The Wedding and the Media: Britains Revived Love Affair With the Monarchy

Danielle L. Gorski In the United Kingdom alone, roughly 26.2 million tuned in to watch the live broadcast of the ceremony on television. Print media that circulated the day after the nuptials boasted joyous headlines, and each of Britains nine most popular daily papers featured similar photographs that captured the gaiety and love of the young couple. Left-leaning broadsheet paper The Guardian heralded the future queen but criticized much of the sensationalism that revolved around the wedding. Tabloid publication The Daily Mirror covered the wedding extensively not only on the day after the event, but with pictures and front-page headlines for more than a week prior as well. Though the media is supposed to be an objective observer, the publications betrayed social, gender, and race-based stereotypes in their coverage. The wedding saw a re-awakening of British national pride and of the amount of red, white, and blue amassed on the streets of London. Two popular national newspapers The Guardian and The Daily Mirror were similar in their political loyalties, the gender of their readers, and overlap of their audiences social class, though the latter is a broadsheet newspaper and the former is a red top or tabloid publication. The Daily Mirror is the third best selling newspaper in the country, with an average circulation of 1,194,097 copies. Though considered to be of higher journalistic quality, The Guardian only boasts a fraction of the latter papers circulation. It is one of the lowest selling newspapers national newspapers with a circulation of only 279,308.iThere is a noticeable difference in price between the two papers, with weekday copies of The Guardian costing 1 and weekday copies of The Daily Mirror only costing a mere 45p.

Though the number of guests to be invited to the royal wedding topped an astonishing 1,900 people, it was the names on the list that mattered most. Much of the media coverage of the days leading up to the wedding revolved around this list, including who was going and who wasnt. The snubbing of Sarah Ferguson was discussed, as well as the suspiciously large number of Tories that had been invited to the wedding. Many such articles were published in The Guardian, a newspaper that in many of the Post-War years has supported the Labour Party and campaigned for its leaders, despite lending its support to the Lib Dems in the most recent 2010 elections, and a LibDem/Labour party government in the previous election. In fact, statistics from 2004 show that two-thirds of Labour MPs regularly read The Guardian, while fewer than one in five MPs in the Conservative Party read the same paper.iiThe Daily Mirror, also a supporter of the Labour Party, is one of only two major London newspapers to consistently support one political party from 1945 to the present.iiiThe Telegraph, a broadsheet paper loyal to the Conservative Party, is the other exception among the collection of U.K. papers with wavering alliances. As a staunch champion of the Labour Party, The Daily Mirror has celebrated nine victories as their party has intermittently taken control of the government over the last sixty-six years. Because of their political allegiances to this party, there were numerous mentions in both The Guardian and The Daily Mirror of the disproportionate amount of MPs and government bigwigs from the Labour and Conservative Parties who were among the 1,900 or so guests on the list. In regards to other qualities of the newspapers audiences, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian are much more divided in their interest in national and local issues. In fact, in a 2004 study, only 19% of Guardian readers considered race relations, immigration, and immigrants to be among the most important issues facing Britain at that time, while 35% of Mirror readers considered immigration issues to be of paramount importance. The interests of Guardian readers were shown to be the lowest percentage of all the nine most

popular national newspapers.ii Instead, readers of this paper were shown to be much more concerned with politics and education than anything else. As a red top tabloid, the Daily Mirror is largely read by those in the middle to slightly lower classes.iv Guardian readers are largely white collar, or middle and upper-middle class, with an almost even representation of male and female readers. In 2010, 29% of Mirror readers were classified as to be age 65 or older. This is high in comparison to other age groups that read that paper, such as those 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, and 55-64 whom only count for 13%, 16%, 16%, and 14% of readership respectivelyiv. The Guardian boasts a younger audience, with 21% falling into the 55-64 age group and similar percentages representing the 35-44 and 45-54 age groups.vThe ages of each papers audiences are highly reflective of the types of news that they report. The Guardian, a newspaper read by politically conscious middle-aged men and women, did not showcase the wedding in as exuberant style or excess as its red top competitors did. Though other publications, both broadsheet and tabloids, covered the days leading up to the wedding extensively, several letters to the editor appeared in the April 21st issue pleading with The Guardian to showcase more news, and less wedding coverage. The Daily Mirror covered the days leading up to the royal wedding extensively, even including a daily count of the number of days until the wedding in its masthead for more than a week prior. Each day brought with it pages and pages of speculation that bumped real news off the front page and into the depths of the newspaper. The Guardian did not feature any of these stories and instead favoured real news on the most important pages with wedding coverage hidden in the fold. On the day after the wedding, the Mirrors online website again shied away from real news and instead showcased literally no coverage of anything but the wedding, except for a small scrolling blurb in 12 point font with small,

