A Nation Constructed By The Media?

A ‘nation’ mourns, a ‘nation’ in crisis, a ‘nation’ rejoices. It is a term branded by the media on a daily basis but its definition has divided many people. Some have described it as a social community who are brought together by their history, origin and descent. Others have merely called it a body of people that we associate with a particular territory. Anderson (1983: 6) describes nations as ‘imagined communities’ because, “even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”

The media has been accused of building an imagined, impenetrable community. Ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants and even the EU are the main targets of social exclusion by our press. An advance in technology in the way of blogs, podcasts, and 24-hour news feed now means that we are consuming more journalism than ever. I am going to examine the role that the language of journalism plays in the construction and maintenance of these imagined communities. I will explore the linguistic devices that newspapers employ to build this sense of community. The focus will be on how the media creates a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude with a look at how ‘us’ the insiders and ‘them’ the outsiders are represented to readers.

Newspapers, although tabloids are most accountable, are dominated by a language that favours certain groups of people and persecutes those it feels do not belong. We read it so much every day, that we have become immune to the level of racism intertwined in our news. Conboy (2007:150) says; “Nationalism has two faces, one benign, all face-painting and national anthems, the other malignant, characterized by hatred of outsiders to the national community and a narrow-minded certainty that one nation is superior to all others.”

We can identify this in the way that newspapers report news that is specific to Britain but choose to overlook international news (Conboy 2006). It could be argued then that the media take a biased approach to events outside of our nation. By minimising the coverage of international news, the media minimise the chance that our community is extended to outsiders. It seems the only exception to international news being reported is when there is an obvious connection to the British news agenda.

Conboy (2007: 163) agrees, “News coverage of non-elite nations reinforces the centrality of the national narratives of the news. It does this by continuing the normative assumptions that most news is national news or at least has a direct and immediate national interest.” In the case of international news or even an affair of national interest, ‘Brits’ and ‘Britons’ are used as common collective tags to reinforce the national community. One Daily Star article reads,

“Forget the rugby, football and motor racing- there are plenty of sports where Brits hold the world title”
(Oct 23, 2007)

The Star acknowledges the sports success of other countries by telling us to “forget” them. Instead, it makes it relevant to Britain by pointing out thirteen other sports that we are “best at.” The use of ‘Brits’ as a common collective tag reminds the reader of who they are and where they belong. The punchy abbreviation is almost a term of endearment or a team name, the ‘Brits.’ Conboy (2006:49) says that its “usage is overall a strong indicator of news-worthiness in the tabloids.” The accompanying headline with its assertive language, “We ARE the champions,” confirms the newspapers belief that Britain is a superior nation.

Fowler (1991: 189) argues that the pronoun ‘we’ suggests a union of the newspaper and its readers in an ‘implied consensus’ of national community. De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak (1999: 164) share a similar view; “The connotations and persuasive force of the ‘national we’ are so strong that even those participants in the discussions who critically address national motivated generalization cannot avoid its usage.” Newspapers use this term as an automatic assumption of a relationship between itself and readers. The effect of this is that it readers feel they belong to a community. One Sun column it reads,

“If we’re paying, we should be entitled to decide WHEN we see a doctor and WHERE we are treated”
(Jan 8, 2008)

The Sun writes on behalf of the readers when it criticises the government which once again reinforces the ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality.

Another way in which newspapers construct this ‘imagined community’ is through the constant support of British soldiers. Conboy (2006: 50) says, “They all swear allegiance to the virtues of patriotism and are unequivocal about the bravery of British soldiers abroad.” The tabloids, especially, do this in jingoistic style. One Sun article reads,

“Tears of joy and salute to heroes...Afghan troops praised...The most battle-scarred British unit to fight the Taliban...Six bitter months of intense combat...Proud dad Jason Birch...”
(Oct 25, 2007)

Newspapers worship these soldiers. In every community all over the world, an individual or a group of individuals act as leader and sets an example to others. For instance, a sports team looks to their coach as a classroom looks to their teacher as government looks to the Prime Minister. By putting these soldiers on a pedestal, we are compelled to look up to them. The media then have replicated the archetypal structure of a community and have thus created a community of their own.

The headline on the article is surrounded by a border of poppy flowers which brings the focus to symbols. Symbols are used on a daily basis in the media but their regularity does not mean that their effect should be overlooked. Symbols are a reminder, a representation and a cue to feel a certain emotion. For example, a crucifix prompts us to think about the death of Jesus. A heart is symbolic of love. Conboy (2006:53) argues that tabloids draw upon a certain set of images enthusiastically. He says, “The flag of St George appears in a variety of relatively banal, everyday contexts in the contemporary tabloids. It is a common sight on the front pages accompanying stories about the EU as it is on the back pages when following the fortunes of English sports teams.” The flag, in particular, is how the media maintains the British ‘imagined community’ because it is a constant reminder of the country we live in.

Listing is also used to build these ‘imagined communities.’ On major sporting events or occasions like St George’s day, readers are often bombarded with ’10 Reasons to be Proud,’ a physical list that reminds us to feel glad that we belong to the community. Conboy (2006: 50) argues that, “The tabloid mnemonic of listing can contribute to the portrayal of national identity as part of the direct address to the imagined community.” This clever device works to maintain our ‘imagined community’ by making us feel as though we ought to be grateful to be a part of it. Polls are also a popular means of creating a community with spirit. A community with a voice that approves or objects to a new government policy for instance, implies that we are an educated and opinionated nation. Conboy (2007: 157) says, “Newspapers can conduct their own polls of their own readers to take a highly selective reading of national sentiments and report them back to that same readership.” Polls serve to construct our ‘imagined community’ and act as a realisation to the audience that there are real people in the community with real views. It creates a real sense of spirit and integration when a large section of the community is united for or against a particular cause.

But newspapers do more to build our ‘imagined communities’ than make us feel patriotic. They act as the bearer of bad news and often highlight a state of national decline but this has a contrary effect. Although it alerts the public to the gloomy state of Britain, it also gives us determination to rise above it. Hall (1992) argues that stories of national decline provide a marker of hope in the transcendence of the nation through adversity. Conboy (2006:59) says, “Alerting the collective community to anxieties of decline fits with a sort of progress or a desire for it as fundamental to the continuity of the narrative of a nation with all its peaks and troughs.” One Daily Star article reads,

“Brits eating more burgers than ever: The Government is trying to tackle soaring obesity levels with its “five-a-day fruit and veg message.”
(Jan 8, 2008)

Once again, ‘Brits’ reinforces the national community but this time for the wrong reasons. The thought of the Government “tackling” the problem tells us that it is a serious matter. The fact that obesity levels are “soaring” suggests that we are a nation in danger. The Star’s uses exaggeration in order to alarm readers into acting on the problem. Articles like this come with so much regularity that the media have created the idea that the community is under attack from forces within and without. Conboy (2007: 168) says, “One aspect of the nation itself is that its discourse survives only to the extent that it is perceived to be under threat. It is at this point that enemies, real and imaginary, need to be marshalled in order to remind the insiders of the national group what exactly is at stake.” While the media is constructing this community of decent, hard-working British people, it oppresses what it perceives to be a threat to the nation. By doing so, the media has managed to make their imagined community tighter and more indestructible than ever.

The media has successfully constructed a community for its nation. The majority of news is national news, it uses ‘Brit’, ‘Britons’ and the ‘national we’ to reinforce our relationship, it worships our soldiers, uses symbols, lists and polls to create a sense of community spirit and alerts readers to states of national decline to boost our determination to succeed. However, the more that journalists use these devices, the more we may become immune to their impact. The media maintain our ‘imagined community’, therefore, by excluding the ‘outsiders’ even more.

Van Dijk (2000: 38) argues that news about immigrants and ethnic minorities are often restricted to stories about new immigrants arriving, illegal immigrants, housing and social problems, how they are different, how they are deviant and how they are easily associated with violence, crime, drugs and prostitution. His argument is supported by a poll in The Guardian (14th Nov, 2007) that found 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The News of the World tells of the,

“Shameful legal lapses that allowed a violent illegal immigrant to stay in Britain and mastermind a terrifying kidnap... Brutal gunman...the gangster... the abduction and torture...crazy immigration scandal...foreign crooks...grisly crime.”
(Dec 10, 2006)

It is clear that the paper wants to exclude criminals like this one from our community. Its graphic and embroidered language serves to shock the reader into a sense of hatred for people that we associate with this man. The article is bias. Although it is only the minority of immigrants that commit crimes in our country, “foreign crooks” is the generalisation the article makes and which prompts readers into making the same assumption. In the same newspaper on the same day, it tells us that,

“Abu Hamza’s female solicitor is being investigated by the Law Society for allegedly kissing an al-Qaeda suspect in JAIL”
(Dec 10, 2006)

Although the solicitor is merely being investigated and has not been charged or found guilty of breaking any rules, the newspaper has decided to report this case. The bold text emphasizes the woman’s alleged crime to make it appear even worse. Finally, the accompanying photograph of the woman laughing is likely to have been a deliberate choice by the newspaper in order to make us believe that the woman may not feel remorse for the offence. As a result of this, we are expected to dislike Muddassar Arani and our ‘imagined community’ becomes more resilient against her and others like her.

The article is clearly one-sided. It states what Arani is being investigated for, gives details into her alleged offence, points out why the al-Qaeda suspect is in jail, quotes the Law Society who condemns Arani and even tells us what she has defended Abu Hamza against. However, it does not give Arani to defend herself. This supports Van Dijk (2000: 39) when he says, “Even in ethnic news, minorities are quoted less, and less prominently than (white) elites. Minority representatives will seldom be allowed to speak alone: a white person is necessary to confirm and convey his or her opinion, possibly against that of a minority spokesperson.” Van Dijk suggests that the British media
adopts a narrow-minded approach to individuals who are outside its own nation and reinforces the idea that Britain, or at least its journalists, try to depict that we are an elite nation.

Van Dijk continues his argument with comment about the language used of ethnic minorities. He says, “Violence and crime of minorities will typically appear in (big) headlines, and prominently on the front page, whereas this is seldom the case for other news about them. Much research has shown that this is a well-known device in the coverage of ethnic issues” (2000: 41). One Daily Star article reads,

“SEARCHING MORE BLACK KIDS WILL STOP GANG WARS:
Stop-and-search tactics need to be increased in black communities to combat inner-city gun and knife crime”
(Oct 23, 2007)

The Star’s choice of words in “black communities” serves to highlight the level of discrimination in the media. To categorize a person by their skin colour is a typical mark of racism and while the newspaper may preach that it takes an objective view (“It’s not racism, it’s just plain common sense!” The Star, Oct 23, 2007), the headline alone contradicts this. It is as though they are a community who are segregated from us and while this may be the case in the ‘imagined communities,’ our physical integration in everyday life tells a different story.

It is not just ethnic minorities who feel the intolerance of the British media. The European Union also comes under heavy criticism on a regular basis. Conboy (2006:56) writes, “Hyperbole concerning the EU is threaded through with emotive language and scripted agendas alluded to economically in a demotic, populist tone of persuasion.” One Sun article reads,

“Britain will be forced to surrender its oil stocks to the EU under the new treaty- costing taxpayers £6BILLION”
(Oct 18, 2007)

The fact that the EU have “forced” us to surrender our oil stocks makes the public feel compromised, but the cost to taxpayers is surely what is meant to outrage readers the most.
The article has a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude; taxpayers versus the burden of the EU. Conboy continues, “The language of the criticism of the European Union…includes the weight of corrupt politicians, the EU and MEP’s counterpoised to the plight of overburdened British taxpayers.” By criticising the ‘outsiders,’ in this case the EU, our community can feel more affiliated because we are united against one cause.

Whether we realise it yet or not, British newspapers have a very influential role on its readers. Support for the nation will always be top of the journalistic agenda. Conboy (2006:47) says the “language of representing and addressing a national community” is a very large part of a newspapers appeal. Furthermore, “The ‘them’ and ‘us’ divide defines to a large extent the community which the tabloids are constructing” (2006: 61). It is safe to say then that in terms of the role they play in constructing and maintaining our ‘imagined community’ their role is huge.