristic; an out-group is the rest of the world, who does not fit in the in-group. Studies have shown that even with superficial or non-existent differences separating the in-group and out-group, people still hold preference towards the people in their in-group. This can go as far as sabotaging the out-group.

This psychological phenomenon has real-world implications when the media’s coverage of non-western countries, especially the Middle East, treats western countries with particular preference, and assumes a homogenous bunch of out-groupers who are all identical.

How and why did the media cover 9/11 in the way it did? Why do we need the media to be reflective in times of turmoil? How did semiotics come into play? Has the coverage of Muslims or Islam changed since then? Why or why not? Why does it matter how terrorism or Muslims are portrayed in the news and entertainment media? What are the effects of this kind of coverage?

In the wake of 9/11, the media created a “binary dualism” between Islamic terrorism and civilisation: with us or against us. Support for the War was non-negotiable. The US media has a history of exploiting fear, and terrorism served as the perfect hook. There were no real alternatives to war offered by the media—this shaped the public perception that war was obvious, and the only rational, viable option. This has been referred to as an “orgy of patriotism.” That might not be relevant for the test, it’s just a fantastic image.

Since then, language about terrorism has begun to change (semiotics). Prisoners became “detainees”; torture became “enhanced interrogation.” Even today, depictions of Muslims in news and entertainment media generally have some tie to terrorism. Studies have shown that this has an observable effect on public perception towards Muslims. Watching clips with negative stereotypes of Muslims led viewers to support unconstitutional measures targeting Muslim Americans.

Some believe this is due to lazy journalists and uninformed pundits. It can be tied for bonus points into intergroup theory, or the phenomenon by which contact between in-groups and out-groups reduces feelings of hostility and humanizes the out-group. This presents a potential solution to repeated racism reinforcing stereotypes against Muslims: portraying Muslims in positive roles without any of the harmful stereotypes, which can create a positive, productive contact with an out-group that begins to change public perceptions.

What determines how effective political satire is? Why should we be interested at political satire at all? What are the potential effects? Why does it work in this way? On the flip side, why wouldn’t it affect people?

The effectiveness of political satire is determined by its ability to be entertaining while also conveying truth. The audience should be able to understand the irony at the heart of it while still understanding its humor. Satire fails when people take it as a representation of the truth (Colbert is a parody of Conservative America, but some conservatives took The Colbert Report as an unironic depiction of conservatism).

Political satire is important because:

Alternatively, satire might not matter at all because:

What does it mean to be a populist and why did the populist message resonate in the latest election and particularly in Europe?

Populists appeal to the public by being anti-establishment. They frame the government as the enemy of the people, and create an us vs. them of the people vs. the government. Populists frequently invent qualifiers to describe when someone is part of their group or not: are you a real American, or a fake one? Nationalism rose in Europe due to corruption in many European nations. Economic crises in nations like Italy also fueled public panic and desire for a savior to step in and fix it all (Italy elected its own version of Trump during the last election cycle).

What makes a good speech?

There are a few key rhetorical devices that make for good speeches. Chiefly, the use of negative space and pauses can make or break speech delivery. In addition, here are a few runner-ups: