Alternative Media Training: Strategies for Analyzing Media Discourse (Manu Levin)

The media are a source of power that shape the public imagination and frame public debates. They are key ideological actors, and their boundary with the political world is, at the very least, blurred.

Rather than imagining the media as strictly hierarchical spaces where editorial lines are enforced in a top-down manner, there is already an internal adaptation to the outlet’s line and framing. As Chomsky put it: "If you thought differently, you wouldn’t be working here."

To understand editorial lines, one must look at ownership structures and examine how the media outlet is financed, in order to understand which corporations are behind it. Most media outlets operate at a loss; their investors do not expect profit from them, but rather seek to protect a particular framework and uphold the status quo.

The media set the terms of public debate. While they may allow dissident voices, they do not allow the core topics to deviate from the established agenda of social conversation. According to Manu Levin, the media tend to focus on topics like immigration and squatting in empty homes—issues where the left typically finds itself on the defensive. This can be seen in how the public’s mental picture of certain issues differs greatly from reality; for example, perceptions of immigration and insecurity are often vastly inflated in many countries due to the media’s constant focus on these topics.

Once the topics are selected, the amount of media coverage given to different actors reveals the ideological line. In Spain, for example, platforms like Desokupa, real estate developers, and business school professors are given significant airtime—while social groups affected by urban speculation are given little to no space.

Another technique is the use of images that serve to reinforce a particular ideological frame. For example, when covering migration, most images depict racialized individuals in problematic or distressing situations, while images of conviviality—people inspiring trust and hope—are rarely shown. Visuals that convey positive energy and celebration often accompany news of right-wing electoral victories. In contrast, when left-wing parties achieve social gains, such imagery is usually absent. These images are often not even directly related to the political event; they are simply used to create an emotional or visual association.

If you hate left wing politicians, or Greta Thunberg and you do not why, it is because, you , like everyone are manipulated through emotional framing, so you oppose those who actually defend your rights instead of those that will ask you to work more for less, and to accept a world of increasing scarcity and insecurity, if not directly of ecocide and genocide.