Does_the_Media_Have_Too_Much_Influence_in_American_Policymaking_

Does the media have too much influence in American policymaking' Explain your answer. Man has always had a thirst for knowledge and desire to know what is happening and what may happen in the future, it is a necessity to know what is happening now as a means of forming the events of the future. In recent years it has become increasingly easier for the public to gain information on current events, political scandals, international conflicts and relations. There has been a communications revolution which has transformed the way in which information is passed and how people access and process what they hear. With the creation of twenty-four hour news channels, online journals and social networking sites there has been an increased lust from the public to know as much as they can about the world around them and the people shaping the events occurring within that world, the ease of access to in-depth information on political and social events has increased interest in the news from the public. The question to be asked now is, is the news being reported and processed just a means to inform the public, or is it a device to influence or manipulate the public and their political views. In the past the main source of news accessible to the public was either newspapers or word of mouth, there was not as much attention paid to the news by the public, and it was mainly the upper classes in society that seemingly had interest in newspaper reporting. However this is no longer the case, a transformation of the communication process has made it possible for news to be reported instantly from one side of the world to another. This transformation has resulted in mass media being the main source influencing the public’s knowledge and insights on the political world, giving the media a stronghold and enabling them to have considerable influence on the political agenda. With the ability to reach and report to such vast numbers of people throughout the world the media not only has the power to decide what issues the public will be informed about, but they also have influence in how they think about these issues, the way in which the media companies report their selected stories can manipulate the public’s thinking on the subject and their decisions and actions after processing it. There are a number of alternatives to the mainstream mass media however the majority of the American public turn to newspapers, popular radio channels and television stations as their news sources for information and understanding. A poll in 2001 found that 62% of Americans got their news sources from television, 22% from newspapers, 12% from radio and 3% from other sources (Haimes, 2002) However it is not just the general public in America that relies so much on the media giants, because of the power the media has over the public, the political elite and members of high society also rely heavily on the media. The government gaining public support is not always easy, and if the media can influence the public into agreeing with the governing body then policies have a much greater chance of unchallenged success. The United States elite recognised the value and advantages of media involvement a long time ago, “In recognition of the role that the press played in the nation’s founding, and in appreciation of the crucial role it plays in maintaining a free society, the press was granted special protections under the First Amendment. But the founders knew that a free press would be worth little if the people could not read it, so public education became one of the great obsessions of the leaders of the early republic. [The problem in Europe at that time] was restricting education to the wealthy, in the mistaken belief that “knowledge is the parent of sedition and insurrection.” Instead, he wrote, education was vital to the maintenance of a free society. This concern with education was widespread in the founding generation, and Thomas Jefferson famously listed the establishment of the University of Virginia as one of the three great accomplishments of his life (he omitted his presidency from the list).” (Cornog, 2005). Political parties and officials need to work with the media if they want to receive positive coverage in the news, if the media are against a party or official the public will more than likely also be against them, it is this power that is one of the key factors that enables the media to have an input into the political agenda. The mainstream media are highly selective over what stories they report and how they are reported, the news reported may not be very in depth of completely factually accurate. The American media has been accused of favouring “Republicans, the establishment, and conservative views” (Greenberg and Page, 2008, 170) and being biased in what decisions they decide have more merit to be reported over others, in a 1999-2000 investigation under taken by Lexis-Nexis it was found that media coverage over this period covered 949 conservative officials referenced and only 161 liberals. It is obvious from these findings that the media can certainly be very one sided in the way in which it reports certain issues, this one sided approach in turn has as an effect on the public and their views on the officials running their country and the decisions they are making. With the risk of the media destroying reputations of political parties and officials a number of groups, political and non political try to manipulate media news coverage and make sure that if any stories are going to be reported about them, they will be positive and not negative. The media rely heavily on governmental and ex-governmental sources to get facts to make their reports, and despite having “poster” reporters who are supposedly finding these facts out first hand, the majority of governmental information the media report is from some form of governmental body. The media’s full power of influence is best seen during times of crisis, it is during these times that patriotism comes into effect and the media have the power of rallying up public opinion. A good example of this would be the American involvement in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. America defended Kuwait as it was an ally of the United States, the media coverage of the conflict and American involvement for the most part favourable and backed the troops and this led to the majority of the American public being in favour of involvement, despite the fact they had little or no knowledge of the direct threat they could have been facing in result to entering into the conflict. At the time the conflict in Kuwait, a poll showed that public approval of then president George H.W Bush was at 90%, which was the highest level of presidential approval ever at that time. The positive media presentation of the war, that made America out to be brave and dominant, helping out countries that cannot defend themselves built up a high level of patriotism and belief in the ability of the presidential regime and its agenda. However after the conflict had finished the media quickly changed its reporting stance to reporting mainly on the failing American economy the 90% approval rating