How to write analytical essays - News and the Media 2

How to write analytical essays - News and the Media 2

Here on English Language Resources Online is another analytical essay on News and the Media. In this series, the news and the media are the main focus of the essays, and the essays in particular are analytical essays. There are of course many different types of essays that you can learn from and read here on this site, ranging from history essays to Bible essays, from Literature essays to reviews/ articles and other types of essays.

This analytical essay here on this post on English Language Resources uses a method of analysis called the lens technique. The lens technique is to use another article or a methodology to view another article, hence the word lens. Simply put, to write an analytical essay using the lens technique, use another article to inform your understanding of an article that you wish to analyse.

Analytical essays are all about analyses of newspapers, articles, and other writings and essays. Do remember to ask yourself pertinent and important questions about the essays and this essay in particular.

Note: unlike other articles and other essays here on English Language Resources Online, this analytical essay can only be understood fully or clearly if one knows Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel and Lakoff's model. Nonetheless, you can still proofread, analyse, read, and review this analytical essay for your own edification and educational purposes. If you are able to turn out and write analytical essays like this, this English language resource is more of revision for you rather than learning. If you are an intermediate learner, it is less important to learn and know the content that follows here, as in Lakoff and K&R, than techniques and ideas in writing and how to write good essays. All the best and do enjoy the essay.

Title: Underlying Political Ideology in K&R’s “What is journalism for?”

It is common knowledge that writers have underlying political values and beliefs that affect the way they perceive issues. Some people label these political values and beliefs “ideology”, and few would argue that writing can be completely free from the author’s ideology. Similarly, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel also have their political ideology embedded inside “What is Journalism For?” where they argue that "the primary purpose of journalism [in democratic communities] is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 17), and expound on the challenges facing journalism in the age of rising technology, globalisation and conglomeration. Finally, they propose a return to the original purpose and mission of journalism (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 31- 33). On the surface the article seems to be simply about that. However, a failure to understand the ideological basis of Kovach and Rosenstiel’s arguments might result in an incomplete understanding or misunderstanding of their arguments. Specifically, it appears that Kovach and Rosenstiel seem to favour a liberal understanding of the functions of journalism, and are primarily against the rise of self-interest in the form of rising commercialism and conglomeration as the key issue they, and thus they stress a return to the fundamental liberal values of journalism as a means of resolving what they see as a challenge to journalism. Why this is the case can be understood more clearly by identifying and analysing their underlying political ideology that is embedded in both the literal foreground meanings and the metaphors in the article.

I will attempt to prove that Kovach and Rosenstiel start from a basic traditional liberal viewpoint of the news and move to challenge a rising moderate conservative self-interest in the form of conglomeration, which is the key to a better and nuanced understanding of the article, by looking at the metaphors and using foreground meanings to corroborate my claims. I will be using George Lakoff’s essay “Metaphor, Morality, and Politics: Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals in the Dust” (Lakoff 1999) as a basis to look at the metaphors in the article. Lakoff argues that “we may not always know it, but we think in metaphor” and, based on that premise, puts forth a model that allows one to identify underlying political ideology as reflected by metaphors (1999, 139-140). Lakoff’s model identifies a liberal as someone who gives “nurturance” first priority and a conservative as someone who gives “moral strength” first priority in his ideological view of the world, and suggests that metaphors relating to the “strict father model” reflect conservative ideology (1999, 145), while the “nurturant parent model” reflects liberal ideology (1999, 149). Enlarging the analysis of metaphors from what he terms “Nation-as-family” (1999, 148), I intend to extrapolate and consider various other complexes of metaphors related to the models of the strict father and the nurturant parent that he suggests in order to show that Kovach and Rosenstiel’s liberal understanding leads them to attack rising commercialism and conglomeration, which they see as threats to journalism.

There are two major groups of ill noticed but important metaphors in Kovach and Rosenstiel’s article revolving around conversation and service, suggesting that Kovach and Rosenstiel possess a liberal viewpoint and are against a very highly ranked “self-interest” viewpoint, suggesting that conglomerates are probably self-interested conservatives, who value “self-interest” and “moral strength” over “nurturance” (Lakoff 1999, 153).

The first group of metaphors revolves around conversation. Conversation is about talking, yet the journalism that Kovach and Rosenstiel consider in the article is primarily about print, writing, and presumably reading. This seemingly minor point is significant because conversation can be taken to be a metaphor of journalism. Looking through the article, the evidence presents itself: “Perhaps in the end journalism simply means carrying on and amplifying the conversation of people themselves” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 18) suggests that journalism is like continuing a conversation, and making words sound louder and more important. Also, journalism arose “literally out of conversation” and “spirited conversation” (2000, 21). These are metaphors of conversation and debate. This is significant because it appears that the nurturance aspect of the “Nurturant Parent Model” (Lakoff 1999, 149) is being reflected where there is communication in the form of conversation and lively debates within the family, suggesting that Kovach and Rosenstiel have underlying liberal beliefs.

The second group of metaphors revolves around service. The journalism that Kovach and Rosenstiel support is print journalism, and the sense of service that they may have is dissemination of information. Dissemination of newsworthy information is a liberal idea because it is related to Lakoff’s metaphor of “nurturance”, as information nurtures people with knowledge and provides them with news “service”, which is connected to core liberal beliefs. Hence, it appears that “service” metaphors augment the view that Kovach and Rosenstiel seem to favour a liberal understanding of the functions of journalism. For instance, the statements “The press was to serve the governed” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 23) and the meaning of “serving the interests of the widest community possible” (2000, 29) both suggest that the press is like a person who is in the service of the “wider community”, a form of “social nurturance” and “social ties” (Lakoff 1999, 150), a view that confirms a liberal understanding of journalism’s purpose because service is usually about the interests of others and not one’s own, and by serving the “wider community” one builds bonds, and thus nurtures society.

Further, service is inextricably linked to community. The statement “The news media help us define our communities, and help us create a common language and common knowledge rooted in reality” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 17) seems to corroborate the evidence regarding service, where the repetition of the word “help” also suggests service, as if the news media literally were a “servant” or a person helping to define communities and creating language. In a related vein, the word “community” also consistently comes repeatedly, for instance in the revealing statement that “it is impossible to separate news from community, and over time more specifically from democratic community.” Hence, service and help cannot be divorced from the community, because, according to Lakoff, the liberal understanding is about assistance and service to one’s community, and in his words, “deriving meaning from one’s community and from … secure attachments” (Lakoff 1999, 149). Extrapolating from these key ideas, it is clear that liberal journalism derives its purpose by building bonds and a sense of attachment and close relationships with its community. Hence, the evidence seems to reinforce the literal foreground proposition that “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 17).

As an additional point related to conversation and community, consider “Burgin’s theory of the diverse page” and “The Theory of the Interlocking Public” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 27), where the word “diverse” suggests a multiplicity of ideas and can be applied to both conversation and community. A conversation that covers many different topics can be considered diverse, and a community can be diverse in the sense of having many different members. Diversity is thus a traditional liberal idea, reinforced by the concept that “out of a diversity of voices the people are more likely to know the truth and thus be able to self-govern” (2000, 23). The word “interlocking” suggests a connection, relationship and enmeshment, and can also be applied to both conversation and community. Conversation creates and connects relationships, and communities are also about interlocking relationships. Diversity and interconnectedness could easily be elements of the “nurturant parent model” in Lakoff’s model, and hence “Burgin’s theory” and “The Theory of the Interlocking Public” both reinforce a traditional liberal view because they focus on diversity and interconnectedness in conversation and community.

On the other side of the issue, we can see that Kovach and Rosenstiel view the rise of conglomeration as the main challenge to their liberal views. Consider the evidence given by the example they chose of Rupert Murdoch, who is described as a “media baron” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 30), where the word “baron” suggests nobility, a metaphor strongly suggestive of monarchical conservatism. Rupert Murdoch argues that “Singapore is not liberal, but it is clean and free of drug addicts. Not so long ago, it was an impoverished, exploited colony with famines, diseases … Now people find themselves in three-room apartments with jobs and clean streets.” (2000, 30) The repetition of the word “clean” suggests that it is a metaphor and not just descriptive of Singapore’s streets. Furthermore, using Lakoff’s model, “clean” suggests moral health and cleanliness, and this would appear to be a conservative viewpoint as conservatives value moral health, wholeness and cleanliness. Furthermore, the antonym “diseases” taken metaphorically indirectly reflects Lakoff’s model where disease can be taken to be a direct challenge against conservatism and its correlated moral health and wholeness. Hence Kovach and Rosenstiel seem to challenge this conservative view, which is contrary to the liberal functions of journalism. In addition, when Rupert Murdoch claims that “Material incentives create business and the free market economy” (2000, 30), the literal statement is highly suggestive of “self-interest”, and Kovach and Rosenstiel’s criticism of “a market-based journalism increasingly divorced from the idea of civic responsibility” (2000, 30) suggests their metaphorical attack on the conservative view of the family, as coming under divorce, or perhaps even a metaphorical separation of self-interest from liberal ideals.

Furthermore, more evidence reflects Kovach and Rosenstiel’s criticism of the rise of conglomeration. “Yet there is a growing list now of other examples of ownership subordinating journalism to other commercial interests” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 30) has a metaphor of subordination, which can be analysed vis-à-vis Lakoff’s model of the strict father (Lakoff 1999, 145), as placing journalism under “commercial interests” suggests that journalism is dominated by the “father” of “self-interest”. Indeed, this metaphor of domination is corroborated where critics of journalism are supposed to have said that “Lippmann’s view dominates too much of how journalists operate today” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2000, 27). Expanding on Lakoff’s ideas, “domination” is too top-down, and strongly suggestive of the “strict father”, contrary to the nurturing relationship of the “nurturant parent”, thus suggesting a bias towards a liberal ideology and against conservative “self-interest”.

In conclusion, I have shown that Kovach and Rosenstiel’s underlying liberal ideology leads them to privilege their own understanding of the functions of journalism and hence to criticise rising self-interest in the form of conglomeration, which they view as posing the main challenge to their view of the function of journalism. Their criticism of rising conglomeration and commercialism is due to their underlying liberal values and their concomitant opposition to what they view as the rise of conservative self-interest. It is clear that metaphors can reveal insights into the thinking and motivation of writers. Ultimately, there is a need to understand the ideological basis of an author’s arguments to have a complete and nuanced understanding of their arguments and to fully understand why and how they privilege their views over another set of views which they criticise.

WORKS CITED

Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. New York: Crowe Publishers 15-35.

Lakoff, George. 1999. Metaphor, morality, and politics: Or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. In The workings of language: From prescription to perspective, ed. Rebecca S. Wheeler, 139- 155. Westport, CN: Praeger.

What have you learnt from this intellectual, analytical essay?