Peter M Howard ::

Media Analysis :: France, Europe, and the Constitutional Referendum

May2005

Originally written for my In-Country Studies subject at UTS - had to write it as an exploration of how one would go about doing a Media Analysis as a method of sociological research; first part critiques the method, explores its limits; the second part is some observations I made about the representation of Europe and the constitutional treaty referendum, going from a handful of French magazines

In order to further understand the Media Analysis method of sociological research I explore its methods and limitations and I relate the method to a case study, in which I explore how Europe is represented in French media, particularly in relation to the upcoming referendum on the European Constitution. At first glance, a Media Analysis may be considered a straightforward quantitative analysis of mainstream French media. But inspection of the Method raises further questions: chiefly, my own role as observer, participating in French society but separated from it by my own cultural background and indeed my primary role as observer rather than consumer of media; further, my selection of sources for observation, based on how I choose to define the boundaries of the French media. In this latter area, I may be helped by French sources that examine their own media; hence I refer to an issue of Le Monde diplomatique that deals specifically with the media, which though not defining it, helps to inform my method.

Media Analysis: The Method

The Media Analysis method is used to explore how a given subject is portrayed in the media. Some important areas in this portrayal are frequency, context and stereotyping. Though some argue that media analysis should be purely quantitative, or purely qualitative, it seems clear that some of both is required. It is not enough to simply count the occurrences of a given issue, but the manner of its appearance and the context in which it appears also affect the analysis. The method therefore is not purely scientific, but involves layers of personal interpretation.

Hanson et al define content analysis as a quantitative method, but recognize that there is a problem with "how far quantification is taken" (Hanson, 1998, p95) and that

"there is no ... simple relationship between media content and its reception and social implications. Content analysis can help provide some indication of relative prominences and absences of key characteristics in media texts, but the inferences that can be drawn from such indications depend entirely on the context and framework of interpretation by which the texts analysed are circumscribed." (ibid, p95)

They go on to outline some of the problems faced by quantification, but suggest that these can be largely overcome by analysing the appearance of certain codes. It is clearly not enough to count the appearances of a given word or phrase, but the researcher can still give quantitative values to the coding of each appearance, based on the relationships between given dimensions.

"Although content analysis initially fragments texts down into constituent parts which can be counted, it re-assembles these constituent parts at the analysis and interpretation stage to examine which ones co-occur in which contexts, for what purposes, and with what implications" (ibid, p98).

Despite Hanson's insistence that content analysis is a transparent scientific method, simply because it follows a given set of rules, I would argue that they aim unnecessarily to define it as a 'positivist' science. Because there is no quantitative way of coding words and the relationships between them, the method will always involve a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the researcher. This interpretation should be seen not as a 'potential abuse' of the method, but as an inherent strength of the system. As long as the researcher is aware that they are likely making personal judgements at every stage of the method, they can avoid mystifying their actions, and can use the theories of participant observation and self-reflexivity to examine their own interpretations in relation to the wider society or cultural group.

Hornig Priest offers some ways to aid in interpretation (Hornig Priest, 1996). An in-depth study could also involve focus groups or surveys to find out how people in the local culture react to certain media portrayals. Equally, the study could involve in-depth discourse analysis. Importantly, "qualitative content studies that follow the basic principles of social science are not 'unscientific' just because they are more interpretive than positivistic in their approach" (ibid, p114). As well, a decision needs to be made about the size of the sample. A quantitative approach might lean toward a large sample, while a 'close reading' aims "to gain a 'window' on a particular worldview, whether represented by one or a few human informants or by a limited set of media messages selected by the researcher" (ibid, p114). Obviously, the researcher needs to remain aware of the strengths and limitations of the methods being used, and of how their own choices affect the study.

O'Sullivan et al explore the issues of Representation - "the theme that the media construct meanings about the world" (O'Sullivan, 1994, p113). But it is also given that the media shares certain recognised meanings with its audience, in order to reach a shared understanding. This means that representations can be interpreted on two different levels: one, as the representation in which the dominant power wish the society to believe (the hegemonic model), and two, as the representation that a dominant part of the audience actually do believe. This is reinforced in reference to stereotyping, with the argument that "for stereotypes to work they need ... to appear 'natural' and everyday" (ibid, p127). For this reason, the coding of a given subject in mass media can tell us both about those in power and the society. But the authors suggest that "there is little social consensus about how to interpret those representations, and always the possibility of alternative representations" (ibid, p113).

I explore the role of the self-reflexive researcher as participant-observer in the society later, particularly as it is enhanced in my own case as a cultural outsider.

Limitations: Defining 'Media'

The media is an ever-changing body, and the influence of new technologies is changing it irrevocably. The Media Analysis methodology needs to take recognition of this, and adapt its methods appropriately. I don't seek to answer or solve these new problems, but simply to present some of the new challenges faced by the method. In short, the changes being experienced by the media challenge the way the researcher defines the scope of their study. There are two areas currently affected: the challenges faced by 'old' or traditional media, challenges that come and go constantly and have always done so, and the appearance of 'new' media, represented in its simplest form by the Internet.

The 'old' challenges have always affected Media Analysis. They involve discussions of control and resistance, and of trust. Le Monde diplomatique of April-May 2005 deals with 'The Fight for the Media'. In 'Quinze jours d'information totalitaire' (A fortnight of totalitarian information) Edgar Roskis talks about the French presidential elections in 2002. He argues that for the two weeks leading up to the second round elections, in which Chirac faced Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French media largely self-imposed totalitarian propaganda. He suggests that Le Pen was rendered powerless, that the period was "a suspension of normal democratic expression" and quotes an editor writing at the time saying that "after May 5, democracy will return" (Roskis, 2005, p16). The magazine deals with the various ways the mass media has been discredited, and with the increased concentration of conservative media ownership. These issues are important to the researcher undertaking a Media Analysis. The question of trust points to the ways in which an audience will interpret certain representations - are the audience more cynical of certain manipulations for example? And the issue of media ownership points to the issue of hegemony - are the mainstream media presenting one side of an issue, and how does it aid those in power?

But there are also 'new' challenges, mainly what Le Monde diplomatique calls the 'Internet Offensive'. This affects the ability of an audience to access more information, and to comment on it freely. For the researcher, the presence of extra information affects how one can expect an audience to react to certain representations. In relation to the European Constitution, it appears that French voters aren't listening solely to their mainstream media, but are going online to find and share information and opinions (Héraud, 2005, online). Should the researcher then increase the scope of research to include internet sources, knowing that though they can be less reliable factually, they may still be widely read and influential? It can even be argued that the internet, properly used, serves as a public fact-checker for traditional media - many faults and outright lies have been exposed by the careful examination by net users all over the globe. And its global reach also means that audiences of French media can easily access foreign media sources, and vice versa.

Limitations: Participant Observation / Self-Reflexivity

Both these issues deal with the role of the researcher. Even in a 'pure' quantitative analysis, the researcher makes personal judgements - about how to interpret and weigh occurrences and their coding, about how an audience separate from the researcher may interpret those same appearances, in their selection of sources and the sampling scope. Approaching the method aware of their own role, the researcher can turn these limitations into strengths, or at least limit them as weaknesses. I can examine my own choices and interpretations and how they reflect a societal reality. This may be achieved by using other methods, such as interviews and surveys.

In this project, I aim to select a small group of sources and qualitatively analyse presentations of Europe. In doing so, I am aware of my own role as observer. Because I come from outside the society, and have a different cultural background and exposure to different media, my interpretations will be different to those made by anyone else in the society. By selecting a small sample, I recognize this limit, and aim to view only a 'window' into the culture. The question of source selection is difficult: how do I select 'representative' sources? How do I weigh their content - an introductory 'opinion' piece may clearly express the opinion of the publication, while a letters page does so to a lesser extent. Even within one publication it isn't unusual to find conflicting opinions from different journalists.

Finally, my own observational status gives me a certain distance from which to view society. Obviously there are similarities between French and Australian culture, and I must be careful to not to equate them too easily. But I have the benefit of not having grown up here, and so not having been socialised with the same messages as a local may have been. My externality gives me a clarity of vision at some times, while making vision and interpretation difficult at others. As an example, this is most obvious when viewing French advertisements, in which wordplays and imagery are targeted at locals who can instantly recognize certain images. On the other hand, I may recognize certain images as harmful stereotypes, while locals view them as 'natural'.

The Process / Case Study

Aware of the limitations of a Media Analysis, and of the inherent risks in my selection of media for study, I chose to study a range of magazines. An in-depth study of daily newspapers is beyond the scope of this work, in which I intend to get a feel for the method and its workings. I could have selected or compared different papers over a set period. But the nature of daily publishing is such that much is repeated. The study of weekly and monthly magazines lets me examine events and their presentation and interpretation over a longer period of time. As well, I am able to select a range of magazines targeted at various audiences, the better to aid in my interpretation. To this end, I am selecting both targeted/niche audience and mainstream magazines.

The case study I chose to follow was the representation of 'Europe', particularly with the upcoming referendum on the European Constitution, because of which most presentations of Europe are aimed at soliciting either a Oui or a Non. When I began this study, I was unsure I my personal feelings toward the vote. I believe that a federalised Europe is inevitable (and even towards that issue, I am ambivalent), but on what time-scale, I am unsure. In regards to the vote, the words of one of my French teachers earlier this year come to mind: "I am for Europe, but I don't know enough to vote either way". Some weeks have passed, and having read more on the subject, and seen how it is being represented in the media, I am strongly for the Non vote.

As brief background on what I was looking for: France has been split roughly 50-50 on the vote (though many remain undecided), with the Non steadily rising over the last month. Chirac and others on the Right appear to be pushing for the Oui. The Socialist party (PS) remains divided, but is officially pushing for the Oui. The extreme left and right are both pushing for Non. This was all I knew when I started, and I was looking for how the media was presenting the issue: because the leaders say Oui, does the media follow along? Or is the media also unsure, like the main population?

To explore the question, I selected a small sample of magazines: two editions of L'Express, two of Marianne, one of Le Point. All are mainstream weeklies. To that I added Alternative Libertaire, a 'black and red' (for anarchy and socialist revolution) monthly. I looked for articles on Europe, whether or not they specifically mentioned the Constitution - although that was generally the case, and when they just spoke about Europe, it was usually to present a certain image to influence the vote. In short, I found that L'Express and Le Point seemed particularly supportive of the Oui vote, with L'Express even vilifying the Non; Alternative Libertaire was a clear Non. Marianne was the only publication that showed some range, and appeared at least sympathetic to the Non vote. I also found that those publications supporting the Oui were also supportive of the government, while Marianne was at times critical of the leaders and even of other media for reprinting lies from both sides. Further, I found that all the publications selected felt positively toward the idea of Europe, again something reflected in the wider population.

I did not perform a quantitative content analysis on my sample - that is beyond the scope, and as I have outlined, I am critical of trying to mystify the methodology by turning it into a hard science. Instead, I examined the articles and their representations in context, and tried to analyse what certain presentations were trying to achieve. To this end, the Alternative Libertaire, though interesting, doesn't provide a lot of information. It is a specifically targeted publication; as a result much of its talk about the Constitution was one-dimensional and reactionary; much of it was given to outlining and organising protests. Under a short article headlined 'L'Ignorance, c'est la force!' (Ignorance is Strength!) it criticised the government's presentation of the Constitution, which hasn't been informative, and the fact that Chirac hasn't allowed a lot of time before the vote so that people don't have time to read the text, which is written in a technocratic legalese. In a similar spirit, the magazine does little to explain its own position. It also criticises the recent referendum in Spain, in which the vote passed, but with huge rates of voter abstention. Unfortunately the headline 'Victoire du Oui en démocratie bananière' (Yes Victory in Banana Democracy) does little to raise itself beyond petty catchphrase-throwing.

Le Point does give a little space to the Non campaign, with a short interview with a former EU deputy, who claims that this 'constitution' is little more than a bunch of rules tacked together, and that we should instead put together a real Constitution for a federalised Europe. (This argument I found to be a common one from Non campaigners that engaged the issue). Otherwise Le Point spoke generally of the optimism of the leaders that the Oui could still win, which I interpreted as a general though not outright support of the Oui - there were, for example, no articles or interviews with Non leaders. Much of its campaigning for Oui seemed to consist of convincing people that it was a 'sensible choice'.

L'Express was on the whole supportive of the Oui campaign, though one columnist argued that it was "time for the socialists to explain their defence of the Oui vote" (L'Express n2805, p72), and proceeded to argue it on their behalf. He suggested that the Non was succeeding on the Left because of the socialists' failure to explain their position; this largely reinforced the Oui as 'sensible choice'. L'Express n2808 issue contained a long article headlined 'La peur du non francais' (The fear of the French Non) (p78-79). It was almost entirely given to asserting that the other countries were all behind the Constitution, and implying that this was reason to vote Oui. It repeatedly suggested that a French Non "would be an enormous setback on the path toward unity", that "the future of Europe depends on this decision", and regularly equated a Non vote with an outright rejection of Europe. It made a brief false concession by quoting a German minister who said "Europe will continue, but it will be harder and slower, and above all will be harder to fight neo-liberalism"; a false concession because much of the Non campaign is arguing that this text is neo-liberal! In another attack at the Non voter-base, it appealed repeatedly to national pride by referring to France's role as a "motor of Europe", suggesting that it would lose its influence if the Non won, and that Sweden sees the climbing Non vote "as confirmation of the end of France's role as a motor of Europe, [and that] France, longtime carrier of the European project, has become an 'introverted nation'". It appeals to ideals of European peace by suggesting that the Non vote would "put an end to the process of unification begun in 1945, ... If France no longer believes in Europe ... the hopes of half a century will disappear". It appeals to the French's sense of socialist brotherhood, calling Spain "Europe-loving" and suggesting that a Non would be a blow to Spain's socialist prime minister Zapatero "who points to France as a driver of European construction and a key link in Spain's foreign policy". And in the very final column, it quotes a (liberal-right) politician in Poland who says:

He "hopes France rejects the constitutional treaty. Because there is a risk that the same will happen in the Czech republic, perhaps in Poland, almost certainly in Great Britain and it would be better if France was the one to take that responsibility"

The presentation of the article also pushed for the Oui, by featuring a photo of German politicians looking concerned (appeal to European brotherhood), and with two 'popup' quotes, both supporting the Oui: one equating the rejection of the treaty with the rejection of Europe ("If France no longer believes in Europe, half a century of hopes will disappear"), the other appealing to the greater good ("It's (the treaty) a tool to advance together, not an object for partisan games").

Marianne I found to be the most balanced, regularly calling both sides to task for their lies and misrepresentations, and allowing both sides of the argument to be heard. The editorial in one issue (2-8 April) specified that the magazine's charter calls for it to "fight in favor of the emergence of a United States of Europe (a federalised Europe of nations) capable of challenging the USA's hegemony" (p6). This same message was repeated elsewhere. The same issue presented a message from Pierre Larrouturou, José Bové et al, arguing that this text should be rejected and a different model (including properly 'constitution' and a social contract) be negotiated. The article included the important comment that "criticising the treaty isn't enough, it's necessary to present an alternative that will be acceptable to a great number of our neighbours" (p28). Elsewhere the magazine analysed the polls to see just who is voting Non, and argued that "the partisans of Oui need to find better arguments than 'Europe = peace and jobs'" (p32-34). Marianne's 23-29April issue further explored the argument. The editorial heavily criticised both campaign leaders and mainstream media for presenting simplistic lies, and again highlighted the need for a stronger Europe, which wouldn't be possible under the proposed treaty. A series of articles raised comparisons between the current social movement against the Constitution and May 1968, suggesting on the whole that people are expressing their dissent about a whole lot of little issues, rather than specifically protesting the text, which very few people have actually read. It also points out the fact that the Socialist Party appears to have lost touch with its roots, and that people are unhappy with the dominant monoculture presented in politics, economics and the media. Importantly, the article points out that:

"The biggest mistake (outside of all the lies) was to present the Oui to the European Constitution not as an option, explaining that it is a wise thing to do, but as an obligatory response ... from which only barbarians and imbeciles are exempt" (p18)

They suggest that like in earlier times when people cried "we are all German Jews", the leaders may soon find people crying "We are all ignorant barbarians" and voting Non.

Concluding Remarks

This issue has not yet concluded, so I am unable to make a judgement as to the effects of the media's representations on people's voting patterns. But the increasing support for the Non suggests that the blanket support from leaders and some media is not having the desired effect, and the timing of polls and increases suggests that people are actually being put off by what some see as blatant manipulation and outright lies from leaders. The huge range of vote decisions and feeling is reflected in the media, where some publications blatantly support one or the other side, while others try to explain issues on both sides. The influence of the internet is probably much larger than can be measured, with people able to go online and get information on the various viewpoints with ease.

Media Analysed

Bibliography

^top