of president Bush soon began drop rapidly, the media were now criticising the government and its economical policies, this then lead to the approval of President Bush diminishing and public opinion changing. The public no longer wanted Bush to be in control and wanted his departure from office, resulting in Bill Clinton being elected next president of the United States and the Republicans being taken out of control and the Democrats replacing them, now giving the democrats policies priority. A more recent example of the media’s influence in policymaking would be once again from a time of crisis, the media played a huge part in post 9/11 events and the public’s views and opinions on the post 9/11 policies and the war in Iraq were hugely influenced by the news stories they were watching and reading. After the 9/11 attacks on the United States there was a media frenzy, news stations reporting 24/7 on the attacks, the possible threat America was under and who was to blame. Despite the fact Al-Qaeda had declared itself to be behind the attacks there was a turnaround in the United States military campaign, the news channels and papers were now reporting that Iraq was the major threat to America. The media was now reporting that Iraq had access to weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq posed a major threat to America and military action needed to be taken to prevent further attacks, reports from Afghanistan started to take second seat to their Iraqi counterparts. The media was interviewing a number of “weapons experts” who were claiming that the reports were true and that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction; however these experts were handpicked by the media companies, as we know now the majority of the claims made by these experts turned out to be false. A high percentage of the facts and figures being reported to the American public were either false or exaggerated, however the majority of the public accepted them without questioning. Public opinion began to be formed around the premise that to ensure safety, attacking Iraq was a necessity, being backed up by most mainstream news sources. Despite there being no hard evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, a lot of anti-war protests from smaller sections of the public, the majority of the American citizens were behind the then president George W. Bush and his campaign to attack Iraq. The media started to use a process in which it tried to fuse the Al-Qaeda 9/11 attacks and the anti Iraq and Saddam Hussein campaign into one. The media seemingly sided directly with Bush and the American government and wanted to promote the fear of the threat from Iraq. Fox news began using its “War on Terror” phrase when talking about both Al-Qaeda and Iraq, trying not to distinguish between the two; there was also a case in which MSNBC were interviewing the Chief of Homeland Security who was discussing potential new threats from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and MSNBC ran it under the title of “Showdown with Saddam”. The media was seemingly not doing the public justice in its reporting of the news, and seemed to be riling support for the war through any means possible. The media and its pro Iraq campaign’s twisting of the facts helped to create a large support for the war that followed, siding with the government helped to minimise protests against the war and allow America to enter Iraq, and allow policies that ordinarily would come under a lot of criticism or rejected to now be passed, nearly without question. There is another theory into how the media can influence policies; this theory is based upon the media making the presidential office and political elite more public friendly, by communicating to the public directly through the media in a humane manner it can create a greater trust in the elite by the public, by constant updates and direct contact with the public, reassuring and updating them on current affairs and proceedings the elite can have a calming effect and thus gaining more support for themselves than if they used a secretive approach. If there is more trust in the person or group then there is more chance of their legislative portfolios being successful. This type of approach has started to be taken more seriously in the modern age with the use of the internet and social networking etc, Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying “Let’s talk. Let’s chat. Let’s start a dialogue about your ideas and mine,”, “And while I can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try. And with a little help from modern technology, I’ll be holding live online video chats this week, starting Monday. So let the conversation begin.” in relation to the use of internet as a media means. The only problem with this is, it may be very effective, but could be manipulated and trust in the elite could lead to things being passed based only on the person, not the facts, unlike live television reports the internet videos can be recorded as many times as necessary to ensure its exactly the way the people involved want it to be. It’s quite clear that the media certainly does have a great deal of impact and influence on American public opinion of policies, political representation and policy making itself. There have been a number of examples of the media’s power in the political world, a few of which have been listed previously. The media’s influence varies depending on the situation in question, the people involved and a number of other aspects. It’s clear that as time has passed their influence has only increased, with the introduction of television coverage, radio shows and web based sources. The internet side of the media’s influence has yet to been fully investigated, and quite possibly as time progresses the internet could become the main source of the media’s influence, increasing on the high level it is already at today. Bibliography Haimes,T, “The Media” in Developments in American Politics, Peele et all ed, 2002 Greenberg.E,Page.B (2008). The Struggle for Democracy. 9th ed. Longman. 170. Griffith,V ,“The Influence of Media in Presidential Politics” Cornog,E. (2005). Let’s Blame the Readers. Columbia Journalism Review. Jonathan,S. (2006). The Media Influence on American Society In Politics. Available: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action'articleId=281474976826497. Last accessed 9th March 2011. Krauze,M. THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA IN THE US FOREIGN POLICYMAKING PROCESS. Available: http://www.prof.msu.ru/publ/omsk/45.htm. Last accessed 9th March 2011. Cohen,J. (2001). Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance. Available: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm. Last accessed 9th March 2011. Linksy,M (1986). Impact How the Press Affects Federal Policymaking. W W Norton & Co Inc Edsall,T. (2007). The New Media and U.S. Politics. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/freepress-english/2008/April/20080513173442WRybakcuH0.1571619.html. Last accessed 9th March Cornog,E. (2009). Free Press Critical for Free, Democratic Society. Available: http://www.globalissues.org/article/163/media-in-the-united-states. Last accessed 9th March 2011.