#redmann

In But What If We’re Wrong (2016), author Chuck Klosterman urges readers to reassess what they think they know about the present by looking at the current time period as if it were the distant past. A geocentric model of the universe used to be unflinchingly thought of as truth and reality for more than 1500 years; today, the idea that the Earth serves as the centerpoint of the universe is seen to be entirely ridiculous. This is what Klosterman’s method for reassessment and prediction is. In the year 3000, how would we see the year 2016? From the year 2016, how can we imagine the coming decades and centuries to unfold?

In regards to media, it’s safe to say major changes will be made purely from a technological standpoint. Perhaps everything will be a touch screen, for instance, and then evolve into off-screen, interactive projections. Perhaps Apple was right about removing the audio jack from the iPhone 7, and every smartphone from here on out will be cardboard thin and sans audio jack, and the auxiliary cord, a staple of the millennial driving experience, will vanish in the next few years. These are relatively safe predictions and they and many like them will likely be realized in the not-so-distant future.

I predict that the way media is run will change drastically and in ways that are much harder to imagine. I think News Media will be the first to undergo significant changes, purely because of the intense political role it currently plays in the US and abroad. Because I’ve spent a good deal of time reading and analyzing content from The Guardian this term, I’ll use the US and the UK as my points of reference.

Within the past year or two in particular, it seemed the role of major news outlets were (dangerously) influential in the political changes in these two nations, namely with “Brexit” and the US presidential election. Major media outlets in the US, such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, seem to be straying more and more from nonpartisan, facts-based news and more towards political opinions and blatant bias. These channels have become more a part of a supply-demand exchange where they supply and reinforce the opinions that their target audiences hold rather than focusing solely on the facts behind political campaigns and current events. Many Americans know that if one supported Bernie Sanders earlier on in the campaign season, they’d be a happier audience finding an alternative media source rather than the liberal favorite, CNN. Hillary Clinton supporters digested news much more easily watching CNN, and Republican voters have been consistently associated with Fox News viewership.

To the frustration of many, in a race mostly concerned with social issues (or social issues masked as economic or national security issues) these particular channels were more devoid of hard-hitting facts and honest discussions about actual policy than ever before. Instead of thoroughly discussing the validity of Clinton’s economic proposals and pushing for more facts and figures to bolster her plan, discussion focused on her email scandal, her position as first major-party female nominee, and her role as a gun-abolishing, baby-murdering, crook. Instead of pressing Donald Trump for details behind his economic, immigration, or foreign relations policies, most discussion centered around his racist, sexist, and otherwise intolerant remarks, inflammatory rhetoric, and past business endeavors. Ultimately, the cultural climate of this country led to Clinton’s email scandal outweighing Trump’s bigotry, and the presidential race was decided.

In regards to Brexit, much journalism has been published since June discussing the role British news sources played with the referendum vote. Both The Guardian and Al Jazeera have proposed the great influence British media had on the “leave” vote, saying “British newspapers were overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit, with the Mail, Telegraph, Express and Star accounting for four times as many readers and anti-EU stories as their pro-remain rivals” (The Guardian) although the editors of those papers claimed they were impartially reporting concerns the British public already had. In a segment entitled “Media Divide,” an Al Jazeera correspondent discusses the tidal wave of anti-EU headlines from the above sources in the months before the vote. The Daily Mail in particular is criticized for their lack of substantive coverage on what leaving the EU would mean for the United Kingdom, that is, until after 52 percent of Britons voted leave. After the UK voted in favor of Brexit, the Mail, as well as the Telegraph, Express, and others, changed their tune when they finally voiced concerns over what the EU referendum vote meant for political, economic, and social stability. None of the above papers anticipated, or even thought to mention, the coming devaluation of the British pound, concerns over Article 50, and the implications of racist and anti-immigration rhetoric on an issue that was about far more than race and immigration. To make matters worse, many who voted “leave” on the referendum began to regret their vote after realizing what the referendum truly meant for the economy and their weakening parliament.

These news sources, from both the US and the UK, have caused irreparable damage with their lack of substantive coverage and blatant political bias. By not performing their due diligence to properly inform their public in social, political, and economic matters, they’ve contributed to what may be considered as two of the most spectacularly ill-conceived political decisions the world over in recent years. Americans and Britons who wish to educate themselves on political issues but are not well-practiced in news media literacy are met with poorly reported, even unethical, journalism. When the major news media sources fail carry out their journalistic duty, it makes finding the facts incredibly challenging.

The Guardian news outlet is primarily based in London, England, of the United Kingdom. The UK, a sovereign island nation situated between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, is twice the size of the state of Pennsylvania and home to nearly 64.5 million people between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The British population is primarily white, at 87 percent, with Black/African/Caribbean peoples making up the second largest segment of the population at 3 percent. Asian individuals of Indian and Pakistani origin or descent also make up a noteworthy percentage of the population, and England sees the highest proportion of residents emigrated from these countries.

In the past five years, the UK has seen a significant increase in immigration. Between 2013 and 2014 alone, the percentage of non-British individuals in the population increased 7.2 percent to just fewer than 5.5 million people. This increase in immigration, coupled with frustrations about a distant bureaucracy in the European Union, led to a narrowly voted referendum for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. This decision, dubbed ‘Brexit,’ transpired in June 2016 and has since led to even more political and social unrest within the nation.