largely meaningless headlines. In the newspaper itself, post-wedding coverage took up the entirety of the first 19 pages of the wedding. In addition to this incredibly extensive coverage of the minutest details of the wedding, including the Queens remarks about the appearance of the fight jets (she remarked, oh good,) there was also an additional 24-page special wedding insert. Thats a total of 43 pages devoted entirely to the wedding. Many of the articles in The Daily Mail that covered the wedding on the day after the ceremony also included references to the late Princess Diana, mother of the groom. She was first mentioned on page 2 in reference to the celebratory and public balcony kiss, a tradition that she started. On the 13th page, the length of her train (a whopping 25 feet) was compared to the length of Catherines. Pages 18 and 19 featured a two-page spread focused entirely on comparisons between Diana and Prince Charles wedding and the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. It was cleverly called, A Di to Remember and though one hates to make further comparisons to Princess Diana of Wales considering the medias over eagerness to do so in light of her sons wedding, it is fair to say that the media frenzy over the royal festivities was incomparable to any since the late Princess funeral in 1997. Fashion was at the forefront of the wedding coverage. Critics lauded the brides choice of dress and subsequent designer, and whole pages were devoted to pictures and descriptions of the wedding gown alone. The Daily Mirror featured a two-page spread judging the fashion of almost a dozen female guests and David Beckham. He was the only man to be judged on his choice of dress in the April 30th coverage of the wedding in the publication, and by doing so The Daily Mirror showcased gender bias, as the women were judged and the men were not. In Week Tens class, discussions on Women on Screen and in Print, explored the ways in which older women are often overlooked in the media, and this was

shown in the fashion coverage of both publications - the only woman belonging to the 65+ age group to be profiled for her fashion choice was the Queen. The gender biases of both publications, but most noticeably The Daily Mirror were shown throughout the entirety of the wedding coverage. In addition to the Mirrors coverage of mostly female guests fashion, there were incessant mentions of the size of Catherine Middletons body and figure. On the day before the wedding, a front page headline proclaimed, Slim Kate needs nip & tuck on dress. Prior to that, there were mentions of her seemingly shrinking waistline, and after the wedding there was even further commentary on her weight and appearance. The gender bias and scrutiny that Catherine Middleton has been subjected to is all the more unfortunate because the commentators and columnists who are the perpetrators of the criticisms are female themselves. It is not considered sexist when a female says it, according to author Ariel Levy (2005). The Guardian was a rather equal opportunist when it came to praising (and criticizing) the fashion choices of both the male and female guests. Though the mens fashion choices were examined in text, the pictures accompanying the fashion articles primarily showcased the wardrobes of the women who appeared at the wedding. Mention was given to those who were not photographed or filmed appearing notably Catherines Uncle Gary who has been in the media spotlight in the past for cocaine use and also some ambassadors of nations with questionable war practices and histories. The prejudices of the media revolving around the royal wedding were not simply confined to print. Many watched live broadcasts of the wedding on ITV and BBC. On the wedding day, an average of 4.4 million people were watching the wedding coverage on ITV channels at any one time. This number pales in comparison to the viewership of the BBC, which at 18.7 million views in total was nearly three times that of Rupert Murdochs Sky network.vi

The presenters on the BBC were male and female, both white and both demonstrated the Received Pronunciation that one has come to expect from the network. They fronted a broadcast without equal coverage of anti-monarchists whose opposition to the wedding was notable. As such, Republic, an anti-monarchist group, that plan to lodge complaints with broadcast regulator OfCom over a complete lack of impartiality.viiThe BBC has maintained that they provided entertainment that is relevant and interesting to their viewers while also giving other viewpoints screen time, while ITV upholds that it provided impartial and balanced coverage of the event. In the days before the wedding, the print and broadcast media abounded with promotions linked to the royal wedding. There were television commercials for street party decorations and discounted food platters at supermarkets, but especially popular were print advertisements for beer and wine. On the day of the wedding, however, one television channel was without commercials because of restrictions put in place by media watchdog OfCom, and that was ITV. A Daily Mail article estimated the lost advertising revenue to be around 8 million. viiiCoverage on ITV started in the early morning, and even overlapped into prime time in the early evening, so despite the amount of money to be lost, ITV knew that its audience considered every detail of the wedding to be of paramount importance. Another aspect that seemed to be of paramount importance to Britain around the time of the wedding seemed to be the question of what to call Catherine Middleton in the media. As discussions in Week Five showed, the media often gives public figures nicknames in order to take ownership of them. Catherine Middletons friends and family have never called her Kate, and yet the nickname appeared in the pages of both The Guardian and The Daily Mirror many, many times before and after the nuptials. It is only after her marriage to Prince William that The Guardian begins to call her by her proper name, and the nickname is

