Power Beyond Scrutiny: Media Justice and Accountability, by Justin Schlosberg

Ivor Gaber on how broadcasters report stories in which the status quo is under threat

September 26, 2013

This is an interesting, and in some senses an ambitious, study. While many books on the media focus either on content or theory, Schlosberg’s study manages to combine the two rather elegantly.

He sets himself the task of using three case studies to determine the extent to which the contention advanced by what he calls the “radical” school of media studies, that ownership and ideology are the most important determinates of media content, is demonstrably the case. In focusing on three scandals – the British Aerospace bribery case known as the Al-Yamamah scandal, the Hutton inquiry following the row between the government and the BBC, and the release of the WikiLeaks cables – he throws light on each by employing theories of framing and indexing to explain not just the “what” but also the “how”.

The single biggest weakness of the study is that Schlosberg has limited himself to examining only how these three stories were covered by news and current affairs television programmes on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (the absence of Channel 5 and Sky News is unexplained, although time and resources doubtless played a part). The press, radio and online media are mentioned but not analysed in depth. This limitation makes it problematic for Schlosberg to project his analysis from terrestrial television to the media as a whole. First, because the “radical” argument about ownership influencing content does not apply to two out of three media he considers (with the BBC and Channel 4 being publicly owned, and ITV operating under public service broadcasting guidelines), he is reliant on notions of ideological hegemony to sustain the radical argument. Second, on occasion Schlosberg appears to elide broadcasters with the press. He talks, for example, about how the media created “pressure on the authorities” through editorials. But television news and current affairs programmes obviously have no editorials and even if they did, their public service remit would prevent them from campaigning in the way that Schlosberg suggests.

Despite this caveat, the author makes a convincing case as to how mainstream broadcasters (but not journalism in general) dealt with revelatory stories that appeared to threaten the status quo. He shows how in the Al-Yamamah story television focused on the past with the assumption that BAe was now “a different company”; its focus on reporting the Hutton inquiry was on the alleged “whitewash” that the report appeared to give to government rather than probing in any depth the death of nuclear scientist David Kelly; and in reporting the WikiLeaks cables, it sought to play down the substance of the material, describing it as “embarrassing, but not dangerous”.

His conclusion is nuanced, as any study that seeks to “explain” media content should be. He recognises the importance of the overarching ideology and culture within which journalism practice takes place and how that leads journalists to shy away from stories that, in his words, “threaten to unsettle the discourses that legitimise state-corporate power”; this is particularly the case when what he describes as “elite” forces attempt to shut down a story. However, he acknowledges that there are also countervailing forces at work, in particular journalists and editors determined to pursue scandals no matter where they lead, with The Guardian’s Nick Davies being the archetype.

Power Beyond Scrutiny sharpens our understanding of the agenda-setting process and provides evidential backing for those who suggest that investigative journalism should be about more than just looking for the rotten apple in the barrel, but should also consider whether the barrel itself is sound.

Power Beyond Scrutiny: Media Justice and Accountability

By Justin Schlosberg
Pluto, 256pp, £60.00 and £16.99
ISBN 9780745332925, 2918 and 9781849648707 (e-book)
Published 6 March 2013

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

I'm grateful for this thoughtful review. In response to the main critiques... 1. 'The single biggest weakness of the study is that Schlosberg has limited himself to examining only how these three stories were covered by news and current affairs television programmes on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4' - I make it clear in the preface that the focus on public service television reflects the fact that these outlets are by far the most respected, trusted and widely used sources of news in the UK. I don't at any point suggest that they are representative of the media as a whole. Indeed, at various point I make clear the disjuncture between the coverage here and in some parts of the press. But public service television clearly addresses the public conscious in a way that newspapers - who address particular readerships - do not. If anything, the ideological potency of the media system as a whole is strengthened if there are elements within it that are oppositional or resistant to dominant narratives. So long as the most authoritative and wide-reaching outlets relay the message, an otherwise diverse media system can obscure the ideological forces at play - which is essential if ideological hegemony is to 'work'. 2. 'because the “radical” argument about ownership influencing content does not apply to two out of three media he considers (with the BBC and Channel 4 being publicly owned, and ITV operating under public service broadcasting guidelines), he is reliant on notions of ideological hegemony to sustain the radical argument.' - The basis of critique is not clear here. I do indeed seek to refine the radical argument by shifting the focus away from ownership and pursuit of profits as the exclusive determinants of bias and distortion. My findings highlight cultural blindspots rooted in professional ideologies and the search for collective legitimation. 3. 'Schlosberg appears to elide broadcasters with the press. He talks, for example, about how the media created “pressure on the authorities” through editorials. But television news and current affairs programmes obviously have no editorials and even if they did, their public service remit would prevent them from campaigning in the way that Schlosberg suggests.' - This is actually a misquote. But I do suggest that the impartiality doctrine in television news is not as clearly defined in practice as it is in theory. ITV and Channel 4 are clearly more conscious of a 'campaigning' element to their journalism than the BBC and speak of it in explicit terms in the book. But even in the BBC there is a huge difference between coverage in the bulletins and analysis programmes and in all programmes a big difference between scripted reports and live two-ways between anchors and correspondents where the latter are encouraged to offer opinionated reflections. So I find it difficult to accept the assertion that it is 'obvious' television news does not editorialise.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham