The Miners and the Media: Themes of Newspaper Reporting

Abstract

Most of us, though not directly involved, feel we know something about the causes and events of the coal dispute. But where did we get this knowledge from? Jock Young suggests that because of segregation between social groups, information is increasingly likely to be received second-hand, rather than directly through face-to-face contact, and that this leads to gross misperception of 'deviants'.1 In the context of the coal dispute Alastair Hetherington, while confirming the importance of the media as a prime source of information for most of the public, added that the effect of this information would be determined by the individual's point of view.2 In other words, individuals, depending on their own preferences and views, are in a position to accept or reject the media message. The role of the media in the coal dispute, however, was not simply one of information given, it acted as selector, narrator and interpreter of information. As such it may not just have confirmed views but may actually have created these views. In such a short article it is impossible to report on the results of a full content analysis of coverage of the dispute. The piece will concentrate therefore on themes of coverage and examine areas of media distortion. Distorted coverage of industrial disputes is not untypical. The Glasgow Media Group, in its analysis of news coverage of trade union issues, commented on the dramatic reporting of those disputes which could have a direct effect on the population, for example, mining or power industry disputes. They found that little space was given in the press to the causes of.strikes and that in general the media adopted a hostile attitude towards unions and towards disputes. The media tended to assume that unions were strike-prone and conducted their interviews with the belief that strikes were wrong. They concluded that the media work within an ideological frame of consensus and that: