Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mrs. Blachford, and I'm a citizenship teacher.

Welcome to our lesson today on "How the media supports democracy." Let's get started.

For our lesson today, you are going to need a pen or pencil, and you're also going to need some paper.

I would really suggest you find yourself a quiet space to work in as well, so you're not disturbed during our lesson.

So if you need to pause the video now to go sort yourself out and get yourself that quiet space or get equipment, please do so and then just start the video when you're ready to go again.

In our lesson, looking at how the media supports democracy, we're going to do three key things today, or look at three key questions.

So we're going to start by thinking about the key values in a democracy.

And then we're going to look at how the media supports those key values.

And then finally, we're going to be looking at how the media holds politicians to account.

Let's start our lesson with a recap from the last lesson we did which we had a bit of a focus on what is in the public interest.

So if you've got your notes handy from last lesson, it would be a really good idea to have them with you now.

So feel free to pause for a second if you need to go and collect them.

And there's a copy of the scenario on the worksheet for this lesson, if you'd like them in front of you too.

And the case study we'd be looking at later in this lesson focuses on what is in the public interest.

So it's really important that we are clear what it means.

So we've got four scenarios here.

Let's have a think, which of these is in the public interest, and which of them is maybe something that's just interesting to the public? So scenario one, a company testing medicine is suspected of cruelty to animals.

In the public interest? Not in the public interest.

Well done if you've said it is in the public interest.

Yeah, we would want to know, if we are buying medicines from that company, that they are treating animals cruelly.

There's very clear guidance about how animals which are used for experimentation are treated.

So if they're cruelly treating these animals, we should know about that.

Scenario two, a reformed criminal wins the lottery.

Well done if you said that's not in the public interest.

So we might be interested in it, but we don't need to know that.

Scenario three, a celebrity has a drastic new hairstyle.

In the public interest or not in the public interest? So well done if you said it's not in the public interest.

Again, we might be interested to know about it, but it's not something that we need to know.

And then Scenario four, products sold by a supermarket have been contaminated with bacteria.

In the public interest, not in the public interest? And again, well done if you said in the public interest, because we might have bought those products and we don't want the public to be using them if they're contaminated with bacteria.

They're potentially harmful, so we do need to know about that.

And just to prove it, here are the answers.

So there are two that are in the public interest and two that are not in the public interest.

So, what I'd like you to do now is to think about your own scenarios, writing your own scenarios.

You're going to pause the video here, and you're going to write two of your own scenarios.

One of those should be a story that is in the public interest, and one of those is a story that is definitely not in the public interest.

You can perhaps share those with someone in your house or a fellow classmate who you're in contact with.

And when you're ready, then you can play the video again.

Now, in our lesson today, we are looking at the key values in a democracy.

So I'm going to just recap on some of these.

I know you will have perhaps done them in a previous lesson and we've looked at what democratic values are in our first lesson on media as well.

But we're going to recap on some of these key values.

I'm going to start with this quote from Larry Diamond who is a professor of political science and sociology at Stanford University in the US.

So he says, "Democracy consists of four key elements, a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people as citizens in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens." And I think that's a really nice quote, which helps us to consider the values we expect to find in a democracy.

We're just going to unpick some of those ideas together.

So some key values that we'd expect then were mentioned in that quote.

And we'll just take a second to unpick some of those together.

So regular elections, so we can elect representatives to govern for us.

They provide the public with regular opportunities to also remove people from power.

So if we don't agree with what those politicians perhaps stand for, or perhaps we don't feel that they've done a good job, we can at the next elections, also remove them from power.

We also should have the freedom to stand as a candidate in elections, to ensure that there's no permanent sort of political class, one group of people who are always constantly in charge or in power.

We should have free and secret ballots.

So we can ensure that people feel free to cast their votes as they wish.

And we try and minimise any chances of coercions or being forced to vote in a particular way or encouraged to vote in a particular way or be bribed, given money, to vote in a particular way.

We can kind of reduce those issues if we have a free and secret ballot.

We also should be able to have political parties to help organise representatives around sort of core policy ideas that they share.

And this is perhaps a bit of a debatable point, but it also provides a mechanism for political representatives to form governments together.

And it makes it easier for us as citizens to identify the candidates that we would support because they most fit in with our views and what we would like to see happen.

We also need something that we have been talking about quite a bit in other lessons around the freedom of assembly, to be able to protest and take action.

