UK Media Education

Media Education in the UK: Moving

Beyond Protectionism

by David Buckingham

In this essay I describe the history of media education in the UK, tracing its evolu-
tion from its Leavisite origins, through the advent of cultural studies to the more
explicitly political approaches developed in the 1970s. These approaches reflect a
gradual democratization of the curriculum, as well as a form of cultural or politi-
cal protectionism. I also discuss recent moves beyond this approach, resulting from
changing views of young peoples relationships with the media, and from class-
room-based research. I outline the conceptual framework of contemporary media
education and discuss the unresolved questions about learning and pedagogy.

In comparison with the U.S., media education in Britain has a much longer history
and is more firmly established within the school curriculum. Like many areas of
education, it has been characterized by an ongoing debate about its aims and
methods. Past generations of media educators tended to espouse a form of pro-
tectionism, seeking to defend students against what were seen as the negative
cultural, moral, or ideological influences of the media. Such approaches have
been criticized for failing to acknowledge the complexity of young peoples expe-
riences with the media, and to equip them for a dramatically changing media
environment. In recent years, however, a new approach has emerged that moves
beyond the protectionism of earlier perspectives.
In this essay I describe some of the fundamental characteristics of these devel-
opments. The essay begins with a brief sketch of the evolution of media education
in the UK and then moves on to provide a concise account of contemporary
approaches. Although the details may be specific, the broad lines of development
summarized here have striking parallels with the situation in many other coun-
tries.

History of Media Education

Discrimination
The most commonly quoted starting point in this history is the work of the literary
critic F.R. Leavis and his student, Denys Thompson. Their book, Culture and

David Buckingham (PhD, University of London, 1993) is a reader in education in the Culture, Commu-
nication and Societies Group, Institute of Education, University of London. His research interests
include media education and childrens relationships with television and electronic media.

Copyright 1998 International Communication Association

33
Journal of Communication, Winter 1998

Environment: The Training of Critical Awareness, represented the first systematic

set of proposals for teaching about the mass media in schools (Leavis & Thomp-
son, 1933). The book, which was revised and reprinted several times, contained
classroom exercises using extracts from journalism, popular fiction, and advertise-
ments. The Leavisite perspective has been widely discussed elsewhere (Masterman,
1985; Mulhern, 1979). Ultimately, its central mission was nothing less than the
salvation of the culturepreserving the literary heritage, language, values, and
health of the nation it was seen to embody and represent. From this perspective,
the aim of teaching about popular culture was to encourage students to discrimi-
nate and resistto arm themselves against the false and corrupting influence of
the mass media and to move on to the self-evidently good and true values of the
literary heritage.
This process of training students in discrimination and critical awareness
has been described by subsequent critics as a form of inoculation (Halloran &
Jones, 1968; Masterman, 1980). What remains notable about it, in pedagogical
terms, is its extraordinary self-confidence. Leavis and Thompson (1933) sought to
enable teachers to expose what they saw as the crude manipulativeness and cheap
emotional falsity of popular culture. They took for granted that, once exposed, it
would be recognized and condemned.

Cultural Studies and the Popular Arts

The next phase in this brief history brings us to the late 1950s and early 1960s and
the founding moment of British cultural studies. Again, the work of key figures
during this period, such as Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart, has been
widely discussed elsewhere (Turner, 1990). This approach, most explicitly evi-
denced in the work of Williams (1961), opposed the Leavisite notion of culture.
Culture no longer was seen as a fixed set of privileged artifactsa literary canon,
for examplebut as a whole way of life. Cultural expression was seen to take a
variety of forms, from the exalted to the everyday. This more anthropological
notion of culture challenged the distinctions between high culture and popular
culture, and between art and lived experience.
In seeking to disseminate this approach to teachers in schools, Stuart Hall and
Paddy Whannels (1964) The Popular Arts offered an extensive range of sugges-
tions for teaching about the media and particularly about the cinema. This less
obviously inoculative approach was also reflected in teaching materials and offi-
cial reports of the time, as younger teachers began to recognize and to build upon
their students everyday cultural experiences (Murdock & Phelps, 1973). What
remains striking here, however, is that fundamental cultural distinctions were nev-
ertheless preserved. Hoggart (1959), for example, clearly distinguished between
the living culture of the industrial working classes and the processed culture
that derived from Hollywood, striking a characteristically anti-American tone which
was also apparent in the work of Leavis. Likewise, in the work of Hall and Whannel
(1964) and in the Newsom report on English teaching (Department of Education
and Science, 1963), these distinctions were not so much abolished as shifted.
Thus, although teachers were now encouraged to consider films in the classroom

34
UK Media Education

(albeit preferably European or British films) the (by then dominant) medium of
television remained quite beyond the pale.

