Paper 2 Question 5: the synoptic question

What makes Question 5 synoptic?

Question 5 is a 20-mark extended response that asks you to make a judgement about a media issue. It is synoptic because you draw together learning from across the course, rather than treating one product or one area of the theoretical framework in isolation.

The theoretical framework consists of media language, representations, industries and audiences. Contexts explain the social, cultural, historical and political circumstances in which media are produced and consumed. These areas connect: an organisation’s commercial interests may influence its representations, while its choice of language may appeal to an audience with particular political beliefs.

A synoptic answer makes those connections useful. For example, newspaper funding is an industry issue, but explaining whether readers will pay for digital news also involves audiences and changing technology. Discussing how a newspaper’s political viewpoint helps it retain readers connects representations, audiences and political context.

Drawing on the full course does not mean mentioning every Close Study Product. A Close Study Product (CSP) is a prescribed product studied closely so that you can use accurate evidence. Select products and concepts that help answer the particular question.

How knowledge becomes an argument

AQA requires a sustained line of reasoning that is coherent, relevant, substantiated and logically structured. In practice, your points should fit together, address the question, have supporting evidence and follow an order the reader can understand.

Consider the difference between these statements:

Newspapers have political viewpoints. The Daily Mirror supports Labour.

The Daily Mirror’s Labour-supporting viewpoint shows that newspaper reporting can favour a political position. This challenges the idea that newspapers simply offer a neutral account of reality, although political bias does not automatically mean that their facts are false.

The first recalls knowledge. The second uses that knowledge to test a claim and makes a distinction. That is the movement from information to argument.

A useful paragraph develops a claim, evidence, explanation and judgement. This is a writing aid, not an AQA-required formula. The important thing is the reasoning: explain why your evidence makes the statement more or less convincing.

What the marks reward

For Question 5 in the 2023–2025 papers, the assessment allocation was:

Half the marks therefore concern judgements and conclusions. Accurate terminology and knowledge matter, but an answer cannot rely on recalling facts alone.

Examiners assess the overall quality using a best-fit level:

• Level 1, 1–5: basic discussion, with judgements generally unsupported by examples.
• Level 2, 6–10: satisfactory discussion, with some supported judgements but inconsistent explanation.
• Level 3, 11–15: good understanding, frequent effective discussion and judgements usually supported by relevant examples.
• Level 4, 16–20: excellent understanding, consistently effective discussion and perceptive judgements consistently supported by relevant examples.

These are levels of response, not GCSE grades. There is no fixed number of paragraphs or products that guarantees a level. The highest band requires both cross-course connections and a sustained, logically structured argument.

Reading the statement closely

The past questions illustrate different kinds of judgement.

2025: funding and survival

‘Media products such as newspapers must change how they are funded if they are to survive.’

How far do you agree with this statement?

In this question you will be rewarded for drawing together knowledge and understanding from across your full course of study, including different areas of the theoretical framework, media contexts and Close Study Products. [20 marks]

The word ‘must’ makes a strong claim: changing funding is presented as necessary for survival. A useful distinction is between changing how a product reaches audiences and changing where its money comes from.

Falling demand for print and competition from immediately available online news support the argument for change. Subscriptions, paywalls and voluntary donations offer alternatives to relying on print sales and advertising. However, audiences accustomed to free news may resist paying. A paywall can generate income from committed readers while restricting access for others.

The counterargument is that advertising can continue online, so a change of platform does not necessarily mean a completely new funding model. Different organisations also have different purposes: the BBC’s licence-fee model and The Guardian’s independent trust ownership demonstrate that commercial newspaper funding is not the only approach. Trust ownership concerns who controls an organisation; it is not itself the same thing as a revenue stream.

A justified conclusion might be that many products need to adapt their mix of income, but the best solution depends on their audience, ownership and purpose. Digital distribution alone does not guarantee financial survival.

2024: regulation and danger

‘Social media is the most dangerous media industry because it lacks regulation.’

How far do you agree with this statement? [20 marks]

There are three claims to examine: social media is dangerous; it is the most dangerous industry; and its danger results from insufficient regulation.

Abuse directed at Marcus Rashford provides a relevant example of harm. The volume of posts and the possibility that an abusive user is overseas help explain enforcement difficulties. This connects a CSP with industries, audiences and the international nature of digital media.

However, weak enforcement is not identical to having no rules. Platforms use self-regulation, including reporting and blocking systems. The Online Safety Act was also relevant to the developing UK regulatory framework when students answered this question in 2024. Treat that as a historical example, not as a complete account of present-day online regulation.

To assess ‘most dangerous’, compare social media with another industry. Newspapers and magazines can also produce harmful representations despite regulation. Conversely, online anonymity can protect people speaking against repression. A reasoned conclusion weighs protection from harm against freedom of expression and distinguishes the existence of rules from their effectiveness.

2023: truth and newspaper representation

The newspaper question invites a distinction between factual accuracy and impartiality. Fake news deliberately presents false information as news; bias favours a viewpoint; propaganda seeks to influence beliefs in support of a cause. These can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

A report can contain accurate facts while giving greater prominence to one political party, selecting a particular photograph or omitting another perspective. This is why newspapers can be expected to report accurately even though ‘simply’ reproducing reality without selection is impossible.

