"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I somewhat agree with this statement that the media has too much influence over politicsEvaluation: You state your stance early. To improve, briefly preview your main reason here. as I believe it is easy to spread news in this current time due to anonymously spreading news online, and how easy it is to communicate and create bias if its in the public interest.Argument For: A valid point about the anonymity and speed of online news spreading bias.

An example of how simple it is to express your views on social media platforms and if the viewers agree with it they can spread it to others making it a huge deal, however if it were false news it can create huge problems for the government / parliament.Argument For: Good identification of "fake news" as a problem. To get higher marks, be specific: what kind of problem? (e.g. inciting riots).

On the other hand some may disagree with this point as even if there [can?] restrict what is being posted for the publics safety and the countries.Argument Against: Acknowledging restrictions/safety shows you understand the limits of media power. There is also an editors code of conduct which they are known to follow so no consequences will happen in the future.Argument Against: Excellent use of specific terminology (Editors' Code). This gains marks for Citizenship Knowledge.

Another reason why I somewhat agree is due to other ways to spread infoEvaluation: Linking back to your stance helps structure the essay. such as phone and email hacking which is immoral but it get important information out. An example is Julian Assange who exposed work on wiki leaks about what America had done to Afghanistan and Iraq. Due to his news being true America tried to find him and prosecute however he went to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK for his safety after. This shows how news can get you in trouble if you were to share hidden things that can put you in danger.Argument For: This is a Level 4 style example. Using the specific case of Julian Assange/WikiLeaks is excellent evidence of media influence on global politics.

There are also spin doctors to calm the public about sketching assumptions they may have towards the PM / public likeness differently like other people to make them feel as if they can relate to them.Argument For: "Spin doctors" is another great term. However, think about this: if politicians use spin doctors to manipulate the media, does that mean the politicians have the power, not the media?

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I believe that the media is where individuals can introduce what they would like the world to see. Overall I partially agreeEvaluation: You have stated a position, but it is quite general.

One reason why I may agree to this statement is perhaps because of the rise of technology. The increase in these resources means messages can spread quickly. For example when the prime minister made a tweet message went out quick in which harmed their reputationArgument For: A relevant point about the speed of social media. To improve, identify WHICH Prime Minister or WHICH tweet. Specific details gain more marks. however a weakness of this point is that perhaps loads of older individuals may not utilise technology.Evaluation: This is a weak counter-point. Most demographics now use some form of media (TV, Papers), not just "technology/social media".

Conversely one reason why one person may disagree with this point is because of editors, editors decide what is written sent to let people watch what they want to see so they could perhaps not majorly influence others.Argument Against: Valid point about "Gatekeeping" (editors deciding content). This suggests influence is controlled or curated. This point is strong however what it forgot to mention is social media is a form of media. People chose what they want.Evaluation: Good attempt to weigh the argument. You are distinguishing between traditional media (editors) and social media (choice).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with the statement "The media has too much influence over politics." this is because primarily since the media obtains a large number of people, they have many diverse opinions and since the government and members of Parliament dont want to offend the mass and want the citizens to favour them. They typically agree with the media even though they don't agree but slowly are influenced by their thoughts in how the decision could benefit them or their country.Evaluation: A sophisticated opening point: politicians are influenced by the media because they are chasing popularity/votes.

For example Nicko omolana Who ran for Prime minister because his viewers and fans told him to do so and how he would be a better prime minister due to the many people on media telling him to run for it. he did and even though he didn't become it he still had a great opportunity because close to the medias Influence.Argument For: A very specific, contemporary example. Using a YouTuber running for election clearly demonstrates the power of "new media" influence.

I also disagree with this statement because even though the media has a mass power. Important matters and laws or situations are not that influenced by the media For example Kamala harris was favoured by the media very heavily and Donald Trump wasn't but despite the difference in likes She still lost to Trump and didn't win. Proving that the media doesn't influence politics that much.Argument Against: Excellent analysis. This is a high-level point. You have provided concrete evidence (US Election 2024) that contradicts the idea that media endorsement guarantees victory. This directly answers "How far do you agree".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially belive the media has too much influence over politicsEvaluation: Clear stance taken. because of the lack of regulation over social media allowing the public to share their views on political issues which may be very extreme. Eventhough social media may share and impede awareness on political issues or matters it has a tendency to influence what people believe. Especially because young people do so to have access to the media they are exposed to people's opinions which may dictate their own but also false information may spread online misleading many people online.Argument For: Good explanation of the dangers of unregulated social media and "fake news".

Furthermore Whereas the media is a platform for political opponents during the matter of voting to share their manifesto's which is a form of them sharing their beliefs and the opportunities they want to reward people. This may be seen as a positive way parties can influence more of the public to vote for them. Therefore this can increase the voter turnout which is a positive as it means which ever party wins had the majority of the public and so they can represent the larger proportion of the area.Argument Against: A strong point arguing that influence is POSITIVE (democratic participation) rather than "too much". Using "Manifesto" and "Voter Turnout" is excellent.

Also, far more people can become aware of political matters online on the media as the use of technology is more common. Therefore people can become more educated from use on the media. As well as that on the media, is where we become aware of any bills as the government place of the green paper online for people to comment, support, advocate or critique it in order for the white paper which is the established and improved finalised version of it to be produced. People therefore, forget that without it, no effective laws can be created.Argument Against: This is excellent Citizenship Knowledge (AO1). You have correctly described the legislative process (Green Paper -> White Paper). This is a unique and high-level point.

Also, I to somewhat extent believe the media has too much influence over politics but for positive reasons which benefit the public as well as those who hold powerEvaluation: Good distinction. You are arguing that influence exists but it is beneficial/necessary, not "too much" in a negative sense.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement. This is because the media influence people's opinion.Evaluation: You have stated a view, but it needs much more development. Companies hold power because they control usability. Spin doctors For example, the editor influences what goes into headlines and have the power to decide what goes into the paper and spin doctors make stories seem better especially on behalf of political parties.Argument For: You have identified two key concepts: "Editors" (Gatekeepers) and "Spin Doctors". This shows you have some relevant knowledge, but the points are not explained or developed.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement this is because alot of Media do not have censorship so they often post fake news about politic party and not face major reprocutions.Evaluation: You state a clear reason for your agreement (lack of censorship). as alot of the fake news go into the public intrest. However some people may say that Media has alot of influence but are using it negatinly ,for exemple the Media has been promoting Reform UK which has infl- uence protest and riots by the UK people against immigration.Argument For: A very specific and relevant example (Reform UK / Riots). This connects media influence directly to real-world political violence.

which some people may agree with however some people may say that it breaches peoples Human Right to live as many immigrants move because of war or dicatorship which the UK dosent have. because its spreads of democracy on social Media to show how people in the UK have many right like the equality Act 2010 to encourage people to move to the UK.Argument Against: You are arguing that media spreads awareness of rights (Equality Act 2010), which is a positive influence. This is a bit confused—is this media influencing people to move here? Clarify your link.

some people may say that the Media has not enough Influence as the Media has not enough Influence to encourage young people to vote for as its the main form of reciving information and should be used for things like an e-vote which will decrease the amounts of turnouts and make more people in the UK vote.Argument Against: Interesting point about the *lack* of influence on youth turnout. You are suggesting technology (e-voting) could solve this. But some people may say e-voting on the Media will encourage cyberbulling for not voting for the most popuer political party.Evaluation: A valid concern about peer pressure/cyberbullying in a digital democracy.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with the statement above to an extent. This is because although media can be used for sharing opinions at times it may also be considered an extremely powerful tool.Evaluation: Clear opening stance. For example in the USA without the media people would have less knowledge of how racial profiling is now being used to deport immigrants and legal US citizens. This means that demonstrations and protests would not have happened without communicating over the media, meaning that the media is definetely a powerful tool and influential.Argument For: Strong example referencing the impact of media on racial justice movements (e.g. BLM). This proves the "power" of the media effectively.

However, it may be argued that media doesn't actually have too much influence over politics. This is because on apps such as tiktok if you share an opinion it may be hidden from the public or posts may be taken down as they 'violate community guidelines'. This means that the media won't even get your opinion across and is anything your opinion is oppressed and your unable to express it.Argument Against: This is a sophisticated point about "Shadow Banning" or censorship by tech companies. It argues that the *platform* controls the influence, not the user.

However, despite this democracy and freedom of Speech is still standing as people have the right to media to practice their freedom of Speech so how could it be considered to be too influental to share your opinion and having many others agreeing.Evaluation: A good concluding thought attempting to weigh the "oppression" against the fundamental right of "Freedom of Speech".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The media has too much power over politics is because of the controversial ideas presented to by unknown all around social media. I completely agree with thisEvaluation: Stance is clear ("completely agree"), but "unknown all around" is a bit vague. as politics a app as twitter is used to converse about government issues which changes voter turn outs for elections. This messes up the idea of independant voting and causes debates and probably even arguements.Argument For: Good point: social media affects "voter turnout" and disrupts "independent voting".

evidence of this is when a youtuber, Niko Omilana, who used his fan base on youtube and run for the role of prime minister. He had the most votes all due to him telling his subscribers to vote, and the kids watching persuaded there familys, which changed votes which could've ended up differeatly.Argument For: This is a brilliant, specific example. Niko Omilana is a perfect case study for how "influencers" can disrupt traditional politics.