Screen Education and Demystification

In the 1970s, a rather different approach emerged, also emanating, at least ini-
tially, from the academy. The key development here was screen theory, a body
of work that has again been widely debated and disseminated (Silverman, 1983).
The key organization here was the Society for Education in Film and Television,
publisher of the journals Screen and Screen Education. Screen was the most sig-
nificant vehicle for new developments in semiotics, structuralism, psychoanalytic
theory, poststructuralism, and Marxist theories of ideology. The difficult role of
Screen Education was to suggest how these theories might be applied to class-
rooms in schools, although this was a task it addressed only intermittently (Alvarado,
Collins, & Donald, 1993).
The most influential exponent of this approach in terms of practice in schools
was undoubtedly Len Masterman. In fact, Masterman was highly critical of what
he regarded as the academic elitism of Screen theory. The theoretical basis of his
own position is rather confused (see Buckingham, 1986). Yet Mastermans (1980,
1985) books, Teaching About Television and Teaching the Media share the central
concerns of Screen theory with questions of language, ideology, and representa-
tion. Masterman (1980, 1985) strongly rejected what he saw as the class-based,
evaluative approach of Leavis and his followers. By contrast, semiotic methods
were seen to provide objectivity and analytical rigor. Students were urged to put
aside their subjective responses and to engage in systematic forms of analysis that
would expose the hidden ideologies of media texts, and thereby liberate them-
selves from their influence. These forms of analysis were combined with the
detailed study of the political economy of media institutions. Discrimination on
the grounds of cultural value was thus effectively replaced by a form of ideologi-
cal demystification.

Democratization and Defensiveness

This brief history inevitably neglects some of the complexities of these various
positions and the historical contexts in which they were formed. A more thorough
analysis of the evolution of media education would locate these approaches within
the changing social and cultural climate of their times, and relate them to the
ongoing struggles for control over educational policy making.
With these qualifications in mind, one can read this history in terms of two
contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, the development of media education
is part of a wider move towards democratization, a process whereby students
out-of-school cultures are gradually recognized as valid and worthy of consider-
ation in the school curriculum. In these terms, media education can be seen as
one dimension of the progressive educational strategies developed in the 1960s
and 1970s, particularly in related areas, such as the teaching of English. Such
strategies place a central emphasis on the (problematic) concept of relevance and
on the attempt to validate students cultures.

35
Journal of Communication, Winter 1998

This move arose partly in response to the growing recognition that the tradi-
tional academic curriculum was inadequate for the large majority of students,
particularly working-class students. Even in the work of Leavis and Thompson
(1933), there was an implicit acknowledgment that teachers had to begin by working
with the cultures that students brought with them into the classroom, rather than
seeking merely to impose the values of the dominant culture. In more recent
years, this democratization of the curriculum should also be seen as part of a
wider political move, which is apparent in different ways in the work of Williams
(1961) and in Screen Education. The attempt to include popular culture within the
curriculum represented a direct challenge to the hegemony of elite literary cul-
ture. It was implicitly informed by a wider class politics.
On the other hand, however, this history is also one of defensiveness, a process
whereby teachers have sought to inoculate or protect students against what are
assumed to be the negative effects of the media. Such an approach is implicitly
premised on the notion that the media are enormously powerful, and children are
particularly vulnerable to influence. Teaching children about the mediaenabling
them to analyse how media texts are constructed, and to understand the eco-
nomic functions of the media industriesis seen as a way of empowering them to
resist such influences.
This defensiveness may have several motivations, which take on a different
significance at different times and in different national and cultural contexts. In
the work of Leavis and his followers, there is a powerful form of cultural defen-
siveness, that is, an attempt to protect children from the media on the grounds of
their apparent lack of cultural value. Although they are now distinctly unfashion-
able in some circles, such motivations nevertheless often underlie more appar-
ently objective or political concerns. They are often reinforced by a resistance to
what is seen as U.S. cultural imperialism, which, for obvious reasons, is particu-
larly prominent in other English-speaking countries.
Less apparent in the British context is what might be termed a moral defensive-
ness. In the U.S., by contrast, media education appears to be very strongly moti-
vated by anxieties about the effects of sex and violence in the media, and, to some
extent, about the medias role in promoting consumerism or materialism. Here
again, the media are seen to be primarily responsible for inculcating these false
beliefs or behaviors and for encouraging children to believe that all their prob-
lems can be solved through violence or through the acquisition of material goods.
It is presumed that such dangers can be prevented through a rigorous training in
media analysis (Anderson, 1980).
Finally, there is a form of political defensiveness that is most apparent in the
third perspective outlined above. Here, the aim is to use media education, and
particularly media analysis, as a means of disabusing students of false beliefs and
ideologies. This remains a major motivation for media educators in many coun-
tries, although since the 1970s the concerns addressed here have increasingly
encompassed wider forms of identity politics, particularly around gender and
ethnicity. From this perspective, the media are seen to be primarily responsible for
making students sexist or racist. It is through media analysis that such ideologies
will be displaced or overcome. Such assumptions remain highly influential in so-

