LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS Essay Example For Students

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS Essay Is there a liberal bias in the media? I definitely think there is in all forms of media, television, newspapers, and radio. I collected some information from surveys that support my claim. Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed in 1992: 44% considered themselves Democrats, 16% considered themselves Republicans, 34% considered themselves Independents, 89% voted for Clinton in 1992, 7% voted for Bush in 1992.1 Another survey showed that, 9 White House correspondents voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush, 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988-one for Bush, 10 voted for Mondale in 1984- 2 for Reagan, 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 2 for Reagan.2 I am not alone in my opinion about media bias. A poll taken on how Americans also view the media was taken in 1992 and resulted in the fact: most Americans think that the media is biased. Almost half (49%) think that the media usually doesnt get the facts straight; two-thirds believe the media doesnt deal fairly with all sides on social and political reporting; three-fourths of Americans see a fair amount or great deal of political bias in the news, and by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, poll respondents said that bias is liberal rather than conservative (43%-19%). More than 60% of Americans surveyed prefer the media to simply report the facts and not comment on the facts, or offer suggestions about how to solve problems. 65% of Americans polled do not believe that journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures; 60% believe the news media has too much influence; 47% think journalists have values different from their own.3 In order for one to determine whether or not reporting is biased, one must determine if the story falls into at least one of the following forms: bias by commission, bias by omission, bias by story selection, bias by placement, bias by the selection of sources, bias by spin, bias by labeling, bias by policy endorsement or condemnation. 4 I am going to discuss some of these categories as well as discuss other matters that support my belief that there is a LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS Essay. I am also going to present the liberals belief that there is not a liberal bias. Bias by commission is a pattern of passing along assumptions or errors that tend to support a position. This is the most common form of bias. It basically states that a reporter must provide roughly equal time to both sides of the issue. If the reporter presents only one perspective or passes along only the facts espoused by his/her beliefs without any acknowledgment that others disagree, then he/she has committed bias by commission. Some examples of facts being presented by liberals regarding the Bush/Reagan presidencies were: that the Reagan and Bush Administrations cut funding for social programs (when in fact social spending rose dramatically in both administrations); that the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer during the Reagan years (when all income groups grew richer); and that there were three million homeless people in the United States (when every reputable study places the number well under one million). 4 Another example of commission bias would be the following. The 1993 debate over Clintons budget showed how reporters committed bias by commission by choosing the interpretation of one side. At the time, Republicans claimed the plan had far more taxes than spending cuts while Democrats insisted the ratio was one-to-one. Some reporters endorsed the Democratic view. A USA Today reporter said Clintons plan had slightly more spending cuts than tax increases. A CNN anchor reported the economic package now in the Senate reduces the federal deficit by more than $500 billion dollars with spending cuts and $249 billion in tax increases. .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .postImageUrl , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:hover , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:visited , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:active { border:0!important; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:active , .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u244e99189015cfc808f6950d6d69e50c:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Midevial Cooking Essay5 I believe that a balanced statement on the issue would sound something like, Democrats claim the deficit package consists of an equal amount of spending cuts and tax increases, while Republicans argue many of the cuts are phony so that there were three dollars in tax hikes for every one dollar in real cuts. Bias by Omission is ignoring the facts that tend .

