Lesson video

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.

Welcome to this lesson, "How does the media support democracy?" taken from the unit "How does the media hold those in power to account?" By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain a variety of ways in which the media can support democracy.

The key words that we're going to look at this lesson are values, and these are the core beliefs or principles that guide how individuals or societies think and act.

Democratic, which is describing a system of government in which citizens vote in regular fair elections for representatives who then make laws and decisions on their behalf.

We've got liberties, and that's another word for those fundamental rights and freedoms that protect individuals from excessive government control.

And scandal, which is a situation or event that is seen as shocking or disgraceful because of wrongdoing or improper behaviour.

This is our lesson outline for today, and we're going to look at, what are the key values of a democracy? We're then going to look at, how does the media support democratic values? And then we're going to look at, how does the media hold politicians to account? And we're going to start off by looking at, what are the key values of a democracy? Jun is asking here, "What does democracy mean, again?" It might be that you want to pause yourselves and just have a think, have a refresh.

What does democracy mean? A democracy is when citizens can take part in the government of their country and have a say in what's going on.

And this absolutely includes being able to vote in free and fair elections.

And for democracy to thrive, there are lots of values and policies and laws that need to be in place.

And there are agencies that actually track how democratic countries are right across the globe.

And one of these is called the Democracy Index, and this can be useful in assessing democratic values and actually, just thinking about what some of these values are.

The Democracy Index assesses democracy against five indicators, and they are the electoral process itself, political participation of citizens, the functioning of the government, that whole wider political culture, and the civil liberties and freedoms that citizens can enjoy.

So, let's have a quick check.

Which is not an indicator used to assess democracy by the Democracy Index? Is it A, political participation, B, civil liberties, C, minimum wage, or D, political culture? And it's C, minimum wage.

Electoral processes examine how fair elections are and how open a country is to different political parties, and whether citizens have the right to participate freely in politics without interference.

If you remember, electrical processes was one of those indicators, and this is what that means.

And political participation, which is one of the other indicators, that examines how well citizens engage in politics.

It's things like how many citizens vote in elections and whether the country values and respects political activism, really, really important things you'd expect to see in a democracy.

Andeep is saying, "In the UK, citizens can vote for who they want, and we have different political parties and we can take part in campaigns." So, that's examples in the UK of how we are hitting some of those indicators.

So, let's have a quick check.

True or false? Electoral processes and political participation are indicators of democracy.

Try and think, is that true, is that false? And tell me why.

That's true, and why? Because electoral processes examine how free and fair elections are, and political participation examines how well citizens engage in politics.

Let's look at some more indicators.

The functioning of government, and this relates to how transparent the government is, so how open and honest and how well they are checked, and also how well they perform.

And political culture, that relates to the way in which society views democracy and includes whether the public have trust and faith on the whole in our political system.

Andeep's talking about the UK again, and he's saying, "In the UK, the government are checked by the media and wider parliament." So, the media can hold government to account, wider parliament, so that other political parties, the House of Lords, can hold government to account as well.

"And citizens can make their views towards our political systems very clear." So, we're absolutely allowed to and do discuss and debate politics in this country.

Let's have a check.

Which best describes the functioning of government as a democracy indicator? Is it A, transparency, checks, and performance? Is it B, activism, protests, and petitions? Or is it C, trust, faith, and confidence? And it's A.

For the functioning of government as democracy indicator, it's transparency, checks, and performance.

But democracy isn't all about systems. It also refers to the way in which citizens of a country can expect to live their life, and it's about the rights and the freedoms that they should be able to enjoy.

In a democracy, civil liberties relating to freedom of expression, so being able to talk about things that you want to be able to talk about and have an opinion, the freedom of the press, to be able to have press that doesn't have interference from the government, that freedom of association and protection of individual rights, all of these should be upheld and provided for all citizens.

And the word all is really important, there, in a democracy, because it relates to all citizens having civil liberties, including minority groups.

So, in a democracy, all citizens have the right to civil liberties.

That shouldn't just be for an exceptional few, the very rich or anything like that.

It should be for absolutely all.

Let's have a quick check.

True or false? In a democracy, most citizens have the right to civil liberties.

Is that true, false? Have a think, and also, try and tell me why.

And it's false, because the word there was most.

In a democracy, civil liberties relating to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and protection of individual rights should be upheld and provided for all citizens, not most citizens.

For task A, I would like you to write a summary that outlines the following key values of a democracy.

Your summary should include electoral processes, political participation, functioning of government, political culture, and civil liberties.