36
UK Media Education

called critical pedagogy, although this approach has often been characterized by
a surfeit of abstract political rhetoric (Buckingham, 1996).
In each respect, then, media education is proposed as a way of dealing with
some very wide and complex social problems. If the media are routinely used as
the scapegoat for these problems, media education frequently seems to be seen as
the solution. Yet, however different these concerns may be, the positions students
and teachers occupy here remain remarkably consistent. By and large, students
are seen to be particularly at risk from the negative influence of the media, seem-
ingly unable to resist their power. Teachers are assumed to be able to stand
outside this process and provide students with the tools of critical analysis that
will liberate them.

Beyond Protectionism

Any such history runs the risk of implying a teleology, as though the bad old ideas
have steadily been cast off in favor of the good new ideas. In different ways, all
the approaches outlined above have remained influential. Yet, in the last decade,
media education in the UK has moved away from this protectionist approach. This
situation is paralleled by developments in countries such as Australia and Canada,
and, to some extent, in Latin America (Bazalgette, Bevort, & Saviano, 1992). The
notion of media education as a form of ideological inoculation or demystification,
which was prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, has increasingly been challenged,
both in the light of new developments in academic research, and in the light of
classroom experience.
To some extent, these developments are a result of broader social and political
changes, generally, and of changes within the education system, specifically. In
both cases, the apparent success of the Right in mobilizing popular support has
led to a far-reaching reexamination of many of the basic assumptions of Leftist
politics. In the case of education, many of the radical experiments of the 1960s
and 1970s have been significantly questioned and rethought (Education Group II,
1991; Jones, 1989).
There are two more specific reasons why media educators have moved on
from the demystification approach of the 1970s and early 1980s. First, we have
begun to pay much closer attention to what students already know about the
media. In line with recent developments in audience research, the view of chil-
dren as passive victims of media effects has steadily been challenged and sur-
passed. Within some areas of psychology, and particularly within cultural studies,
researchers have developed a much more complex view of the ways in which
children make judgments about the media, and how they use the media to form
their personal and social identities (Buckingham, 1993; Hodge & Tripp, 1986).
Broadly speaking, this research suggests that children are a much more sophisti-
cated and critical audience than is conventionally assumed, not least by many
media educators themselves.
This is not, of course, to say that the media have no effects on children, or that
there are not areas they need to know more about. There is a significant danger

37
Journal of Communication, Winter 1998

here of merely replacing the romantic image of the innocent, vulnerable child
with an equally sentimental conception of the sophisticated, media-wise child.
There are bound to be gaps in childrens knowledge, although those gaps may
not necessarily be where they are often assumed to be. Likewise, childrens knowl-
edge of the media obviously develops as they grow older. This will depend upon
the critical perspectives that are available to them, both within and beyond the
media. It is not very profitable to reduce such questions about the power of the
media, and the power of audiences, to an either/or debate. Nevertheless, this
emphasis on the complexity and diversity of audiences has significant implica-
tions for media educators. It means that we need to pay much closer attention to
what children already know, rather than assuming that they know nothing, or that
what they know is somehow invalid or ideological.
Second, there has been a thorough-going discussion about teaching and learn-
ing in media education, much of which has developed from classroom-based
research conducted by teachers themselves (Alvarado & Boyd-Barrett, 1992;
Buckingham, 1990; Buckingham, Grahame, & Sefton-Green, 1995; Buckingham &
Sefton-Green, 1994, Dewdney & Lister, 1988). As such research has shown, one of
the central problems with the demystification approach is its assumptions about
teachers and students. Just as students are assumed to be mystified, so the teacher
is assumed to possess the key to liberation. The teacher reveals the truth, and the
students, once they witness it, automatically give their assent. There is a kind of
political evangelism here. Although this may occasionally explain some of the
learning experiences students have, it remains a drastic oversimplification of the
complex and messy realities of classroom practice. Especially when it comes to
the areas with which media education is so centrally concerned (e.g., with what
students see as their own culture and their own pleasures), they may well be
inclined to resist or reject what teachers tell them. This is particularly true if such
teaching is perceived to be grounded on ignorance about popular culture, or if
the study of the media is being used as a covert means of gaining students assent
to positions that are seen as politically correct.
Questions of cultural identity and cultural difference are obviously central here.
Both in media education and in anti-racist and anti-sexist teaching, however (e.g.,
Donald & Rattansi, 1992; Williamson, 1981/82), experience has shown that ratio-
nalistic forms of analysis are a very limited means of changing students con-
sciousness, and that they often prove counterproductive. Although it may be com-
paratively easy to police the ways in which students talk or behave, for example,
to make them conform in a superficial way to particular styles of language or
behavior, this does not necessarily bring about more fundamental change.

A Conceptual Framework

From this perspective, media education is now no longer defined as a matter of

automatic opposition to students experiences of the media. It is no longer seen as
a form of discrimination or demystification, much less resistance or inoculation, at
least in the narrow ways in which these terms have historically been defined. To

38
UK Media Education

Table 1. Key Aspects of Media Education

Media Agencies
Who is communicating what and why?
Who produces a text; roles in the production process; media institutions; economics
and ideology; intentions and results.
Media Categories
What type of text is it?
Different media (television, radio, cinema, etc.); forms (documentary, advertising,
etc.); genres (science fiction, soap opera, etc.); other ways of categorizing texts; how
categorization relates to understanding.
Media Technologies
How is it produced?
What kinds of technologies are available to whom; how to use them; the differences
they make to the production process as well as the final product.
Media Languages
How do we know what it means?
How the media produce meanings; codes and conventions; narrative structures.
Media Audiences
Who receives it, and what sense do they make of it?
How audiences are identified, constructed, addressed and reached; how audiences
find, choose, consume and respond to texts.
Media Representations
How does it present its subject?
The relation between media texts and actual places, people, events, ideas; stereotyp-
ing and its consequences.

Note. Adapted from the British Film Institutes primary curriculum statement (Bazalgette,
1989).

the contrary, contemporary media education is defined in terms of less grandiose,

but ultimately more realistic, objectives.
The British Film Institutes curriculum statements (Bazalgette, 1989; Bowker,
1991), for example, build upon the research outlined in the previous section and
provide a synthesis of curriculum developments that took place in the 1980s,
largely guided by teachers themselves. They define the aims of media education
as a matter of developing students understanding of and participation in the
media. In doing so, they outline a framework for the curriculum organized not in
terms of objects of study, or in terms of skills or competencies, but in terms of
conceptual understandings. This model of the media education curriculum is of-
ten rendered as a set of key concepts or key aspects (see Table 1). Although there
are different versions of this model, the basic approach has been extremely influ-
ential over the past 10 years, particularly in English-speaking countries such as the
UK, Canada, and Australia.
This conceptual approach has several advantages. It does not specify a given
set of facts to be learned, identify particular objects of study (e.g., a canon of
prescribed texts). In this respect, it enables media education to remain contempo-
rary and responsive to students changing interests and experiences, without be-

39
Journal of Communication, Winter 1998

coming merely arbitrary in its selection of material. The central aim here is to
provide a theoretical framework that can be applied to the whole range of con-
temporary media and to older media such as literature, as well, thus enabling
students to realize the connections between them and to transfer insights from
one area to another.
As Bazalgette (1992) emphasized, the key aspects are not intended as a blue-
print for a media education curriculum, or a list of contents that should be deliv-
ered to students. They are not hierarchically organized, nor are they intended to
be addressed in isolation from each otheras though one would spend one
semester on agency, followed by another on representation, and so on. To the
contrary, they are seen as interdependent. Each concept is a possible way in to a
given area of media education that necessarily invokes all the others. As such,
they provide a way of organizing ones thinking about any activity or unit of work
that might be undertaken in the media classroom. It should be emphasized that
they can be applied to both practical activities, such as taking photographs, and
analytical activities, such as studying advertising or the news.