Whereas, it might not agree with this is social media has alot of contraversial people, some smart, and they can change a voter turn out massively but to a certain extent for political parties interact with voters online which they can interactArgument Against: This section is a bit hard to follow. You seem to be saying that smart people might *not* be influenced, or that political parties interacting online is normal? Clarity is needed here.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I tend to agree that the media has too much influence over politicsEvaluation: Clear stance. because of the amount of people that are on the media it is easier it is to influence people. For example, with the media people are allowed to put any infomation they want no matter if true or false. The media could post whatever they want about politics because they exspect you to believe whatever you see online.Argument For: Basic point about "Fake News" and the volume of people online. It needs a specific example to get higher marks.

Whereas I tend to disagree that the media has an influence over politics becauseArgument Against: You started the counter-argument but didn't finish the sentence!

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statementEvaluation: Clear stance. as in the modern day society the media has indoctrinated peoples thought and now control what majority of people who use the media think. This is evident through Celebrity influence, if a celebrity shares their opinion on a political ppic it is likely that those who like them will see their opinion and decide to agree with them. Which could result in a biased voter turnout and not what's best for the country. For example echo chambers are all over the media and are full of people trying to press their opinions.Argument For: Strong conceptual points. "Indoctrinated", "Celebrity Influence", "Biased Voter Turnout", and "Echo Chambers". This shows excellent understanding of *how* influence works.

However, I understand why some people may disagree with this statement as people are not forced into copying what celebrities think everyone has their own mind and own opinions and the media can not change that.Argument Against: A valid counter-point about individual agency/free will. They would also disagree as people should not be using the media to make their decisions as the media spreads alot of misinformation and hides alot of context and only decide to show what they want people to see. to try and manipuiate others.Argument For: You switched back to arguing FOR the statement here (media manipulating others). Be careful to keep your "Against" paragraph focused on why the media *doesn't* have influence (or why that influence is limited).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

On one hand the media does have too much influence over politics.Evaluation: Clear signposting of the argument structure. This is because the media can affect the public of topics such as accountability voting. The media could try to persuade the public into voting for the Reform party. I know this is true because This point is strong as I know that political parties often use media in order to gain voters so I partially agree with this argument.Argument For: You identify that parties (like Reform) use media to gain votes. This is a valid example of influence.

However on the other hand, the media does not have too much influence on politics. This is because of the voter turnout in the country is not very high. This is due to many citizens not knowing enough about politics or some may feel and this may lead to voter apathy meaning that the [citizens] less likely to vote anyway.Argument Against: A strong point. You argue that media influence is limited because "Voter Apathy" is high—people aren't listening or voting regardless of what the media says. I also partially agree with this point as if a citizen sees things about politics on the media they will be very likely to skip it.Evaluation: A practical observation about how people consume media (skipping content), which limits its power.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

One reason why I could arguably agree with this statement is because the media itself could be seen as a source of scrutiny over the media.Evaluation: A complex opening idea. The media being a platform where people can freely express their opinions without any restrictions from the government allows people to politically influence others including the youth on their opinions. I know that there has been a significant increase of young people using electronic devices and so, exposing them to the media means that they can be politically influenced by people such as spin doctors and also political parties such as reform appealing to the young. Therefore the media arguably has a large influence over politics.Argument For: Strong argument linking "youth exposure" to "Spin Doctors" and specific parties like "Reform".

On the other hand there is significant evidence to argue against this point due to the publics awareness of Libel. For example in newspapers like the Sun it is evident that there may be biases. The press code ensures that newspapers and the media must follow specific rulesArgument Against: Excellent knowledge. You reference "Libel", "The Sun" (bias), and the "Press Code" as checks on media power. and people being in echochambers is a powerful reason why some could disagree with this point. Therefore, it could be said that the media doesnt influence politics but it is infact people who are in echochambers who apply to it.Evaluation: Sophisticated reasoning. You argue that "Echo Chambers" mean people only hear what they *want* to hear, meaning the media isn't changing minds, just reinforcing them.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The media has a strong influence over politics and One reason the media has too much influence over politics is its ability to shape public opinionEvaluation: Clear topic sentence outlining the scope of the argument. - News papers, television news, and social media platform often decide which political issues recieve the most attention - This is known as agenda-setting. For example, if the media repeatedly focuses on immigration or crime, the public may begin to see these as the most important political issues, even if other issues such as healthcare or education affect more people - This pressure can force politicians to prioritise media-friendly topics rather than long-term or complex policies, reducing the quality of decision making.Argument For: Outstanding analysis. You use the term "Agenda-Setting" correctly to explain NOT just that media influences votes, but that it influences *what politicians talk about*. This is Level 4 analysis.

However, it can be argued that the media does not have too much influence, as politicians are not powerless - many politicians actively use the media to their advantage through interviews, press conferences, and social media accounts - This allows them to control their own messages and respond directly to criticism. Furthermore, voters are not passive; many people consume news from multiple sources and can form independent opinions rather than blindly accepting media narratives.Argument Against: Excellent counter-arguments. 1) Politicians use media (so they have power). 2) Active Audience theory (voters are not passive).

Overall, I agree to a large extent that the media has too much influence, but this influence is balanced by the media's role in accountability and the ability of voters and politicians to think and act independently.Evaluation: A concise, sustained judgment that weighs the power of agenda-setting against the independence of the voter.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Democracy can be influenced and negatively or positively affected by the media so I initially agree with this point.Evaluation: You recognize that influence can be positive or negative. One reason someone may agree is due to easily accessible information on politics which allows people usually would not be politically intelligent gain insight on governments and what they offer which makes them make more thought out decisions when engaging with democracy. This clues us on Social media you see more political parties use media like Tiktok to campaign.Argument For: Good point: media lowers the barrier to entry for "political intelligence", allowing more people to engage.

However someone may argue that not only is it negative as people may be subseptable to misinformation or placed in echo chamber with radical ideas with political [illegible]Argument For: Counter-point within the 'Agree' side: accessibility also leads to "Misinformation" and "Echo Chambers".

but also that Social media does not help as people don't care for it. This is true as in the UK over 50% of the population don't know what their local MP does this could be due to mainly young people who don't care or cannot participate in politics being the majority on social media.Argument Against: Strong evidence. You use a statistic (50% don't know MP) to prove that media influence isn't working/isn't engaging people effectively. However, another argument is the increasing amount of politics being taught in Schools which could allow young people to engage in democracy at a younger age in the future.Evaluation: This point is a bit tangential. The question is about *media*, not schools. Try to link it back: "Schools need to teach media literacy."

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Firstly, its clear through the way the media has developed, it has integrated radically not only within our lives but even through in our countries politics and many other politics.Evaluation: A broad opening statement about media integration. For example, sites such as twitter allow for many governments to be held accountable and scrutinized freely by the public through its ability to freely speak and demonstrate evidence freely such as the incident in 2020 involving many Conservative members such as PM Boris Johnson who were blatantly ignoring breaking covid laws in place, preventing gatherings.Argument Against: Strong example. You argue that media influence is GOOD (holding government accountable) specifically referencing "Partygate"/Boris Johnson.

While this shows how maybe the medias influence in politics is needed in order to maintain the Governments position not allowing them to have far too much power its clear that sometimes the medias influence can be far too disasterous within politics especially throughout the 21st Century.Evaluation: Good pivot. You move from "Accountability" (Good influence) to "Disastrous" (Bad influence).

Firstly, the phone hacking scandal [mix] of many extremists our ideology is apparent as many (young) people often find themselves within echo chambers with many extrem[e] and potentially radical ideas are reflected back which can be seen through the major rise in Reform votes whom while not initially 'extrem', tends to fall within reason of far right activists. People.Argument For: Two strong points here: 1) Phone Hacking (unethical media behavior) and 2) Echo Chambers leading to extremism (referencing Reform). This links media influence to radicalisation.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The media, especially certain forms of media, certainly have too much influence over politics. This can be seen in the explosion of AI-made content on the internet. It can be churned out incredibly quickly with a simple prompt. This makes misinformation easier to spread than ever. One such example could be the deepfake of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky surrendering to Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian war which has spurred debate on the regulation of AI generation.Argument For: Excellent contemporary evidence. Using the Zelensky deepfake example specifically demonstrates the danger of unregulated AI/media in global politics. People may say that deepfakes aren't an issue because they are easy to identify (unnatural shading, polydactyly), but as it advances, it will get harder to tell them apart in the future. Overall, this is one example of how the media has too much influence over politics and a reason why I certainly agree that the media has too much influence over politics.Evaluation: Good counter-evaluation. You anticipate the opposing view (that fakes are obvious) and refute it (technology is improving).

