Media and Politics (8160512) / 4c
Media’s Political Role
QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW









Briefly explain the roles that the media play in the political process.
Briefly explain the “agenda setting” and “message production” roles of the
media.
How media organizations ownership structure changed and what has been the
consequences?
Briefly explain the functions of media.
What are the effects of media on public thought?
What is public sphere? What is needed for a functioning democracy?
Briefly explain the dimensions of a functioning political public sphere.
Why political actors submit to media codes?
How media should report about politics?
Mass media play a powerful role in our public and private lives; but the question
“to what degree” needs to be answered: Is mass media power especially in politics an
undeniable reality, an exaggeration, or a myth?
No clear, definitive answers are in sight despite a great deal of research and informed
speculation. 1
Roles for the Media
Traditionally, the mass media all over the world is expected potentially to play three
distinct roles in the political process:
(1) Being a public watchdog,
(2) Agenda setting and
(3) Message production.
The Watchdog Role –
Media as the Fourth Estate
The “watchdog” conception (idea), according to which, the media is supposed to
serve as a skeptical and critical monitor (observer, controller) of government, is one among
the oldest main beliefs in journalism.
In the beginning, the idea of the press as the “fourth estate” was considered as an
independent check on the activities of the state, particularly government. In time, the
development of the “watchdog role” went further than the borders of government
investigation to take account of many other institutions of societal power, including powerful
individuals, who may have no official relationship with public office.
1
In the democratic countries, in the societies with a high level of political culture, the
“watchdog role” of the media is highlighted very strongly. Media are considered as a
“fourth estate”, as a powerful “watchdog”, which is used for revealing (enlightening)
mistreatments of state authority, in particular protecting the democratic and constitutional
rights of the citizens.
Consequently, the organization of the print and electronic media plays a vital role in
furnishing (equipping) individuals with their rights. The media -the press and broadcasting
in a more complicated variant- are meant to act as impartial (neutral), objective and
independent brokers (agents) of information. By this information, citizens are able to
participate meaningfully in public political life.
The concepts of the fourth estate and freedom of information have strengthened the
development of democratic media systems. In this way, the press and broadcasters are
meant to act as neutral observers of the political process. To safeguard freedom of
information, governments for long years have remained watchful in evolving (developing)
policy to regulate the ownership of media institutions and guarantee the flow of
information to the media.
This traditionalist notion derives (originates) from the eighteenth century when the
principal media were public-affairs oriented newspapers. But nowadays, media systems are
specified over largely to entertainment. Even many so called “news media” allocate only a
small part of their content to public affairs.
The watchdog conception seems timeworn. Everywhere in the world, today the
current trend is to deregulate the ownership of media institutions.
On the other hand, a revised conception is needed in which the media are conceived
(regarded) as being checked on both public and private authority. Private media ownership
is used to establish a critical distance between the media and the governmental system.
Media organization had become more profit oriented. As well, the sphere of
government has been greatly enlarged, with the result that political decisions more often
affect private business profitability. Leading media corporations became much bigger and
more profitable depended, in part, on political and bureaucratic decisions. In other words, the
free market can give rise not to independent watchdog serving the public interest but to
corporate mercenaries which adjust their critical scrutiny to suit their private purpose.
On the contrary, the governments need the media more than ever today, because they
now have to retain mass electoral support to stay in office.
These cumulative changes have given rise to a relationship between the media and
politics which is increasingly dishonest. Although there are many other influences which can
shape the media, including the political commitments of media shareholder, the influence
exerted through news management and the ideological power of leading groups in society,
the public’s belief in the mass media has declined.
However, it is debatable whether the “watchdog role” of the media is still
undamaged. The media from time to time remains “watchdog”, the “fourth estate” that, more
or less, realizes its responsibilities toward society.
2
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting is a highly political process: media coverage shapes what we think
about as well as how to think about it. As political scientist Bernard Cohen puts it, “the
media don’t tell just what to think but rather what to think about”. In short, the mass media
“may not be successful much of the time in telling the people what to think, but are
stunningly (really) successful in telling its readers what to think about”. 2
On the whole, news coverage does not call for people to take positions, but based on
what they learn from coverage, people do take positions. The coverage doesn't cause change
directly, but serves rather as a channel.
This impact of the mass media - the ability to effect keen (sensitive) change among
individuals, to structure their thinking –asserts (emphasizes) the priorities of the media to
some degree become the priorities of the public. What the press emphasizes is in turn
emphasized privately and publicly by the audiences of the press.
In this way, media coverage not only creates public awareness but it also can trigger
(cause, start) dramatic shifts in opinion. An example was the fate of George Bush. In 1991
his approval ratings were at record highs. In 1992 the people thumped him out of office.
What happened?
During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the media put almost everything else on the
back burner to cover the war. The president's role in the coverage was as commander-inchief. Primed by the coverage, the public gave Bush exceptionally favorable ratings.
When the war ended, media coverage shifted to the economy, which was ailing (ill,
poor), and the president was hardly portrayed heroically. His ratings plummeted (fall), and in
1992 he lost a re-election bid.
In 1991 the media coverage created an environment that primed the public to see the
president positively, and in 1992 the environment changed. It was a classic example of priming,
the process in which the media affect the standard that people use to evaluate political figures and
issues. This means media are a powerful linkage between the government and how people view
their government.
Two basis assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting:
1. The press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it;
2. Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive
those issues as more important than other issues. 3
First of all, media do not represent certainty; there are filters inside of the media,
which decide what is ‘real’ and what is ‘false’. In other words, every thing passes through the
filters of the media and after that it will be presented to the public; agenda setting is the
process that lets some information to reach the audience while other information is kept out.
Secondly, different forms of the media tell us which issues are worthy of our
attention. As McCombs and Shaw stated, “We judge as important what the media judge as
important” 4
3
Message Production
The “message production” role of the press is in how it depicts (portrays) events.
Some people charge that consciously or unconsciously, the press distorts events
through its reporting. One charge is that the press tends toward the negative, often making
things seem worse than they are.
Another charge is that the press can be biased, that it may like or dislike certain
individuals, or that it may favor one policy or another and tailors the images and analyses it
presents to accord with its preexisting preferences or opinions.
Public Political Debate
It seems that all potential answers are affected by different forces acting upon the
media. Among these forces are;