We need to be able to protect the rights for minorities as well, so that we make sure that everybody is treated equally, regardless of who they are.

We need equal rights for women in a democratic society.

Again, the idea that it doesn't matter who you are, you should have equal rights, and women have had to fight for those rights.

We've listed it separately because women aren't a minority, but they've nevertheless been excluded from democratic institutions and processes like voting in the past.

And as I said, we need a free media, of course, as well.

That's what we're focusing on.

But we need a free media who's able to hold to account, to be able to scrutinise.

So we're looking there then at how the media supports those democratic values.

So clearly within any society, there need to be rules and regulations to protect individuals from newspapers printing false stories, but restrictions upon the press should be limited so that they have that power to scrutinise and hold to account.

So we're going to look now at how the media supports those democratic values.

So it upholds the freedom of expression and opinion for citizens, and ensures information published is accurate.

It reports on a broad range of political views to enable us to make informed decisions as the electorate, those of us registered to vote.

Free from interference.

So they're not having political interference in stories they publish.

Raises awareness of issues that helps to bring about social change.

And holds all those in positions of power to account.

So we're not just talking about politicians.

We're talking about people who perhaps are business owners, we might be talking about members of the royal family.

So anyone with a position of power, we need to be able to hold them to account.

So the media holds those in power to account in a number of ways.

They might interview and question people in positions of power or run debates between people with different political views.

So we can hear those different views aired.

They would publish stories which raise awareness of decisions made by those in positions of power.

They bring public concerns and voices into the open, they provide that platform for discussion.

And they also carry out investigative journalism as well, establish the facts of a case before they publish a story.

So which of these does not illustrate a key democratic value? Is it media censored by the government? Media represents a variety of views in society? Media presents information which is accurate.

The media holds those in power to account.

Which do we think? Well done if you said, option one, so media censored by the government.

Actually what we want to have is a free media who can present a variety of views and information that's accurate, but also hold those in power to account.

So well done if you said that.

So we've got another task I'm going to ask you to do here.

So how does the media hold those in power to account? And I'm going to ask you to write a paragraph to explain how the media holds those in power to account.

And you've got an added challenge, which is to see if you can include all of the key words that were at the bottom of this page.

There's a copy of this task as well on the worksheet for this lesson, which you might want to download so that you've got these words in front of you.

Really good luck.

I look forward to seeing whether or not you can add all of those to your paragraph.

So time to pause the video now.

And remember, you're looking at, how does the media hold those in power to account? You're going to write the paragraph to explain how the media holds those in power to account and see if you can include those key words that are at the bottom of the previous screen or the bottom of the worksheet slide as well.

And then when you finish your task, you can press play.

So I wonder if you've got something similar to my paragraph.

So I've included all of the key words here.

So let's go through my paragraph.

So it says, "In a democracy, the media has an important role in holding those in power to account.

They scrutinise the government in a number of different ways.

For example, the BBC may hold a debate with political leaders before an election or question those who hold different political views on Question Time.

A newspaper may run a story which raises awareness of key decisions made by those in power." So hopefully, you managed to do something similar and managed to use all those key words as well.

Well done if you did.

So the final part of our lesson today, we are going to be looking at a case study of holding those in power to account.

So we're looking at the story about the MPs' expenses scandal.

So in January, 2005, the Freedom of Information Act, which had come about in 2000, allowed members of the public to request disclosure of information from public bodies, and it includes, for example, the government.

And a number of journalists had made requests for information, as I said, in January 2005, to be released with details of the expenses claimed by certain MPs.

Now there were some issues around publishing that information and it was, there was a lot of disagreement about allowing the information.

But eventually in July of 2009, there was an agreement reached where they would publish some details of MPs' expenses.

However, in May 2009, two months prior to that official disclosure of expenses, the Daily Telegraph obtained a full copy of all expenses claims. And they began publishing in instalments from the 8th of May, 2009, certain MPs' expenses.

And the Telegraph justified the publication of the information because it contended that the official information, which was due to be released, would have left out or emitted key information, which it believed was actually in the public interest.

And the reason that you would say it might be in the public interest is because this is from money, the MPs' expenses, come from the money that the public pay in tax, and so therefore, it's public money.

The information in the leaks that were published by the Daily Telegraph originated from the parliamentary fees office.