Recurring Theme of Revenge in Hamlet

Introduction Up to date, Hamlet remains a mystery to many people. In the play, Shakespeare has connected many themes to bring out the final story, which has remained a source of great interest for scholars. Although there are many themes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, revenge plays a significant role.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Recurring Theme of Revenge in Hamlet specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In the play, there are several characters who are determined to revenge the wrongs that they feel have been committed against them. However, each character goes about their revenge mission in his or her own way. In the play, some characters rely on the advice of their friends to determine the best way of revenge while others go about it on their own. On another level, some characters exert their revenge instantly while others defer their revenge to a time that they deem appropriate. Despite these variations in the method of execution, revenge still becomes one of the most dominant themes in the play. (Shakespeare Navigators) From the time the play opens, both Hamlet and Laertes seek retribution on each other for their father’s deaths. On one hand, Hamlet places the blame on Laertes for being the king’s accomplice in opposing his father to become the next king. On the other hand, Laertes has proof that Hamlet killed his father without intending to do so but out of anger. Additionally, Laertes holds Hamlet responsible for treating her sister in a bad manner thus leading her to commit suicide. The drama and action that surround both Hamlet and Laertes only serves to increase the level of resentment against each other. Even though this resentment is based on different things, the result is the two exerting revenge on each other. All throughout the play, Laertes intentions to carry out revenge against Hamlet is evident in his speech. Soon after learning of the death of his father, La ertes claims that â€Å"Conscience and grace to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation. To this point I stand, that both the words I give to negligence, let come what comes; only I’ll be revenged most thoroughly for my father.†(Shakespeare 75) Laertes utters these words just a few moments after the king and queen notify him of his father’s death. At this point, all that Laertes expresses is surprise for the madness that leads to the death of his father. At this point, the audience is able to see just how much Laertes is angered by this act. Actually, Laertes is not only angry but also determined to exert revenge against whoever was responsible for the death and this is clear to the audience. (Shakespeare 76)Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Later on, Hamlet defends himself before Laertes by claiming that he was not responsible for the murder of his father but i nstead blames the madness inside him for the act. The most difficult part in this scene is that Hamlet and Laertes are best friends and no one wants to show distaste for the other. However, both men are consumed by a deep sated hatred for each other that they do not want to expose. When Hamlet tries to apologize, Laertes tells him â€Å"I am satisfied in nature, whose motive in this cause should stir me most to my revenge. But in my terms of honor I stand aloof, and will no reconcilement Till by some mastels of know honor I have a voice and precedent of peace. To keep my name ungored.†(Shakespeare 97) In this passage, Laertes is trying to pretend that he is not angered by his fathers murder but he is instead looking for an opportunity to carry out revenge but still keep his reputation untarnished. Apart from the death of his father, Laertes is also angered by the relationship that Hamlet has with Ophelia. This fact can be seen after Ophelia’s stage performance where sh e talks of a dead lover. After she leaves the room, Laertes tells the king â€Å"And I so have I a noble father lost, A sister into desp’rate terms, Whose worth, if praises may go back again, Stood challenger on mount of all the age For her perfection, but my revenge will come.† (Shakespeare 79) In this passage, Laertes is speaking of how he feels of his departed father and insane sister. According to critics, Laertes character is considered shallow and immature since he seems to think the worst of any situation. This can best be demonstrated when he tells Ophelia not to trust the love that Hamlet has for her and in the rhetorical manner in which he exaggerates his sisters insanity. All this is done in a bid to paint Hamlet in bad light and to make the people lose faith in him. This is one way for Laertes of seeking revenge. (Rozakis 182) Apart from the â€Å"mental revenge,† Laertes gets to a point where he decides to carry out physical revenge on Hamlet. With the assistance of the king, Laertes challenges Hamlet into a fencing duel with the intention of killing him. The king provides Laertes with a sharp sword that has been dipped in poison to ensure that any small cut kills Hamlet. This is what happens and Laertes succeeds in killing Hamlet thus exerting his revenge. Just like Laertes, Hamlet is also on a revenge mission for his father whose death was plotted by the king.