Samenvatting
Samenvatting alle artikelen MSP/MMP
In dit document heb ik alle artikelen die de course MSP aanbiedt, samengevat. Het is een goede voorbereiding op je tentamen! Succes alvast :)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1Wolfsfeld chapter 1: Political power and power over the media
The book explains the dynamic between politics and media, framing politics as a competitive
arena with actors, striving to gain influence, attention and (media) visibility. The book is written from
the WEIRD perspective: Western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic. Political actors
(powerful to small movements and individualists) aim to:
- Influence their communities, nations or global affairs
- Seek media coverage (positive exposure)
- Attract support
- Fundraise
Competitive symbiosis = the struggle that less powerful figures, journalists (wanting impactful
stories), face (in contrast to high-profile figures – presidents and leaders) to gain attention. Media
focus on elite perspectives, limiting diversity of viewpoints and the agenda.
- Mark T. Esper, a defence secretary, announced efforts to promote minority representation in
the US military’s predominantly white officer corps, using media to communicate
government decisions
- Less powerful actors must use ‘side door’ strategies to capture media attention → otherwise
a protest will be framed as disruption, rather than the protests message)
Civil obedience: this strategy balances drama and legitimacy by drawing sympathy by
portraying protesters as victims rather than aggressors (especially if authorities respond with
excessive force) → success depends on:
1. Level of violence that the authorities use against the group
2. Extent to which people can identify with your cause
3. Level of violence you use
- Smartphone evidences (camera) amplify public awareness of injustices (George Floyd’s
BLM-movement)
Cumulative inequality highlights the relationship between political influence and media access, in
which media institutions contribute to this inequality by favouring stories that involve powerful
figures and popular topics. Consequently, influential individuals are consistently presented as more
significant, reinforcing public perception of their importance and credibility
Politically influential groups have Those without established political power rely heavily
multiple resources that reduce their on media attention to gain visibility and support for
dependence on media coverage to their causes. However, media access is often restricted
further their agendas (lobbyists, for these less powerful groups, creating a circle where
financial means and legislative power) the influential continue to dominate the narrative
Stations for political movements in policy change
1. Mobilizing supporters: gather support and resources
Support for movements can be built by mobilizing followers through petitions or online
donations (grassroot organizing), but the great variability in personalities, organizations and
limited attention make it difficult for any movement to stand out. Digital activism suggests
that people engage in minimal digital actions (signing petitions) to avoid further
commitment). A con-argument says: studies have shown that people who engage in
political content online are more likely to participate in real-world activism.
2. Gaining media attention: obtaining visibility, which is challenging due to numerous actors
competing for the same attention
3. Influencing political leaders: capturing the attention of policymakers
4. Achieving policy change
,The Herman-Chomsky propaganda model: A critical approach to analysing mass media behaviour
(Mullen & Klaehn)
The propaganda model, a crucial-structural one, critiques how mass media functions in capitalist
societies (US). The model is rooted in Marxist theory: the media serves to uphold the ruling class’s
interest by controlling the narrative accessible to the public. Media is controlled by economic
power (base), socio-political influence (superstructure) and relative autonomy (ideology, the
media, the state). There are three main perspectives on how directly media reflects capitalist
interests:
- Structuralism
- Cultural studies
- Political economy approach: about issues as media ownership and control, concerned with
media effects. The elite influence can be studied through the fit between the ideology of
the message and the economic/political interests of those in control
The model sees the media as a ‘fourth estate’ that checks power by representing diverse opinions
in a democratic marketplace of ideas.
- In contrast to a media conspiracy, the model views outcomes as products of free-market
forces, which naturally align with elite interests
- Media serves elite interests, influenced by structured factors, called ‘filters’, that ensure that
media narratives align with elite agendas, while maintaining a market-driven appearance
of independence, shaping:
o Media ownership
o Advertising revenue
o Organized backlash
o Dominant ideological influence (anti-communism)
o Dependence on powerful sources (the increasing reliance on public relations over
original reporting results in a media landscape where journalists often produce
unchecked info from secondary sources, raising integrity concerns of journalism)
The PM gain little recognition, but over time gradually increased in academic engagement,
illuminating both strengths and weaknesses. Phases of criticism:
1. First wave: dismissal (late 1980s to early 1990s)
People found the PM to overstated the media’s role as a propaganda system, portraying
an ‘conspirational’ view, overly simplistic, ignorant of journalistic professionalism. Critics
ignored the core evidence and alternative explanations for media behaviour.