And Andeep is reminding you to, "Remember, electoral processes refer to free and fair elections, and political culture is how democracy is viewed by the citizens." They're two that you might find a little bit trickier, so just a quick reminder of what they mean.

So, if you want to, pause now while you have a go at task A.

For your summary, these are some of the things that you could have written and you could have included.

For electoral processes, you might have talked about how it assesses how fair elections are and whether citizens can contribute without interference.

For political participation, that it assesses citizens' engagement in politics and if activism is valued and even allowed in the first place.

The functioning of government, about assessing government transparency, so how clear and open they are, as well as their performance.

For political culture, assesses how much citizens value and trust a political system.

And for civil liberties, assessing how able citizens are to access their rights and their freedoms. We're now going to go on to look at, how does the media support democratic values? The media plays an absolutely crucial role in ensuring that democratic values are upheld.

There's a really clear relationship between media and democracy.

In a democracy, the media upholds freedom of expression and opinions for citizens, so it's a vehicle to allow for that freedom of expression.

It ensures information that's published is accurate so that we can be informed citizens and know what's going on.

It reports on a broad range of political views to enable the electorate to make informed decisions, so the media allows us to hear pros and cons from lots and lots of different political opinions.

It's free from government interference.

That's really important in a democracy, that the media is independent from the government, it's not controlled by the government.

It raises awareness of issues and helps to bring about social change.

And it of course, it holds all of those people in positions of power to account.

And that's why that freedom from government control is really, really important.

When a country has free press, this supports democratic values.

And a free press describes media that runs without government interference, reporting both positively and negatively on a whole range of political topics, political parties, and the individual politicians themselves.

So, it's that freedom to be really open and to really, really look at things from that full spectrum, both positive and negative.

Jun's asking, "How might democracy be impacted if the government also controlled the media?" You might want to have a little bit of a think about that yourself.

What could the impact on democracy be if the government had full control over the media? If the government controlled the media, this could really, really go against democratic values.

The media should inform us about politics and help us make informed decisions about who to vote for, and it should also inform us if politicians do things that go against our democratic values.

We can't be expected to make informed decisions during elections and things like that if actually, we're not able to see the full picture of what's happening in politics.

Andeep is saying, "If the government controlled the media, they could also control the information we receive, making it all sound positive with no checks in place." And that's absolutely true.

If the government controlled the media and the government wanted to remain the government, they're only obviously going to allow for positive things about themselves to be printed.

That's why it's really, really important that there is that separation.

Just to look at a very different country, in North Korea, the government tightly controls all of their media.

There are no independent sources of media and it's all state-owned, so it's all government owned.

And this means the public only ever hear and read positive stories that glorify the North Korean government, and criticism of the government is forbidden.

So, very, very different.

This is an example of media going directly against democratic values as the public are unable to make informed decisions about the government and their work.

So, something that's completely different to what you'd expect to see in a democracy.

Let's have a quick check.

What are the missing words? "A free press describes media that runs without," something, "Interference, reporting both positively and," think, "On a whole range of political topics, political parties, and individual politicians themselves." Have a go.

The missing words were government and negatively.

Let's have another check.

True or false? Government-controlled media goes against democratic values.

Is that true, is that false, and can you tell me why? It's true.

Why? The public would be unable to make informed decisions about the government and their work, and therefore, it is undemocratic.

The media can also support democratic values by reporting when these values are at risk.

Let's look at some examples of that.

In Hong Kong in 2019 and 2020, the Chinese government passed a national security law that limited freedom of speech, assembly, and free press.

And the global media really, really took note of this, and they highlighted how this law went against democratic values, as activists and journalists who spoke out against the law were arrested.

So, this was something that was happening somewhere else in another country.

Lots of global media corporations picked up on this story and highlighted it as a way to show how democratic values were not being met elsewhere.

This is an example of how the media can support democratic values by reporting on when they are broken and really bringing that to our attention.

The media also supports democratic values of freedom of information and expression when it has clear codes of practise in place to ensure accuracy.

In the UK, the Editors' Code of Practise and the National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct help to ensure trust in the media.

These are special regulations and rules that make sure that we can trust the media, because it gives the media really clear guidelines about what they can and can't do.

Regulations like this ensure that the media supports democratic values by providing the public with reliable information.

Let's have a quick check.

Which is not an example of how media can support democratic values? Is it A, regulating media via codes of practise? Is it B, reporting on anti-democratic practises? Or is it C, banning reports about the government? And it's C, banning reports about the government.

Jun is saying, "So, does the media play a crucial role in supporting democratic values?" If you like, pause the video and just think for yourself, in your opinion, how important is that role? Does the media play a crucial role in supporting democratic values? Yes, absolutely.