It could be said that the media doesn't necessarily have much influence over politics because the media may be supressed to reduce the influence it has. This could be seen on how the famous exposé factbook Everything You Know Is Wrong was restricted in terms of sale in the UK by the UK government. This censorship prevents the media from properly delivering information to the population and thus...Argument Against: Interesting point about censorship limiting influence. You are arguing that the Government holds the real power.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Initially, there are many groups that take advantage of social media in order to stir public view such as spin-doctors (employed by political parties) & pressure groups (people who pressure the government for change) and people in echo-chambers.Argument For: Excellent use of terminology immediately. Spin-doctors often sway public view by trying to put stories into the media in order to change the reputation of political parties. An example of this was when opposing parties to the Conservatives had exposed Brexit PM, Boris Johnson, who was scrutinised for breaking the rules where no parties were allowed to be held. This had massively influenced the media's view over politics and this information had eventually led to the resignation of Boris. This was the work of spin-doctors who had heard these stories leading them to put this story in the media. This was a good example of good influence over the media as it had led to a corrupt PM to step down from the office which had benefitted the UK. This is a large reason why I mostly disagree with the point.Argument Against: Outstanding analysis. You argue that media influence is GOOD (holding power to account/removing corruption) rather than "too much" in a negative sense. This is a sophisticated interpretation.

However, public view can be easily swayed by the media due to misinformation given out by large news services, leading to lots of influence over politics. An example of this was pressure groups, most notably UKIP, who had pressured the goverment to hold a referendum to leave the EU (Brexit). This had led to nationwide division all over Britain and lots of confusion by the government as the government had to amend all UK laws due to division from the EU's legal system... This was a consequence of media influence and pressure which shows that sometimes the media can be too influential over politics.Argument For: Another strong example. Linking UKIP/Pressure Groups to the Brexit referendum outcome demonstrates the massive scale of media influence.

Having said this, I still mostly disagree as lots of media influence can be factual information that can expose corruption in politics.Evaluation: Clear, sustained judgment based on the evidence provided (Accountability > Misinformation).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The Initially, one reason why media have too much influence over politics is due to the accessibility sharing their own view. For example, apps such as X, Instagram and Tiktok are able for public opinions to be heard and shared through other people. This allows other peoples views over politics such as the MP who represent their consistency to be affected. This shows how there may be too much influene which overall affects your judgement.Argument For: Valid point: social media amplifies public opinion, which pressures MPs. (Note: "Consistency" should be "Constituency"). This is a may be a weak point as some peoples views over opinions are fixed and unable to be changed.Evaluation: Good counter-point (entrenched views/echo chambers).

However, one may disagree that there is too much influence and agree that there may be a lack of influence over politics. For example, if you get 100,000 online signatures the house of commons have a decision to discuss this matter in a debate. Although there have been many matters that have exceeded over 100,000 a large majority haven't been heard in House of Commons.Argument Against: Strong point. E-petitions are a form of media influence, but the fact they are ignored proves the influence is limited/weak. This an amazing point as this is a clear violation of legislation and Human rights shown through the UDHR and HRA of 1998 as well as freedom of expression. this needs to be resolved immediately to restore the medias influence over democracy.Evaluation: This is a bit of a stretch. Ignoring a petition isn't necessarily a human rights violation, but it does show a "democratic deficit".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

One reason I disagree with this statement is because it doesn't fully consider the way social media influences public opinion. For example, a primary method that politics is influenced on social media is through online petitions. for instance, once a petition accumulates 100 thousand signatures, it should be proposed as a question in parliament, which is often overlooked with a bland, dismissive response. This argument shows that rather than social media having power and influence through a collective voice, influential movements like petitions require a mass of over 100 thousand signatures for a single question to be raised about it. Furthermore, there isn't always a majority opinion towards a particular issue which ultimately reduces its efficacy and ability to influence politics.Argument Against: Outstanding analysis. You argue that "Clicktivism" (petitions) creates the *illusion* of influence but is actually weak because the government can ignore it.

On the other hand, people may agree with this statement regarding campaigning methods. Evidently, the Reform UK party was the primary party with the most success in campaigning for votes, gaining over 32,000 followers. This is a huge step forward to digital democracy; as it shows the ability for politics to intersect through new-generation tactics like social media-posting.Argument For: Strong, specific evidence. Using Reform UK's social media growth as a metric for "success" and influence is a great point.

Whilst this argument alone is highly articulated to show the immense influence social media has over political views, it neglects the downside of echo-chambers in social media, where people only interact & are shown media which supports their political views, creating no real political debate onure, nor does it create advancements in society to politics, causing me to primarily disagree with this statement as social media can result in the lack of influence too.Evaluation: Level 4 judgment. You argue that "Echo Chambers" actually *reduce* true influence because they stop debate and just reinforce existing views.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The one reason I agree with the statement is because of the growing numbers of young adults and how they can express their opinions.Evaluation: You focus on youth participation, which is a good angle. this is due to people expressing their politicals. this is a strong point as I know that digital democracy is growing, it is followed by evidence that shows youth are expressing their political views, this expands politics and digital democracy.Argument For: Valid point about "Digital Democracy". Young people have a platform they didn't have before.

on the other media may not have that much influence over politics. I know that to vote you must be 18, meaning even if youth expressed their political opinion they wont be able to have a direct impact on vote and voter turnout. This is a strong point as it takes in account of current policies Government has such as age and recidentry.Argument Against: A smart, nuanced point. You argue that media influence on youth is limited because they legally cannot vote (Age of Franchise). This limits the media's *political* power.

anotherway the media has to much influence over the media is campaigning methods, Parties may do ads or online persuasive videos. This is a strong point as it is an effective method of campaign as it can overall affect Someones decision when votingArgument For: True, but generic. To improve, mention a specific campaign (e.g., Get Brexit Done, or Labour's social media ads).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with the statement to an extent because the media is people expressing their opinions and posting and sharing things.Evaluation: Clear stance. To say I believe that the media has a benifical factor of how the public views politics and the decisions that are made. When public elections are undergo campaigns are usual publicised and spread all over social mediaArgument Against: You suggest the influence is "beneficial" (educating the public on campaigns), which challenges the idea that it is "too much". controversal decision are speaded all over the internet and influence peoples decisions based on politics. An example of how the media has influence over politics is the black lives protest in America and it spreaded globally. A young man was brutally killed without a substantial reason by a Law enforent officer and it went straight to social media and new laws were put in place to prevent something like this ever happening again.Argument For: Strong, specific example. The Global BLM movement is a perfect example of social media driving political change and legislative reform. However, if I really want to answer the statement I believe that the media has too much influenceEvaluation: Conclusion is present but very brief.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Somewhat agree. I tend to disagree with this statement to a certain extentEvaluation: Clear stance. as the media is a group of organisations that communicate information to people. An example of the media having influence over politics was when online news outlets may release certain information to encourage people to vote for a certain party. This shows us how much of a huge effect the media may have over politics as the government may post things to change people's perspectives on parties.Argument For: Valid point about news outlets encouraging voting. However, what this doesn't show is the fact that it may lead to people or citizens not taking their own responsibilities and only listening to things on social media - The media may lead to things like protests.Evaluation: Good point about "personal responsibility" vs media influence.

On the other hand, some may tend to disagree with the statement due to a increase of intelligence for those in parliament, for example, those who are in power may try to block out any news source that tries to go against the party meaning the government are able to control what comes in and out from the media.Argument Against: Strong conceptual argument: "Censorship" or Government Control. If the government blocks news, then the *Government* has the power, not the media. This means that having groups such as pressure groups...Argument Against: Unfinished thought.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I tend to agree that the media does indeed have too much influence over politicsEvaluation: Clear stance. as due to digital democracy Citizen's are now able to access a plethora of news outlets before a democratic decision is made by citizens. Although some may be truthful and honest, most news outlets on the internet have either a left or right wing disposition meaning whatever news is being released is most likely biased. This is an issue because a large majority of the population (e.g. London) get their news through the media meaning a large majority of people are receiving biased news based on whatever political alignment the newspaper belongs to.Argument For: Good analysis of "Partisan Dealignment" or "Bias". You identify that online news is often polarized (Left/Right wing).

However, it could be argued that it isn't just the media who have a lot of influence over politics as the media itself can be influenced by external interference - For example, spin doctors who don't lie but manipulate the truth placing it in a favourable light more than what it actually is. Spin doctors manipulative actions end up swaying public opinion unless they were politically inclined which most people are not.Argument Against: Strong evaluation. You argue that "Spin Doctors" control the media, meaning the media is just a tool, not the master. Pressure groups also influence politics as if they apply enough pressure a whole political opinion can be changed. For example, during the 2016 referendum a pressure group round around on buses which falsified information which could have veered the public view causing the eventual decision of the UK leaving the UN [EU]. Also known as Brexit.Argument For: Excellent specific evidence (The Brexit Bus / £350m claim). This clearly demonstrates media/campaign influence changing a major political outcome. (Note: It was the EU, not UN).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Media has became a fundamental aspect of society. Media maintains mediums which broaden peoples knowledge of political knowledge. A strong Democracy relies on the power of the people, therefore becomes ineffective if the public knowledge is limited. People can not make an accurate vote if they are unaware of the policies of the party. Additionally the media becomes an effective tool for those who lack knowledge on politics in which they can understand.Argument Against: A strong, theoretical argument. You argue media is ESSENTIAL for democracy (informing voters), not "too much".

I partially agree with this argument however the lack of regulation in the media allows people to be manipulated.Evaluation: Good pivot to the counter-argument (Regulation). For example newspapers are sided on one side of the political spectrum therefore write in favour of the owners political ideology. Therefore this means the value of democracy is hindered as people are being fed an untrue narrative on a glorified narrative.Argument For: Valid point about "Press Bias" and "Media Ownership". Additionally the use of social media has been utilized to form echo chambers extremist groups. An example of this is the reform party, an extreme right wing, who capitalize on uneducated people via social media.Argument For: Excellent contemporary example (Reform/Echo Chambers). This shows how media can be weaponized.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I mostly agree with this statement however I don't fully agree as it isn't always influenced politics. I agree this statement is true as a lot of social media influencers discuss politics.Evaluation: Clear stance. For example television station such as the BBC news are highly opinionated on politics. However regardless of them stating an opinion they state both side of an agreement.Argument For: This is factually confused. The BBC is legally required to be impartial (neutral). Saying they are "highly opinionated" is incorrect, though saying they *host* opinions is valid. The media has too much influence over politics as many people try to influence others opinions meaning they can influence people's votes and perspectives on others. Another example could be social debates on media such as tiktok, twitter and instagram where people express their personal opinions and convince people to agree with them.Argument For: Valid point about "Influencers" and social media debates.

It could also be argued that the media doesn't have too much influence on Politics. For example people over the age of 16 are allowed to vote meaning politics isn't fully influenced.Argument Against: Incorrect fact. The voting age in UK General Elections is 18. Also, how does age prevent influence? This logic is unclear. It may also be argued that the media doesn't have too much influence on Politics as its up to Political Parties and other platforms to deliver the perspective they want people to follow, believe and agree with.Argument Against: Valid point. Political parties create the message; media just delivers it.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially disagree with this statement. Social media can have many advantages to democracy.Evaluation: Clear opening stance focusing on the positive role of media (strengthening democracy). For example, platforms such as TikTok and Twitter allow news to travel faster to people. For instance, Twitter can allow running candidates to encourage people to vote for them. For example, in 2020 Niko Omilana used TikTok to encourage people to vote for him which resulted in him coming fifth. Another example we could use is social media allows people to take indirect action such as petitions.Argument Against: Excellent specific evidence. Using Niko Omilana (London Mayoral Election 2021) is a perfect example of how media opens up democracy to new candidates. You also correctly identify "Indirect Action".

However, I can slightly agree with the statement as social media can sway young adults easily. In addition to this, misleading information can influence the decision of voters. For example a social media platform such as Instagram or TikTok can allow supporters or opposing sides to post libel against a politician.Argument For: Strong Citizenship terminology. You identify "Misleading information" and specifically "Libel" (lying to damage a reputation) as negative influences.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Some may agree with this statement as England is a democracy meaning citizens have a voice. Following this, we also have a freedom to speech, meaning our posts made on social media can have an effect.Evaluation: You link "Democracy" and "Freedom of Speech" to influence. For example, in summer 2024, a riot broke out from a post made on X. Just as media influences parliament. The one thing majority of people have in the world is the media. One small comment online gradually grows into a ball of never ending responses and reactions. The people want to be heard, social media helps them, how can parliament shut them down.Argument For: Strong, specific evidence. You reference the Summer 2024 riots caused by posts on X. This is excellent contemporary knowledge.

However, some may disagree with this statement as parliament already holds petitions, giving everyone a voice. Listening to media's perspectives is unproffesional.Argument Against: A valid point that Parliament has its own systems (petitions) and should ignore "unprofessional" media.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statement to an extreme extent.Evaluation: Clear stance. Some people may agree with this statement as of recently in the 21st Century, social media has become a huge platform and millions of people can comment and share their opinions. The media being involved with politics leads to Echo chambers being created and used, whilst on the politics side, the media has multiple different secondary information where storys can be used to promote and spread info. the media can also be influenced by spin doctors so not everything that has been read could be true.Argument For: Good use of concepts: "Echo Chambers" and "Spin Doctors". This explains *how* the influence happens.

whereas, Some people may disagree and say that the media doesn't have any influence over politics as there are multiple people who express their views and opinions over the internet but that shouldn't really be influenced by the... The media has some sort of influence but the PCC has a bigger influence on how politics works.Argument Against: You mention the PCC (Press Complaints Commission). Note: It is now IPSO, but the point about *regulation* limiting media power is correct. for example, there have been multiple occasions where there have been publicity stunts that have been presented and promoted through media, e.g. posting the event online, televising the commotion.Argument For: "Publicity stunts" shows how politics uses media. Another point is that the target audience for politics aren't mainly chronically online for the media to be influencing politics unless it is old media such as the radio or the newspaper.Evaluation: Excellent point. You distinguish between "chronically online" people and the actual electorate who might use "Old Media".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement. This is because that i belivet that with the media people can be easily influenced by the media.Evaluation: Basic opening statement. For example, the media can put things out of context to make a specific party look bad. A real life example would be when media put out Donald trump was saying "blood bath" pieces of the clip to make him look bad. This would make Donald trump image look bad because it was on massive media platform and so it would reach out to thousands of millions of people. This makes the argument strong as the media has the power to edit videos to make people look bad for millions of people to see.Argument For: Strong, specific example. Referencing the "Blood bath" quote regarding Donald Trump demonstrates knowledge of how media contexts can be manipulated ("Clickbait" or "Misinformation").

Some may disagree with the statement because maybe people don't believe media. This makes this argument weak is that the media is power in many [forms?] means media is always impossible to not have access to the media.Argument Against: A bit confused. You are trying to say people might distrust the media, but then say access is unavoidable. This needs clarifying.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree to an extent because the media mostly reflects people which the or people then go on to change the decision of politics through protest and strikes.Evaluation: Opening idea: Media reflects people who then protest. For example people the media could show that there is a war going but the cuts [?] doing nothing but people could go on strikes or protest saying that they shared help which this goes on to change due to violent protests this is if pass for this laws could be for laws that are unfair and the media could show that when this goes on and protest and change the law.Argument For: Hard to follow, but you seem to be arguing that media coverage of issues (like war) leads to protests, which force the government to change laws. This is a valid point about "Pressure Groups". Also lets say there is a election and the media shows that one of the people that elected says something bad the comminty would take this to accountability and not vote for them.Argument For: Valid point about "Scrutiny" and "Accountability" during elections.

However the media doesnt really affect politics as many people does not believe in the media or can see that it is false.Argument Against: Brief point about trust/fake news. Overall you can justify and the media influence for positive does as mess [mass?] theory posted on media has some memes in politics.Evaluation: "Memes in politics" is an interesting concept (trivialisation of politics), but needs explaining.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partly agree that the media has influence over politics, but politicians don't take what the media will say about a given piece of legislature too seriously.Evaluation: Sophisticated opening. You distinguish between general influence and specific legislative influence.

The media doesn't have too much influence over politics, firstly, because the viewpoint of the press or social media isn't considered heavily when discussing legislature in Parliament or in the government. Politicians take into account the effects of the Bill on the country and the population, not what news outlet would say about it. As long as Bills in Parliament pass through the democratic process, having been refined and modified for the benefit of the people by the time it reaches Royal Assent, no one in the executive, legislative or judiciary (who would have been checking the law and balancing the Bill) will care what the media may say. This goes for most laws, like the Equality Act 2010, which was a net positive for Britons, and went through the democratic process but received dislikings from discriminatory groups which were a minority of people.Argument Against: Excellent knowledge of the legislative process (Bills, Royal Assent, Executive/Legislative/Judiciary). You argue that "Parliamentary Sovereignty" trumps media noise.

However one may argue that the media does have influence over politics because in some cases, opinions stated on social media or news outlets may cause a noticeable change in politics. For example, the Online Safety Act, given Royal Assent in 2023 and having gone through the democratic process, has received mass backlash among people for over-reaching into our privacy. A petition on "petitions.org" [parliament.uk] for UK petitions on repealing the Act reached near 3 million signatures, and has had multiple MPs side against the Act. A petition gaining 3 million signatures (out of a population of 70-ish million) and having news outlets talk about it and the Act is no small feat, because its a perfect example of how social media has rallied people and taken direct action to influence the government and MPs to try and repeal the Act. Despite efforts, as of now, it still stands.Argument For: Very specific evidence (Online Safety Act 2023). While the "3 million signatures" figure seems very high (fact check: actually around 30k for similar petitions, unless referencing a global campaign?), the logic of "Direct Action" via media is Level 4 analysis.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The statement makes a good point in saying that the media has a large influence over politicts, however, what the point doesn't consider is that spin doctors, who work for the government, are employed to take stories and spin them in a positive light for the government.Evaluation: Excellent "Reverse Influence" argument. You argue that because the government uses spin doctors, the government controls the media, not the other way around. These spin doctors influence public opinion in favour of the government, reducing the pressure that the media puts on the government as less of the public will be against the government, lowering the influence that the media can have over politicts and the choices of political parties.Argument Against: Strong explanation of the mechanism: Spin Doctors -> Public Opinion -> Reduced Pressure.

