Call for proposals: The media, poverty and the public

Call for proposals:

The media, poverty and the public

Project summary: Understanding the ways the media depicts poverty and the impact this has on audiences.

Deadline:	3 May 2007 (Full proposals)
JRF Committee:	Public Interest in Poverty Issues Advisory Group
Timescale:	Up to six months
Budget:	£60,000
Key contacts:	Teresa Hanley (PIPI Manager), teresa_hanley@dsl.pipex.com 020 7263 8841 Marguerite Owen (administrator), marguerite.owen@jrf.org.uk 01904 615903

Supporting documents:

Project summary

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) is funding a programme which focuses on building public support for poverty eradication measures. This project is part of that programme and aims to provide up-to-date knowledge, analysis and understanding of media coverage of poverty, its impact and to begin to identify examples of good practice and opportunities for the future. We are seeking to support a relatively rapid, short-term project which will inform the JRF’s work in this area and feed into discussions between media and anti-poverty organisations to be held in late 2007/2008. Further work on this theme may be undertaken following this project.

Background / context

a) JRF programme – Public Interest in Poverty Issues

The JRF programme on Public Interest in Poverty Issues (PIPI) aims to secure and strengthen public support for eradicating poverty to ensure that current and future governments sustain action on UK poverty reduction. One major strand of the programme concerns the portrayal of poverty within the media. This is crucial since the media is a key influence on and reflector of public opinion. It can set and shape agendas. It is also a crucial forum for public debate. Thus, it is important to engage with various forms of media in order to build public interest in, and support for poverty eradication measures. This project is anticipated to be useful to JRF and also others working in this field such as those working within the media with an interest in poverty issues and the voluntary sector.

b) The media environment

The media operates in a context which is subject to numerous attempts to influence it and has to deal with a range of commercial, political and individual interests. The media itself is not a homogeneous body but is made up of a diverse range of views, approaches, outlets and reaches different audiences.

The composition of the media is changing. Many newspapers are experiencing dropping circulation numbers (in hard copy), though there is a parallel trend of increasing numbers of monthly and weekly periodicals being sold. This is also matched by increasing numbers of free newspaper distributions in many UK cities. Local papers also continue to play a crucial role in local debates. The number of radio and TV stations people have access to is rapidly increasing. “New media” including the internet and mobile phone technology are becoming the main source of information for an increasing number of people in the UK.

These rapid changes in the media environment are driven by technological and social change. The relationship between the media and its audiences is in a state of flux. The range of opportunities for the “consumer” to be a media-content “creator” is growing. Examples of this include the inter-mingling of phone texts and email in broadcast TV, in addition to the more “traditional” letters to the editor, and rising involvement in radio phone-ins. Additionally, there has been rapid growth in “citizen journalism” such as blogs and mobile phone videos on the internet. Media outlets are also piloting a number of public-involvement formats eg Radio Berkshire stringers project which recruits members of the public to participate in finding stories as stringers.

These trends mean that those wanting to engage the media in a particular subject or to influence media content are facing an increasingly complex scenario but one that also offers new opportunities.

c) Analysis of media coverage of poverty

There is a lack of recent analysis of how the media engages with poverty issues. A body of recent work exists which considers media depiction of controversial issues around migration, asylum and refugee integration and some looking at how children, youth, homelessness and some social issues are reported. However, these tend to address particular aspects of social exclusion rather than looking at income poverty directly or poverty as a whole. There are also some reviews of US media considering similar questions in relation to poverty. ¹

Older analyses still hold much that is relevant, notably the Golding and Middleton’s “Images of Welfare” but as a 1981 publication this is based on data already 30 years old . Since then the process of media content creation, types of media and media content have changed significantly. In particular, this older work predated the development of broad access to the internet, the expansion of local FM radio stations, the growth in a PR and communications industry seeking to influence media content and the rise of reality TV. .

d) Public attitudes and poverty

Research into public attitudes to poverty demonstrates that, while some people are sympathetic to the existence of poverty, at best there is a fragmented view of why poverty exists and why some people continue to live in poverty.

There is little consensus on broader systemic reasons that keep people in poverty and are beyond an individual’s control. Statistics and facts that conflict with people’s existing views are rationalised or rejected. However, people tend to respond more favourably to life stories told by individuals’ themselves.

The extent to which the media contributes to this fragmented view of poverty is not known. The limited coverage in the news media, its event-driven and at times sensationalist approach as well as a tendency to need a body to blame (be it government, local authorities or poor people themselves) may contribute to it. Also, the way in which social issues are covered in drama such as soaps can be misleading as these tend to leave out significant aspects of real life, for example government policy. Images of poverty are included in a range of media content from soaps, drama, comedy, reality TV and the news. Local radio and newspapers also provide opportunities for discussion and debate about strategies to address poverty and related issues. However, there is no overview which considers the range of ways media covers poverty issues and the impact this has on its audiences.

Aims

The aim of this project is to provide a more thorough and up to date understanding of how poverty is covered in the media and how this affects audiences’ understanding of poverty. This will feed into future work, which will go on to look at how the media can build public understanding of poverty and play a constructive role in debates about how to eradicate poverty.

