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

I'm going to provide you with all the information that you need and I'll be telling you when you need to pause and complete activities or carry out some checks for understanding.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson will be a deliberate discussion entitled, Does the Media Hold Those in Power to Account and it's taken from the unit of work, How Does the Media Hold Those in Power to Account? So by the end of this lesson, you will be able to create a reasoned discussion about whether the media holds those in power to account.

The key words for today's lesson are: accountable, which is being responsible for one's actions and decisions and being required to explain or justify them to others, including those in positions of power or authority, power, which is having control or authority over something or someone, and deliberative, involving careful thought, discussion, and consideration before making decisions or reaching conclusions.

So before we start the lesson, it's really important that we look at some really vital ground rules to make sure that this lesson can be successful.

So the first ground rule is to listen to others.

It is okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge the statement, not the person.

We need to respect privacy.

We can discuss examples, but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including ourselves.

No judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged.

And choose your level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join a discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

If we all follow these ground rules, we should have a really successful lesson.

So the lesson outline for this lesson on deliberate discussion, how does the media hold those in power to account? We're going to look at what does holding to account actually mean.

We're then going to look at how does the media hold the powerful accountable and how well does media hold the powerful accountable.

So let's start by looking at what does holding to account actually mean? So Laura's asking, "What does it mean to hold someone to account?" So if you like pause and have a think about this yourself.

Have you ever heard that term before? What might it mean? Can you think of any examples? So if someone is being held to account, this means that they are being checked to make sure that they are doing what they have promised to do or what they are supposed to do.

It involves taking responsibility for your actions by being accountable for your actions.

So Jacob's saying, "Can you think of any examples where people are held to account?" So let's have a look at some together.

So during a football game, a referee could be accountable if they do not referee to the expected standard or if they were to show favouritism towards a particular player or team, they could be asked to justify their refereeing decisions.

So this would be an example of somebody, in this case, a referee, who's got a position of responsibility being held accountable for their decisions and their actions.

Let's have a look at some more.

So in a car showroom, so where you might go to buy a car, a sales person could be held to account if they were not making enough sales.

Their work might be checked to make sure that they were following the correct policies and demonstrating positive customer service.

So again, there, there's an expectation within that job, within that career, that you should be able to sell a certain product and if you weren't meeting that, then you might be held accountable, which means that your work might be checked to make sure you were doing everything that you should be doing.

So let's have a quick check.

What are the missing words to complete this summary of holding to account? If someone is being held to account, this means that they are being checked to make sure that they are doing what they have, something, to do or what they are, something, to do.

And Izzy's given you a clue by telling you that the first word begins with a P and the second with an S.

And here are the missing words.

The first one was promised and the second was supposed.

So Izzy's asking, "Whose job is it to hold others to account?" So what do you think? Who has that as their job to hold others to account? Well, lots of people.

Anyone with any level of responsibility can be held to account.

So this includes a pupil and right the way up to the CEO of a multi-billion pound company.

So let's start by thinking anyone can be held to account.

So therefore people might hold others to account due to an expectation around responsibility.

So this might be an employer, so like a boss, holding an employee, the worker, to account, that could be a part of their job.

Or it could be an expectation due to trust.

So therefore a teacher holding a pupil to account.

So the teacher is trusting that the pupil is maybe going to do some coursework or some homework and therefore it would be within their job to hold them to account.

So it can involve lots and lots of different people.

So Jake is looking a bit worried about that and he's saying, "So is it only people who are powerful, older or richer, that can hold others to account?" And no, that's not the case at all.

People who have a lot of power also need to be held to account, especially if they are responsible for providing an important service or duty to citizens.

And politicians are an example of this.

So Members of Parliament, MPs, and the government represent us and they make really important decisions that impact everyone.

So therefore they absolutely need to be accountable.

So even though these might be people that are seen in positions of power, they are absolutely still held to account, as they should be.

So true or false? Powerful people cannot be held to account.

Is that true? Is that false? And then try and tell me why.

And it's false.

And why? People who have a lot of power also need to be held to account, especially if they are responsible for providing an important service or duty to citizens.

The media also holds a lot of power due to the number of people who access it to receive important information.

Citizens rely on the media to be accurate and often use the media to support them in making really important decisions or forming opinions about social issues.

The media must therefore be held to account through regulations which are special rules that guide organisations to make sure that everyone is doing the right thing.

Regulations provide accountability by making it very clear what the media can and cannot do.

So the media is another example of something that has a lot of power, but that absolutely needs to be accountable.

So Laura's asking, "Does the media also hold others to account?" Yes, it is possible both to be held to account and to also hold others accountable.