And it had been offered to other newspaper organisations for more than 150,000 pounds in September of the previous year.

The assistant editor of the Telegraph, Andrew Pierce, reveals in an interview that the Daily Telegraph had paid 110,000 pounds for the information and described it as money well spent in the public interest.

Now, the Green Book that's mentioned here was a book or a document which set out what MPs could and couldn't claim expenses for.

And it stated that parliamentary allowances are designed to ensure that Members of Parliament or MPs, are reimbursed, given back, money for costs properly incurred in the performance of their duties.

So they're allowed to claim back anything that helps them to do their jobs effectively, basically.

However, what came to light in the information that the Daily Telegraph got hold of, was that there had been some misuse of that expenses process and the claiming of expenses.

So first of all, they said about nominating second homes.

The Green Book that sets out these guidelines states that the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact.

So for a lot of MPs, their main home would be in their constituency.

And it could be that their constituency is quite a long way from Westminster.

So in that case, an MP or a peer, so someone who sits in the House of Lords, was able to rent or buy a second home, and they were able to claim expenses on that second home.

So it could be rental payments, it could be a mortgage payment, or support towards the cost of those.

And in at least one case of one of the MPs, the nominated home that they'd put down was neither in the constituency or anywhere near Westminster, and they'd claimed money for that property.

So it was deemed that that was not something that was appropriate use of MPs' expenses.

Second point on here about renting out homes, MPs were able to claim for their second home, as I said, while they were away from home.

So they might have a rental property in Westminster, for example.

And what they were able to do, claim for their second home, but they were actually renting that second home out to somebody else.

So one of the MPs, he had a second home and he was claiming rent payments for that.

And he rented it out to another MP, and that MP was also claiming rent for the same property.

So it was being doubly claimed for.

The next one there is about over-claiming for Council Tax on second homes.

So MPs were able to kind of roundup the actual amount that was due to be claimed for a 12-month instalment of Council Tax that are paid to local councils on your property.

So they were able to claim up to 250 pounds per month without having to have a receipt for that.

But what then happened is there were over 50 MPs who were over-claiming on their Council Tax.

So claiming up to the maximum amount each month of 250 pounds, even though the Council Tax wasn't that much on the property.

Next one there, furnishing of other homes.

So MPs were able to claim for eight items of furniture that were actually delivered somewhere else.

So it didn't even go to their second home.

And they were claiming for perhaps furniture for the second home and the items weren't ever delivered to that second home.

What they were doing there was kind of exploiting this no receipt rule.

As I said, you could make claims for anything that was 250 pounds or below, and they didn't have to produce any receipts for that.

So they weren't challenged about whether they were legitimate purchases or not.

And therefore, they were making claims for things that perhaps weren't really for a second home at all.

And then this last one, the reason we've got a picture of a duck on the front page of the Telegraph here, and this is the front page from part of the allegations that were published, was because one of the MPs, a member of MP for Gosport, it was reported that he had claimed well actually more, I think, than 30,000 pounds for gardening expenses over a period of three years.

And one of the things they noted in particular was that the MP had claimed for a pond feature, which was worth 1,645 pounds, and it was actually identified as a floating dock Island, as you do.

It was unclear whether they'd actually been given that money because unofficially, he'd written "not allowable" next to it, but the floating dock has really become a symbol of the expenses scandal, and it was actually later sold at auction and raised 1,700 pound for the Macmillan Cancer Charity.

But it did become one of the symbols, as I said, that people remember about the MPs' expenses scandal.

So the claims that were published by the Daily Telegraph ultimately covered the entire gamut of Parliament, so all major political parties and several of the minor ones as well.

There were ministers who were held accountable.

So we had the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he apologised on behalf of all politicians.

The Opposition Leader at the time was David Cameron, and he actually set up new rules for Conservative MPs.

Michael Martin, he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, he stepped down from his position over allegations of misuse of public money through his MPs' expenses.

Six government ministers had to resign from their role, including the Home Secretary, because of the MP expenses.

You know, this went right through Parliament, and right through the House of Lords really, it was members of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons that were affected.

So whether it be the Cabinet, so those important ministers of the government, through to the Shadow Cabinet, so from the Opposition party back benches, there wasn't anybody really who wasn't caught up in this scandal.

So a number of MPs were also expelled from their political parties, and they also said that they wouldn't stand for reelection.

