Media, Culture and Society essay
Relation between media and society
The media coverage on immigration issues could affect the Brexit referendum outcome
‘Media painted bleak picture of immigration before Brexit vote, study finds’
(theguardian.com). I read an article that stated this while doing research for our storyboard.
This statement really interested me and inspired me to write about whether the media
coverage on immigration issues, like the refugee crisis, could affect the Brexit referendum
outcome.
King’s College London’s centre for the study of media, communication and power (CMCP)
did research on the media coverage before and during the EU referendum campaign. They
found that the media was dominated by “overwhelmingly negative” coverage of two issues:
the consequences of migration to the UK and economy (theguardian.com). Negative coverage
could have led to more ‘leave the European Union votes’ in the ‘British exit’ referendum,
since the Brexit will make it harder for refugees and immigrants to come to the UK.
I think this outcome is relevant because from a great deal of in-depth qualitative work with
audiences we know that media have a role in helping to shape public understandings
(Kitzinger). I will analyse how media could have affected the outcome of such an important
event as the Brexit referendum with their potential to frame the public opinion and to
reinforce the feeling of nationalism.
Framing the public opinion
Media interest in immigration more than tripled during the 10-week campaign, rising faster
than any other political issue and appearing on 99 front pages, compared with 82 about the
economy, most of these front pages (97) were published by pro-leave newspapers (Moore and
Ramsay, 2017). The issues were described by as “acrimonious and divisive” and specific
nationalities were singled out for particular negative coverage- especially Turks and
Albanians, but also Romanians and Poles (Moore and Ramsay, 2017).
The concept of framing is first described by Goffman in 1974 and this definition is still used:
“Media focusses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning.
The message is presented to the audience in a ‘framed’ way” (Goffman, 1974). The results of
the report show us that the media became more focused on the immigration issues in the run
up to the Brexit referendum. They also focused more on specific groups and this can lead to
stereotyping. Stereotypes are often viewed as false overgeneralizations made by socially
dominant groups about socially oppressed groups (Gorham, 1999). A survey conducted on
behalf of the British Red Cross found that the words people most associate with media
coverage of refugees and asylum seekers are ‘illegal immigrants’ and ‘scroungers’
(theweek.co.uk).
The study infers that the campaign leading up to the EU referendum was the UK’s “most
divisive, hostile, negative and fear-provoking of the 21st century”, and that this was
“encouraged and enflamed by a highly partisan national media”. This statement and the
CMCP stating that messages were described by as “acrimonious and divisive” corresponds to
that sometimes we consciously alter what is said, or the way we say it, in order to maximize
its impact (Kitzinger). This is in line with the messages including for example reiteration of
key phrases and themes making messages more effective (Kitzinger).
Relation between media and society
The media coverage on immigration issues could affect the Brexit referendum outcome
‘Media painted bleak picture of immigration before Brexit vote, study finds’
(theguardian.com). I read an article that stated this while doing research for our storyboard.
This statement really interested me and inspired me to write about whether the media
coverage on immigration issues, like the refugee crisis, could affect the Brexit referendum
outcome.
King’s College London’s centre for the study of media, communication and power (CMCP)
did research on the media coverage before and during the EU referendum campaign. They
found that the media was dominated by “overwhelmingly negative” coverage of two issues:
the consequences of migration to the UK and economy (theguardian.com). Negative coverage
could have led to more ‘leave the European Union votes’ in the ‘British exit’ referendum,
since the Brexit will make it harder for refugees and immigrants to come to the UK.
I think this outcome is relevant because from a great deal of in-depth qualitative work with
audiences we know that media have a role in helping to shape public understandings
(Kitzinger). I will analyse how media could have affected the outcome of such an important
event as the Brexit referendum with their potential to frame the public opinion and to
reinforce the feeling of nationalism.
Framing the public opinion
Media interest in immigration more than tripled during the 10-week campaign, rising faster
than any other political issue and appearing on 99 front pages, compared with 82 about the
economy, most of these front pages (97) were published by pro-leave newspapers (Moore and
Ramsay, 2017). The issues were described by as “acrimonious and divisive” and specific
nationalities were singled out for particular negative coverage- especially Turks and
Albanians, but also Romanians and Poles (Moore and Ramsay, 2017).
The concept of framing is first described by Goffman in 1974 and this definition is still used:
“Media focusses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning.
The message is presented to the audience in a ‘framed’ way” (Goffman, 1974). The results of
the report show us that the media became more focused on the immigration issues in the run
up to the Brexit referendum. They also focused more on specific groups and this can lead to
stereotyping. Stereotypes are often viewed as false overgeneralizations made by socially
dominant groups about socially oppressed groups (Gorham, 1999). A survey conducted on
behalf of the British Red Cross found that the words people most associate with media
coverage of refugees and asylum seekers are ‘illegal immigrants’ and ‘scroungers’
(theweek.co.uk).
The study infers that the campaign leading up to the EU referendum was the UK’s “most
divisive, hostile, negative and fear-provoking of the 21st century”, and that this was
“encouraged and enflamed by a highly partisan national media”. This statement and the
CMCP stating that messages were described by as “acrimonious and divisive” corresponds to
that sometimes we consciously alter what is said, or the way we say it, in order to maximize
its impact (Kitzinger). This is in line with the messages including for example reiteration of
key phrases and themes making messages more effective (Kitzinger).
