Does the one with the money own the public opinion? Business interest and EU
media coverage in the UK.
Lilach Ben – Yaakov
Can media coverage about the European Union be influenced by business organizations? Can the
UK’s skeptic feelings toward the EU be influenced by no more than one person’s business
interests? Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp UK, can provide a good example of such an
influence on public opinion. Inspired by the Political Economy Theory and using three different
academic communication approaches (Setting the Agenda, Priming and Framing) this research will try
to evaluate the effect of Murdoch’s business interests on his UK’s newspapers’ coverage, during
a significant period - the last three weeks before the elections to the EU parliament, a period that public
opinion is being implemented into the ballot box and therefore effect the composition of the European
parliament.
This will be done by comparing EU coverage in Murdoch’s newspapers (quality and tabloid) to
other ‘balanced’ newspapers (quality and tabloid as well) in the UK. A special part will be
devoted to evaluate whether there are differences in Murdoch’s level of influence between his
own newspapers and if he uses one more than the other. The results of the different chapters should
serve as a warning sign to other European countries, a way to cope with the Euroscepticism.
Key words: UK Euroscepticism, The Rupert Murdoch Effect, Economic Interests, Political Economy Theory, Public
Opinion, Agenda-Setting Theory, Priming, Framing.
1
Introduction
Can public opinion be influenced by one person’s interests? Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp
UK, can provide a good example for such an influence, with his abilities to change the face of business,
politics and decision making around the world. This research will attempt to understand Rupert Murdoch
business interest’s effect on his newspapers, by trying to evaluate the connection between his business
interest in the European Union and the actual media coverage in newspapers owned by him.
There is no doubt that Euroscepticism threaten the ongoing process of European integration, and yet its
source remains unclear. The Maastricht treaty ended the ‘permissive consensus’ of the European Union
(Wimmel, 2009) since as part of it, more competence was transferred to the European layer without
improvement in people ‘closeness feeling’ to the European level, citizens started to doubt the EU
legitimacy (Brüggemann, et al., 2006). This gap is one of the reasons for the ‘democratic deficit’ in the
European Union (Trenz, 2008) and the rise of Euroscepticism. Some believe that the solution for this
problem can be found in the media (Peters, 2007), as it has an important role in European citizen’s life
and possesses the ability to connect between people and their government (Elenbaas, et al., 2013).
Citizens are reliant on media coverage as their main and almost only source when it comes to the
European Union (Hooghe & Marks, 2007). Limitation of knowledge and personal experiences of the
average citizen from ‘far Brussels’, together with media power to influence European public opinion
(Vliegenthart, et al., 2008) (Hewstone, 2011) (Trenz, 2008), rise the importance of examining media
culture and behavior towards the European level (Berganza, 2009). In fact, the need to examine the media
as a player in the European integration and Euroscepticism has been expressed by many European
scholars (Statham, 2006) (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006) (Trenz, 2008) (Maier & Rittberger, 2008).
This research will try to answer that need and focus on media as the main influential force of public
perception towards the EU. The literature that deals with European journalism suggests that the EU faces
a range of problems in it member states coverage. Some tie the coverage problems to the structure of EU
institutions (Gavin, 2001), other claim that it is the journalists and editors who should be examined
(Statham, 2008). Some believe that the danger is in the national oriented media (Trenz, 2008) or that the
problem lies in the fact that EU cover is presented mainly through national representative (Morgan,
1995), some say that it’s the subjects that media decides to deal with (Walgrave & De Swert, 2004). Some
believe in a more neo Marxist perception, claiming that the ‘blame’ is on the owner who promoted a
Eurosceptic point of view. Daddow (2012) claims that Euroscepticism ideas are being promoted in Rupert
Murdoch newspapers that serves his owner interests (Daddow, 2012)
2
UK is considered to be the most Eurosceptic country among all member states up to the level of getting
its own phrase: ‘British exceptionalism’ (Geddes, 2004). Each one of the British Euroscepticism potential
reasons should be examined in depth and use as a warning sign to other European countries. This study
will focus only on media as Euroscepticism source trying to understand the part it takes in shaping and
promoting the Eurosceptic public opinion, focusing on a preliminary stage, understand the reasons that
lead media to act the way it does; who controls the selection of information that is being transmitted to the
public and how it might shape the perception of public opinion, through the interrelation between
economic interest and the UK media culture.
The Political Economy Theory is one of those neo Marxist perceptions, that cannot serve as an
explanation to all kind of media activities but in certain cases, relations between economic interests and
media coverage, it explains communication behavior extremely well (McChesney, 2000, p. 110). As
Rupert Murdoch’s actions are being driven by his economic interests and not his political ideology
(Daddow, 2012), as some might think, he serves as the best candidate for this theory. Murdoch Media
influence tools will be measured by three communication approaches (Scheufele, 2009), Agenda Setting,
Priming and Framing. The majority of European Integration Media studies focus on the Framing
approach (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006) (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006b) (Lecheler & De
Vreese, 2010) (De Vreese, et al., 2011) (Castaneda, 2014) (Spanje & De Vreese, 2014) (Cristea & Corbut,
2014) (Schuck, et al., 2014), this research will grant a broader picture on the news production processes
by analyzing all three above approaches, that were claimed to be missing from media and European
Integration studies (Statham, 2006). A special analytical-comparison method, based on the three
approaches, will be designed in order to understand whether and to what extend newspapers owned by
Rupert Murdoch cover the European Union differently from other newspapers in the UK. Although the
majority of researches dealing with media and European Union analyzed only quality newspapers, this
research will give a comprehensive point of view on UK media culture, using the comparison method also
on tabloid newspapers, which are consider to be more readable among UK citizens.
A comparison on EU coverage in two quality newspapers one owned by Murdoch and another newspaper
which considerers to be balanced will be performed first, followed by the same comparison method in
two tabloid newspapers. Then, a special part will be devoted to comparison of EU coverage between both
Rupert Murdoch owned newspapers, the quality and the tabloid in order to understand whether Murdoch
uses his influence on one of his newspaper more than the other.
3
Academic Background
Media and Public Opinion
Mass media have an important function in delivering key elements for individual opinion formation and
therefore is responsible for the formation of public opinion (Thiel, 2008). The assumption is that public
discourse conducted by the media could play a key role in legitimating and shaping public opinion
regarding the European integration, in present and future actions (Dalton & Duval, 1986) (De Vreese &
Boomgaarden, 2006a) (Schuck & De Vreese, 2006) (Lecheler & De Vreese, 2010), and therefore media
gains ground as an explanation for Euroscepticism (De Wilde & Trenz, 2012) (De Vreese, 2007).
One of the theories that can explain media effect on public opinion is the Agenda Setting Theory. This
theory sees the media as an independent variable with power to influence people’s perception and which
subjects are considered to be important and need to be dealt with in the daily life. According to Scheufele
(2009) and contrary to the way this theory had been used before, in his pioneer point of view he divided
the theory into three approaches: Setting the Agenda, Priming and Framing. The developers of this theory
claimed that the last two are expansion of the first one and became part of it (Weaver, McCombs, &
Shaw, 1998 in Scheufele 2009). Scheufele provides a deep psychological analyze of the three approaches,
declaring that they are related but different and explains that they should be analyzed separately.
The first approach according to Scheufele is Setting the Agenda. The Agenda Setting was the main issue
in McCombs and Shaw’s 1968 research in Chapel Hill (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), based on Choen’s
statements on media’s ability to impose readers what to think about (Choen, 1963, p. 13) and its power to
influence the mob on which subject to format opinion on (Lang & Lang, 1968). According to this
approach, media raises the coverage on an event or an issue and lead the public to believe in its
importance. Research that dealt with the Agenda Setting and the European Union coverage indeed found
similarity between the coverage level and the public attention to it (Dursun-Ozkanca, 2011).
