Lesson video

Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through the citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be able to take part in the lesson, and I'll also pause and tell you when you need to complete an activity or complete a check for understanding.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called, What is the evolving role of the media, and it's taken from the unit, How powerful is the media? And by the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain the difference between traditional and digital media ownership and the potential impact of this on democracy.

So let's have a look at our keywords.

We're going to look at traditional media, which is forms of communication like print, newspapers and magazines, television, and radio, which have been around for a long time and existed before the internet became widely used.

We've then got digital media, which is any form of media that uses electronic devices or technology to create store and share content.

So for example, websites, social media, apps, video streaming, and online news.

We've also got corporation.

A corporation is a large business that owns and controls multiple companies, and this includes media outlets or other industries.

And we've also got regulation, which is the control or governance of activities through rules, laws, or standards.

This is our lesson outline for today.

We're going to first of all look at how has media ownership changed over time, and we're then going to look at what is the impact of digital media ownership.

And we're going to start by looking at how has media ownership changed over time? So Aisha is asking, why should we care about media ownership? So pause and have a think about this yourselves.

It's important to remember that in a democracy, citizens depend on the media to provide accurate, unbiased information which they can then use to make informed decisions.

The media also performs a checking function, holding those in power accountable.

Therefore, the people or organisations who own the media ultimately play a role in what it is we actually receive when we are accessing the media ourselves.

So it is something that we should think about and it is something that we should care about.

Aisha's then asking, "How did traditional media ownership look in the past, compared to now?" This might be quite a tricky question.

You might not have learned about this or know about this, but pause and have a think, thinking about traditional media, what might that ownership have looked like in the past compared to what it looks like now? So in the early 20th century, it's first of all important to remember that actually media consisted of newspapers.

And then a little bit later, radio.

Ownership was diverse.

There was lots of independent publishers and they ran regional newspapers and national daily newspapers.

We also saw in 1927 the British Broadcasting Corporation, which we know is the BBC, was established, and it was to be a publicly funded and impartial broadcaster that would provide news and entertainment.

The BBC has worked to ensure that all citizens have access to reliable information.

So early 20th century, we had newspapers and we had radio, and then we had the BBC.

If you then look towards the late 20th century, there was a real change.

There was a change to media ownership with the emergence of privately owned media corporations.

So remember corporations, one of our keywords, those large organisations.

So these large corporations started by newspapers from smaller independent publishers or even family businesses.

And there's an example of this with the Times newspaper.

So that was actually founded by someone called John Walters in 1758, so a long, long time ago, and over the years it was passed down through his family and later sold to different owners.

But in 1981, Rupert Murdoch's Company, which is called News Corporation, which is a really large news corporation, bought the Times and its sister paper, The Sunday Times, and it is now owned by News UK, which is Rupert Murdoch's large corporation.

So a real change there from a newspaper being owned by a sort of small family business and then getting passed down to then getting bought by a much larger news corporation.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? Let's read it together first of all.

Early 20th century.

Ownership was diverse with independent publishers.

In 1927, the something was established under a something Charter.

In the late 20th century, emergence of something media corporations instead of smaller independent publishers.

So the BBC was established under the Royal Charter and the late 20th century saw the emergence of large media corporations instead of smaller independent publishers.

This was a strategic move to try to increase his organization's power and influence.

So Rupert Murdoch buying a newspaper, that's going to really increase his organization's power and influence, it's going to gain him lots more customers and lots more people that are accessing his media assets.

Media corporations such as News UK have profit as a key goal, and therefore they need to think carefully about the media that they own and how they can ensure they have the most consumers.

So Aisha's asking, "Were there any concerns over large media corporations owning popular media sources?" So have a think about this yourself.

So remember, earlier on, newspapers and media assets were often owned by small family businesses, small organisations.

Then we saw them being bought by much larger, popular, bigger media corporations.

So pause and have a think about that question yourself.

So when media ownership is limited to a small number, so when you've got less corporations, but they're big and they own lots and lots of media, it can distort public debate by limiting the range of opinions and narratives that are available.

So let's look at that in context.