Planning connected points

A brief plan should establish your answer to the claim, not just collect facts. For the 2023 question, connections could look like this:

Notice that each row ends with its relevance to the question. That final connection prevents a paragraph from becoming a detached description.

A worked response to the 2023 question

Question 05 — June 2023

‘With so much ‘fake news’, propaganda and bias in the media, newspapers should simply report the truth.’

How far do you agree with this statement?

Answer with reference to:

• The Times and the Daily Mirror (Close Study Products)

The following is a constructed practice answer. Its assessment is an estimate using AQA’s descriptors. The newspaper examples refer to the editions used for the 2023 question.

Model response

I agree that newspapers should report accurate information, especially when false information can influence political decisions. However, the word ‘simply’ is misleading because every newspaper selects and constructs its account of events. Factual accuracy is therefore a reasonable expectation, but complete neutrality is much harder to achieve.

The Times and the Daily Mirror illustrate political bias. In the 2023 CSP editions, their different front-page leads were sympathetic to the Conservatives and Labour respectively. The choice of which story becomes the lead gives that issue particular prominence. This connects media language with representation and political context: readers encounter a selected view of what matters. It challenges the idea that newspapers merely reproduce reality, but does not by itself prove that their information is false.

The two newspapers also took contrasting approaches to the ‘Amazon shop’ stories. Their different priorities demonstrate that the same subject can be represented through different ideological viewpoints. Newspapers are commercial products aimed at audiences, so presenting a viewpoint familiar to their readers may help maintain their appeal. This connects representations with audiences and industries. It also explains why the instruction to ‘simply report the truth’ does not remove the pressures that influence editorial choices.

Nevertheless, political interpretation should not excuse deliberate deception. Fake news uses the appearance of genuine news to mislead audiences for political or commercial advantage. A democratic society needs voters to have accurate information, and newspapers can investigate those in power. Their responsibility to verify information is therefore particularly important. Having a political viewpoint is different from inventing facts.

The wider digital context strengthens this responsibility. Online platforms allow many users to publish material, making it easier for misinformation to circulate. Newspaper brands produce much of their own content and may offer greater credibility than anonymous online material. However, audiences can also seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Accuracy alone does not guarantee that readers will encounter or accept competing perspectives.

Overall, newspapers should report verified information and distinguish fact from opinion. I agree with the statement’s demand for accuracy, but disagree that truth can be reported ‘simply’, without selection or interpretation. The contrast between The Times and the Daily Mirror shows that factual responsibility and political viewpoint must be considered separately.

Indicative assessment: Level 3, about 14/20. The answer sustains a qualified judgement and connects media language, representations, industries, audiences and political context. Its distinctions between accuracy, bias and deliberate deception are useful. It falls short of consistently detailed support: exact headlines, wording and visual choices would allow closer analysis of how the newspaper examples position readers.

A weaker response and how to lift it

I agree because fake news is bad and newspapers should tell the truth. The Times supports the Conservatives and the Daily Mirror supports Labour, so they are biased. Social media also has fake news. People should check what they read. Overall, newspapers should be truthful.

Indicative assessment: Level 1, about 4/20. This offers some relevant knowledge and a clear opinion, but the examples are not developed. It does not explain how bias operates or distinguish bias from falsehood. Mentioning social media does not establish a meaningful cross-course connection.

One improvement would be to develop the political example:

In the 2023 editions, the newspapers’ different front-page leads favoured different political parties. Selecting a lead story gives one issue prominence, so the papers construct different versions of political reality. This demonstrates selective representation, although it does not necessarily demonstrate false reporting.

This adds specific evidence, explains the mechanism and qualifies the judgement. Repeating that approach across the answer would improve it more than adding a long list of terms.

Developing your own conclusion

A conclusion should decide how far the statement is convincing and explain why. It can identify a condition, distinction or stronger competing explanation. For instance, adapting funding may be necessary for some products but not all; regulation may reduce harm without eliminating it; accurate reporting may coexist with political interpretation.

Useful sentence starters include:

• ‘The strongest reason to agree is…’
• ‘This example connects… with… because…’
• ‘However, this demonstrates… rather than…’
• ‘The statement is more convincing when…’
• ‘Overall, I agree to a large/limited extent because…’

Before finishing, check that you have answered the precise claim, used relevant evidence, explained cross-course connections and reached a conclusion that follows from your discussion.

Question 5 essentials

20 marks. Synoptic extended response: connect relevant learning across the course and sustain an evidence-supported argument.

2023–2025 allocation: AO1 knowledge 5 + AO1 understanding 5 + AO2 judgements and conclusions 10.

Levels: 1–5 basic; 6–10 satisfactory; 11–15 good; 16–20 excellent.

Recall the key distinctions

• Funding: changing platform ≠ necessarily changing revenue model. Consider advertising, subscriptions, paywalls, donations and public funding.
• Regulation: rules ≠ effective enforcement. ‘Most dangerous’ requires comparison with other media industries.
• Truth: factual accuracy ≠ impartiality. Bias and selective representation do not automatically mean fake news.