The second approach according to Scheufele is Priming - the media dose not set the agenda only by
presenting a certain subject but also by priming it, making issues more salient in the eyes of the public
(Iyengar & Kinder, 1987)1. This provides media the ability to influence the receiver’s considerations
when he evaluates and forms his opinion (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
1
Even though the phrase was first used by Iyengar & Kinder (1987), the idea was introduced (not labelled as priming) by
Weaver, McCombs, and Spellman (1975, p. 471).
4
The third approach according to Scheufele is Framing - media ability to tell the same story in several
different ways by organizing information that gives meaning to a story (Schuck & De Vreese, 2006). This
leads to a process of estimating an issue, presenting it with a ‘moral evolution’ and a narrative (Entman,
1991). Framing has immediate effects on cognitive responses (Price, et al., 1997), direction of thoughts
(Schuck & De Vreese, 2006) and interpretation (Edelman, 1993). The framing approach is being used
widely when analyzing media behavior and influences on EU public opinion (De Vreese &
Boomgaarden, 2006a) (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2006b) (Schuck & De Vreese, 2006) (De Vreese, et
al., 2011) (Schuck, et al., 2014) (Spanje & De Vreese, 2014).
Euroscepticism: the case of United Kingdom
Each approach can influence public opinion, separately or combined. Since the end of ‘permissive
consensus’, media and by that public opinion in the European Union has become more and more
important. The UK is one of the least supportive member states with public opinion that can be summed
by scholars in one word: Euroscepticism. Euroscepticism in the narrowest definition is opposition
towards a specific policy or integration effort (Boomgaarden, et al., 2011, p. 242). The UK can be
indicted as a country with ‘hard Euroscepticism’ point of view (Daddow, 2012), especially to the extent in
which Euroscepticism has entered into and influenced the mainstream political debate (Gifford, 2006).
The European media changed from almost completely a supporting press in 1973, into a Eurosceptic one
(Stephen, 2007) (Baker, 2001). Several studies dealt with Euroscepticism and the media in the UK, most
of them tried to distinguish newspapers according to the portrayed message. Some argued that the UK
media is bipolar, commonly categorized into Eurosceptic and Europhile (pro-European) camps (Price,
2009). Others take a less extreme stand, believing that specific newspapers possess anti-European agenda,
among them are the Murdoch Empire, the Telegraph Group and the Harmsworth Group (Daddow, 2012),
while other newspapers offer a more balanced coverage such as the Guardian and the Mirror (Baker,
2001).
There are several examples given by authors to the Euroscepticism coverage of the EU. When the British
press reporters’ caricature Europe and Europeans they change the language of the stereotype to an
underlying racist discourse of cultural difference, isolation and economic threat (Gavin 2001). There are
even special cases where EU officials got special references such as the headline ‘Up yours Delors’ (The
Sun, 1 November 1990). Even British politicians couldn’t escape from it, after Prime Minister Blair’s
decision to avoid carrying out a referendum on the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004, he was
labeled in newspapers as a ‘traitor’ (Seldon, et al., 2008).
5
The Political Economy Theory
The Political Economy Theory lays on the foundation of Marx’s perception on interrelation between
economic elites and other state elements such as politics, communication, education, legal etc. (Becker,
1984) (Curran, et al., 2005). This theory claims that media is driven by no more than the economic
interests of its owners, and encourage to examine the connection between media ownership and political
power on media behavior (McChesney, 2000). According to this theory, economic elites, aim for political
stability with no fluctuation in the political order, to insure their maximum profit 2 through media
ownership. As economic and political powers share the political stability interest, the economic one
makes sure that voices that treat or try to promote a new political order, will be scaled down and even
silent, which makes the transmitted information to comply with the main economic interest.
