This essay provides a statistical and qualitative analysis of the hierarchical coverage of politics by UK Television news. It finds that there is a rigidly structured hierarchy of political access and focus, whereby the Prime Minister dominates over the cabinet, the cabinet dominates over ordinary MPs, the governing party dominates over the opposition, the three main parties dominate overwhelmingly over smaller parties, and the political elites dominate over ordinary members of the public. The paper also provides a framing analysis of TV news both during and after an election campaign period, and finds a skew towards `horse race' and personalization coverage which both outweigh `policy' issues. Thus television news is characterised by a hybrid of hierarchical and exclusive coverage of politics, combined with a narrowly expressed `cynicism' or populist antagonism towards politics that is personalized and anti-systemic in its focus.
Barnett, S.2002. Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy ? Political Quarterly73:400-408.
2.
Bennett, W.L.1990. Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication40 (2): 103-27.
3.
Bevir, M., and R.A.W. Rhodes.2006. Prime ministers, presidentialism and Westminster smokescreens. Political Studies54 (4): 671-90.
4.
Blumler, J.G., and D. Kavanagh.1999. The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication16 (3): 209-30.
5.
Brewer, P.R., and L. Sigelman.2002. Political scientists as color commentators: Framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Press/Politics7 (1): 23-35.
6.
Brookes, R., J. Lewis, and K. Wahl-Jorgensen .2004. The media representation of public opinion: British television news coverage of the 2001 general election. Media, Culture & Society26 (62): 63-80.
7.
Cappella, J.N., and K.H. Jamieson.1996. News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science546:71-84.
8.
Cottle, S., and R. Mugdha.2006. Between display and deliberation: Analyzing TV news as communicative architecture. Media, Culture & Society28 (2): 163-89.
9.
Deacon, D., D. Wring, M. Billig, J. Downey, P. Golding, and S. Davidson.2005. Reporting the 2005 U.K. general election . http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk (accessed February 12, 2007).
10.
Deardourff, J.1996. Coverage drives campaigns: Reflections on the decline of political reporting. Press/ Politics1 (2): 100-110.
11.
Eilders, C., K. Degenhardt, P. Hermann, and M.V. Der Lippe.2004. Surfing the tide: An analysis of party and issue coverage in the national election campaign 2002. German Politics13 (2): 218-42.
12.
Electoral Commission.2001. Election 2001: The official results. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/document-summary?assetid=70970 (accessed March 19, 2007).
13.
Farnsworth, S.J., and S.R. Lichter.2004. Increasing candidate-centered television discourse: Evaluating local news coverage of campaign 2000. Press/Politics9 (2): 76-93.
14.
Foley, M.2004. Presidential attribution as an agency of prime ministerial critique in a parliamentary democracy: The case of Tony Blair. British Journal of Politics and International Relations6 (3): 292-311.
15.
Franklin, B.1997. Newszak and news media. London: Arnold.
16.
Gan, F., J. Leng Teo, and B.H. Detenber.2005. Framing the battle for the White House: A comparison of two national newspapers' coverage of the 2000 United States presidential election. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies67 (5): 441-67.
17.
Gitlin, T.1980. The whole world is watching. Los Angeles : University of California Press.
18.
Goddard, P., M. Scammell, and H.A. Semetko.1998. Too much of a good thing? Television in the 1997 election campaign. In Political communications: Why Labour won the general election of 1997, ed. I. Crewe, B. Gosschalk, and J. Bartle, 149-75. London: Frank Cass.
19.
Hargreaves, I., and J. Thomas.2002. New news, old news. London: Independent Television Commission.
20.
Heffernan, R.2003. Prime ministerial predominance? Core executive politics in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations5 (3): 347-72.
21.
Kerbel, M.R., S. Apee, and M.H. Ross.2000. PBS ain't so different: Public broadcasting, election frames, and democratic empowerment. Press/Politics5 (4): 8-32.
22.
Kevill, S.2002. Beyond the soundbite. London: BBC.
23.
Leys, C.2001. Market-driven politics, neoliberal democracy and the public interest. London: Verso.
24.
Lichter, S.R.2001. A plague on both parties: Substance and fairness in TV election news. Press/Politics6 (3): 8-30.
25.
Lloyd, J.2004. What the media are doing to our politics. London: Constable.
26.
Marsh, D., D. Richards, and M. Smith.2005. Unequal plurality: Towards an asymmetric power model ofBritish politics. Government and Opposition38:306-32.
27.
Meiksins Wood, E.2005. Empire of capital. London: Verso.
28.
Miller, D.2004. System failure: It's not just the media-The whole political system has failed. Journal of Public Affairs4 (4): 374-82.
29.
Miller, W., A.M. Timpson, and M.H. Lessnoff.1996. Political culture in contemporary Britain: People and politicians. Principles and practice. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
Murray, C., K. Parry, P. Robinson, and P. Goddard.2008. Reporting dissent in wartime: British press, the anti-war movement and the 2003 Iraq war. European Journal of Communication23:7-27.
31.
Norris, P.2001. A failing grade? The news media and campaign 2000. Press/Politics6 (2): 3-9.
32.
Office of Communications.2007. New news, future news. The challenges for television news after digital switch-over . London: Office of Communications.
33.
Patterson, T.1994. Out of order. New York: Knopf.
34.
Philo, G.1995. Glasgow media group reader, vol. 2: Industry, economy, war and politics. London: Routledge .
35.
Philo, G., and M. Berry.2004. Bad news from Israel. London: Pluto.
36.
Power Report.2006. Power to the people: The report of Power, An independent inquiry into Britain's democracy . York, UK: Power Report.
37.
Rhodes, R.A.W.1994. The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service. Political Quarterly65:138-51.
38.
Sabato, L.J.1991. Feeding frenzy: How attack journalism has transformed American politics. New York: Free Press.
39.
Semetko, H., J. Blumler, M. Gurevitch, and D. Weaver.1991. The formation of campaign agendas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Teeple, G.2000. Globalization and the decline of social reform. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
41.
Wayne, M., L. Henderson, C. Murray, and J. Petley.2008. Television news and the symbolic criminalisation of young people. Journalism Studies9 (1): 75-90.