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Recurring Theme of Revenge in Hamlet specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The king knows this and that is why he tries to come up with ideas to ensure that Hamlet does not get to carry out his revenge. Now on his deathbed, we are left with the impression that Hamlet will not get a chance to avenge his father but this is not the case. Just before he dies, Hamlet forces the king to drink a poisoned drink, which was actually meant for Hamlet in the event that the sword fail ed to kill him. Hamlet does this to also avenge his mother who mistakenly took the king’s poisoned drink. At the end, both Laertes and Hamlet are able to revenge on each other and against other people whom they had grudges. Revenge therefore becomes a dominant theme in the play. (Shakespeare Navigators) Conclusion The theme of revenge forms a centre stage in Hamlet. In fact, the progression of the play is based on people trying to look out for the best possible means to carry out revenge. From the start of the play, Hamlet has a hunch about the king’s role in the death of his late father. He then embarks on a mission to look for evidence in order to avenge his father. In the process, he kills Laertes father who in turn begins looking for an opportunity to carry out revenge on Hamlet. On top of this, Laertes wants to revenge the insanity and subsequent death of his sister, which he blames on Hamlet. At the end of the play, both Laertes and Hamlet get their revenge but t hey lose their lives in the process. Works Cited Rozakis, Laurie. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Shakespeare. Penguin, 1999. 181-192. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Classic Books Company, 2001. 1-120. Print. Shakespeare Navigators. Revenge, n.d. Web. https://shakespeare-navigators.com/hamlet/Revenge.htmlAdvertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This essay on Recurring Theme of Revenge in Hamlet was written and submitted by user Hallie Martinez to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

5 Glaring Signs Your Coworkers Are Untrustworthy

5 Glaring Signs Your Coworkers Are Untrustworthy You don’t have to be best friends with your coworkers. We know some of you want to keep the personal and the professional separate, and that’s totally fine. But at the very least, you should be able to trust your coworkers. You certainly wouldn’t want to find out that someone else in the office has been taking credit for your hard work or passing along things you say in confidence to the wrong people. So it is wise to take note of when a colleague may be less than honest. Here are 5 signs that will help you weed out the untrustworthy.1. You’re the subject of gossip.Have you ever suspected that a coworker was whispering behind your back? And do you suspect that the coworker is whispering about you? Are things you said to that coworker in private getting around the office? These are all warning signs that someone is gossiping about you. And you can never trust a gossip.2. You’ve been robbed.Did you ever have a great idea that you mentioned to a cowork er who then went ahead and passed off that idea as his or her own? That’s not so much a warning sign as a great big flashing red light alerting you that he or she is not honest. It would be ideal to work in an environment in which having your ideas or work stolen is not a concern, but sometimes it’s best to keep your best ideas close to your chest.If this does happen to you, don’t be shy about having a private meeting with your manager to talk about the issue and how you should handle it in the future.3. You’re being left out.Ever find yourself left out of important meetings or email threads? Maybe these are just a harmless oversights, but finding yourself chronically left out might indicate that a coworker is jealous of your abilities and does not want you to shine by participating in crucial office confabs. If you find that it’s always the same coworker who is â€Å"accidentally† leaving you out of those meetings of minds, that coworker mi ght have an axe to grind against you. Again, please don’t feel out of line by reporting this type of behavior should be reported to management.4. You’re the scapegoat.Do you sometimes get blamed for mistakes you didn’t make? Do you feel fingers pointing at you behind your back? Then someone might be trying to turn you into the office scapegoat. This may be random harassment, or someone might be trying to cover up her or his own blunders by making them yours. If you regularly find yourself taking the heat for someone else’s screw-ups, that someone might be the culprit behind your scapegoat status.Always stand up for yourself and  get everything in writing. Even if you have to shoot off a quick â€Å"just confirming what we discussed at my desk this afternoon† email, do it. You can never be too safe.5. You’re the victim of sabotage.Did a project you worked hard on end up getting lost or a well-organized presentation end up mysteriously turni ng into a mess? Then someone might be deliberately sabotaging your work. Yes, it seems juvenile, but these things do happen in the adult work world. Just be sure that there is strong evidence that a particular coworker is sabotaging your work before making any accusations. You don’t want to falsely accuse anyone or mistakenly blame a coworker for your own errors. Then your coworkers might start thinking that you’re the one who isn’t completely trustworthy.