A democracy includes informed, active citizens who can take part in the government of their country.

They can vote in free and fair elections, and they can make informed decisions.

And this cannot happen without free press within the media, so really, really important.

Let's have a check.

True or false? The media doesn't play a crucial role in supporting democratic values.

Is that true, is that false? And can you tell me why? It's false, and why? A democracy includes informed, active citizens who can take part in their government, vote in free and fair elections, and make informed decisions.

This can't happen without free press within the media.

For task B, I want you to try and write a counterargument to Laura's statement, so you're going to write an argument that gives the other side of the argument to what Laura is saying.

Your counterargument should provide a clear argument as to why and how the media does support democratic values.

So, let's look at what Laura has to say.

Laura is saying, "Although I agree that the media is a positive thing, I don't think it's vital in a democracy." You're going to try and create a counterargument that really, really gives a clear argument as to why and how the media does support democratic values.

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

These are what you might have included in your counterarguments.

Let's just remind ourselves about what Laura said.

Laura said, "Although I agree that the media is a positive thing, I don't think it's vital in a democracy." You might have said something like: Without the media, citizens wouldn't be able to make informed political decisions, like deciding who to vote for.

There would also be less checks on government.

Citizens would also be ignorant to what was happening in the world.

The media supports citizens' rights, and it's vital for democracy.

We're now going to move on to looking at, how does the media hold politicians to account? The media plays a crucial role in ensuring that politicians are held to account for acting in a way that breaks the trust of citizens and goes against our democratic values.

In a democracy, the media is separate from the government, which means the media are absolutely free to report on the actions of the government, and they should do that, as well as other politicians, in both a positive and in a negative light without fear of sanctions.

So, they should be able to do that freely without being worried about getting into trouble.

As long as they're following their regulations, their code of conduct, they're not printing things that are untrue, they are absolutely allowed to print things that are both positive and negative about politicians.

The media may interview and question people in positions of power.

They might run live debates between people with different political views as well.

Before the 2024 general election, there were a number of live televised debates.

You might have even watched some of these yourself.

Here are three examples.

There were more, but here were three examples.

There was the ITV debate, and that was between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer.

That was two people, crucial people in the election, and that was viewed by 3.

5 million viewers.

In this, the leader of the Conservative and the Labour Party were going head to head in a live debate.

Great for people to really hear what those two political parties had to say about key issues.

The BBC held a seven-party debate, had much more people, seven party leaders.

And this is really important for democracy as well, because as well as having the Conservative and Labour, because there were seven, this also had people representing the smaller parties as well, so parties like the Green Party, having the Green Party leader there.

Not quite as many viewers, but still 2 million, so a great chance for people to hear that full political spectrum.

There was also, on Channel 4, a youth debate, and there were four political parties attending, so Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dem, and Green.

But this was slightly different, 'cause in this debate, they were discussing issues that young people had indicated mattered to them, so things to do with university, to do with the environment and voting age and things like that.

And that was viewed by 1.

2 million viewers.

So, these are really, really great opportunities with people to be able to listen to what people have to say, ask important questions, and start making decisions.

The media also publishes stories which raise awareness of decisions made or proposed to be made by those in positions of power.

Leading up to the 2024 election, immigration was a key media topic.

It was a topic that was reported about in the media on what the different political parties thought.

On one part of the immigration policy, there was a difference between the two main political parties.

The Conservatives spoke about their plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, known as the Rwanda Plan, whereas Labour spoke more about tackling smuggling networks and working with international partners.

Both plans received significant media attention.

It was picking them apart, reporting the pros and cons of both.

And this provided the public with information they could use to guide their voting decisions.

If immigration was really important to you as a citizen, what this allowed citizens to do is hear from the two main political parties and have a really clear idea about what their policy was.

And this isn't just a recent thing.

This has always happened.

In 1998, the then-Labour government introduced the national minimum wage, which is something that we still have today.

At the time, this was a groundbreaking move to protect low-income workers, but there were also concerns from businesses and the Conservatives that it might lead to job losses or actually hurt the economy.

With this example, again, the media reported on the new laws in different ways.

For example, the "Daily Mirror" ran the headline, "A Victory for the Workers".

So, really, really positive, giving that positive angle of this key change in policy.

Whereas the "Daily Telegraph"'s headline was, "Minimum Wage Threat to Jobs?" Again, even back in 1998, it shows how the media can report positively and negatively on different things to give people that really clear understanding to help them make decisions.

This showed how different newspapers took a for or against stance on this huge decision, and it was a huge, massive decision at the time, which allowed citizens to read information from both sides of the argument.