Murdoch is known as one who possesses the power to influence the political discourse and decision
makers in the UK Government (Price, 2006) (Price, 2011). Such powerful influence cannot be found on
the European level. In other words, transferring competence to the supranational level alienates Murdoch
from the source of power. His opposition towered the European integration is based on the grounds that
the EU imposes undue regulations on British businesses and provides no competitive advantage to the
British media industry (Chenoweth, 2001).
Murdoch’s desire to influence the UK relations with the European Union is no secret. Evidence can be
found in Murdoch’s attacks on Blair when he refused to call a referendum on the proposed EU
Constitutional Treaty in 2004 (Herald, 2004) (Daddow, 2012). The same happened with his ‘abandoned’
of the current prime minster, David Cameron, for Nigel Farage, the head of UKIP, the anti-European
party, after Cameron’s promised referendum haven’t been executed and it is not clear if it will (Osborn,
2013) (Assinder, 2014). But the best example is the ex-prime minister, John Major, claim that he was
threatened to change his policies towards Europe, or Murdoch’s newspapers would not support him
(Plunkett & O'Carroll, 2012) (Hickman, 2012) (Hunt, 2012).
Those facts strengthen once more the claim that Murdoch likes to support ideas, parties and party leaders
that are amenable to his business interests (Daddow, 2012), known to be in this research “Euroscepticism
ideas”.
2
Marx addressed political stability as the capitalist political order, but political stability can be interpreted into different
perspective, in this research case for example powers in the hands of national governments as opposed to the European one.
6
Methodology
This research will be using two dimensions, a quantitative dimension that will try to explain media
influence relying on exposure it gives to a certain topic (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) which will be
analyzed by Setting the Agenda and Priming approaches (Scheufele, 2009). The other dimension is a
qualitative one, that will try to explain media influence, relying on ideology that is being transferred in the
message (Hall, 1982) which will be analyzed by the Framing approach due to its ability to indicate a
narrative (Entman, 1991) .
Tools
In order to evaluate the effect of Murdoch business interest on UK media coverage, this research will use
two newspapers3 owned by Rupert Murdoch (‘The Times’ and ‘The Sun’) and two owned by ‘others’
(‘The Guardian’ and ‘Daily Mirror’)4, dividing them, according to newspaper type and newspaper
ownership.
Research Newspapers
The newspapers were collected on a daily basis during 02-22 May 2014, until the day the UK citizens
voted to the European elections. The coded articles that dealt with the EU, are defined as:
Articles that refers to the European Union, its institutions and representatives in the national level (in an
EU context) or supranational one, dealing with cooperation between EU member states that is under EU
regulation (full or partial) and the implications of this cooperation and/or describing EU decision making
and its effects on the member states in and out of the EU.5
3
The newspapers medium was selected from all others due to its prominent role in media and European integration studies. Newspapers were
detected as the second main source of information when it comes to the European Union matters (Eurobarometer, Autumn 2013).
4
The newspapers were selected due to their owner identity and popularity in the UK. According to ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations) report
regarding national daily newspaper circulation during August 2013 - January 2014, ‘The Times’ is the most popular quality newspaper, while
‘The Sun’ is the most popular tabloid. ‘The Guardian’ is the second most read quality newspaper while ‘The Mirror’ is the third one among the
tabloids (Anon., 2014).
5
Articles that were coded are ones that this definition appeared in thier headline or the lead of an article (leaving aside sports sections),
following other academic researches such as Brüggemann et al, 2006. Furthermore it is the common belief of professional journalists and
editors that the most important parts of an article are the title and the leading.
7
Quantitative dimension: Setting the Agenda and Priming the EU
Setting the agenda: differences between newspapers will be measured by the number of articles in each
newspaper.
Priming rate: differences between newspapers will be measured by Yarchi and Tzarfati priming rate
model (Yarchi & Tzarfati, 2009) which includes four criteria: Article Size (a scale of 1 to 5: 1 point for
less than 1/8 page, 2 points for 1/8 page, 3 points for 1/4 page, 4 points for half page and 5 points for
more than half a page). Article location (page number where the article appeared for the first
time).6Article Structure (characteristics like colors and images as part of the article will be measuredpoints will be given on a 1 to 4 scale). Article stretching (the number of pages the article stretches on).