Understanding the Progressive Era

Understanding the Progressive Era It can be difficult for students to understand the relevance of the period we call The Progressive Era because society before this period was very different from the society and the conditions we know today. We often assume that certain things have always been around, like laws about child labor and fire safety standards. If you are researching this era for a project or research paper, you should begin by thinking about the way things were before government and society changed in America. Before the events of the Progressive Era occurred (1890-1920), American society was much different. The federal government had less of an impact on the lives of the citizen than we know today.  For example, there are laws that regulate the quality of food that is sold to American citizens, the wage that is paid to workers, and the work conditions that are endured by American workers. Before the Progressive Era food, living conditions, and employment was different. Children were employed in factoriesWages were low and unregulated (with no wage minimums)Factories were crammed and unsafeNo standards existed for food safetyNo safety net existed for citizens who couldnt find employmentHousing conditions were unregulatedThe environment was not protected by federal regulations The Progressive Movement refers to social and political movements that emerged in response to rapid industrialization from which caused societal ills.  As cities and factories emerged and grew, quality of life declined for many American citizens. Many people worked to change the unjust conditions that existed as a result of the industrial growth that took place during the late 19th century. These early progressives thought that education and government intervention could ease poverty and social injustice. Key People and Events of the Progressive Era In 1886, the American Federation of Labor is founded by Samuel Gompers. This was one of many unions that emerged toward the end of the nineteenth century in response to unfair labor practices like long hours, child labor, and dangerous working conditions. Photojournalist Jacob Riis exposes deplorable living conditions in the slums of New York in his book How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York.   Conservation of natural resources becomes a matter of public concern, as the Sierra Club was founded in 1892 by John Muir. Womens Suffrage gains steam when Carrie Chapman Catt becomes president of the National American Womens Suffrage Association.   Theodore Roosevelt becomes president in 1901 after the death of McKinley. Roosevelt was an advocate for trust busting, or the breaking up of powerful monopolies that crushed competitors and controlled prices and wages. The American Socialist Party was established in 1901.   Coal miners strike in Pennsylvania in 1902 to protest their terrible working conditions. In 1906, Upton Sinclair publishes The Jungle, which portrayed the deplorable conditions inside the meatpacking industry in Chicago. This led to the establishment of food and drug regulations. In 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, which occupied the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors of a building in New York. Most of the employees were young women aged sixteen to twenty-three, and many on the ninth floor perished because exits and fire escapes were locked and blocked by the company officials. The company was acquitted of any wrongdoing, but the outrage and sympathy from this event prompted legislation concerning  unsafe working conditions. President Woodrow Wilson signs the Keating-Owens Act in 1916, which made it illegal to ship goods across state lines if they were produced by child labor. In 1920, Congress passed the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Research Topics for The Progressive Era   What was life like for children who worked in factories? How was this different from the work of children who lived on farms?How did views on immigration and race change during the Progressive Era? Did the legislation of this era effect all people, or were certain populations most affected?How do you suppose the trust busting legislation affected business owners? Consider exploring the events of the Progressive Era from the point of view of wealthy industrialists.How did living conditions change for people who moved from the country to the cities during this time period? How were people better off or worse off during the shift from country living to city living?Who were the major figures in the Womens Suffrage movement? How was life impacted for these women who came forward?Explore and compare life in a mill village and life in a coal camp.Why did the concern for environmental issues and natural resource preservation emerge at the same time as concern and awareness for social issues like poverty? How are these topics related? Writers and photojournalists were key figures in Progressive Era reforms. How does their role compare to changes that have taken place due to the emergence of social media?How has the power of the federal government changed since the Progressive Era? How have the powers of individual states changed? What about the power of the individual?How would you compare the changes in society during the Progressive Era to changes in society during and after the Civil War?What is meant by the term progressive? Were the changes that took place during this time period actually progressive? What does the term progressive mean in the current political climate?The Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of US Senators, was ratified in 1913 during the period known as the Progressive Era. How does this reflect the sentiments of this period?There were many setbacks to the Progressive Era movements and campaigns. Who and what created these setbacks, and what were the interests of the parties involved? Prohibition, the constitutional ban on the production and transportation of alcoholic beverages, also took place during the Progressive Era. How and why was alcohol the subject of concern during this period? What was the impact of Prohibition, good and bad, on society?What was the role of the Supreme Court during the Progressive Era?   Further Reading for The Progressive Era Prohibition and Progressive Reform The Fight for Womens Suffrage Muckrakers