Some members had to repay either in part or wholly, the sums that they'd claimed.

And expenses claims to be repaid averaged about 3,000 pounds per politician.

The highest repayment was approximately 42,500 pounds.

And there were also payments to the UK Tax Authority for taxes on possible gains that these MPs have made or income that they previously hadn't actually paid.

What was established as a result of the scandal was the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, or IPSA.

And it's a public body in the UK which was created by the Parliamentary Standards Act in 2009.

And that's largely as a response to the MPs' expenses scandal.

And what it did was it established a body which monitors the expenses scheme for the members of the House of Commons.

And it's also responsible for paying their salaries and expenses.

And following revisions to the Parliamentary Standards Act in April, 2010, IPSA was also given responsibility for setting the level of the MPs' salaries.

The Act also established the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and that looks at setting of the MPs' salaries and the payment of expenses, and it also appoints a Compliance Officer, and it's their role to conduct investigations where they believe there's a reason for, that a member may have been paid under IPSA scheme that shouldn't have been allowed.

Now, importantly, that committee is made up from politicians from the range of political parties, but it also has four, what we call, lay members.

And that means they're members of the public.

So they're not politicians.

And they've been elected onto that committee to oversee the work of the committee.

And what that means for us, it's another way that citizens are involved in holding those in positions of power to account.

So we're going to do a little task here about the Daily Telegraph and the MPs' expenses scandal.

And we're going to think about whether or not we think the Daily Telegraph was justified in publishing that information on the MPs' expenses.

So you're going to make a case for and against the Daily Telegraph's publication of the information about MPs' expenses.

And I'm suggesting you could consider the following questions, which would help you shape your response.

So, was the story in the public interest and why? Does it matter that the Daily Telegraph paid to obtain the information? How are MPs' expenses funded? And were the expenses used to fund items necessary for MPs to carry out their roles effectively? Those are some of the things you could consider as you shape your case for and against.

So just remember, you're going to pause the video at this point, think about were the Daily Telegraph justified in publishing information on MPs' expenses? So you're going to make a case for and against the Daily Telegraph's publication of information about MPs' expenses.

So you need to pause the video now, and then when you've had a go at that task, you can press play again.

So what I've done here is just thought about some of the arguments you might have come up with in your case for and against the publication of information.

So let's start by looking at the arguments that might be given for publicising MPs' expenses in the article.

So MPs are elected representatives.

And those they represent, so the citizens, the general public, the electorate, have the right to be kept informed of their actions.

The media is fulfilling its role of holding those in power to account.

As MPs' expenses are funded from public money, this is in the public interest.

You could also refer to the Editor's Code of Practise, that payment can be allowable if it's proven that the information concerned ought to be published in the public interest.

There's some arguments against the publication of the information.

It could be that MPs were funding items needed to perform their role effectively.

For example, if their constituency is a significant distance from Westminster, they may need accommodation closer to Westminster.

MPs also have the right to privacy.

And finally, some might say that the Daily Telegraph went against the spirit of the Editor's Code of Practise, the spirit to make sure that we get information perhaps fairly, and in a way that's not against the law.

You could say that because they paid for that information, is that technically going against the Spirit of the Code? Some would say it possibly is.

Now, it's a really important case because it's something that you can use to show why the media is so important in holding those people in power to account, and the way that they might do that.

If you are a GCSE citizenship student, this is a really good case to use in an exam question to illustrate how the media can hold those in power to account, so our politicians.

It's a really good case for you to be aware of and have notes on.

So, I hope you've enjoyed the lesson again today, and found the tasks interesting.

We've completed all the tasks for our lesson today, so you should now be able to do these three things.

So I just want you to have a think and check, can you do these things? Can you outline the key values of a democracy? Can you explain how the media support those key values? And can you use an example to show how the media holds politicians to account? So thank you for taking part in our lesson today, it's been really wonderful working with you.

If you're able to, could you please take a picture of your work and ask your parent or carer to share it with your teacher so they can see all the fantastic work that you've been doing and what you've learned about today.

And if you'd like to, could you ask your parent or carer to send a picture of your work to @OakNational on Twitter, and then I'll be able to see your lovely work too.

So, well done.

Don't forget to have a go at the exit quiz now as well.

And good luck with that.

All that's left for me to say is, thank you very much for taking part.

Take care and enjoy the rest of your learning today.