Using a mathematical formulae, Priming rate will be converted into one quantified.
Qualitative dimension: Framing the EU
This section will measure the level of framing differences between the newspapers, to find whether there
is a hegemonic message in any of the newspapers. In order to do so, this research will predefine three
frames (themes):
Opportunity or Risk: based on Schuck and De Vreese (2006), whether the European Union presents
opportunities or rather risks to the UK, its business, its citizens etc.
Enhancing or Dumbing Down: inspired by Trenz (2008) question on EU legitimacy and the role of the
media, does the article enhance the legitimacy of the European Union or is it questioning the legitimacy
and by that dumbing it down.
One side or two side information flow: based on John Zaller’s (1992) (1996) statement that media can
produce two kinds of information. One side information flow is directional bias media that shows only
one part in its coverage. Two-side information flow is balanced media presenting both sides of an issue,
the advantages and disadvantages.
Positive framing means that according to the preferred reading as was defined by Fiske (Fiske, 1986), the
EU was presented as an opportunity and/or his legitimacy was enhanced. Negative framing means that
according to the preferred reading as was defined by Fiske (Fiske, 1986), the EU is presented as a risk
and/or that the EU legitimacy has been dumped down. In each article the direction of the information will
be determined as positive or negative based on at least one of the first two frames (even when the other
cannot be evaluated).
6
The points will be reversed after data collection in a way that the last page will get the lowest points while the first will get the
highest. The reversed action is made in order to create a similar scale to all of the criteria: where a high number represents high
prominence and a small one indicates low prominence
8
Analysis
This chapter will reveal the results of this research, quantitative dimensions (Setting the Agenda and
Priming rate) and then the qualitative dimensions (Framing).
Quality newspapers: The Times VS. The Guardian
Setting the Agenda:
According to this research definition, 112 articles were coded in The Times, compared to 92 in The
Guardian. The Times (Rupert Murdoch) is published 22% more articles dealing with the EU, than
The Guardian (‘others’). This means that The Times raise the subject of the European Union more on
the public agenda.
Priming rate:
Priming rate in Rupert Murdoch newspaper (‘The Times’) was higher than in the ‘other’ (‘The
Guardian’). The Times average priming rate according to the calculation is 60, while The Guardian
average rate was 55. The Times primed the European Union 10% more (5% gap) than The
Guardian. The Times articles tend to publish bigger size articles and use tolls such as pictures or colored
headlines to attract the audience’s attention, more than The Guardian.
9
Framing:
The Times framed 18% more (8% gap) articles than The Guardian, with 29% more (16% gap) negative
coverage than The Guardian in the framed ones. The Times tends to be quite negative, negative articles
were more than double of the positive ones, while in The Guardian it was almost equal. The Times uses
32% (16% gap) more one side flow than The Guardian. This means that Framing in Rupert Murdoch
newspaper (‘The Times’) was higher, with more negative approach and characterized by one side
information flow, opposed to the ‘other’ newspaper (‘The Guardian’).
10
Tabloid newspapers: The Sun VS. The Daily Mirror.
Setting the Agenda:
According to this research definition, 66 articles were coded in The Sun, compared to 45 in the Daily
Mirror. The Sun (Rupert Murdoch) published 45% more articles dealing with the EU, than the
Daily Mirror. This means that The Sun raise the subject of the European Union more on the public
agenda.
Priming:
Priming rate in Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid newspaper (‘The Sun’) was higher than in the ‘other’ tabloid
(‘the ‘Daily Mirror’). The Sun average priming rate according to this calculation is 63, while the Daily
Mirror average rate was 58. The Sun primed the European Union 8% (5% gap) more than the Daily
Mirror. The Sun articles tend to publish bigger size articles and use tolls such as pictures or colored
headlines to attract the audience’s attention, than the Daily Mirror.
11
Framing:
The Sun framed double, 100% more (31% gap) articles than the Daily Mirror, with 56% more (36% gap)
negative coverage than the Daily Mirror in the framed ones. The Sun had only negative frame, while the
Daily Mirror presented both approches. The Sun uses one side flow 88% more (38% gap) than the Daily
Mirror. The Sun articles with negative approach are presented four times more with one side flow than the
two side flow, while in the Daily Mirror it was equal. This means that Framing in Rupert Murdoch
newspaper (‘The Sun’) was higher, with more negative approach and characterized by one side
information flow, than in the ‘other’ (the ‘Daily Mirror’).
12
Murdoch’s newspapers: The Sun (tabloid) Vs The Times (quality)
Setting the Agenda:
According to this research definition, 112 articles were coded in The Times, compared to 66 in The Sun.
This allegedly shows that The Times published 70% more articles dealing with the EU, than The Sun, that
Murdoch used The Times for his influence more than The Sun. But, elimination of the natural differences
between quality and tabloid newspapers is essential for better understanding of Murdoch influence over
newspapers types. In order to do so and isolate the unique differences between Murdoch’s newspapers, a
comparison to the ‘other’ newspapers was made.
In the quality newspapers The Times published 22% more articles than The Guardian and in the tabloid
newspapers The Sun published 47% more articles than the Daily Mirror. The higher gap that was found in
the tabloids (more than double of the gap between the quality newspapers) might indicate that Rupert
Murdoch indeed used his tabloid (The Sun) to influence public opinion, more than his quality
newspaper - although publishing more articles in The Times, The Sun was more influenced by Murdoch
business interest.
Priming:
13
The Times average priming rate according to this calculation is 60, while The Sun average priming rate is
63. This means that The Sun primes the EU 4% (2% gap) more than The Times. And yet again, in order
to eliminate the natural differences of newspapers type, a comparison to the ‘other’ newspapers was
made.
In the quality newspapers, The Times average priming rate was 10% higher (5% gap) than The Guardian
and in the tabloid newspapers, The Sun average priming rate was 8% higher (5% gap) than the Daily
Mirror. The Daily Mirror (the ‘other’ tabloid) primed the EU 6% more (3% gap) than The Guardian (the
‘other’ quality newspaper), almost equal to the gap between Murdoch’s tabloid and quality newspapers.
The similarity in the gaps might indicate that the actual differences between Murdoch’s newspapers
reflect the typical differences between quality and tabloid newspaper - Murdoch level of influence
on Priming rate in both his newspapers is the same. Although Murdoch’s tabloid primes its articles
more than his quality newspaper, no indication of higher influence level by Murdoch in his tabloid was
found.
Framing:
14
The Sun framed its articles 24% (12% gap) more than The Times. In order to eliminate the natural
differences a comparison to the ‘other’ newspapers was made in the quality newspapers: The Times
framed its articles 18% (8% gap) more than The Guardian and in the tabloid newspapers The Sun framed
its articles double than the Daily Mirror, 100% more (31% gap). According to the general framing
results, the higher gap between the two tabloids (more than 6 times of the gap between the quality
newspapers) might indicate that Murdoch used his tabloid (The Sun) to influence public opinion,
more than his quality newspaper.
The Sun coverage is 44% more (30% gap) negative than The Times one. Although both newspapers
approach in its EU coverage tend to be negative, it is important to eliminate the natural differences and
yet again a comparison to the ‘other’ newspapers. In the quality newspapers, The Times framed its
articles with negative approach 29% more (16% gap) than The Guardian. In the tabloid newspapers, The
Sun framed its articles with negative approach 56% (36% gap) more than the Daily Mirror. According to
the level of negative approach, the higher gap in the tabloids might indicate that Murdoch used his
tabloid (The Sun) to influence public opinion, more than his quality newspaper.