Evolution of Stable Angina into Acute Myocardial Infarction Essay

Evolution of Stable Angina into Acute Myocardial Infarction - Essay Example It is a very variable symptom that varies when is described by different patients, and this makes it one of the most controversial symptoms in the medicine (Melvyn et al. 2010). Stabile angina pectoris is usually first recognized during a general practice (GP) doctor visit or is noticed by a nurse during a home visit or other occasion. GP doctors often must decide if the acute symptoms described by the patient are due to heart problems or some other less acute condition and have limited resources in GP ambulance to do complete more detailed diagnostic tests like a stress test, laboratory findings, angiography or other procedures that are less often found in GP office. Initial recognition of this symptom but also the future monitoring and treatment of these patients is important for the preventing progression of evolution of the coronary artery disease and progression of stable angina pectoris into unstable angina or myocardial infarction (Adam et al. 2007). In this essay, we will con duct a critical review of several studies in order to assess factors that influence the recognition and progression of stable angina pectoris into a more serious condition. Review of studies in relevance to stable angina pectoris in primary care As we mentioned above angina pectoris is a symptom defined by the patient in his own words. This condition can often cause changes like ST depression on EKG strip but very often angina pectoris can occur without any changes on the ECG strip (Hausmann et al. 1991). Because more accurate methods for confirmation of angina pectoris are often unavailable in pre-hospital or pre-clinical settings, anamnesis has an important function as a factor for initial recognition of this disease. But as we mentioned above angina pectoris is a subjective symptom and description of the patients often vary significantly. This condition was researched by Melvyn et al. 2010 who tried to recognize the variations of presentation of these symptoms. For this task, the y recruited patients from two general practice institutions and only included patients that had a diagnosis of angina pectoris or other ischemic cardiovascular (CV) condition or patients that were taking some form of nitrates. All of the participants were subjected to interview conducted by medical professionals and all of the participants were asked the same questions: did they have any chest, jaw or neck discomfort in the last year and how would they describe this discomfort. A total of 64 patients were interviewed. There are a set of widely accepted individual interpretations of angina pectoris that are called angina â€Å"canon†. These symptoms are (Somerville et al. 2008): - association of the symptoms with physical exercise. - positive reaction after administration of medication, - general duration of symptoms during a single attack.

Annotated resources Bibliography Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Resources - Annotated Bibliography Example All the actions that are described in the gospel reflect to actions in the environment. There is the keeping of track of the prophecy of coming of the messiah in the gospel. The gospel does not extend after resurrection of Messiah but ends after there is discovery that the tomb was empty. In the gospel, it is brought out the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist to be an event that aimed mainly in preparing the way. Isaiah writes that there would be a messenger that was to be sent who was to prepare the way. John the Baptist goes in the wilderness preaching about preparing the way for the son of God and preaching about baptism as a way of repentance and forgiveness of sins. He baptized people in river Jordan where the Messiah also is baptized. As Jesus came out of water after baptism, the haven was open and a dove descended with a voice from heaven which said that he was the son of God with whom he is pleased. After baptism, john was put in prison but Jesus went to Galilee to proclaim the good news of the Lord telling people to repent and believe in the good news. Jesus spreads the gospel and calls His first disciples Simon and his brother Andrew when they were fishing. The gospel journey of Messiah continues in the gospel of Mark with varied healings and casting out of demons. The healings are done to anyone including one with leprosy who came begging on his knees for the will to be healed. The gospel was important in understanding the context in which Jesus lived. It is seen that in the gospel, geography of Palestine was not changed as it still contained both fertile and desert lands. The people at the time engaged mainly in farming and manual working through keeping of sheep and engaging in services such as carpentry and pottery. The area was occupied by many races that spoke different languages and had different cultures. In the gospel, Jesus was born a Jew and remained to be identified with the tribe and culture. Gospel

Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act Essay Example for Free

Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act Essay Summary: The Great Reform Act, a product of in tense debate, has produced an equally diverse debate among historians. One element of the controversy centres on the origins of the Act. How far was it designed to stave off a popular revolution, and how far to preserve the influence of the landed gentry or to buy off opposition by timely concessions? Or did the policy-makers not have time to formulate precise aims? The effects of the legislation are equally controversial. Did governments become more popular and more responsive to national issues? How did voting behaviour change? The answers historians have found tend to reflect the particular constituencies they have studied. Diversity rather than uniformity characterises both the motives for the Act and its historical effects. The 1832 Reform Act continues to arouse a great deal of controversy among historians. Older accounts by Trevelyan (1920), Christie (1927) and Butler (1914) treat reform as a timely concession to popular pressure and a Whig party manoeuvre designed to weaken the Tories. But since the 1960s there have been many alternative interpretations, and as we enter the new century it seems appropriate to draw together and reexamine these differing opinions about a topic which continues to fascinate teachers and students of nineteenth-century British history. Concession or cure? According to Moore (1966 and 1974), the Reform Act was not a concession but a cure, designed to revive electoral deference. Reform was meant to reorganise the electoral system, concludes Moore, so that there would be no power for the unpropertied, a clearer distinction between county and borough constituencies, an exclusion of middle-class influence from the counties, and with more seats for the counties a reinforcement of landed influence. Parry (1993, p 80) dismisses Moores idea, not least because counties continued to have large urban electorates, and Eastwood (1997) argues that rural voters were rather less pliant, and county politics more complex, than Moore appreciates. Eastwood shows that county elections were participatory events before and after 1832, and that rural elites continually had to negotiate with voters. There was no hegemonic paternalism and no simple correlation between landlord power and voting behaviour. OGorman (1984) also casts doubt on Moores assumptions about deference, and McCord (1967) has suggested that even if the government did have clear aims (which were, in his view, to remove anomalies and bring into the political nation worthy sections of the middle classes), ministers did not have the time, expertise and knowledge needed to draft legislation which would give effect to these intentions. Evans (1995, pp 93-4) points out that neither Greys ministry nor the Whig party were united on reform. Lack of information about different types of constituency and the extent of middle-class and landed influence, moreover, made it impossible to accomplish the reorganisation posited by Moore. There was no master plan, argues Evans, only general concerns about reserving political influence for property and preventing an alliance of middle-class reformers with the masses. For the most part ministers reacted to extra-parliamentary developments (on this point Evans appears to disagree with McCord, who thinks that the main features of the reform bill were settled well before popular pressure reached its height). Evans stresses that the reform crisis did not allow ministers the time (even had they the ability) to get into the minutiae of precisely who should and should not be enfranchised in particular places. Moores thesis has also been questioned by Hennock (1971) and Davis (1976), while Beales (1992) insists that redistribution of seats was far more important to the framers of the reform bill than expansion of the electorate. Mitchells interpretation of reform (1993) underlines this point. For Mitchell the reform bill was part of the old Whig struggle against the Crown. Senior Whigs believed that liberty and property were inseparable and that more influence for the propertied classes would serve as a barrier against royal tyranny. Liberty would be safe if property was properly represented and, since the rotten boroughs no longer served this function, seats had to be redistributed and borough voting rights revised. Vernon (1993) argues that the 1832 Reform Act enabled the elite narrowly to define the people as propertied men. It thereby contributed to a political closure experienced between 1832 and 1867. Vernons idea about democratic losses, however, must be balanced by the undoubted gains achieved in 1832, especially in terms of political influence for non-elite interests. Continuity or change? According to Gash (1979, pp 150-2). the general purpose behind reform was to make the old system more acceptable. The bill had enough scope to capture the public imagination while also appearing to meet a need, but it was a clumsy measure, incapable of recasting the electoral system, and its authors were always more interested in continuity than change. Ministers lacked the intention, information and experience to go farther than they did. They were working in haste to carry out a political pledge and did not profess to be logical. Milton-Smith (1972) suggests that generalisation about reform is unhelpful, since the bill was a highly flexible tool. Though it was presented by ministers as a final measure, they meant by this that it would satisfy existing demands. Whig leaders accepted that in future decades representation might have to be conceded to new interests, and Milton-Smith concludes that the reform bill should be viewed more as a concession than a cure. Other commentators, notably Bentley (1984, p 87), Parry (1993, p 99) and OGorman (1986), have stressed that reform did not greatly alter the social composition of the Commons, or make the electorate popular, or transfer power to the urban middle classes. Some historians have chosen to focus on what was achieved in 1832, rather than on what the reform bill did not do. Briggs (1979, p 253) pays modest tribute to the governments role in making it possible for an unwilling parliament to reform itself. The reform bill was a success, he adds, because it removed the danger of revolution, attached the middle classes to the constitution, and gave aristocratic government a new lease of life. Evans (1996, pp 223-9), Derry (1990, pp 195) and Phillips (1982) have examined the importance of 1832 in promoting new