The questions that this project should address include:

a) Media content analysis

How is poverty framed and treated in the media?
Whose voice is prominent in this content?
To what extent are the perspectives of those with experience of poverty incorporated?
What differences are there in the ways that poverty is portrayed according to the audience and type of media or format?

b) Analysis of impact on audiences

How is current media coverage received by audiences?
What messages do people get?
In what way does it contribute to people’s understanding of poverty?
How does this impact vary according to the audience and media involved?

Methods

Proposers should explain how their methods will answer the aims as set out above, as well as any proposed supplementary project aims.
In order to answer the research aims it is likely that a number of methods may be used. These could include content analysis of written and broadcast media, key informant interviews with experts in the field and qualitative research with audiences and those working in the media. However, proposers are free to suggest other methods and should ensure that all proposed methods are clearly justified and will contribute to meeting the project aims.

Proposers should outline how they will segment audiences. It will not be possible for the project to include in depth work with all elements of the public. Therefore, proposers should set out which parts of the audience they will focus on and give reasons for this. It is important that the views of those with experience of poverty are included in this work. Proposers may choose to segment this group further and/or include them within other categories. The overall aims of PIPI should be born in mind when prioritising audiences the project will focus on.
Proposers should outline the definition(s) and understanding of poverty that they will use to guide this work.

The research should take a broad-brush approach and include consideration of:

A wide range of media including TV, radio, print and online
A wide range of formats including news, current affairs, drama, comedy, reality and day-time TV
Media at local, regional and national levels and in the four nations of the UK

The two main aims of this research are to gain understanding of current media coverage of poverty issues and the impact this may have on different audiences. However, it is expected that researchers will also come across examples of what they consider to be good practice. These should be included in the report along with any information as to the factors and conditions which led to their creation.

Expected outputs

Typically, the expected outputs are a 15,000 word report, detailing the methods, results and policy and practice implications, and a 2,000 word summary (the “Findings”). However, we are open to other ideas about effective outputs beyond or instead of these usual ones. If more than one project is funded from this call, then contributions to joint publication(s) may be required.

Previous outputs

Other recent work funded by the JRF that may be of relevance to this call for proposals includes:

Understanding attitudes to poverty in the UK: getting the public’s attention (2007), by Sarah Castell and Julian Thompson
Attitudes to poverty: Findings from the British Social Attitudes survey (2007), by Alison Park, Miranda Phillips and Chloe Robinson

Submitting a Proposal

It is essential that you read the How to apply for funding section of our website before submitting your proposal, together with the Application guidelines containing the necessary forms for completing your application. There are also details available on what makes a good proposal and projects the Foundation does not support, which proposers should read, as well as some other useful information.

Three unbound, hard copies of all documents are required. Please also e-mail a Word version of the complete proposal, summary and budget forms to Marguerite Owen by the deadline below.

Proposals should be submitted to:

Marguerite Owen
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
The Homestead, 40 Water End
YORK YO30 6WP

Timetable

The deadline for receipt of email and hard copies of full proposals is 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Unfortunately, late submissions cannot be accepted. Following review by JRF staff and advisers, proposals that meet the required standards will be submitted to the Public Interest in Poverty Issues Advisory Group on Thursday 31 May June 2007 for their consideration. The Trustees of the Foundation will meet to give final approval for funding in either June or September. In the event that Trustees do not approve the work, preliminary costs of up to £2,000 will be reimbursed.

Budget

The maximum budget for this call overall is £60,000 (including VAT and all other expenses). It is expected that individual projects should not take longer than six months.

How we make funding decisions (full proposals)

The following criteria will be used in coming to a decision on full proposals:

How far the work will offer new insights or developments.
The soundness and appropriateness of how the work will be done (i.e. design, methods and analysis).
Whether partnerships with relevant other organisations are in place, where these are important.
The ability of the proposers to carry out the work and complete on time.
An understanding of the policy and practice dimensions.

Other issues that will be considered include: whether the proposal pays attention to diversity where appropriate (i.e. attending to gender, ethnicity, class, disability etc.) and whether it is written in accessible, lay language. A full yet accessible explanation of the proposed methods to be used is essential, as is full consideration of the ethical implications of the work and the implications for policy and practice across different nations of the UK.

Key contacts

For queries about the research, including the methods, please contact:

Teresa Hanley, PIPI Manager, 020 7263 8841 | teresa_hanley@dsl.pipex.com

For queries about the application process, deadlines etc., please contact:

Marguerite Owen, Administrator, 01904 615903 | marguerite.owen@jrf.org.uk

Notes

1. For example:

The Circuit of Mass Communication: Media Strategies, Representation and Audience Reception in the AIDS crisis’ by Glasgow Media Group (1998)
David Miller, Jenny Kitzinger, Kevin Williams and Peter Beharrell * Kensicki, Linda Jean (2004). No cure for what ails us: The media-constructed disconnect between societal problems and possible solutions.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 81 (1, Spring), 53-73. Sotirovic, Mira. (2001). Media use and perceptions of welfare. Journal of Communication. 51 (4, December), 750-774.
Gandy, Oscar H. Jr., and Baron, Jonathan. (1998). Inequality: It's all in the way you look at it. Communication Research. 25 (5, October), 505-527.
Oxfam – media analysis of asylum issues in Wales (2001) http://oxfamgb.org/ukpp/resources/downloads/WelcomeorOverReaction.pdf

2. Images of Welfare:Press and public attitudes to poverty, Golding, P. and Middleton, S., (1982) Martin Robertson and Co. Ltd, Oxford