The goal of media literacy is to help people become sophisticated citizens rather than sophisticated consumers. The authors argue against a purely ‘text‐centred’ approach in which media texts can be deconstructed and analyzed so we can choose among them. Instead, media literacy should integrate a textual analysis with questions of production and reception. An analysis of the structure of media institutions is particularly important if Americans are able to appreciate and argue for alternatives to a lightly regulated commercial media system. Media literacy is, therefore, a way of extending democracy to the place where democracy is increasingly scripted and defined.

The MMR vaccine became front-page news in early February 2002, in a much reported controversy about alleged links between MMR and autism. We examine both media content and public opinion and knowledge to explore how this controversy was presented, and, in turn, how this coverage influenced public perceptions. The news coverage of MMR was monitored over a seven and a half month period from 28 January to 15 September, 2002. Two national surveys were conducted-in April and in October, 2002-both based on over 1000 face to face interviews, with the purpose of exploring what the public learned from the coverage, and how this information may have influenced attitudes towards the vaccine. We will argue that the media's critical scrutiny of those supporting MMR was not matched by a rigorous examination of the case against it, and that the public was, as a consequence, often misinformed about the level of risk involved.

This article examines the ideological assumptions and consequences of the media representation of public opinion through a study of television news coverage of the 2001 British general election. It discusses how a certain type of poll (the voting intention or ‘horse-race’ poll) is privileged, while other types of opinion surveys are ignored. But it also identifies less obvious means through which public opinion is invoked. First, casual and often unsubstantiated assertions about the attitude of the public are regularly made by anchors, reporters or politicians. Second, the views of individual members of the public are made to stand in for public opinion overall, either through vox pops or through the interaction of members of the public with politicians on the campaign trail. The article concludes that the consequence of the media representation of public opinion in the 2001 British general election campaign is to legitimize the hegemonic definition of politics as a sport played by political and media elites, thus reducing citizens to the limited and passive role of spectators.

No abstract

Based on the largest content analysis of its kind, this article analyses the ways in which public opinion and citizenship is referenced or invoked on television news in the United States and Britain. The study is discussed in the context of the debate about declining citizen participation in representative politics. One of the study's main findings is that citizenship and public opinion are generally represented as passive, rather than engaged. This suggests that showing an engaged citizenry conflicts with current journalistic practices, and that any attempt to encourage more engagement will require rethinking those conventions.