So let's have a made-up scenario now.

So let us imagine that a media mogul, or someone who's got loads and loads and loads of media assets that they own, called Mr. Pound.

Let's imagine Mr. Pound, he is a long-term supporter of the Labour Party and as are the shareholders in his media corporation.

So they are people that have invested in his corporation and they will get money back over time when things are sold.

So he owns, so Mr. Pound owns 80% of all newspapers, all newspapers, 70% of all radio stations, and he also has a primetime news programme on all major television channels.

As he has full control of media content, he ensures that this is always pro-Labor and that it's extremely critical of other parties and their policies.

So just pause for a second and think, in a democracy, if this was to happen, what would the concerns be? What would the issues be? This could be an issue for democracy as citizens would be receiving very biassed reporting when we rely on a free press for factual and impartial information which we can then use to make important decisions.

So Aisha's saying, "That could be a potential democracy disaster, does this actually happen?" So have a think to yourself.

Obviously what we looked at was a made up example of Mr. Pound, but do you think that could actually happen? Could you have one news corporation owning that much of the media? Pause and have a think.

Yes and no.

So there are very large media corporations that are owned by a single person, so they are large, and we'll see that actually they do own quite a lot of assets.

But there are also limits as to how much media can actually be owned by one corporation, and these limits exist to support democracy.

So an example of this can be seen from 2016 when Rupert Murdoch, who've already looked at, someone that already owns lots of media assets, tried to purchase Sky, and this was actually blocked by regulators as they were concerned this would mean he owned too much media, which is not a positive step within a democracy.

And this highlights two important facts about media power and democracy.

One, that media does not have ultimate power.

They must still follow regulations.

So remember, regulations are those rules and procedures that are put in place.

And two, although there are key people and organisations that own a large wedge of media sources, there are limitations on this, and we saw this when Rupert Murdoch tried to buy Sky in 2016 and was not allowed to do so.

So let's have a check for understanding.

True or false? Unlimited media ownership is a concern for democracy.

Is that true? Is that false? And can you tell me why? It's true.

And why? Unlimited media ownership can distort public debate by limiting the range of opinions and narratives that are available.

If one organisation has too much power, their opinions are amplified over others.

There are further differences in media ownership that further support democracy, and that's by having different types of ownership and different types of corporations.

So we have media corporations that are private businesses, which we've looked at a little bit already.

So for example, we've got News UK and they own The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, Talk/Talk Sport, Times/Virgin Radio, and the programme "Piers Morgan Uncensored." So that would be an example of a large media corporation.

But we then have publicly funded media organisations.

So for example, the BBC, and that's a public corporation established by a Royal Charter.

It's funded through a licencing fee, so ultimately citizens pay for the BBC and therefore it must serve the public and therefore it must remain impartial.

And then there are also non-profit media organisations.

So for example, The Scot Trust, and they own The Guardian and The Observer.

And with these non-profit media organisations, money made from sales goes directly back into journalism.

So that's really important to consider as well that there are different types of ownership that exist in this country, which further support democracy.

So Aisha's asking, "How does having a publicly funded media organisation, like the BBC, support democracy?" So we've touched upon this a little bit already, but pause and have a think to see if you can expand.

So the BBC is provided for citizens and funded by citizens through licencing fees.

And this means it must provide news that is relevant to everyone, not just a set group of people with particular political views, because ultimately it's everybody who has access to BBC that is paying a TV licence that should be able to enjoy and be able to access it and engage with that media.

So therefore it must remain impartial and it must provide news that's relevant to everyone.

And it's for this reason that the BBC remains impartial and this is important in a democracy, as citizens can trust that the news they receive from this source is factual and free from bias.

Whilst other media ownership has changed, the BBC remains committed to its original pledge from the 1920s.

So those aims of the BBC to be impartial and to provide relevant news for everybody has remained the same.

So let's have a little bit of a look at that in a table.

So we've got two examples.

So we've got a corporation, a large media corporation, which is News UK, but then we've also got the broad British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC.

So let's have a look at the differences.