instead reserved for editorials and snappy headlines. In stark contrast, The Daily Mirror continues to call the new Duchess of Cambridge by the nickname, and only mentions her as Catherine when referring to her as Englands future Queen. Though The Guardian was reverential of the wedding and ceremony in every respect, with consistent reverences to perfection, beauty, and commitment, the paper took on an amused tone when criticizing other media outlets descriptions of the couples romance as a very modern love story, while pointing out in their April 30th issue the privileged and luxurious lifestyle that this so-called down-to-earth couple was soon to lead as eventual leaders of the British monarchy. A prince and a millionaire, they wrote. What was modern or ordinary about the rich marrying the rich? This, and the fact that the entire wedding coverage was peppered with jokes about social class, even in the broadsheet newspapers that are supposed to be of higher journalistic quality than the tabloids, showed that even The Guardian was not above some unobtrusive but sometimes snide comments on the weight of the guests purses. The Guardian mentioned of the former, less-illustrious careers of Catherines parents. This aside to their modest beginnings has followed their daughter throughout her courtship to the Prince, as her class standing, though still impressive, has been a much-commented on issue in the press. Week Twos focus on national identity and the social class system included readings on the Upper Classes. They were described by author Ross McKibbin as the elite group, one s without a set definition, whose membership is most easily attained with the acquisition of wealth. The Middletons are self-made millionaires, and thus they can count themselves among those of the privileged upper classes. Despite this, quips about the elder Middletons previous middle-class backgrounds abound in the print media.

The royal wedding was a revival of national spirit at a time of economic downtown. The monarchy had not been this interesting since the life and death of Princess Diana, and the fresh new faces of the bride and groom captured (most of) the nation in a celebration of youthfulness and love. The media print, broadcast and online covered the story with a heavy-handed emphasis on the background of the bride; minute details relating to the ceremony and celebration were broadcast as front-page news, even on a day when Colonel Gaddafi declared a willingness for a cease fire in Libya. The medias coverage, and most notably that of The Guardian and The Daily Mirror, was thorough and yet impartiality was not often evident and gender, racial, and class biases often shone through.

Oliver Luft, "ABC: i debuts with daily circulation of 133,472 in January", Press Gazette, February 11, 2011. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=46681 Bob Duffy and Laura Rowden. "You Are What You Read?" MORI: The Social Research Institute. (2004) http://www.ipsos mori.com/DownloadPublication/240_sri_you_are_what_you_read_042005.pdf.

ii

iii

"Newspaper Support in UK General Elections." The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspapersupport#.

Newspaper Monitoring Agency, Ltd. "Facts and Figures: Daily Mirror." http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures?newspaperID=2 (2011).
iv v

Newspaper Monitoring Agency, Ltd. "Facts and Figures: Daily Mirror." http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures?newspaperID=2 (2011).

vi "Royal Wedding Ratings: Did the World Tune In?." The Drum, May 2, 2011. http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/05/02/21150-royal-wedding-ratings-did-the-world-tune-in. vii

Sawer, Patrick. "Royal Wedding: BBC Under Attack From Anti-Monarchists." The Telegraph, May 3, 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8489285/Royal-weddingBBC-under-attack-from-anti-monarchists.html.

"Royal Wedding to Cost ITV 8 Million in Lost Revenue." The Mail Online, April 5, 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373742/Royal-Wedding-cost-ITV-8m-lost-advertisingrevenue.html.
viii

Levy, A (2005) Female Chauvinist Pigs Women & the Rise of Raunch Culture. London: Pocket Books

The Royal Wedding: Class, Gender and British Nationalism

Donata Lockett Watching the royal wedding live on the BBC, or any of the broadcast networks, and picking up the newspapers, be it broadsheet or red top, from the days before and after the wedding, it is important to keep a few key things in mind while attempting to make an accurate assessment of the media coverage of the royal wedding between Catherine Middleton and Prince William. In Britain, class is everything and its social significance is infinitely heightened when it comes to an event like the royal wedding. In regards to the treatment of Catherine Middleton by the media and her public perception, gender relations absolutely need to be factored in. It would also be irresponsible for anyone to make an analysis of the royal wedding without ever considering the role national identity plays in the media coverage of the media.