In the weeks before and after the referendum vote, many of the leading news publications in the UK came under question for their Brexit biases and possible dangers of their impartialities. The British Broadcasting Network (BBC), the largest broadcasting corporation not only in the UK but in the world, was under scrutiny for being pro-Remain during the time leading up to the vote and during the time since. The BBC operates several national, regional, and local television channels, a wide-ranging system of public and commercial television broadcasters, as well as satellite and cable systems that provide access to thousands of TVs worldwide. As of April 2016, the BBC reached a record high weekly audience of 348 million people worldwide. Other leading news and popular press sources include The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Observer (since acquired by The Guardian Media Group), and The Guardian, most of which are offered in web editions as well as paper editions.

Most, if not all, of the above publications can be categorized by political leaning regardless of whether or not the publication offers an official statement of affiliation. The Guardian considers itself to be “centre-left” and vaguely progressive, but also firmly maintains that it independent of “shareholders, advertisers, or billionaire owners.” The publication prides itself on upholding the tenets of good, honest journalism while exposing corruption and foul play “wherever [they] find it.” 

Those who read The Guardian and other news sources seem to agree with their assessment; over the past year alone, The Guardian has won dozens of awards that speak to their investigative journalism, groundbreaking content, and innovative use of technology. 

The publication has had nearly two centuries of good repute within the United Kingdom, dating back to its existence as The Manchester Guardian. Founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, the newspaper was meant to promote the interest of the Liberal party following the Peterloo Massacre. The paper was published once a week for 15 years, then twice a week until the abolition of the Stamp Duty made daily publishing possible. 

The Guardian became nationally and internationally lauded under the editorship of CP Scott (1872-1929), who eventually bought the paper from the founder’s son in 1907. Scott pledged to uphold Taylor’s vision for the paper, as he outlined in an often quoted article written on the paper’s centennial anniversary: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.” 

After CP Scott died in 1932, the paper’s ownership fell to JR Scott, who then passed on ownership to the Scott Trust, an independent charity whose focus is on journalism education in the UK and abroad. The Scott Trust secures financial footing for the publication while safeguarding its editorial independence and liberal values. The Guardian remains in ownership of the Scott Trust to this day.

The Guardian is read by over 2.2 million adult readers daily on print and web platforms, a number that jumps to 27.6 million readers when mobile readership is accounted for. The Guardian’s Facebook page is followed by 6.5 million people, and their Twitter account is followed by 6 million. According to OfCom, they are the most trusted newspaper in the UK. According to The Guardian’s media kit, they consider their audience to be “inquisitive, open-minded, and active.” They tend to be people who travel, embrace change and new technology, and have a progressive mindset. It can be said that their audience is more left-wing and liberal-minded, tends to be higher educated, and of the middle(ish) class, as their media kit mentions the large monetary return advertisers get on their marketing investment. 

The Guardian is largely considered to be a trustworthy and hard-hitting news source, although it is noted that they do have a certain political/ideological stance (which they themselves also note). The publication covers a diverse collection of topics, ranging from US elections, police brutality, and the Syrian civil war, to ideological shifts regarding feminine beauty and the killing of environmental activists in Honduras. The topics on the UK-based website include UK news, World news, Politics, Sport, Football, Opinion, Culture, Business, Lifestyle, Fashion, Environment, Tech, and Travel, and every section is well-equipped with solid journalistic practices and a wealth of information. 

Possibly the most impressive thing about The Guardian is the breadth of topics covered and the depth of information that is reached. Of course The Guardian covers the conflict in Syria and the influx of refugees to Europe, as many news sources do, but the publication takes it many steps further by publishing photo story galleries, writing stories discussing the capture of journalists reporting in Syria, the experience of child refugees arriving in Britain, the complex web of Russian-Syrian relations, and much, much more. 

A snapshot of the website’s homepage offers even more insight to the breadth of topics covered: prison violence in England and Wales, the Catholic Church’s apology for forced adoptions in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, emerging treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, a German take on the economic consequences of Brexit, a video of a US army veteran talking about his service in Iraq, a new Play-Doh app (is play-time dead?), and the impact Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and FBI investigation have had on the election polls. The Guardian publishes a lot of material dealing with domestic issues, but the numerous foreign issues they undertake are also written with an intelligent, neutral voice (not necessarily written from a British perspective), with properly sourced material and interesting analyses on the implications of international events, even if the implications of those events don’t affect the UK in the slightest.   

Based on the way The Guardian covers domestic and foreign issues and their voice when writing lifestyle pieces and op-eds, it can be said they are deeply committed to creating a more informed United Kingdom, a nation that can vote and discuss a variety of issues using solid facts and critical thinking, and a more informed world as well. The publication does an excellent job of creating community by giving every side of each issue its due respect and publishing articles that relate to their audience at large, even if the topic often goes unspoken or is uncomfortable to discuss. The Guardian even covers celebrity news, but often with a more critical eye. It seems as though if the world is talking about an issue, The Guardian will cover it; they’ll even cover issues most of the world has never heard of or considered.