forms of political organisation, registration drives, party cohesion, the rise of urban and industrial influence, and a higher number of electoral contests (with persistent partisan voting). The instrumentality of reform is clear. The bill was not just a Conservative measure. It was also dynamic. In the 1830s and 1840s there were constructive social and economic policies, and the success of 1832 enabled Parliament to regain lost stature and command wider approval. This ties in with Mandlers thesis (1990, chs 1, 4) about the reassertion of an aristocratic governing style, and with Parrys idea (1993, pp 78-89) of vigorous liberal government. Parry claims that the Reform Act achieved its fundamental purpose, which was by bold means, to strengthen the power of government to locate, and respond equitably to, social tensions, unrest, and grievances, and so secure popular confidence in more active, disciplinary rule. Hence the Whigs interventionist approach of the 1830s and their eagerness to use the powers and opportunities provided by reform to transform the range and image of government behaviour. Parry may be exaggerating. He implies that Greys administration had clear goals and complete control over the process of reform, and that ministers really knew how they were doing and how to do it when, in fact, much was uncertain and unpredictable. The Reform Act was significant not only for what it did, argues Davis (1980). but for what politicians thought it did, and reform prompted a notable change of attitudes, especially among Tories who came to accept Peel as their leader. After 1832 Peel demonstrated that he was reconciled to institutional reform, and he saw clearly that the Reform Act made the influence of electors much more significant than it had formerly been. To Phillips (1980), the expansion of the electorate is a clear indication that reform was a concession, intended to appease the nation and satisfy a growing desire for inclusion in the political process. Political activity had mushroomed since the 1780s, and the reform of 1832 created a voting public corresponding reasonably well, proportionately, to that segment of the population apparently meriting inclusion among the electorate as a result of several decades of sustained political participation. Phillips presents a coherent argument, though it is easy to con fuse effects with intentions. In a detailed examination of parliamentary boroughs, Phillips (1992) has shown that the Reform Act significantly altered voting behaviour in some locations, but that the nature of change varied from place to place. Phillips argues that after 1832 voting became clearly and consistently partisan (partly an unintended consequence of voter registration). Voter turnout increased (it was already high in many places). Religious affiliation had more influence over voting choices than social class, as had been the case before 1832, and national issues rapidly came to dominate elections. Some electoral corruption continued, though it was politically irrelevant and rarely determined voting choices and election results. Another element of continuity, therefore, was the considerable freedom of choice enjoyed by voters. These findings are useful because they indicate that elections were already politicised and participatory before 1832, and that the Reform Act furthered political commitment in a manner that would not otherwise have been possible. Indeed, reform made previous changes irreversible. Yet Phillips probably claims too much. His focus on local conditions is not easy to marry with his view that the Reform Act facilitated the rise of national parties and national issues. Furthermore, reform gave government broader responsibilities, another reason why purely local contexts were superseded. Phillips identifies an increase in voting on national party lines, but he also states that reform had uneven results. Perhaps in his general conclusions he loses sight of this point. His sample of boroughs all survived 1832 as two-member constituencies, moreover, which makes them a questionable basis for generalisation. The Reform Act possibly had greatest impact in the new boroughs it created in 1832. On partisanship, national platforms, individual voter choice, participation and turnout in the post-1832 electoral system, the interpretation of Taylor (1997) differs greatly from that of Phillips. In Taylors account party was limited as an organisation and an idea. Consistency in voting took time to develop, as did party cohesion at local and elite levels, so that national platforms were not really significant until after 1867. Individual voter choice made little sense to contemporaries, adds Taylor. because they tended to vote as members of an interest or community, not as individuals. On this matter Taylor gives a salutary warning about the dangers of pollbook analysis, which tends to privilege the views of individual voters. He argues that the reformed system was meant to represent interests; this was the constitutional context within which elections took place. As for participation, demographic change led to a relative fall in the proportion of voters among the adult male population after 1832, and in some boroughs voter turnout declined. Many potential à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½10 householders never registered, and a large number of electors voted only once (particularly as first-time voters). The fact that there were six general elections within just 11 years (1830 to 1841) affected both registration and the inclination to vote. Much of this is incontestable, though the value of Taylors conclusions (like those of Phillips) must be balanced by a recognition of the diversity of borough constituencies. Did popular pressure really matter? Opinions differ as to the importance of popular pressure during the reform struggle. Though Briggs thinks that the bill relieved the danger of revolution, Rude (1967) notes the absence of a genuine revolutionary threat. Some historians deny that extra-parliamentary agitation did much to shape the struggle or its outcome. Clark (1985. p 402) insists that the timing and nature of reform owed most not to unrest and radicalism out of doors, but to party confusion, a conflict of opinion in cabinet and Parliament, and instability in high politics caused by Catholic emancipation in 1829. Clark blames Peel for betraying the old regime, the confessional state with its exclusive Anglican constitution, and asserts that parliamentary reform would not have been possible without Catholic emancipation. The constitution was already fractured by earlier surrenders, argues Clark, even before Greys ministry took office. Hole (1989, ch. 16) offers a different analysis. He contends that secular arguments had been replacing religious ones in political controversy since the I 790s. Therefore Clarks confessional state no longer existed in the late 1820s. Theological influences played no important role in the struggles over Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform. Discussion was carried on primarily in political and social terms. Reform is not to be understood only in the intellectual and high political framework recreated by Clark. Any explanation of the reform struggle would be incomplete without some reference to popular pressure, and as excitement reached new peaks there were times when extra-parliamentary agitation had decisive impact: October 1831 when the Lords rejected the reform bill, for example, and May 1832 when the Grey ministry resigned. After the Days of May, indeed, reformers were sure that their activities had prevented Wellington from forming a government and promoted Greys return to the premiership. On the other hand, as Evans suggests (1995, pp 92-3), even in May 1832 when agitation was of more moment than Wellingtons efforts to form an administration, it is not clear that the unrest actually altered the course of events. Nor, in fact, did politicians ever lose the initiative. Wellingtons failure and Greys recall resulted directly from decisions made by William IV and prominent Tories. Brock (1973, pp 305-9) accepts that there was peril in 1832, though he points out that ministerial responses must be treated cautiously. Francis Place, Joseph Parkes and other reform spokesmen kept ministers informed of the agitation, but we cannot be sure how much ministers believed or how far they were unnerved by what they were told. Cannon (1973, pp 238-40) concludes that pressure from below was less important than decisions taken at the top. But could the unrest of this period really be ignored? Grey and his colleagues were conscious of enormous pressure from external sources, which is one of the reasons why they only returned to office after securing the Kings agreement to a creation of peers. Stevenson (1992, p 296) doubts that there could have been a rising had Wellington taken office in May 1832, for though the people had arms, they did not have the necessary leadership and organisation. This emphasises the threat posed to the established order not by the masses but by respectable radicalism and its methods. Newbould (1990, p 10) suggests that ministers were concerned less about an imminent popular revolt than about a future challenge from the wealthy, assertive and politically aware middle classes. Much was said about a resort to physical force, not least by Place in London and the leaders of the Birmingham Political Union, but this talk was meant to disturb elite politicians. The will and planning for an uprising were exaggerated for effect. Several historians have emphasised this in their explanations of reform; Thompson (1980, pp 887-903), Hamburger (1963, cii. 4), Thomis and Holt (1977, ch. 4) and Wright (1988, pp 89-95) conclude that the threat of revolution was n ever as serious as contemporaries believed or claimed. United action was precluded by divisions within the reform movement. The campaign in many towns was fragmented, and Birmingham was unusual because of the co-operation there between reformers of different social ranks. It cannot be assumed that Place, Parkes and other spokesmen were firmly in control of the masses (and there was still an insurrectionary minority on the fringes of British radicalism, though it lacked wide support). Another important point is that there was less violence in May 1832 than in October 1831. Contemporaries noted this, and some feared a sinister plot, assuming that radicals were so well-disciplined they could hold themselves back in readiness for a popular outbreak at some later time. Place allowed this idea to spread. Again, perception mattered more than reality. Place advised his allies not to hold meetings in case these revealed that the popular movement was more divided than was generally supposed. Whig MPs and peers made much of the danger of unrest when addressing Parliament, as did Grey and the King in their correspondence. Though some feigned alarm only to persuade opponents of reform to give way, others genuinely feared revolution. The fear was expressed often enough, and not only in public arenas. Private letters and records include such expressions, and perhaps these reveal what people were really thinking at the time. For Grey and his colleagues, and for the King, one of the most disturbing aspects of the reform struggle was the manner in which popular pressure became focused with the rise of political unions. The fact that these bodies had such authority, and yet for so long were answerable only to themselves, was a new and alarming development. Grey repeatedly emphasised that the only way to take the wind from their sails was to carry the reform bill, and Lopatin (1991) and Ferguson (1960) have argued that there would have been no reform without them. Words and concepts to note: Hegemonic paternalism: a form of control by the natural leaders of society; those who owned the land, that amounted to domination. Instrumentality: purpose served. Pollbooks: the records kept by returning officers of those who voted in particular constituencies.