One of the most highlighted aspects of the royal wedding was the close examination into the life and personality of Catherine Middleton. The question on the collective mind of England seemed to be who is this woman who could one day become our future queen? The media jumped at the opportunity to answer this question, particularly broadsheet newspapers like The Guardian. On Wednesday, April 27, two days before the wedding, The Guardian published an article in which the writer, Patrick Barkham, makes an attempt to dig deeper into the psyche of Kate Middleton, or as he likes to call her the great unknown. In doing so, he fell victim to the rigid class system of Britain, making unfounded presumptions about Catherine and the Middleton family based solely on class.

Throughout the article, Catherine is referred to as a commoner, coming from an incredibly plain background. Her great-great-grandfather was a coalminer! Her uncle is a neer do well! writes Barkham, clearly nitpicking into the Middleton ancestry. By now everyone in Britain is familiar with the story of Catherine Middletons parents, who have been described by The Guardian in numerous articles as ambitious social-climbers. The broadsheet media have gone to great lengths to remind

its middle-class readership that Catherines mother, Carole, is a former flight attendant turned millionaire after founding her successful company, Party Pieces, and her father, Michael, is a former British Airways cargo dispatcher who owns a share of Party Pieces. Yet, unlike her family, Kate is a graduate of St. Andrews University.

This focus on the social climbing of the Middleton family begs the question of why exactly Guardian readers are meant to care about the class background of this family. On analysing the upper classes, author Ross McKibbin says, The tendency of the public and much of the upper class itself to associate upper-classness with social display thus identified it with Society1. Although the upper class comprises a very tiny percentage of the British population, it is still the percentile that is most sought after in terms of reputation and social implications holding an upper class status gains you; it is the lifestyle that both the working class and the middle class aspire to one day become a member of, despite money not always being the determining factor when it comes to entering the upper class. The Guardian constantly talks of Catherines rise from middle class to the aristocracy, something that could not have been possible through money and social climbing alone, particularly when it comes to becoming a member of The Firm, as the broadsheet likes to refer to the monarchy.

Thus, the broadsheet media paints the fairytale narrative for which they stuck by throughout the entire coverage of the royal wedding. Newspapers like The Guardian plant this seed in the minds of their readers that they too can one day make it to the royal family or the aristocracy, because if Catherine, the commoner can do it, then anyone can do it. Absent from tabloids like the Daily Star is any mention or insinuation of class because that is not the kind of thing their readers want to be bombarded with. For these readers, rather than try and maintain a pretentious voice la The Guardian, The Daily Star offers colloquial language, shorter articles, and much more photographs, which span several pages of the paper. Even after the wedding, The Daily Star still

refers to the Duchess of Cambridge simply as Kate, rather than adopting her birth name of Catherine, which is something The Guardian does immediately as an attempt to reflect Kates transformation from commoner to royalty. The tabloids see her middle class roots as an asset, making her more relatable to most British citizens.

When covering the royal wedding for the BBC, one reporterin Received Pronunciationmade the comment that this wedding was the fairytale that became real, a sentiment which was echoed by other broadcasters throughout the day and by newspapers the following day. This idea of a fairytale wedding, of a girl who married her prince, falls in line with some of the most archaic societal gender binaries. Author Ariel Levy says, Women whove wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try and elevate the entire female sex to their level2. This assumption that Catherine was a nobody until she married Prince William (which was repeated throughout all facets of the media), suggest that a woman, even in 2011, has no personal agency of her own unless tied to a man.

The Guardian continuously posed the question of what kind of consort Catherine would make, as if she would have virtually no role following the wedding other than as Prince Williams wife. It is this very idea for which Catherine has received much criticism in the years leading up to her engagement. The broadsheet media used to condescendingly refer to her as Waity Kaity, referencing her lack of work experience following her college graduation as a rather bold sign that she always knew she would one day marry Prince William so she made no effort to ever become an independent woman. Yet, now that the wedding has come and gone, the broadsheet media praises her for waiting, now euphemistically calling it patience.

Broadcasters commended her for her confidence and poise as a bride, commenting that she looked quite comfortable in her new role as consort to the new Duke of Cambridge and didnt look out of her league.

Gender and class aside, the over-arching theme of the royal wedding evident both the broadcast and newspaper coverage was the Britishness of the day. A quote from Prime Minister David Cameron, which ran in both the broadsheets and tabloids and was repeated numerous times during the BBCs broadcast said, Its a great moment for Britain, a moment when everyone is celebrating and its being watched round the world where people will see lots of things they love about Britain. The headline the next morning which ran on The Daily Star simply stated, One beautiful brideone great day to be British. The resounding sentiment of the day is that weddings and royalty are the two things the British do best and it seems that the fact this royal wedding was able to go off smoothly without a glitch is a testament to that idea. Even Catherines choice of Sarah Burton, a British designer working for Scottish-born Alexander McQueens label, to make her wedding dress ignited a sense of overwhelming pride for Brits throughout the UK.

Reporters on the street repeatedly asked crowd members to judge the climate in England, one person responding with everything is great. With England in the midst of a crippling recession and impending tuition increases which have been met with an overwhelmingly angry response resulting in persistent protest and rioting over the past few months, things in England are far from great, but that is the faade of a wedding and the power of the monarchy. While most people in Britain feel a sense of disconnect to the monarchy in terms of its political purpose, they are still drawn to its ideology.

Author Ross McKibbin talks about the concept of the monarchy being embedded within the culture something every Briton and every member of the British Commonwealth has grown up with. On

the wedding day, many crowd members commented on the fact that they feel a renewed faith in the monarchy, which they havent felt in ages, not since the days of Princess Diana, and its all because of this new modern couple who they feel are genuinely in love and are the hope for the future of the monarchy. Essentially, the fate of the monarchy has been placed on the shoulders of these two newlyweds, particularly Catherine, as she becomes the new face of the monarchy.

Despite Prince William and Catherine being thought of as very English, they will actually set up house in Anglesey, Wales and start their married life outside of England, away from the public eye. As such, the BBC thought it fitting to send a reporter to Anglesey to gauge the reaction of the crowd in Wales to the royal wedding. The people of Anglesey made it a point to express their pride in the fact that the new royal couple will call their town their new home as opposed to another in England. They referred to Prince William and Kate as the Peoples Couple, as if somehow claiming the couple as their own. It should be noted that the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland were completely neglected in all coverage of the royal wedding, both broadsheet and tabloid. When the newspapers and broadcasters said it was a good day to be British, what they really meant to say was it was a good day to be English.

It would be impossible and rash to take a magnified look at the media coverage of the royal wedding without taking into consideration the class, gender, and nationalist ramifications that have gone into this coverage. The media cannot function outside its social constructs, so instead it has chosen to cater to them rather than fight them. It upholds the unjust class system through which Britain lives and breathes, purports age-old gender stereotypes, and uses British nationalism and patriotism only in a manner that is most convenient to them.

Ends

McKibbin, Ross (1998) Classes and Cultures England 1918-1951 New York: Oxford University Press
2

Levy, A (2005) Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women & the Rise of Raunch Culture London: Pocket Books Race, Gender & the Media Class Notes: Week One: Fleet St. and the BBC Race, Gender & the Media Class Notes: Week Two: National Identity and the British Class System.

Media Viewpoint Paper

Kendell Moore After years of division and conflict between the north and south of Sudan, the time has come for citizens to vote on whether or not to make the separation official. Southern Sudan voted on Sunday February 6th as to whether they wanted to remain a united Sudan or become an independent nation. Approximately 99% of the ballots were in favor of independence so in July 2011, Southern Sudan will become its own country in Africa. Following the news of the results, many factors will need to be discussed between the two newly divided countries distinguishing a border, dealing with debts and oil wealth and determining differences in rights i. Both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Cable News Network (CNN), an American broadcaster, closely covered this monumental change in global politics. There were similarities and differences in each countrys approach.

David McKenzie of CNN did a brief overview in December of 2009 concerning Southern Sudans past civil wars, present struggles and their 2005 Peace Agreement with Northern Sudanii. In October of 2010, the same reporter followed the potential of the split leading up the election. The broadcast mentions President Obamas role in high-level meetings involving the referendum, suggesting that the United States administration takes the referendum very seriouslyiii. Although McKenzie does not say that the United States supports and independent, Southern Sudan, he does illustrate the mistreatment that the Southern Sudanese have experienced which leads a viewer to believe that America empathises with Southern Sudan.

The American news coverage also includes a great deal of footage of George Clooney and his opinions, as an activist. Clooney states that help from European nations is necessary and

also discusses how the Obama administration has taken the initiative and been extremely active in supporting the peace in Sudaniv. Clooney makes its clear that the Obama administration should be continuously involved in making sure that Southern Sudan gets support and that the people are safe after the anticipated vote for secessionv.

Throughout all of the CNN coverage, the importance of international support is emphasized. The reportage was structured in a way that made Khartoum the villain, Southern Sudan the victim and America and other supportive countries the heroes. In the most recent broadcast (February 7, 2011), the report jumps directly into the risks and conflicts that the referendum will bringvi.

A strength of CNNs coverage was that it was consistently updated with David Mackenzie fronting the material from start to finish. A weakness was the tendency for the reports to focus more on Americas role in supporting Southern Sudan, rather than the actual story itself. This weakness in CNN coverage reaffirmed my perception that America likes to incorporate themselves into every story, especially global ones, even though the relevance for that practice is limited.

Over the last six months the BBC offered numerous reports regarding the conflict between north and south of Sudan with their coverage picking up on December 9, 2010vii. Much of their broadcasts emphasized the suffering that the citizens of Southern Sudan have endured and go into more than depth than CNN about their current struggles. Additionally, an interview with Ezekiel Gatkuoth, head of the South Sudan mission to the United Nations was an important radio broadcast during the days before the electionviii.

BBC news coverage is structured in a way that shows, rather than tells, the kind of help that Sudan needs. The stories are more optimistically focused on the progress with the referendum and the positive changes it will bring to the people, rather than on the rebuilding and challenges that Southern Sudan will experience once they have gained their independence. The future is discussed more as a process of managing disagreement about policies between the north and south than a catastrophic situation. The BBC portrays Southern Sudan as in need of help, but not helpless.

The BBCs coverage included an immense amount of live interviews with people in governmental roles or positions of power, as well as regular citizens. This footage was supplemented with questions for respondents and comments from the reporter, but the majority of the dialogue was from the people being affected by the referendum. Another strength is that the majority of the reporting was done on location, offering the viewer live images of the rallying, voting and celebration from the streets of Jubaix.

The BBC and CNN share some similarities in their reporting both outlets discussed the efforts and support coming from nations outside of Sudan, but the CNN focused more of their stories via Americas involvement. While the BBC mentions Americas contributions and Obamas role, CNN does not discuss Britains role at all.

Examining this global political and social topic displayed that despite common perception, international journalism is not consistent between nations. Bias exists within news coverage without being apparent and different geographic regions deliver news differently. CNN and the BBC are just two examples that represents the variations that exist between new coverage approaches and communication style. To make the most educated and least

ignorant judgment on an event in the news, it is wise to examine broadcasts and articles from numerous media perspectives, particularly for global topics.

Q & A: Southern Sudan Referendum. BBC News 7 Feb 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730.

ii

North-South Split in Sudan. International. CNN. Sudan. 9 Dec 2009. Television. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/09/mckenzie.sudan.nation.cnn?iref=videosea rch
iii

Sudans Ticking Time Bomb? International. CNN. Sudan. 7 Oct. 2010. Television.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/09/23/mckenzie.sudan.time.bomb.cnn?i ref=videosearch
iv

Clooney Fears Was in Sudan. Larry King Live. CNN. Los Angeles. 14 Dec. 2010. Television.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/10/14/lkl.clooney.clinton.sudan.cnn?i ref=videosearch
v

Clooney Urges Global Help in Sudan. International. CNN. Sudan. 14 Dec 2010. Television. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/10/14/lkl.clooney.clinton.sudan.cnn?i ref=videosearch.

vi

Secession Likely in Sudan. International. CNN. Kenya. 7 Feb 2011. Television. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/02/07/exp.bpr.mckenzie.sudan.secession.cnn? iref=videosearch

South Sudanese Rally For Independence On Streets of Juba. News: Africa. BBC. Juba. 9 Dec. 2010. Television.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11964639
viii

vii

Listen to Ezekiel Gatkuoth. World Service. BBC. Sudan. 4 Jan 2011. Radio. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/01/110104_gatkuoth_wt_sl.shtml.

ix

South Sudanese Rally For Independence On Streets of Juba. News: Africa. BBC. Juba. 9 Dec. 2010. Television.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11964639