And this would be a really good example for the media.

The media hold people to account, but it is also accountable itself.

The media can hold anyone to account if it is in the public interest.

The media plays a crucial in ensuring that people with power are held to account.

So for example, politicians.

In the UK, we have free press, which means that the media isn't controlled by the government and this allows the media to hold politicians to account because they are allowed to report about both positive and negative stories regarding politicians.

Let's have a check.

True or false? The media only holds others to account, it is not accountable itself.

So is that true? Is that false? And then can you tell me why.

It's false.

And why? The media holds people in power to account and is also accountable itself through regulations.

So for task A, I would like you to write a summary that explains why it is important that people in power are held to account.

Your summary could include: an example of people in power, why they should be held to account, and what could happen if they were not held to account.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So your summary that explains why it's important that people in power are held to account could have included people in power.

Politicians have power because they make key decisions about law and policy in our country.

Why they should be held to account? They should be held to account because they represent us and we deserve to know what they are doing.

And what could happen if they were not held to account? They might abuse their power and not represent us how they promised.

We're now going to look at how does the media hold the powerful accountable.

So there are many ways that the media holds the powerful to account.

Investigative journalists write newspaper reports and film documentaries to uncover examples of wrong action.

This makes the powerful accountable by making their actions public knowledge and forcing them to take responsibility for any misconduct.

So Laura is saying, "During the coronavirus pandemic, I remember hearing about in the media of politicians breaking lockdown rules.

Some were investigated by the police and given fixed penalty notices." So Laura is absolutely right.

This was an example of during the pandemic where actually the media and journalists uncovered that there were some politicians that were actually breaking the very lockdown rules that they had created.

So this would be an example of the media holding the powerful accountable.

New media such as websites and social media platforms can provide real-time reporting and fact-checking functions.

When speeches and debates happen live, the media is then able to unpick everything that has been said and hold politicians accountable for any mistruths.

So they're literally saying what they've done or what they're going to do and it's there then, evidence for everyone to be able to see and everyone to be able to hear.

Fact-checking websites also check the accuracy of politicians' claims and expose any inaccuracies or examples of misinformation.

So Izzy is saying, "During Brexit campaigning, fact-checking websites expose exaggerated promises such as the 350 million pounds for the NHS, which was pledged by pro-Brexit politicians." So again another example where something has been said by a politician or by a group of powerful people and it's been later unpicked to be found to be untrue or exaggerated.

So let's have a check.

Can you match the accountability method to its description? So we've got investigative journalism, real-time reporting, and fact-checking functions.

Each of those will match to either: verify information, uncover wrong action, or provide live information.

Pause while you have a go.

So investigative journalism is when you uncover wrong action, fact-checking functions verify information, and real-time reporting provides live information.

Online news sites and print media often publish opinion pieces.

These are articles that analyse the behaviour of politicians and provide well-written critical analysis of their work.

These opinion pieces can create public debate making politicians more accountable.

So Laura is saying, "In geography we read an opinion piece written by a climate scientist.

They were condemning the environmental decisions made by world leaders." Broadcast media and various online platforms frequently challenge politicians by asking them direct questions, often on difficult questions that the public want answers to.

Some journalists are known for using very tough questioning and asking questions regarding broken promises or decisions that are viewed as poor by the public.

So Izzy is saying, "I watched a live political debate with my parents.

The political party leaders were being asked really hard questions by the audience.

They were even heckled at some points." So again, this would be an example here of people in power being asked really challenging, difficult questions, often live and on the spot where they need to give an answer that's going to be proven to be correct that's going to be pleasing to the public.

So again, it's another example of the media really holding the powerful accountable.

Let's have a check.

The media hold the powerful accountable by, is it A, asking challenging questions, B, covering up the truth, or C, limiting interviews.

And it's A, asking challenging questions.

So there are lots of ways in which the media can and does hold those in power to account.

However, there are also limitations in how well the media can hold those in power to account due to issues such as: false information, lack of access, social media narratives, and also libel laws.

So, "Do you know what any of these mean?" Jacob is asking.

So we're going to look at these in the next part of the lesson.

So if you want, pause and have a think, what might these mean? So although there is media regulation, false information such as misinformation or disinformation can still be released by the media, particularly social media.

So that could be misinformation where it's untrue information that's been released without the intention of causing harm or disinformation where people know that it's untrue but it's released anyway.

This can lead to a lack of trust between citizens and the media, which makes it more challenging to hold those in power to account because people won't be able to trust what the media is saying.

If citizens don't trust the media, they may be less likely to believe reports that uncover negative behaviours of politicians and they might think that positive reports are made up.