New Pedagogies and New Questions

This new perspective in media education shares many of the broad conceptual
and political emphases of the demystification approach, although it has a rather
less sanguine view of teachers ability to liberate or empower their students. Broadly
speaking, the aim here is to begin with what students already know. Rather than
seeking to replace subjective responses with objective responses, or to neutralize
the pleasures of the media through rational analysis, this approach aims to de-
velop a more self-reflexive style of teaching and learning, in which students are
enabled to reflect on their own activity both as readers and as writers of media
texts.
Advocates of this approach have also tended to place a greater emphasis on
media production by students themselves. Studies of classroom practice have
challenged the earlier view that practical production necessarily entails the mind-
less imitation of dominant media. To the contrary, students uses of popular media
forms and genres frequently display a clear understanding of media language, and
a form of ironic distance that is at least potentially critical (Buckingham et al.,
1995; Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994). By making these dimensions of their
work explicit, and through subsequently reflecting upon them, students can be
encouraged to develop a more thoughtful approach to aspects such as represen-
tation and media language that are sometimes reduced to rather mechanistic terms.
The place of theoretical or critical reflection is also crucial here, however. In
evaluating their own and each others productions and audience responses to
them, students are encouraged to consider the relationship between intentions
and results and, hence, to understand the complexity of meaning-making.
Although this new approach may thus be less prescriptive than the various
forms of protectionism that preceded it, questions of ideology and cultural value
are bound to remain central concerns for media educators, and it would be false

40
UK Media Education

to pretend that the tensions and difficulties that surround these issues can be
easily resolved. Certainly, it is vital to refuse the temptations of an easy progressiv-
ism, a notion of media education as simply a means of celebrating and validating
students culture. The claim, often professed by media educators, that the kids
are the experts and that media education necessarily requires more egalitarian
relationships between teachers and students, has to be recognized as little more
than romanticism.
The increasing emphasis on learning in media education poses a series of
complex questions about the relationships between students existing knowledge
about the media,, and the knowledge that teachers make available to them. These
questions clearly relate to broader theoretical debates in media and cultural stud-
iesdebates, for example, about the relationship between pleasure and ideology,
and about the place of rational analysis. Yet, there are also specific pedagogical
issues here. How do students acquire critical understandings of the media? How
do they relate the theoretical discourse of the subject to their own experiences as
media consumers and as media producers? How are we to identify what students
already know about the media? How can we evaluate evidence of their learning?
How can we be sure that media education actually makes a difference?
Recent curriculum developments in British media education, particularly in the
upper years of secondary schooling, provide some innovative approaches to these
issues (Buckingham & Sefton-Green, 1994). Thus, there has been a growing em-
phasis on integrating practical and critical elements of the subject and on the
potential of translating insights between different language modes (e.g., between
writing, media production, and talk). However, these more process-based models
of assessment are now under threat from current shifts back toward more tradi-
tional methods. Although the BFIs curriculum statements do attempt to provide
attainment targets for evaluating students progress, we continue to lack a clear
understanding of development and progression in students learning about the
media. Positive classroom experience with younger age groups suggests that we
may still be underestimating what children know and are capable of learning.

Futures for Media Education

The increasing official recognition of media education by policy makers and the
growing enthusiasm of teachers and students in many countries would seem to
suggest that media educations time has finally arrived. Significant obstacles un-
doubtedly remain. The need for coherent programs of initial and in-service teacher
training is becoming ever more urgent, and there remains a lack of high quality
teaching materials in many key areas of the field. In several countries, the right-
ward drift in educational policy-making does not bode well for innovation in any
form. Nevertheless, the argument for media education as a central entitlement for
all students is becoming impossible to resist.
The coming decades will present new challenges for media educators. In par-
ticular, the advent of new digital technologies would seem to provide a complex
set of opportunities and problems. On the one hand, these new technologies have

