Hegemony - Examples of The Guardian vs. Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-2442216/MAX-HASTINGS-David-Cameron-courageous-things-I-wish-real-self.html 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/03/david-cameron-under-25s-assault

Here are two examples of how the same story can be represented in different ways through mediation - which is an idea I will use in my piece on how global ideas affect local people. 
Antonio Gramsci's theory hegemony:
"...Dominant groups in society, including fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class, maintain their dominance by securing the 'spontaneous consent' of subordinate groups, including the working class, through the negotiated construction of a political and ideological consensus which incorporates both dominant and dominated groups." - (Strinati, 1995: 165)

This idea can be seen in action perhaps in these two examples. David Cameron can be seen as the representative of the dominant group - both in terms of actually being head of conservative government but having always been in the higher social classes throughout his life with his family being amongst some of the richest in the country and therefore some of the most dominant compared to those in the lower social classes. In Gramsci's theory, the ideology and values held by the dominant group within a society are usually those held by the majority - A class had succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values. The ideas held by this majority appear as 'common sense' to the majority as the dominant ideology held by the dominant power is practiced and spread. 

From the article by the Daily Mail - a notoriously right wing, Tory promoting paper:"Nobody should fool themselves that the struggle to save Britain from dire indebtedness bequeathed by Labour is over...to reform the socially-destructive culture of welfarism. 

These include plans to strip benefits from the long-term jobless unless they work full-time picking up litter, removing graffiti or preparing meals for the elderly." - Daily Mail

Notably through the article from the Daily Mail there is no mention on the thoughts about the effects and externalities to the proposal from Cameron - only blind support for anything he says and anything against labour.

However from the article from the Guardian, a very different story is told:

"It would be also be a mistake to describe this as a "war on the young" as many commentators have done. A war implies two sides vying for supremacy. This is a strictly unilateral assault, a grand act of persecution. Indeed watching the prime minister singling out unemployed youngsters for uniquely punitive measures while pretending it is for their own good, cheered on by a gang of braying chums, it looks less like the behaviour of a national statesman and more like the petty vindictiveness of a schoolyard bully." - The Guardian


Comparing the two articles, both provide very different messages which is interesting considering they are reporting the same event - this is as a result of mediation. The Guardian clearly takes quotes from the speech and picks apart their meanings and what will happen as a result from these proposals however the Daily Mail summarises the speech as 'stick with me, because Ed Miliband would ruin everything' and doesn't talk about any consequences or results from putting these proposals into place. It is obvious were each paper stands, and this is a prime example as to why the stereotypes from each paper still stand, with the Guardian on the left side of politics and the Daily Mail on the right.