So first of all, the BBC, in terms of ownership, it's actually publicly funded through a licence fee and it's governed by a Royal Charter.

So in essence, because it's publicly funded, it needs to provide a service for all of us, whereas News UK, which is a large media corporation, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

In terms of assets, like what it owns, the media sources that it has, the BBC has BBC One, BBC Two, BBC News.

Then it also has the radio stations, BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2.

And it also has BBC Online.

News UK has The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, which are all newspapers, and it also has "TalkSPORT" and "Times Radio." So you can see there that actually both of those, both the publicly funded BBC and the large corporation, News UK, actually both own a lot of assets, but you can see that it's relatively equal between the two, and that's what's really important in a democracy.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Which popular newspaper is owned by News UK? Is it The sun, The Star, The Moon, or The Cloud? And it's The Sun.

So Izzy's asking, "So how powerful is traditional media and how is this power influenced by ownership?" Just think for yourselves, how would you answer that question? So let's have a look at how Aisha's going to answer.

She's saying, "Traditional media is powerful due to the audiences it attracts and the numerous ways it can be consumed.

Citizens use the media to make important decisions.

However, there are regulations and rules regarding ownership so that no one organisation can have complete power over what information citizens have access to." Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify one reason why the media is powerful and one way this power is limited.

So the media is powerful because of large audiences, numerous ways it can be consumed, and that it's used to make important decisions.

Media power is limited via limits on media ownership, regulations.

So for Task A, I would like you to think about this.

So the late 20th century saw the emergence of large media corporations.

Explain why there are limits to the amount of media assets that a media corporation can own.

And Aisha's reminding you to refer to power and democracy in your answer.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So your answer may have included, "In a democracy, it's important that one media corporation doesn't own too many newspapers, because it can give them too much power over what people see and hear.

If one company controls most of the news, they can decide which stories get reported and how they are told, which might make it harder for people to hear a balanced argument.

If one company has too much control, it could influence public opinion too much and that could be dangerous for democracy." We're now gonna look at what is the impact of digital media ownership.

So Izzy's asking, "What actually is digital media and how has it impacted democracy?" So pause and have a think to yourself.

So digital media includes media sources that use technology.

They are often referred to as new media.

So for example, social media, blogs, and streaming videos would all be classed as digital media.

Digital media has had a positive impact on democracy by making information more accessible, encouraging public debate, and allowing people to participate in political discussions.

However, it can also have a negative impact due to misinformation and disinformation being more easily spread.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Which is not a type of digital media? Is it A, social media, B, streaming videos, C, newspapers, or D, blogs? And it's C, newspaper is not a type of digital media, it's traditional.

So another concern relating to digital media and democracy is to do with digital media ownership.

A small number of large technology companies, e.

g.

some big tech organisations, control a significant, really significant proportion of what people see online, which could mean they have significant power regarding what people see and don't see when using digital media.

So Izzy's saying, "Remember we learnt about Rupert Murdoch not being allowed to buy Sky," so he wasn't allowed to buy Sky through regulations, 'cause that would mean that he owned too many media assets, which is bad for democracy.

However, this isn't the case with digital media.

There are much fewer limits on how much digital media a global technology company can own when compared to traditional media.

Traditional media ownership is regulated to limit power and ensure a variety of viewpoints, whereas digital media companies face much fewer restrictions allowing for a small number, a few, large corporations to dominate online platforms. So Izzy's asking, "What are the potential problems with unlimited digital media ownership?" So pause and have a think to yourselves.

So global technology company dominance, which means a few companies controlling the majority of online news distribution.

And in a democracy, citizens should be able to access a variety of free press.

If citizens are only using digital media to access information, they won't be receiving impartial information that provides a balanced view of the news.

There's much more of a risk that they're going to be being provided with that really sort of singular narrative.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? Let's read it together.

If citizens are only using something to access information, they won't be receiving impartial information that provides a something view of the news.

Let's have a look.

So if citizens are only using digital media to access information, they won't be receiving impartial information that provides a balanced view of the news.

Another concern relating to digital media and democracy is to do with digital media regulation.