Let's have a quick check.

True or false? The media doesn't hold politicians to account, as it only provides positive political reports.

Is that true, is that false, and can you tell me why? It's false, and why? Media sources will provide different views about key political policy.

And this is really important, as it provides citizens with balanced information, which helps them to make informed decisions.

Podcasts, television, and radio shows often discuss current affairs and interview leading politicians as well.

"This Morning" by ITV Studios Daytime is a really popular talk show, you might know of it yourself, that brings in between 700,000 to 1 million daily viewers.

So, huge, huge audience.

And on this programme, they frequently discuss topical issues.

They've discussed things like climate change, energy prices, and Brexit.

And they are really, really keen on and a really key thing that they do is bringing people to interview them live on television, but who represent both sides of the argument, which is really, really important.

And viewers are also encouraged to engage with the debate using the interactive functions on the "This Morning" app.

So, if people want to, they can download an app and they can actually comment and they can like things on there as well.

And this means that viewers can tap their responses to questions about a range of issues in real time.

This is a great way of having that discussion.

You can watch discussion happening on the television, but then, people can also use an app to further get involved in that debate.

Journalists also carry out investigative journalism to establish the facts of a case before they publish stories.

And this type of journalism often uncovers key social issues and brings them to the public's attention.

So, really, investigative journalists do a really, really important job in a democracy.

"Dispatches" on Channel 4 is a really popular investigative series that gains high viewer engagement, and it's famous for uncovering and highlighting social issues by providing firsthand accounts.

They tend to really go undercover and really look at things and research things and interview people that have been impacted by big social issues of the time.

An example of a "Dispatches" episode was "The Truth About Amazon", which, again was, through Channel 4 Firecrest Films. And this examined the working conditions in Amazon warehouses, so really, really important.

And it highlighted employee experiences and it sparked that broader public conversation about workers' rights, and actually, that corporate responsibility in government regulation.

Lots of people order things from Amazon, so therefore, this "Dispatches" episode really highlighted some potential issues there, and it opened that broader conversation about rights and corporate responsibility.

Let's have a quick check.

What type of journalism uncovers social issues? Is it A, idealistic, B, industrious, or C, investigative? And it's C.

Jun is saying, "I've heard about the MP expenses scandal.

How was that an example of the media holding politicians to account?" At the time, the media used the Freedom of Information Act to be able to publish details on MPs' expenses.

They uncovered that some MPs were spending public money on personal luxuries that was unrelated to their MP role.

Members of parliament are absolutely allowed to use expenses for MP work.

For example, a train ticket to Central London to go to the House of Commons, absolutely fine.

But what the media uncovered was that some MPs were actually using expenses for personal things that had nothing to do with their role.

At the time, the prime minister at the time apologised, publicly apologised on behalf of all politicians, and as a result, new rules were created regarding expenses.

And some MPs resigned, they left their MP role.

Some were forced to leave their role, so they lost their jobs.

And there were some MPs that were even given custodial sentences, so prison sentences.

This was a really, really huge scandal at the time, and it was something that the media was actually able to uncover and bring to our attention.

So, this is a specific example of the media holding politicians to account.

Let's have a check.

What did the MP expenses scandal uncover? Is it A, some MPs were not getting paid the right amount of money for their role? B, some MPs were spending public money on personal luxuries unrelated to their MP role? Or C, some female MPs were getting paid significantly less money than male MPs? And it's B.

For task C, I want you to write a counterargument to Jacob's statement.

We did this similar for Laura.

We're gonna do something similar again for this task.

Your counterargument should provide a clear argument as to why and how the media does an effective job of holding politicians to account.

Jacob is saying, "The media does a poor job of holding politicians to account." You need to now try and create a counterargument to Jacob's statement.

Pause while you have a go at this task.

Your counterargument might have included: The media is effective in holding politicians to account, as they host televised debates and report both positive and negative points of political issues.

The media also uses investigative journalism to expose social issues and encourages the public to debate these.

They have also uncovered scandals, such as the MP expense scandal in 2009.

That could have been a really great counterargument.

In summary for the lesson "How does the media support democracy?", the key values in a democracy include having a transparent electoral process, high political participation, effective functioning of government, a political culture that trusts political systems, and civil liberties for all.

And the media supports these values by ensuring we have access to information that is free from government interference, meaning we can make informed political decisions.

And the media holds politicians to account via our free press by asking them important questions, reporting on what they are doing, and encouraging public debate on their actions, as well as investigating social issues and uncovering scandals.

Well done for all your hard work this lesson.

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