41
Journal of Communication, Winter 1998

significant potential for media production. Digital image manipulation and digital
editing, for example, allow students much more control than was available with
old technology. They also make it possible to explore some of the more concep-
tual aspects of the production process, such as the selection and construction of
images, in a much more direct and concrete way (Buckingham et al., 1995). In this
respect, they may bring about a much more thorough-going integration of theory
and practice than has been possible previously.
On the other hand, these technologies are regarded by some as an educational
panacea. Like television in an earlier era, there is a risk that they will be seen as
merely neutral and instrumental, as simply teaching aids. In this context, it is vital
to insist on the critical questions, for example, about agency and representation,
with which media educators have traditionally been concerned. The key aspects
of media education provide a framework that can productively be applied to
these new media and that takes us beyond a superficial infatuation with technol-
ogy for its own sake.
Nevertheless, these new technologies will inevitably call into question the bound-
aries of media as a discrete curriculum area, boundaries that are problematic in
any case. As the media converge, the logic for separating verbal and visual media,
or electronic technologies and nonelectronic technologies, will come under in-
creasing strain. In the process, the boundaries between previously discrete areas
of the curriculum, and, particularly, those that are broadly concerned with culture
and communication, may come to seem quite obsolete. Whether the positive
potential of this situation will be realized, or whether it will result merely in
incoherence and confusion, will have to remain an open question.

References

Alvarado, M., Collins, R., & Donald, J. (Eds.). (1993). The screen education reader. London: Routledge.
Alvarado, M., & Boyd-Barrett, O. (Eds.). (1992). Media education: An introduction. London: British
Film Institute and Open University Press.

Anderson, J. (1980). The theoretical lineage of critical viewing curricula. Journal of Communication
30(3), 6470.
Bazalgette, C. (Ed.). (1989). Primary media education: A curriculum statement. London: British Film
Institute.
Bazalgette, C. (1992). Key aspects of media education. In M. Alvarado & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media
education: An introduction (pp. 199219). London: British Film Institute & Open University Press.

Bazalgette, C., Bevort, E., & Saviano, J. (Eds.). (1992). New directions: Media education worldwide.
London: British Film Institute.
Bowker, J. (Ed.). (1991). Secondary media education: A curriculum statement. London: British Film
Institute.
Buckingham, D. (1986). Against demystification. Screen, 27(5), 8095.
Buckingham, D. (Ed.). (1990). Watching media learning: Making sense of media education. London:
Falmer.
Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: Falmer.

42
UK Media Education

Buckingham, D. (1996). Critical pedagogy and media education: A theory in search of a practice.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(6), 627650.
Buckingham, D., Grahame, J., & Sefton-Green, J. (1995). Making media: Practical production in me-
dia education. London: English & Media Centre.

Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school: Reading and teaching
popular media. London: Taylor & Francis.
Department of Education and Science, UK. (1963). Half our future [The Newsom Report]. London:
Author.
Dewdney, A., & Lister, M. (1988). Youth, culture and photography. London: Macmillan.
Donald, J., & Rattansi, A. (Eds.). (1992). Race, culture and difference. London: Sage.

Education Group II, University of Birmingham, UK. (1991). Education limited: Schooling and training
and the new right since 1979. London: Unwin Hyman.
Hall, S., & Whannel, P. (1964). The popular arts. London: Hutchinson.

Halloran, J., & Jones, M. (1968). Learning about the media: Communication and society. Paris: UNESCO.
Hodge, B., & Tripp, D. (1986). Children and television: A semiotic approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hoggart, R. (1959). The uses of literacy. London: Chatto & Windus.

Jones, K. (1989). Right turn: The conservative revolution in education. London: Hutchinson.
Leavis, F., & Thompson, D. (1933). Culture and environment: The training of critical awareness.
London: Chatto & Windus.

Masterman, L. (1980). Teaching about television. London: Macmillan.

Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. London: Comedia.
Mulhern, F. (1979). The moment of scrutiny. London: New Left Books.

Murdock, G., & Phelps, G. (1973). Mass media and the secondary school. London: Macmillan.
Silverman, K. (1983) The subject of semiotics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, G. (1990). British cultural studies: An introduction. London: Unwin Hyman.

Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.

Williamson, J. (1981/82). How does girl number twenty understand ideology? Screen Education, 40,
8087.

43