However one may agree with the statement as pressure groups can be formed by groups of people to pressure the goverment into changing certain policies. As well as forming pressure groups, people can start media campaigns online to protest against certain policies or actions. If these campaigns gain traction, the government will be inclined to change certain policies out of fear of not being elected. This puts massive pressure on the government as in order to have the highest chances of being re-elected they have to stay in line with public opinion.Argument For: Excellent analysis of "Voter Power". You link media campaigns to the fear of losing elections, which is the ultimate influence in a democracy. This can be seen as an issue because pressure groups or media influencers weren't elected by the public, despite having so much power over politicts and how the country is run.Evaluation: High-level democratic critique. You identify the "Democratic Deficit"—unelected influencers having more power than elected MPs.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

On the one hand the media does have alot of influence over politicsEvaluation: Clear structure. this is because spin doctors are used to make news be seen in a better light then it really is, lots of political parties have spindoctors which can lead people to believe something is better than it seems. The media also can be a huge influence as many political parties have social media and can be influencing rather than informingArgument For: Good distinction between "influencing" and "informing". howerer this loses credibility as the media's reports have to pass the public interest test and if it dosen't in any way have anything to do with the public and is being censored could be held accountable by the public and laws which the media must follow. The media can also influence politics as the media decides what to show to the people and if they are undereducated may be misleaded and create echochemebers.Argument For: Strong density of concepts: "Public Interest Test", "Accountability", "Echo Chambers".

On the other hand the media dosent have too much influence as they have press freedom and can give information which matters to the public and keep them informed about what is going on through social media and the freedom of information act means citizens have the right to know certain things because they pay taxes.Argument Against: Strong Citizenship Knowledge. You correctly link "Freedom of Information Act" and "Taxpayers" to the right to know. However although this is a good point it loses credibility as fake news is spread easily and people may be being influenced rather than being informed. It also depends on what type of media as fewer people use old media and use more modern media such as smartphones and laptops.Evaluation: Excellent nuance. You argue that the *type* of media matters (Old vs New) and that misinformation undermines the "freedom of information" argument.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I mainly agree with this statement. This is because there are many ways media has influence over everything - including politics.Evaluation: Clear stance. One way media has too much influence over media is through people like spin doctors. These are people who take a certain part of media and change it to appeal to a certain side. This gives the media too much influence as it means people are likely to believe the story that is put out, without knowing whether or not it's fake news or a misunderstanding. An example of this was when the BBC rearranged trump's words to mean he would "fight no matter what" and change the meaning.Argument For: Good definition of "Spin Doctors". The example (BBC rearranging Trump's words) is specific, though check the facts—the BBC is regulated for impartiality, so usually accusations of bias are more subtle. But it serves as a valid example of perceived bias.

This leads me to my next point public interest. The media stands out in a democratic country like the UK, censorship is less likely to occur, which means the media does not hide anything from people.Argument Against: A positive point: in a democracy, lack of censorship means the media serves the public interest. Despite this, though the media may not be withholding information, people have different algorithms and tend to fit into select echochambers where they may be told the same information or the same public opinion.Argument For: Excellent counter-point. Even without censorship, "Algorithms" and "Echo Chambers" restrict what people see.

On the other hand, politics is its own system that does not rely on the media fully and often uses the media to its advantage. For example, they decide whether to go to war. Although the media could twist a politician's words, their actions while in power are what matters most. Often, the media and propaganda are employed to be used in politics as ways to convince people to do something. For example, in the 20th century the government used media and propaganda to convince people to join the war, using media to their advantages.Argument Against: Strong evaluation. You argue that the Government uses media (Propaganda/War) as a tool, meaning the Government has the power, not the media.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I somewhat agree with this Statement. This is because the media is over control of whatever is published online.Evaluation: Stance stated. This influence and change peoples views on things which proves the medias excessive ineluence on Politics. For example, last year the media had edited Trumps speech which made people view him in a negative light, showing the medias influence over people. Also, people like spin doctors have a massive influence on Politics as they make negative news look better, which could decive some people.Argument For: You use the "Trump Speech" example and "Spin Doctors". This shows knowledge of manipulation.

On the other hand, I somewhat disagree with this statement. In my opinion I think the public has as much influence over politics as the media does. As there are more people in general than the media, mening pubic opinion could overpower the media.Argument Against: Good concept: "People Power" or "Public Opinion" outweighs media. Also, when the media publishes something online, they have to make sure it is in the Publics intrest, and if they do not meet that it could lead to the Public being unpleased which could result to things like Protests or boycotts.Argument Against: Valid point. If media ignores the "Public Interest", the public can retaliate via protests/boycotts. This checks media power.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

One argument against this arguement is that to keep with the introduction of phones, politics has become more digitalised, leading to more accessability with politics as disabled and older people are now able to vote through their phone. This is good, as it increases voter turnout in elections.Argument Against: **Correction:** Currently in the UK, you cannot vote in general elections via phone app. You can *register* online, or apply for a *proxy/postal vote*. Be careful with facts. However, the point about digital access increasing engagement is valid. The media also does not have too much influence over politics due to the fact that a lot of people do not have access to the media, so they are not affected by it to vote.Argument Against: A point about the "Digital Divide". If people don't have internet, online media can't influence them.

One reason for this arguement is that due to media, canvassing and pressure groups are more common and widespread which means that more people are influenced to vote for certain parties in elections. An example of this are campaign groups such as "Just Stop Oil", which managed to get their point across through the attention they recived in the media and internet.Argument For: Excellent example. "Just Stop Oil" is a perfect example of a pressure group using media stunts to influence the political agenda. Another reason for why the media has too much influence on politics is due to how because the UK is a democracy, there is little to no censorship on social media platforms, leading to people's oppinion not being suppresed, leading to more people being influenced on what/who to vote for in an election.Argument For: Valid point: "No censorship" = "More influence".

Overall, the media does have too much influence upon politics as it is not controlled, and it affects millions of people everyday in both positive and negative ways.Evaluation: Clear conclusion summarizing the "uncontrolled" nature of media.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Some might agree with the statement because pressure groups heavily tends to influence the media which then influences the politics and government for example leading up to the BREXIT referendum there was a pressure group in the media which forced the Conservative party to put it in their manifesto that if they won the general election they would hold a referendum demonstrating how media influences politics.Argument For: Strong, specific evidence. Linking the Brexit Referendum, Pressure Groups, and the Conservative Manifesto shows good knowledge of political processes.

On the other hand some might disagree with the statement since parliament is sovereign it doesn't have to follow any outside influence and can pass its own laws without external influences.Argument Against: Excellent use of the key term "Parliament is Sovereign". This is a core Citizenship concept.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statement On the other hand I see why some people may disagree this is because social media is taking over a lot of things its also spreading fake information which people are starting to believe.Evaluation: Confused structure. You say "On the other hand" immediately after agreeing. The reason I partially agree with this statement is because every media is able to do whatever it likes and nobody is taking accountability for these actions and it keeps spreading across nations and its getting out of hand this argument is strong as it proves that points that happening in real lifeArgument For: Valid point about lack of "accountability".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I completely agree with the statement, however I can see why some may disagree.Evaluation: Clear stance. This is because the media is everywhere and it ultimately influences our opinions and beliefs on situations. I know this because it happened in a real life situation when the UK left the EU. People were trapped in an echo chamber and put pressure on the government to leave the EU and so we did, but as a result, overnight the Sterling depreciated by almost 1/6. This did not only upset the population but also sent a message that the media had successfully carried out a target by using echo chambers and pressure groups to campaign.Argument For: Excellent analysis. You link "Echo Chambers" to the specific event of "Brexit" and provide a tangible economic consequence ("Sterling depreciated by 1/6"). This proves the *scale* of the influence.

People may disagree with this as they may say that just because you see something online it doesn't instantly mean that it changes your opinion On top of this they may just say people are entitled to their opinion and the media only helps sophisticate and shape it.Argument Against: A valid point about the "Active Audience"—people are not passive robots; they have agency and rights ("entitled to their opinion").

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with the statementEvaluation: Stance stated. because on one hand you can argue that the media is used by everyone and since the UK is democratic and their country who uses human rights People can freely say whats on their mind without concequence. For example if people dont like he laws people online can create freely express their opinion which would be seen by others potentially creating an online riot which would change the views of Politicians.Argument For: Valid point about "Freedom of Expression" leading to "Online Riots" and political change. Furthermore some may also argue the use of the social media has created an echo chamber for people which creates a one sided view for People and Politicians. For example someone who only views human rights acts and government related videos would have a complete different oppinion to someone who only views football and cars.Argument For: Good explanation of "Echo Chambers" and how algorithms segment the population.

On the other hand this argument can be disagreed with as just an echo chamber doesnt define ones mindset and opinion, it can change or create a different view but doesnt take control. In addition I disagree with the statement as the media doesnt influence over politics... laws has been agreed by both house of commons and house of lords her media cant really influence the change of her decisions since they have self control. For example when the government decided to involve cyber security on websites even though people in the media were against it the government still went through with the law. furthermore I disagree because at the end of the day the judiciary is final judgement.Argument Against: Excellent Citizenship Knowledge. You reference the legislative process (Commons/Lords) and the Judiciary as checks on influence. You also use a specific example (Cyber Security law passed despite opposition) to prove the government is sovereign.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I disagree with this statement to a large extent. This is because although the media can sometimes contain irrational and impossible ideas, it is a crucial form of checks and balances that is necessary to create a fair and stable democracy.Evaluation: Excellent opening. You define the media's role as "Checks and Balances", framing its influence as necessary, not "too much".

One reason why I disagree with this statement is because the media has proven itself time and time again to be an essential part of our democracy in advocating for positive change. For example, uncensored media such as TVs are used to nationally broadcast countrywide protests and influence citizens and government. Furthermore, this can result in the passing of new laws, or the abolishan of old ones. This showes that the media can not only apply pressure on the government, they can also cause the government to cater to changing societal views.Argument Against: Strong theoretical argument about media responsiveness and democracy.

On the other hand, the media can also be used as a weapon to negatively impact society and can cause conflict. For example the media is the quickest and most effective way to spread as much information as possible. However, it can also be used to spread propaganda and false information to manipulate and decieve the masses. This leads to societal conflict and distrust which can harm society more than it helps it.Argument For: Good counter-point about "Propaganda" and "Societal Conflict".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Media has made a major impact on the politics. This can be seen through journalism. Editors also have an influence on us and what we view. This is why I partialy agree with the StatementArgument For: You have identified "Journalism" and "Editors" as sources of influence. This is a correct starting point, but it is not developed.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statement because we got pressure groups meaning that it has too much influence on people.Evaluation: Stance stated. Another thing is Artificial intelligence it can be debated wether we should use it for our jobs. Another factor is protesting a real life example could be Russia invading Greenland this shows that social media has an influence in politics as people can be debating day to day.Argument For: You mention AI and protests. **Correction:** Russia invaded Ukraine, not Greenland. Be very careful with facts.

One reason on why I may disagree with this statement is because some other countries may not have too much influence over politics.Argument Against: Vague. Which countries? Are you referring to dictatorships like North Korea where media is state-controlled? If so, explain that. Overall, I Agree with this statement because is there was law changes like the Uk is going to have an increase in cost of living crisis then in social media there will be a lot of debates because this shows us that social media has too much influence over politicsEvaluation: You link the "Cost of Living Crisis" to social media debates. This is a valid point about public discourse.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Some may argue that the media does not have any influence over politics however I agree with... Nowadays some Parties may Campaign Online Such as tiktok or twitter, this may point out an audience of younger people as they are most likely to use these apps, which may affect the way they see Politics, and their answer towards it. Due to the fact on how they promoted their Party.Argument Against: Strong point about "Target Audience". Politicians use specific platforms (TikTok) to reach young voters who might not read newspapers.

Another reason why I agree is because most of the Social Media users are Vunerable, Making them believe stuff on the media, whether its ai ect. this could affect them and also Politics itself Creating an audience which are against the Party ect.Argument For: Valid point about "Vulnerable" users and misinformation/AI.

However some may disagree and say that the Media doesnt have "too much" Influence over politics Stating that if any false information Promoted you could see the person promoting it which changes ideas on it.Argument Against: Interesting point about transparency/accountability—if we can see *who* is posting, we might trust it less.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I believe there is two sides to this because everyone has their own belive.Evaluation: Generic opening. To agree is that they have audience, videos, picture and evidence to revel everything they would like to show. Also people like to know what is happening every day in their day to day life. So yes they have a job of influence over politics because it helps them to run a democracy and better accountability.Argument For: Good point: media provides "Accountability" and helps "run a democracy". This is a positive influence.

Some people may argue and say that no they dont as they have private meetings which people can get be judged towards them. And they dont hear everything they do to be strong enough to hold their idea and has [indecipherable]Argument Against: Valid point about "Secrecy". Politicians have private meetings that the media *can't* see, so media influence is limited.

In conclusion the agreement is more effective because it has a job of ways to hold people accountable over manipulative people. something a person once said this important to show that not all influence is always good it can have two sides to the judgment of it and democracy.Evaluation: Conclusion attempts to weigh "Accountability" against "Manipulation".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statement. this is because there are 2 sides to this argument.Evaluation: Simple opening. The reason as to why I agree is because when people speak out on somthing online and they get viral they could get others to stand up aswell and altogether they can influence politics. For example, on twiter someone came out and spoke about what happend to her and how her rights were violated. Later on people made a hashtag "#metoo". After that the situation got looked at and resolved.Argument For: Excellent specific example. "#MeToo" is a perfect example of a "Social Movement" starting on media and leading to real-world change/justice.

However on the other hand the politicians have their own voice and are free to do what they want to. For example, the UK is Sovereign and has no written constitution. But anything politicians do whether its based on the media or not they have to take accountability for it.Argument Against: Outstanding Citizenship Knowledge. You correctly use "Sovereign" and "No written constitution" to argue that legally, Parliament has the final say, not the media.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this to an extent because the media is a place of many fake rumors and unverfied truths.Evaluation: Clear stance based on the unreliability of media. Something can be posted and be retweeted and worded differently than what it orginally was. People tend to follow and believe what they see on the media or social media because they believe that everybody on the media is telling the truth then for escample the retweet that happens on tiketon [TikTok] and other media platforms. I hence agree to an extent with this statement.Argument For: Valid point about "Chinese Whispers" effect on social media (retweets changing meaning) and blind trust.

I disagree with the statement to an extent that the media has too much influence over Poltics. I say this because, poltics include laws which everybody should be following, this make everybody tend to lean more to believing poltic than the media. The poltic is a very reputable name and place with ambitious leades and honest people which holds a greater value and place in many people's world and makes them want to follow their influence.Argument Against: A bit naive. You argue that politicians are "honest people" and "reputable", so people trust them more than media. While optimistic, this ignores the many scandals (Partygate/Expenses) that hurt that trust. A better argument would be "Parliament has Authority/Legitimacy".

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

This statement is partially agreeable because nowadays most people rely on social media to catch up with information.Evaluation: Stance stated. This leads to them believing what has been said about politics. Also the media lies alot about Politics meaning that different people will see different information and will therefore believe it due to the fact that nowadays most people use technology to stay updated.Argument For: Valid point about reliance on technology leading to misinformation ("lies").

However, some people would disagree because there is also a large amount of people that don't know how to use social media so they rely on what they get told by others. This means that media is not the biggest cause of influence over politics.Argument Against: Good point about the "Digital Divide". If older people don't use social media, they aren't influenced by it. Also some people might argue that the Governament has the biggest influence over politics, this is due to the fact that the Government disposes [dispenses?] information about politics and thats what people such as old people choose to believe instead of media.Argument Against: Strong point: The Government is the *primary* source of information (official statements), which carries more weight than media.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree to a low extent however, as having politics on social media platforms means more people are able to understand and, represent and stand up for their beliefs, however it does cause some people to become extremists and can influence politically illiterate people.Evaluation: Excellent opening summary. You highlight "Representation" (Positive) vs "Extremism" (Negative).

One reason why I disagree with the statement is because it allows people understand instead of being politics and allows governments to understand what the public might want or need. For example, large, non-biased companies like the BBC have created social media accounts to help educate people in the public to politics and not to registers [?]. This means that people who may not have been educated or would have had access to this information get to understand it. This would create a positive butterfly affect as it means people may start getting involved in referendums and votes, increasing the voter turnout and getting a more accurate understanding.Argument Against: Strong argument for "Civic Education". You correctly identify the BBC's role (impartiality) in increasing "Voter Turnout".

One reason why I agree with the statement is because it many people are in echo chambers when it comes to media what causes them to become extremists. For example, immigration in the UK has become very extreme and as people have access to social media it means they try to influence other and (could) tell them false information. This would end up causing built up hatred to people as the media has influenced them with false informationArgument For: Good counter-point: "Echo Chambers" lead to "Extremism" and "Hatred", specifically citing the Immigration debate.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement as many people today rely on social media to get an update about politics.Evaluation: Stance stated. Media is sometimes used for campaighning, for example Yang Lewisham Mayor's use many socials to connect to people and gain their votes. This shows how useful and engaged people are in social when it comes to politics.Argument For: Excellent Local Example. "Yang Lewisham Mayor" (assuming referencing a local candidate/campaign) is a specific, unique piece of evidence showing engagement.

