Election: LSE report on the British Press – ‘From watchdog to attack dog’

29 January 2020 — True Publica

Screenshot 2020 01 28 at 11 42 59

Irrespective of anyone’s political affiliation – the mainstream media has a responsibility to hold power to account, not facilitate wannabe authoritarians into Downing Street. Don’t forget these are the words from the London School of Economics, founded in 1895 for the betterment of society. Despite its name, the school is organised into 25 academic departments and institutes which conduct teaching and research across a range of pure and applied social sciences – and what its research finds from the last election about the mainstream media is truly alarming.

I would urge that you read this report and then share this article link far and wide.

From “Watchdog” to “Attack dog”

By Project Director: Dr Bart Cammaerts

his research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attack-dog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.