So global technology companies that own digital media are self-regulated.

This means that they set their own rules themself, they're self-regulated, and they also create their own community guidelines.

If and when complaints are reported, these are dealt with internally via private companies.

Although defamation laws, so they're laws that make it illegal for people to broadcast or say damaging false things about people, so although these laws and the UK Online Safety Bill still apply to online content, on the whole, global technology companies face much fewer restrictions than traditional media types, like the radio or newspapers.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Which describes digital media regulation? A, it is self-regulated.

B, it is centrally regulated.

Or C, it is not regulated at all.

And it's A, it is regulated, but it's self-regulated.

And this can then lead to limited accountability, because unlike traditional media, digital platforms set their own rules on content moderation and misinformation.

People can also post online content anonymously, which further reduces accountability.

This could make it more likely for harmful or false content to be widely circulated without the fear of repercussions, which is damaging in a democracy because we should be able to trust what we are accessing.

Although harmful or false content can be taken down from digital platforms if it's spotted, this relies on the information being found and reported in the first place.

And because of the speed at which online content is spread and can go viral, it also makes it really difficult to spot negative content and ensure that that's getting removed quickly.

Another concern relating to digital media and democracy is algorithm bias.

Global technology companies rely on their users being engaged and happy with the content that they are consuming online, and they therefore heavily use algorithms to ensure that online users are receiving information that aligns to their beliefs.

This is negative in a democracy, as it creates online echo chambers where citizens are only ever being exposed to information and opinions that match their own.

This can limit the ability to think critically.

So let's have a look at them side by side.

So we've got traditional media and we've got digital media.

So in terms of ownership, so with traditional media, we've seen that there are ownership limitations, there's limitations as to how much media one corporation can own, whereas with digital media, there are no ownership limitations.

In terms of regulation, it does apply to both, but it's different.

With traditional media, it's centrally regulated, so the regulation is the same for everyone, whereas with digital media, it's self-regulated, where they're making their own rules and decisions about things.

In terms of content control, so how is content kind of decided really, with traditional media, that's the actual journalists and the editors who decide what's going to be going in the newspapers or what's gonna be broadcast on the news.

Whereas with digital media, content control is done via algorithms. So basically, your digital technology detecting what you're clicking on and what you're enjoying and making sure that you're getting more of the same.

So looking at them side by side, you can see real, clear differences.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Match the statements to either traditional media or digital media.

So the statements we've got are, there's ownership limitations, self-regulated, centrally regulated, and no ownership limitations.

So which of those go to traditional media and which go to digital media? So ownership limitations applies to traditional media.

Self-regulated applies to digital media.

Centrally regulated applies to traditional media.

And no ownership limitations applies to digital media.

So for task B, I'd like you to explain how digital media ownership differs from traditional media and the potential concerns of this within a democracy.

And Izzy's saying that your answer could refer to ownership rules, regulation, and content control.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So when explaining how digital media ownership differs from traditional media and the potential concerns of this within a democracy, your answer may have included, "Digital media is different from traditional media because there are fewer rules about who can own it and how much they can control.

Traditional media has strict regulations to stop one company from owning too much, but big tech companies dominate digital media without the same limits.

They also control what people see using algorithms, instead of editors and journalists deciding what gets published.

Digital media is also self-regulated, which means it does not have to follow the same strict regulation rules as traditional media.

This can be risky for democracy because it means a few companies have a lot of power over the news that people read, which can lead to misinformation.

So in summary of our lesson, What is the evolving role of the media in a democracy, media plays a key role in democracy by providing information and encouraging debate, but it also carries risks like misinformation and regulation differences.

Traditional media was first owned by small businesses, but is now dominated by large corporations.

It includes the BBC, which is publicly funded and must stay impartial.

Traditional media is centrally regulated, which limits how much one company can own.

Digital media is controlled by few global tech companies with no ownership limits and self-regulation.

This increases the risk of biassed content, echo chambers, and misinformation, due to a lack of accountability.

That brings us to the end of this lesson.

I hope you enjoyed it, and that you'll be back for more citizenship lessons in the future.