I disagree with this statement because many things that link to politics are done by hand. For example, voting. Voting is done by hand as media is not always trusted, voting on media could be unreliable as someone could have been hacked or influence online, making it more trustworthy to vote by hand in person. This makes every one accantable for their vote and makes voting more democratic. Also media can be influenced by pressure groups and protesters.Argument Against: Interesting argument. You distinguish between the *campaign* (digital/influenced) and the *vote* (physical/secure). You argue the physical act of voting protects democracy from hacking.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

For this statement I agree in one side because the media has too much influence over politicsEvaluation: Stance stated. First, media is something has a lot of information so when the media has some information about politics they have to spend in they media sometime also politics can have strict restriction over media.Argument For: Hard to follow. You seem to be saying media has information power, but politics has restriction power?

However, in the over side I disagree, politics is not something when is always talking like when politics is not good things. Against, politics can't media influence over politics because politics is something like one side is dangerous, like for example is not easy to came and start talking about something bad in politics.Argument Against: Very unclear. You might be arguing that politics is "dangerous" to talk about (censorship/fear?) so media stays quiet?

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The media has too much influence over politics is a statement with different opinions on it. Starting of with it's good side, first of all the public should be informed of everything that happens.Evaluation: Basic introduction. This is so nothing is hidden from the public. When england headed over to Iraq to fight, they went against a lot of war rules. Without the exposure of the British army, the media would've been more supportive towards the british army.Argument Against: Strong specific example. The Iraq War exposure is a classic example of the media acting as a "Watchdog" to hold the government accountable.

Yes it could be argued that the media has too much influence over politics but it's not so a good thing on the other side the media can affect politics bribing, advertising are things that can mak a voter turnout. The media also has no accountability. When it comes to real life, everything is straight up, no one can. Statistics show that the media has too much influence over politics.Argument For: Valid concepts: "Advertising", "Voter Turnout", "No Accountability". However, the point about "bribing" is unclear.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

One argument for this statement is that the media does have too much influence over politics because it creates echo chambers. Echo chambers are when someone is surrounded with views the same as them. This influences politics as people in echo chambers tend to only be knowledgeable on their own views and beliefs, making people less politically literate and more biased to whatever they see first. For example, this benefits the Reform party as they use online campaigning more than any other party, giving more people bias towards them. This has a majorly influenced politics as the Reform party is predicted to win the next general election.Argument For: Excellent definition of "Echo Chambers" and "Political Literacy". Linking this to Reform's online strategy is a high-level contemporary point.

However, one argument against this statement is that the media doesn't have too much influence over politics as the majority of people interested in politics are not chronically online, or not users of the media at all. This is because the younger generation tends to be apathetic when it comes to politics, leaving political matters to older generations who tend to use the media much less.Argument Against: Strong point about "Voter Apathy" in youth vs the voting power of the older generation. This is a strong argument, however it fails to realise that there is old media such as newspapers which talk about and influence politics, with older people as their target audience.Evaluation: Excellent counter-evaluation. You critique your own argument by distinguishing between "New Media" (online) and "Old Media" (newspapers), proving influence exists across all generations.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I somewhat agree that the media has too much influence over politics due to the simple fact that in many ways it makes the country less democratic. First off The media is everywhere no matter where you go you will be influencer by the media.Evaluation: Clear stance linking influence to a "less democratic" country. In the UK you are given the ability to vote from the age of 18. Many young individuals can be easily sweyed to one party as opposed too another simply because either that party does something that interests them or because of fake news. The party reform uk is statistically most likely to win the next uk election simply because of there method of campaigning. They chose to show off there ideologies by posting on tiktok (an application used mainly by young people to spread there process). Their extreme views seem questionable to many but by them attempting to argue against these ideologies they simply add more fuel to the fire having the algorithm promote it to more people. This is a good point because through their methods of campaigning many manipulate young people to give there vote to party they arent even sure about.Argument For: Excellent explanation of "The Algorithm". You explain that even *arguing against* Reform boosts their reach. This is sophisticated analysis of how social media works.

On the other hand one may argue however that the media has a good amount of power in politics as it allows people to become aware of issues taking place in the world right now. The media is usefull for the main reason that it allows people to understand what is taking place in the world right now. Like what's currently happening in ukrain and palestine right at the moment. The media allows people at home wherever they may be be notified about current issues. This is a good point as it allows awareness to be spreadArgument Against: Strong argument for "Global Awareness". Media connects citizens to global issues (Ukraine/Palestine). however, many media outlets have a spin doctor where they spin the plot of a story in order to promote their views and ideas of whose right and wrong corrupting the views of people.Evaluation: Good pivot back to the negative influence ("Spin Doctors/Corruption") to conclude the paragraph.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Although there are strong arguements as to why the media does not have too much influence over politics, I agree with the statement as the media does have too much influence due to significant factors such as the Editors code of practice and political parties use of manipulation.Evaluation: Clear opening that sets up the debate. However, you list the "Editors Code" as a reason FOR influence—usually, it is a regulation designed to LIMIT influence. Be careful with application. For example, the newspaper which is a form of free press, is heavily biased such as the New York time is based on the political ideology of extremist parties. This is a strong arguement as it goes to show how political parties are able to manipulate potential cardinates, through newspapers, which have significant influence/control over the way public interest is expressed.Argument For: Valid point about "Bias" and "Manipulation". However, describing the New York Times as "extremist" is factually shaky. It would be safer to say "Partisan" or "Left/Right leaning".

On the other hand, you could argue that the media does not have significant amount of influence over politics due to the establishment of laws that prevents the media from abusing their power (rule of law). For example, since the newspaper and BBC news is a form of media, you cannot abuse it. For example, in 2025 the BBC news made a false video on donald trump changing his words on the media to portray him wrong. This is clearly wrong as BBC news spreaded false information globally about Trump questioning his image; this was later delt with as the director of BBC news was forced to resign, and he was held accountable.Argument Against: Strong concept: "Accountability". You argue that because media bosses are forced to resign when they lie, they don't have total power. This is a good evaluation of checks and balances.

In conclusion, I agree that the media has too much influence over politics.Evaluation: Simple conclusion. Needs expanding to summarise WHY the bias argument outweighs the accountability argument.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement heavily.Evaluation: Clear stance. This is because media is a form of Journalism that a majority has access to, so anyone with a large following can project views about Politics and it can reach and influence millions. This can lead to Negative effects like fake news. For example a election in Kurdistan in 2023 had fake ai videos of a politician stating extremist views this tanked his votes and fooled many people. Allowing for his opposition to win the election.Argument For: Outstanding specific evidence. The example of AI Deepfakes in the Kurdistan election is Level 4 evidence. It shows a direct link between media manipulation (AI) and political outcome (losing the election).

On the other hand, the majority of people on the media are young people or young adults who may have less concern over politics than older generations. Meaning political ideologies dont influence them as much. This negates the effect of the media on politics.Argument Against: Strong point about "Voter Apathy". Even if media *tries* to influence, if the audience (youth) doesn't vote, the political influence is zero.

In conclusion I think that media holds a tense influence on politics for all.Evaluation: Brief conclusion. "Tense influence" is an interesting phrase—suggests a conflict.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I strongly agree that the media has too much influence over politics.Evaluation: Clear stance. This is because of the use of digital democracy where anybody is allowed to voice their opinions online due to everybody having a right to protest for example Greta thunberg. This is important to understand because many people in the uk are not politically knowledgeable so they can be easily influenced by the opinions of highly respected people - This shows why the media has too much influence over politics because it stops people from having opinions of their own which goes against democratic values.Argument For: Good point about "Influencers" (Greta Thunberg) and "Digital Democracy". You argue that lack of political knowledge makes people vulnerable to influence.

However it can be argued that the media does not have too much influence over politics. This is because not everyone has access to the media meaning that they will not be affected. Adding onto this the media people have the right to their own opinion. This is important because the media does not force anybody to do anything and also not everyone has access to media so they cannot be influenced. This shows why the media does not have too much influence over politics as everyone has the right to their own opinion.Argument Against: Two points here: 1) "Digital Divide" (lack of access). 2) "Active Audience" (people have their own minds/rights).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

A person might disagree with this statement to a large extent. This is due to the fact that mediums of media like newspapers have to meet certain criteria before they can publish information. For example it has to be beneficial to the general publics interest. This means that the media can't publish things that can directly influence politics or political turnouts.Argument Against: Good knowledge of "Public Interest" criteria curbing media power. However, this argument is flawed because most newspapers, like the Sun, still manage to post their views on political purpose As a result of this, their target audience is more likely to follow what the Sun says.Evaluation: Excellent counter-evaluation. You critique your own "Against" point by introducing the reality of "The Sun" and "Partisan Bias". This creates a layered argument.