So it really does mislead and damage that trust in the media.

Accountability relies on trust.

If citizens can't trust the information they are receiving, accountability is much more difficult to achieve.

People in power do not have to respond to journalists' questions.

It can also refuse to take part in interviews.

We can't force people to take part in interviews and this causes what we would call a lack of access, which can make scrutiny difficult because it's hard to scrutinise someone if they're not in front of you being willing to be asked questions.

So politicians may be more unlikely to grant access if they know they are going to be scrutinised about a particularly challenging topic.

In the lead up to the 2019 election, Boris Johnson declined to be interviewed by a well-known political journalist on their television show.

Journalists have also claimed that they were denied the chance to ask follow-up questions after press briefings that took place during the Coronavirus pandemic.

So again, these would all be examples of that lack of access, being unable to ask the questions that they really want to ask.

More and more politicians are using social media and attracting great numbers of followers.

Just like us, this allows politicians to create carefully-considered accounts that are overwhelmingly positive 'cause it's their account, they've created it, and therefore it's going to, of course, be positive about themselves as we would probably make accounts that would be positive about ourselves.

This means that citizens may turn to social media to access political information rather than using broadcast or print media, and therefore, they will only receive biassed accounts of politics because they're only going to receive that positive information.

When Jeremy Corbyn was a leader of the Labour Party, 2015 to 2020, social media platforms were really heavily used to broadcast Labour's manifesto and find fault with traditional media coverage.

So it's an example of a period in time where a political party were using social media a lot and it was getting a lot of traction.

Libel is a type of defamation that involves a written or permanent form of communication that harms another person's reputation.

In the UK, we have libel laws that make this illegal.

So it's illegal to write something that is going to harm another person's reputation and particularly if is obviously untrue.

And journalists that are found guilty of libel can be taken to court and sued for huge amounts of money.

So Andeep is saying, "Surely libel laws are a good thing then." And Jacob's saying, "Well, yes they are, of course they are.

No one should have something that's untrue written about 'em that's going to damage their character.

But libel laws could also make journalists apprehensive and scared and worried about reporting on controversial political investigations." So let's have another check.

Match the limitation to its description.

So on the one side we've got limitations, on the other side we've got descriptions.

Pause while you have a go at this check.

So false information would be misinformation and disinformation.

Lack of access would be not being able to interview someone.

Social media narratives are when only positive online accounts exist, they provide a very positive account only.

And libel laws, which are fines for defamation, so that is when people could be fined for printing things that impact someone's character.

The media holds those power to account by making the public aware of what is happening, asking challenging questions, and by exposing issues.

And Andeep is coming back with, "I agree, but could also see there are limitations to how well the media can hold those in power to account because of false information, lack of access, social media, and libel laws." So here between Jacob and Andeep, you can already start to see a bit of a critical thinking going on, thinking about how they do and how they maybe don't, or there's limitations in how well the media can hold the powerful accountable.

So true or false? There are limitations as to how well the media can hold the powerful accountable.

Is that true? Is that false? And can you tell me why? Pause while you have a go at this check.

It's true.

Why? There are limitations to how well the media can hold those in power to account due to issues such as: false information, lack of access, social media narratives, and libel laws.

So for Task B, I want you to think about what score would you give the media out of 10, with 10 being the best, for how well they hold the powerful accountable.

So I want you to provide a number and a brief explanation to justify the score given.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So here are some examples.

So I've picked one for someone that might have scored it quite high, someone that might have scored in the middle, and someone that might have scored somewhere a little bit lower.

So you might have said "8 out of 10.

I think the media does a great job of holding the powerful accountable.

Due to us having free press, it's free from government control." You might have given it somewhere around the 5 out of 10 and said, "I think the media does an okay job due to the interviews that take place asking challenging questions.

But there are too many limitations, such as social media, being used to give one-sided narratives." You might have called scored quite low.

So you might have said "3 outta 10.

I think the media could do a lot better at holding the powerful accountable due to false information being a significant problem, which means a lot of citizens probably won't trust stories that scrutinise politicians anyway." So we're now going to look at how well does media hold the powerful accountable, and we're really going to start thinking about that deliberate discussion.

So deliberate means to carefully consider and discuss a topic.

So a deliberate discussion isn't about shouting over each other and trying to make your argument that the loudest, let's think back to those ground rules.

It's about that carefully considered, respectful, deliberate conversation.

So during a deliberate discussion, we take time to consider different viewpoints and weigh up all of the relevant information.

This is an example of how a deliberate discussion can be structured.

So you'd start with a rationale, you'd then move on to examples, you'd then move on to an analysis, and then you would make links.