The Sun used 25% more (16% gap) one side information flow than The Times. The comparison to the
‘other’ newspapers indicate that the quality newspapers, The Times used one side information flow 32%
more (16% gap) than The Guardian, in the tabloid newspapers The Sun used one side information flow
88% more (38% gap) than the Daily Mirror. According to the one side flow information, the higher gap in
the tabloids might indicate that used his tabloid (The Sun) to influence public opinion, more than his
quality newspaper.
Murdoch used higher framing with negative approach and one sided information flow in his tabloid The
Sun compared to his quality newspaper, The Times. According to the comparison with the ‘other’
newspapers we can assume that this difference is driven from ownership and not only from the
newspapers type, which might indicate higher level of influence in Murdoch’s tabloid The Sun,
compared to his quality newspaper, The Times.
15
Discussion and conclusions
This research dealt with the influence of media owner with business interests, on his newspaper coverage
on the EU, by comparison to other balanced newspapers. It was done based on the Political Economy
Theory foundation, by examining media behavior with three different approaches. The first two
approaches were quantitative (Setting the Agenda and Priming), while the other approach was qualitative
(Framing). This research found that Murdoch uses his newspapers in order to influence public opinion
with accordance to his business interests that are incompatible with EU integration. Influence can be by
increasing or decreasing the amount of articles, priming rate and framing, with accordance to the
surrounding events in connection to Murdoch’s immediate business interests, consistently in his two
newspapers. Theoretically, in Murdoch’s case, EU positive events will decrease the coverage amount and
their prominences in his newspapers, while EU negative events will increase the coverage amount and
their prominences in his newspapers.
This research included also a comparison between both Murdoch's newspapers (quality and tabloid),
evaluating differences in Murdoch’s influence between his own newspapers while eliminating the natural
differences between the two types of newspapers. This research found that Rupert Murdoch used his
ownership power in order to influence media coverage, in his tabloid newspaper more than in the quality
one. Two out of the three approaches were consisted (Setting the Agenda and Framing) while the priming
one couldn’t be confirmed. It can be assumed that Setting the Agenda and Framing are easier to influence
by owner ideology, than Priming which is more technical and demands ad-hoc intervention (similar to the
results the previous part were the gap in priming approach was also smaller than in the other two
approaches).
It is important to clarify that although the results are compatible with the Political Economy Theory, other
factors besides business interests of the owner such as the values and ideology of the journalists or the
editors should not be overlooked. Therefore, future research such as deep interviews with journalists and
editors should be conducted in order to understand what drives them to write the way they do.
This research shows that Rupert Morduch influence his newspapers coverage on the EU. Former
academic researches proved that such coverage influence public opinion, but remain unclear the chosen
way of confronting the ownership influence. Selecting this way is not simple since it embodies the
delicate balance between different democratic rights and clash of freedoms, the newspapers’ right for
expression vs. the right of the citizens to get reliable balanced information. While enjoying this freedom
16
of expression, media owners shape public opinion according to their economic interests, present biased
information according to their needs and avoid from presenting information that may damage their
business or related ones. To citizens of a democratic entity, media ownership that is driven by economic
interests, damages their freedom for reliable information. This leads to another and maybe even a greater
dilemma regarding the limitation that should \ shouldn’t be put in order to protect the democracy and its
citizens from unfair influence. The government should keep the balance of the triangles forces: the
government power should be used to keep the media power on a level that the citizens’ power won’t be
damaged, and yet governments should be alert to regulate the relations between media and its citizens.
The strong ties between media owners and the UK government prevent from such a regulation to occur.
Murdoch managed to influence creation of laws that are in line with his business needs (such as UK
communications bill known as the ‘Murdoch Clause’) it’s doubtful if he won’t succeed to prevent any
future legislation incompatible with his business interests. This fact, together with EU responsibility to its
citizens (as a whole and in the different member states), raises the question if such kind of regulation
should be instructed by the EU authorities. Regulation over media from the EU level already excites in
other fields, so why skip regulation over concentrated media ownership?
17