On the other hand, I believe that the media has too much influence on politics. This is simply due to the fact politicians like Rishi Sunak use it to promote their party and manifestos. For example, he spoke on national television to try win the Election. This means that the media can directly influence political outcomes.Argument For: Valid point. Politicians rely on media (TV debates/broadcasts) to communicate "Manifestos". This implies media is the gateway to power.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I fully agree with this statementEvaluation: Clear stance. because politician every time their attempting to spread their campainge it's posted on social media to see if their in the public intrast. Another reason they use social media so much that it is influenced by it, is because in the generation were in everything involves phones and it's been proven that 85-90% of the people in the UK use social media so it's also a easy way to get to these.Argument For: Valid point about market saturation (85-90% usage). Politicians *have* to use media to reach voters.

In the other hand those who disagree with the statement might say that political campainges are to focused on the approval of the public through social media that don't actually take action in the real world against issue. they might say For excample, the riot that happened in 2024 July. Over the outrage of the public at politicians and their choices. But at the end of the day the UK is a democratic country so just because a campainger is liked more after the voting they can't overtake power.Argument Against: Strong contemporary evidence. You mention the "Riots in July 2024" (Southport/Far Right) as an example of real-world outrage vs online approval. You argue that the "Democratic" system prevents media likes from becoming absolute power.

In conclusion both poits have their strong argument but I personally belive that social media does have a very big impact on politics.Evaluation: Conclusion stated, though "impact" is a bit vague.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree that the media has to much power over politics.Evaluation: Clear stance. This is because things like Social Media advocate for the majority of the consumers views. And due to the Media selectivly combined the Medias views with their own they have a clear case to call out issues such as abuse of power or unfair rules etc. This can be linked to how the media has influence over politics as due to the pressure of the media and other parties online, politics may consider taking the medias suggestions and ideas.Argument For: Valid point about "Scrutiny" and "Pressure". You argue the media holds power to account ("abuse of power").

However there are arguments that opose my opinion such as Politics having to go through a process before having their opinions or moves released to the Public. This defeats the statement that the Media has influence over the Public as before the Politics can do.Argument Against: A bit unclear, but you seem to be arguing that political processes/protocols limit what the media can know or do.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially disagree with this statement because media doesn't have much influence over politics, the media most of the time don't really pay attention to politics, And I feel like once social media was introduced the focus and interest on politics has decreased significantly.Evaluation: Interesting counter-intuitive point: Social media has led to *apathy* or decreased interest, rather than influence.

To an extent i feel like the only way media influences over politics would be if people are studying law. I have a career over law. But however along time ago there was too much influence over politics because technology wasn't around so people would have to vote for their family over selves but I think the media doesn't have influence over politics.Argument Against: A bit confused. You seem to be contrasting modern media with historical voting habits (family influence).

However I agree to an extent, because if the media didnt have too much influence over politics no one would take accountability and choose to influence politics instead there would be very little influence over the media, and also a reason on influence politics would be, because if we didn't influence politics the criminal law wouldn't be introduced and the civil law also wouldn't be influenced.Argument For: Valid point about "Accountability". You argue that media is necessary to check power and influence laws (Civil/Criminal).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

Some may believe the Media has much influence over politics. This is be cause The media is easily able to manipulate people and change things using things such as AI or photo shopping to crop and invent images or texts. For example alot of this stuff happens on X or Twitter where people are easily tricked and manipulated into believing the unreal. This can effect Politics because Unknown hackers are easily able to effectively change videos and Sources of Importance which are sent out into the public to spread misinformation.Argument For: Good point about "Deepfakes/AI" and "Misinformation" on platforms like X/Twitter.

On the other hand, Some may disagree as Big Companies and buissnesses are with Super Advanced Technology are unable to be hacked or even harder to get through to. Also It can be very hard for the media to get through to Politics as they have very Strong Security.Argument Against: This shows a misunderstanding. The question asks if media influences *opinions/decisions*, not if they can hack servers. Media influence isn't a cyber-attack; it's persuasion.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

The media has too much influence over politics The role of media is to inform People with their daily life media can have a positive or negative such as Fake or Press...Evaluation: General opening. People feel New or have to sure referendums People Ease information This could spread misinformation as if a has extra influence... can choose vote turn-out because some people don't vote in general.Argument For: Hard to read, but you mention "Referendums", "Misinformation" and "Voter Turnout". These are correct concepts.

Media influence Politics by For People to vote they use mp use sociality to spread there message such as campaign or even help their community and social media give people more access to voice there opinion media can... Free Newspaper Free Press so Social help spread information and Press can rle to People Or misinformation People can explain as Free Press the Press can't lie or misinformation The Public disc... is NEUTRAL in Politic part.Argument Against: You discuss "Free Press", "Campaigns" and "Neutrality". You argue that the press informs people (Positive influence).

Negative effect of media can be FALSE spread of information such as Life... and spin doctor Ex where People change information and explain as this Was when the ceo of bcc hcc shouse edit clip of trump speaks to define trump as a bad person.Argument For: Good specific example: "Spin doctor" and the "Edited Trump Clip" (bias/misrepresentation).

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree to a large with this argument Because of strong point BelowEvaluation: Stance stated. For example Better politician use media as a tool to increase their voter turn out. The reason why might agree because older people who are able to vote ok it 3 minutes like Monday politician like Nigel Farage use media as tool to influence most people to support him. Instead of the flaw of this argument can be although he use influence but he can haul it can haul a Total haul which have negative impact on his influence.Argument For: Strong specific example: "Nigel Farage". You correctly identify that he uses media as a "tool" to increase "voter turnout".

Also final reason why might agree is Because people can use the media to Lobby their mps to change their community and improve the life For example if I was living within a community and their is Lots of rubbish be flood though Park I could Lobby to a famous person to present my case to help me. This strength with argument is that it could help develop the community The flaw with this argument is that mps might ignore u or Any famous personArgument For: Good point about "Lobbying" and using media/famous people to pressure MPs on local issues (rubbish in park). You also evaluate the flaw: MPs might ignore it.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with the statement partially because I believe that the media takes Politics unseriously and sometimes says false facts about it forming debates an unnessasary conflict.Evaluation: Clear stance linking influence to "unnecessary conflict". I also belive that any news makes it's way to the media almost automatically to the public because of how influenced the Politics are. The Media is an overused, fundamental Platform meaning it is used by every and anyone.Argument For: Valid point about the "Ubiquity" of media—it is fundamental and automatic, meaning influence is unavoidable.

On the other hand, I also dissagree because the media can be a downfall for politics as alot of arguments and debates are held there. For example, when the Politics make an opinion and post it on the media, it would blow up and spread almost instantly throughout the area.Argument Against: A bit confused. You say "downfall" (which sounds like 'too much influence') but frame it as a disagreement? However, the point about "Viral Spread" ("blow up instantly") is a strong observation of how modern media works.

Overall I agree with the statment because the Media is a Strong Platform.Evaluation: Simple conclusion. Needs more development on *why* a strong platform is a problem.

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I agree with this statement to an extent.Evaluation: Clear stance. I dissagre with this statemen and this is because the media's main role is to influence and statemen's like this prove how well the media is used and how well it's doing its job. If the media didn't have as much infuence as it does this could leed to major problem's as the media not only infuence's but is a source of important information and this information could help those who are less politicly litterate to make a more informed decison.Argument Against: Strong theoretical argument. You argue that influence is *necessary* for "Political Literacy" and "Informed Decisions". Therefore, it is not "too much".

However their are argumemt's to this case and that their are sevral negative influence's on the media like extremist and pressure group's that may want to steer the country in a negative way and politican's like nigel farrage who exploit the media to make missguied decision's under the guide of false promise's and proposition's are on the media.Argument For: Excellent specific evidence: "Nigel Farage", "Extremists", "Pressure Groups". You argue they "exploit" media to spread "false promises".

All tho this may be the case The postive's far outweigh the negative and this is because for every their are more pepole who need the media to be involved than pepole who use it for bad and because of this the media Should have as much influence as it does today as it allewos for more pepole to be involve in polotic's and as a result help's thing's like our voter turnout.Evaluation: Strong weighing up. You decide that "Involvement" and "Voter Turnout" (Positives) > "Exploitation" (Negatives). Furthermore If the media's influencé wasn't large as big as it was today millon's of veis and oppinon's would go unheard as not everyone has the abillity to go some where and be their in person to voice their political veiw's. Without the media the politicen's would suffer more then the pepole who use it.Evaluation: Sophisticated point about "Representation". Media gives a voice to the voiceless ("millions unheard").

"The media has too much influence over politics." How far do you agree?

I partially agree with this statementEvaluation: Stance stated. because big people with a mass following on a platform can influence others opinions/views For An Examaple Nigel Farage on twitter has a big following on twitter leading to more people wanting to vote for reform.Argument For: Valid, specific example: "Nigel Farage", "Twitter", "Reform". This shows you know how influence works.