So let's have a look at that in a bit more detail.

So first of all, the rationale is that short statement to summarise your overall argument, really setting your stall to what you think.

You are then going to use examples.

So that might be a statistic, a case study or a story, that supports your arguments and what supports your rationale.

You are then going to really put some detail into this and you're gonna think about having a bit more explanation of your viewpoint to make it really clear.

So you're gonna start expanding and analysing on that initial rationale.

And then you're going to make a link back to your rationale and your closing words.

So this is a really clear example of how a deliberate discussion can be structured to make sure that you are really articulating your argument clearly.

So let's have a check.

What do we call a statistic, case study, or story that supports your argument? Is it A, analysis, B, example, or C, rationale? It's B, example.

So you are preparing to have a deliberate discussion based on the following question.

So this is the question that you need to keep in mind.

How well does media hold the powerful accountable? So you are really evaluating the media as that force to being able to hold the powerful accountable.

So Andeep is reminding you to, "Consider the arguments you might use to suggest that the media does hold the powerful to account," whereas Izzy's reminding you to, "Then, think about the opposite, how there are limitations to how well the media holds the powerful to account." So you've got both sides.

I remind you to think about both sides.

So let's have a look at what Andeep is saying.

He's saying, "The media does hold the powerful accountable due to us having free press, meaning the government cannot control the media.

The media is freed to print stories by politicians, ask challenging questions, and uncover facts we need to know.

The media has even uncovered political activity that has led to police investigations such as the Partygate scandal during the coronavirus pandemic." So really, really clear argument there from Andeep.

Let's have a look at what Izzy is saying now.

So she's saying, "Although the media does hold the powerful accountable, it does have limitations.

False information can be easily spread and this can damage public trust in the media, which means citizens might not always believe stories that are trying to hold those in power to account.

It is also not always possible to ask politicians the questions we want 'cause they may refuse to answer or refuse to attend live interviews or debates." So another great argument.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What is step four in a deliberate discussion? Think about the missing word.

A, something, back to the rationale and your closing words.

And here's a clue, you have these on a watch or a bracelet.

And it's link.

So for task C, I want you to choose your stance on this question.

How well does the media hold the powerful accountable? So you are really drawing upon your citizenship skills of critical thinking here.

Prepare for each element of a deliberate discussion on the question.

So once you've decided on your on your stance, whether you think, "Yes, actually the media does a fantastic job of holding the powerful accountable," or actually "No, it doesn't do a great job, there's too many limitations," I want you to then write your answer, but using these areas to help you.

So really thinking about having that rationale, those examples, that analysis, that further explanation, and then linking back with your closing words.

So pause while you have a go at this final task.

So your deliberate discussion preparation on the question, "How well does the media hold the powerful accountable" may have covered this.

"Our media does a great job of holding the powerful accountable due to us having free press that is free from government interference." That would be a rationale.

You then might move on to give an example.

So, "Key political figures take part in live debates where they are asked challenging questions by journalists and members of the public." Your analysis.

"Challenging topics can also be reported on via news reports, opinion pieces, and through investigative journalism.

The media is free to uncover truths to citizens and hold politicians to account.

We saw this during the coronavirus pandemic and the Partygate scandal." And then your link.

"This clearly shows the powerful are accountable and that the media play a crucial role to ensure politicians are held to account when needed." So you can there see the clear rationale, sample, analysis, and link.

However, you might have argued the opposing stance, you might have thought, "Actually the media's got lots of limitations.

It doesn't actually hold powerful people accountable." So you might have, for your rationale, said, "Our media does hold the powerful accountable, but there are far too many limitations that make this challenging, meaning not everyone is held to account." Your example could have been, "Those in power may refuse to take part in interviews or live debates, meaning they can't be publicly scrutinised about their work or actions.

And this makes accountability difficult." For your analysis, you might have said, "If political leaders don't attend live debates with other leaders or they refuse to take part in televised interviews with political journalists, they are unable to answer their questions and provide us with the information we need to form an opinion on them." Then your link back, "This highlights that although the media does hold politicians to account, this accountability are limited when politicians do not engage with the media." So another really clear, deliberate discussion there.

So in summary for our lesson, Deliberate discussion: Does the media hold those in power to account? Holding people or organisations accountable means checking what they are doing, what they've promised to do, or what they are supposed to do.

It involves them taking responsibility for their actions.

The media holds those in power to account in various ways, such as: through interviews, live debates, investigating issues, and via free press without government control.

However, there are also limitations in how well the media can hold those in power to account due to issues such as: false information, lack of access, social media narratives, and libel laws.

Well done for all your hard work this lesson.

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