The major functions of the media,

Controls on the media, and

Different philosophies of news making.
Functions of Media
Professor Doris A. Graber identifies four major functions of the mass media.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Survey the world and report events,
Interpret the meaning of events,
Socialize individuals into the culture, and
Manipulate the political process.
Although the manipulation of the political process arguably occurs in all off the
functions, there is specific and direct interaction (contact) between the media and different
aspects of the political world which is of special interest. 5
Controls on Media
Even in a democratic society there are certain controls on the media. Throughout the
years the democratic role of the mass media has been challenged (questioned). The
concept of a free press has been replaced by a more critical analysis. Principally, the media
have been seen to perpetuate (be responsible for) the values of the political, social and
economic elites. Effectively, the mass media reinforce (support) the dominant ideology
over the mass of citizens.
Also, as Judith Lichtenberg has commented, a doubt exists as the media not only
act as onlookers (observers) affecting political actors and the balance of power, but are
political actors themselves. Although media organizations claim to be critical outsiders,
they are simultaneously political participants who shape the public's world view: “The press
today - the mass media in particular - is one of the primary actors on the political scene,
capable of making or breaking political careers and issues” .6
4
Media acting as a source of power in the political process and not simply observers of
it provides one important reason for the controls on media. The purpose of these controls
includes;

Guarding the well-being of the country through treason (disloyalty) and sedition
(incitement to rebellion) acts,

