Do you agree with the view that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the Royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy?
As British society went through a massive paradigm shift, the media took into account these changes and the sources or entertainment greatly changed in nature. It began with political figures being subject to media scrutiny and eventually the prying eyes of the British media focused on the Royal family: however the effects are questionable as fickle media outlets have been instrumental in affecting public opinion of the Royal family.
Some historians hold the view that increased public exposure had adverse effects on the monarchy. In Source 15 Andrew Crisell, a media historian analyses the media effect on the Royals. Crisell explains that as the Royals became a more common sight on British television ‘their magic began to wane’ even going on to say that they ‘came to be seen as unremarkable, even a little dull’. These comments suggest that instead of the Royals becoming popular because of their newfound connection with the general public, when the Royals became less detached it simply made the public’s near fantastical perception of the dissipate as it was made clear the Queen and the other royals were ordinary people.
Crisell’s opinion on the media and the Royals is largely grounded in evidence, as formal media coverage became less common and satire took it’s place television shows such as ‘Spitting Image’ unflinchingly made jibes at the Queen and resulted in public opinion swaying from viewing the Queen as a majestic, maternal figure for the nation and instead a detached rich woman not to mention openly lampooning figures such as Sarah Ferguson and even Diana Princess of Wales.
The integrity of the source is largely unquestionable, Crisell is clearly a well informed author and his opinions are extrapolated from tangible evidence. Considering he is able to successfully author a book on the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document