Theories of the media and influences on media content — common mistakes

When evaluating theories, use evidence of ownership patterns (e.g., News Corp, Disney) and specific examples of agenda-setting (e.g., the focus on 'immigrant threats' or 'benefit scroungers'). This demonstrates application of concepts.

The instrumentalist model (e.g., Miliband) argues that media owners directly and deliberately 'instrumentally' use their media outlets to spread pro-capitalist propaganda and protect their own interests. The hegemonic model (e.g., Glasgow Media Group) is more subtle. It argues that most journalists and editors are not directly manipulated, but have internalised the dominant values of society (hegemony) through their socialisation and education. They unconsciously frame stories in a way that supports the status quo, making the bias harder to detect.

Not necessarily. While new media appears to support the pluralist view by allowing more people to create and share content (e.g., citizen journalism, blogs), critics argue this is a superficial analysis. Marxists would point out that the internet is dominated by a few giant tech corporations (e.g., Google, Meta, Amazon) who control the 'new gates' of information. They gather vast amounts of data for profit and can censor content, creating a new form of corporate power that undermines true pluralism.

No, they are different concepts. Propaganda is typically more direct, deliberate, and often involves the systematic spreading of misinformation to promote a specific political cause or viewpoint. Agenda-setting is a more subtle process. It doesn't necessarily involve lying or false information. Instead, it works by making certain topics more salient or prominent than others. By repeatedly covering crime, for instance, the media can make the public feel that crime is the most important issue facing the country, even if statistics show it is falling. It shapes priorities rather than forcing beliefs.