Ensuring government confidentiality in certain sensitive areas,

Protecting individuals from slander and rumor mongering, and,

Securing current moral standards. 7
News Making
Philosophies
The philosophy of news making has a significant impact on the approach of media
towards the political process.
The mass media has three obvious effects on public thought:
1.
The media artificially constrain (limit) debate, and the use of concision
(briefness, shortness) isolates dissenting (unlike, rebellious) voices and support
existing preconceptions (notions, prejudices).
Media give the appearance of presenting wide range of opinions, while in fact
heavily favoring only one.
Thus the media tell people not only what the issues are, but also what sides may
be taken on that issue.
2.
In turn, the government, especially the executive branch, uses the media to
focus attention in certain directions: To judge public opinion, to actually shape
public opinion, to develop trust, and to explain its policies.
3.
The interaction of these two factors forms a unified (combined) relationship
resulting in the transformation of the public from an active role within the
democratic process to a passive one. 8
Political Information
The mass media provide powerful channels of information between the political
elite and the electorate. The American humorist Will Rogers said long ago, “All I know is
just what I read in the papers.” 9
This is still true. What we know about ongoing political events comes primarily from
media. People do learn from mass media not only factual information about public affairs
and what is happening in the world, they also learn how much importance to attach to an
issue or topic from the emphasis placed on it by the mass media.
Considerable evidence has shown that editors and broadcasters play an important
part in shaping our social reality. They do this as they go about their day-to-day task of
choosing and displaying news. It is said that, many people in today’s world inherit the
wisdom and mistakes of the people who work in the mass media.
5
Traditionally, the press and broadcasting act as proactive devices for encouraging
the citizen to participate in the democratic process. The mass media, by disseminating
(circulating, publishing and broadcasting) the full range of political opinions, enable the
public to make political choices and enter the national life.
Media is the supplier of information that the general public and political elites need to
form political opinions and make political decisions. Therefore, the mass media are
understood as important mechanisms in ensuring the principles of modern democratic
societies.
The Logic of Politics
Opinions about the media and estimates of their influence on societies and other
institutions can be important barometers of democracy’s functioning. If there is a free press,
it is believed that democracy is functioning. The mass media, in other words, have come to
be regarded as an organ of direct democracy. They make those who govern more inclined
to respect and to serve the governed.
Democracy is not possible without a functioning political public sphere that puts
the individual in a position to decide and act autonomously. That much, very few people
would wish to dispute. But we have no self-evident criteria that would allow us to specify
what minimum autonomy requirements would have to be maintained in order for democracy
to exist at all.
A functioning political public sphere displays four dimensions:
1. Media institutions;
2. Media representation (mass media input);
3. Social structure;
4. Socio-cultural interaction.
In the institutional field television plays the dominant, paradigmatic (model) role in
present-day media societies. Of course, this generalization should not lead us to overlook the
continuing importance of representation dimension still maintained by those other media.
Different audiences make sense of media messages in different ways. Partly as a result
of the social stratum (level) to which they belong, different people give different meanings to
each message.
Socio-cultural interaction is a term that belongs to face-to-face communication of the
life-world and civil society. The way citizens in the life-world respond to media messages
show whether they are informed participants capable of making acute political judgments.
A great number of politically ill-informed and uninterested citizens will count as nonparticipants. These are citizens who are not inclined to engage in social conversation about the
political messages. Because of their passive position, they are the ones who will most likely
respond positively to the messages programmed in media texts.
6
For the non-participants, whose numbers vary from society to society and case to case,
media texts play a decisive role in shaping their understanding of the political world.
Media Codes
and Political Logic
The actors in the political system are increasingly dependent on media codes (rules).
They assume that if they submit to the established media codes, they will have the chance to be
represented in the mass media and gaining access to a broad public.
There is an unspoken tension between media codes and the logic of the political.
Much depends on correctly understanding the nature of that tension, since it causes a
permanent obstacle to achieving a successful synthesis between the media codes and the logic
of the political.
Democratic Communication
and Political Logic
In laying out the relationship between democratic communication and political
logic, three fundamental questions about democracy and its background have to be
answered:
First, what are the minimum levels of information and communication that is
needed to make possible a kind of civic communication appropriate to modern
democracy?
Second, how can mass media, especially their flagship television, contribute to a
democratically appropriate level of information and communication?
And finally, how can a functioning party democracy contribute to a culture that
puts a premium on communication and participation?
The answers to these questions would deliver a reliable yardstick to measure the
quality of media communication in the political sphere.
Political Reportage Standards
The logic of the political process inevitably implies a certain standard of how the
media should report about politics. These are what we may call the conditions of
appropriateness for political reportage.
For whatever construction the media code may try to impose on the political events to
be represented, however much it may attempt to transform them, in the end the logic of the
events themselves has to shine through in the media's finished product.
In order to meet the standards of democratic politics, the mass media have to
communicate political events in their own fashion, to bring out the characteristic features
of every event they report.
7
Political processes do indeed have a logic all their own. Interests, values, power
resources, legitimacy, relevant institutions - can always be weighted differently, or come into
play in various ways. Developing a sense of how to handle these problems, and thus helping
citizens understand what may be of special relevance to their range of choices in any given
case, is at all events the decisive challenge for mass media that aim to play a role in creating a
democratic public sphere.
Factors and Dimensions of Politics
The logic of the political is indeed an indispensable analytical tool for understanding
politics, in whatever context it may occur.
This is true on a theoretical level because it provides basic concepts and models that
enable us to understand, elaborate, and evaluate our observations about politics in ways
suited to its intrinsic (inherent, basic) nature. But it also provides practical guidelines for
journalists to interpret events and then communicate their essential features to enlighten
citizens about what really transpires in the realm of politics.
Politics in the broadest sense always goes on in three dimensions: polity, policy, and
political process.
Constitutions and systems of rules regulating the political process form part of the
polity as do the political cultures of the different environments that together make up a
political community. These constitutive elements always give the political process
meaning and direction.
Except in borderline cases of stupid, merely symbolic action done for show, politics in
the broad sense always involves a policy dimension. This is the effort to find solutions for
politically defined problems by means of programs for action.
The third dimension encountered wherever politics goes on is that of the political
process, i.e. (that is), the effort to gain official acceptance of one's chosen program of action.
Within a given context of action, diverse actors will advance various interests; try to make
them appear legitimate.
Issueless Politics
There are some political systems in which, strictly speaking, no political process at
all seems to be taking place.
These include all systems that have developed strategies to avoid politics. When
they are operating in accordance with their own natural standards, such systems feature a
single center of power and decision-making that is protected from public discussion.
These systems also, discourage the inclusion of multiple actors from outside the leadership
body, and are immune to the mandates of critical public opinion.
In place of a political process, decisions are made by law, both to identify what
problems require solution, and to specify which potential solutions are acceptable.
8
REFERENCES
1. Thomas Meyer and Lew Hinchman, Media Democracy: How the Media Colonize
Democracy, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2002) pp. 1-26
2. Paul Weyrich, TV Network Creates New Link between Citizens, Politicians, (Insight
on the News, Vol. 10, No. 4/1994)
3. Weyrich
4. Brian Gittinger, Agenda Setting Function Examples and Applications, (Insight on the
News, Vol. 5/1994)
5. Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, Congressional Quarterly Inc.,
(Washington, D.C. 1984) p. 5
6. Edited by Judith Lichtenberg, Democracy and the mass media, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990)
7. Graber, p. 26
8. Benjamin Page, Who Deliberates, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) p.
32
9. John Vivian, Media of Mass Communication, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp.
445-446
9