2. Second wave: engagement and debate (early 2000s)
1. Corner vs Klaehn Corner questioned the PM’s Klaehn focussed on the PM’s
adaptability to non-US media empirical testability and its
systems (European media studies) adaptability, arguing that the
and its broad ‘totalizing’ model could accommodate
approach across media systems
2. Lang vs Herman Lang criticized the PM’s Herman and Chomsky pointed
and Chomsky generalizations about media, out the rigor of the data and
questioning its empirical their focus on evidence
foundations and the term selection within news
‘genocide’ production processes
3. Brahm vs Barsky Brahm critiqued the PM for failing Barsky praised Chomsky’s
to integrate insights from cultural contributions
studies, accusing Chomsky of an
overly rigid intellectual stance
4. Sparks and PM Sparks (supporter of the PM) argued that it overlooked diversity
, revision within elite interests and failed to address differences in media
systems outside the US, suggesting that media is Europa (more leftist)
often show broader perspectives
5. Boyd-Barrett and He proposed a sixth filter to strengthen the PM’s analysis, related
the Sixth Filter to covert media manipulation of special interest groups by
intelligence agencies. He also critiqued the PM’s lack of
methodological precision and suggested greater focus on
journalistic deviations from official sources
6. Forum on Chomsky Eric Herring and Piers Robinson highlighted resistance to Chomsky’s
work, linking it to institutional anti-elite perspectives
After some critique, Herman and Chomsky updated the theory: Manufacturing consent, which
notes the centralization of media ownership and analyses changes in economic, political and
technological landscapes. The centralization indicates the small number of conglomerates
controlling the majority of media. After the Cold War, the market ideology strengthened and
influenced journalism and public perception of markets as inherently beneficial. The five filters
stayed in the model of Herman and Chomsky
, Wolfsfeld chapter 2: Political control and media independence
There are a lot of complexities between political leaders’ efforts (crafting messages, releasing
statements) and those of traditional media to control media narratives
Political environment = dynamic space of public opinion, shaped by leaders, elite influencers and
media. Leaders strive to influence media and public discourse to reinforce their policies.
Conversely, leaders in authoritarian regimes often suppress dissent, although this is harder in the
digital age → political success often lead to media success (but failure/loss of control makes
leaders vulnerable to negative media, regardless of regime type). The political environment is
shaped by:
1. Control over information: leaders try to monopolize information to shape media narratives.
By restricting information access, leaders can manipulate what the media reports
2. Role of leaks: leaks pose a significant threat to government control, often revealing
unflattering or controversial information in a rapid information flow
3. Information control in non-Western countries: democratic and authoritarian regimes differ in
media control methods. North-Korea limits citizens access to outside information, while
China floods social media with pro-government propaganda (censorship-public discourse
balance)
4. Elite consensus: broad elite support is crucial for leaders, as these individuals are primary
media sources, resulting in an unified media coverage (crises increase consensus)
The relationship between media (in)dependence en political control
1. Media dependence on authorities: sometimes, media rely on government sources (crises,
war, disasters), where leaders often control the information, amplifying public and political
consensus, and where military leaders often claim media bias, when the coverage turns
unfavourable
2. Partial independence and contradictory information: media achieve partial independence
by gaining access to information that contradicts the official stance, occurring when
political leaders lose control over the narrative, allowing opposing views
3. High independence and investigative journalism: independence peaks when journalists (or
citizens → bottom-up citizen reporting: ordinary people record and share events on social
media (George Floyd)) initiate and expose critical stories independently of political elites
The Access Hollywood Tape scandal involves the Washington Post, sharing a story in which Trump’s
controversial remarks were revealed. This impacted public opinion. The scandal showed how
independent media can shape political outcomes by exposing information, affecting opinions.
The politics-media-politics cycle: feedback loop
➔ Changes in the political consensus (the public and the politicians being in agreement)
➔ Influence media coverage (more criticism and bias-accusations)
➔ Drives further political shifts
Humour engages the audience emotionally and therefore used in advertising to capture attention,
create positive associations and enhance message recall to improve brand recognition,
depending on the alignment between the brand’s identity and the product → humorous ads are
more effective for hedonic products (pleasure-oriented) rather than utilitarian. Points to consider
when analysing humour in ads:
- Type of humour: satire, slapstick, wordplay (should resonate with audience’s background/
and cultural preferences)
- Relevance to product; humour should relate to the product to avoid overshadowing the
brand’s mean message
- Audience: know the demographics to ensure the humour isn’t offending or alienating
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lauratol. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €12,66. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53068 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen