My fellow Americans, when examining the media’s role in understanding American politics, I think we must first understand what the media’s role should be as it relates to politics, what it actually is, the problems with its current state, the way in which the current state and its problems manifested themselves during the 2008 Presidential election, and lastly how to bridge what "is" and what "should be".
First we must examine what the media “should be” as it relates to politics [I think the best approach to this issues is a diachronic one, beginning with the founding of our nation and continuing until the current era]-
The logical place to start is with one of our “founding fathers”, for an “insider’s” approach to the issue.Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Edward Carrington stated that the people are the only censors of government and the only way for them to do their job properly is:
“to give them full information of the affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.”In other words, Jefferson states that the media is essential to the understanding of politics because it is the only way to get full information to the people.
Helen Thomas, the great member of the White House Press Corps, takes the “ownership” of information one step further:
“All Presidents think that most information belongs to them, to their domain, and I think it belongs to the people.”
But if the information belongs to the people, and is not only theirs in order to do their “job properly,” how do they get that information?
The answer is rather simple and is given by James Fishkin, who explains that the media serves as an essential link between the people and their government officials. He describes how on the one hand the media, through polling, informs the government of the wants of the public, but more importantly, on the other hand, the media (should) ensure that the people are informed of the response that the government has to their wants and needs. In other words, the media (should) provide the public with the information from the government that is “rightfully theirs.”
Furthermore, media outlets were given this responsibility by the FCC in the second part of the “Fairness Doctrine” (as paraphrased by the MBC):
“The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.”The Jeffersonian notion that the American people are “the only censors of government” is one which not only Jefferson, but many others, believe is unachievable without the help of the media. Most recently we see this responsibility of the media spoken about by Kovach and Rosensteil (the media “must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise”) and John Stewart (in his harsh criticism of “Crossfire,” which the Professor associated here).
The “Jeffersonian” model of the media/politics relationship is one that:
a) Gives the public all of the information about the goings-on of the government (which “belongs” to the people anyway) in a well circulated manner (Leighley’s (in "Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective") “Reporters of Objective Fact), and
b) Affords the public the opportunity, through the media, to criticize and “censor” the government (Part of Leighley’s “Neutral Adversary,” also see Thomas’ discussion/comments on Press Conferences, and Clayman, Heritage, et al.).
Continuing on our thematic and diachronic journey, I want to turn to an “outsider’s” perspective which highlights another part of the American media/politics relationship.
Alexis de Tocqueville goes as far as saying that:“The laws of the country (America) thus compel every American to co-operate every day of his life…for a common purpose.”de Toqueville’s belief is that we need newspapers (and I would add other parts of “old” and “new” media) in order to successfully unite as a group, as a nation, and perform our civic duties.
Or, as Thomas states:
“you cannot have a democracy without an informed people.”Furthermore, de Toqueville points out that:
“Nothing but a newspaper (and I would add to this again other forms of “old” and “new” media) can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment.”I think Dana Richard Villa (in “Public Freedom”) best summarized the “de Toquevillian” ideal of the American media/politics relationship. From an outsiders view she notes that de Toqueville saw:
“through the exploitation of freedom of association and of the press, the Americans had created a decentered public sphere: one not dominated by a particular party or city; one free of central government control and-potentially, at least-the dictates of majority opinion.”[In some ways Leighley’s “Public Advocate”]
The last part of what the media/politics relationship “should be” is an unbiased one.
This is clearly spelled out in the "Fairness Doctrine" (Again paraphrased by the MBC):
“The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were ‘public trustees,’ and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.”[More of Leighley’s “Public Advocate”]
[For a great bridge between these 2 segments see Convention Conversations with Journalists-I would’ve embedded the video but its about and hour long-although some of these and different views will be discussed below]
Next, we must examine what the relationship between the media and politics is in the United States today (again the “problems with today’s state of the media will be discusses later on)-
This relationship is summed up best by the great University of Illinois at Chicago professor Doris Graber who said: “Media do more than depict the political environment, they are the political environment.”Assuming that Graber is correct, we must now describe what today’s political environment is.
One important aspect of the current “state of the media” is the government’s ability to use the media as a “tool” for their agenda.
This complex element of the media/politics relationship is explained in detail by Leighly (specifically in chapter 1, 2 and 7) and many of these points highlighted in the works of other political scientists.
These scholars point out that politicians, and specifically the President and political candidates, use the media to accomplish two things:
1) Gain support for their agenda (see the professor’s post here)
2) Shape their narrative
These techniques were used masterfully throughout the last 8 years by the Bush Administration to gain support for their re-election and policies, including the controversial war in Iraq (see Bennet, Lawrence and Livingston, Gerskoff and Kushner, and Cook Jr.).
[Sounds a little like Leighley’s “Propagandist”….albeit not as bad]
Another aspect of this relationship is the causal flow of information, or who causes what to be reported.
There seems to be two possibilities here:
1) The public concern (as expressed in polling etc.) influences what the media reports and how the government reacts (One aspect of Fishkin above), OR
2) The news stations report what they feel is important, or will gain the most profit, and this shapes public concern
The ramifications of this flow are clear, and it seems that the relationship is “unidirectional,” with the media taking its “cues” from the government (see Gershkoff and Kushner) and shaping public concern through what/how they report certain issues (see Behr and Iyengar).
A third part of this relationship is the “for profit” nature of the media industry, or Leighley’s “Profit Seeker” which seems to be the overarching “model” at play in today’s media society. This understanding, that large amounts of money can be made based on what is reported and how it is reported leads to many things including the media outlets setting their own political agendas and influencing how the public sets theirs [again the ramifications of this will be discussed below].
The last element of the current media state is the rise in popularity of the internet (specifically blogs-see Rainie and Harrington, Lenhart and Fox and this Pew Study), “soft-news” programming (like "The Daily Show,” “Colbert Nation,” and late night talk shows), and satirical shows like “South Park” and “The Simpsons.”While the rise of these new outlets do spread political information to people that weren’t interested in the news (see Baum) and sometimes provide great political critique and comedy (see my post here), they also cause many problems (which again will be discussed below).
[For another great transition between these two points, see the Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media, 2008]
Here’s where all the fun (sigh) starts, the “problems” with the current state of the media as described above (I will attempt to highlight these problems, but detail will be scarce at points because it is not only boring to read, but it’s also very frustrating to be reminded of (sigh again) and I believe has been given its fair share of time throughout our online and offline discussion this semester, and of course by McChesney)
Reality #1- The government, and other elected officials, using the media as a “tool” to govern-
On the surface this seems like a great idea, why shouldn’t the government, and elected officials use the media, which is the easiest way to communicate to the masses, to convey their message and ideas to the public?
I agree, this seems like a great idea, but we must not be so naïve, the government doesn’t use these tools to CONVEY their messages, the use it to CONVINCE the public that their ideas and policies should be supported, and use many deceiving tactics to accomplish this.
This of course is the theme of “Unspun,” by Jackson and Jamieson and I would like to highlight to important parts of that work to explain this point:First, Jackson and Jamieson (J&J for short) go into great detail describing what they (and I think accurately) are the warning signs and tricks (as well as lessons and rules to deal with these) used by those who want to “spin” their stories through the media. Of course, there are no shortage of examples of these tactics, especially from government officials and political candidates, but I think the professor does a great job at illustrating these [in addition I will show some specific examples of this from the 2008 campaign later on].
Second, J&J insightfully note that “deception is a bipartisan enterprise,” and show that this was clearly the case in the Bush/Kerry 2004 race (See Cook Jr., Bennet, Lawrence and Livington, and the brilliant PR work of Secretary Baker from the “recount” as described by Spencer and shown in “Recount” and spelled out by McCormack).
Stewart on “Crossfire” depicts the world filled with bias that we inhabit best. He says we, and specifically reporters, live and hang out on “Spin alley” and “Perception Lane” need I say more…
Of course there is also no shortage of information (which is also brought by J&J) from the current administration and their ability to spin their facts in order to gain support for their 2003 invasion of Iraq. (In fact during this period of time the term “fear, uncertainty and doubt” were so closely related with the administration that they were even given their own acronym of “FUD”!!)
[For more information on this specific issue see Gershkoff and Kushner]
In addition, government officials have been able to successfully (somewhat) “rewrite” the actual “facts” (See “1984” and my post-although this is clearly and exaggeration, and my post here which is no exaggeration at all) and distract the public from scandals and other issues using the media (See “Wag the Dog” and my post).
While the above posts contribute a great deal to this discussion, the most telling of these films/posts with regard to this issue is “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and the following quote which I highlight and discuss at length here:
Paine: He (Smith) can raise public opinion against us - if any part of this sticks...The problem with this abuse (although it should be the responsibility of the media outlets and journalists to prevent this, and when they don’t they abandon one of the “posts” [see Boehlert], and they have clearly "failed" in the past [see Hochschild on Jacobs and Shapiro]) is that America is not a dictatorship and as Helen Thomas noted (above) in order to be a successful democracy we must be informed. And I would add, we cannot be a successful and healthy democracy if that information is deceptive and unfactual. This current reality prevents our nation from operating in the way that our “laws” (de Toqueville) dictate and that fulfills our true responsibilities to ourselves and our nation (Jefferson).
Taylor: Aah, he'll never get started. I'll make public opinion out there within five hours! I've done it all my life. I'll blacken this punk so that he'll - You leave public opinion to me. Now, Joe, I think you'd better go back into the Senate and keep those Senators lined up.
Reality #2- The one way causal flow of information-media officials and government decide what is reported and what weight it is given.
This reality goes directly against Kovach and Rosensteil’s 4th “task” of the media:
“Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover”The first problem with this reality is that the media is able to set their own, or the government’s, agenda by what and how they report (see Page).
Behr and Iyengar discuss this at length, but a few highlights of the findings include:
1) Public concern for certain issues is directly related to the amount and kind of coverage each issue receives
2) “Lead stories” are more powerful and influential than “ordinary stories.”
One example of this is depicted in “Wag the Dog,” and of course its “parallel” from reality with regard to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal (discussed at length here).
In addition, if the causal role is only one-way then “Fishkin’s Ideal” (as described above) is impossible for more then one reason.
First, The politicians not only never receive the wants and needs of the public, but the media, who need to maintain a good relationship with the White House in order to get insider information and breaking news stories, will never (or rarely) report against the President and take the side of the people. This clearly is a failure on the media’s part to meet Leighley’s “Neutral Adversary” and “Public Advocate” models and was clearly the case with regard to the Iraq war (as noted above-Boehlert).
Second, if the media allow the President to manipulate the polling data, which according to Fishkin he/she is supposed to be using to understand the public wants and needs, in order to deceive the public into thinking that they are actually doing what the public wants, as has been the case with President Bush (see Green), then they have also failed at achieving this ideal.
Moreover, and in my opinion much worse, when the media uses polling data to support their cause (usually making money) they are doing an even bigger disservice to the public because this effects, among other issues, voter turnout and voting (See Schwartz/ Engelhardt on Schwarz[link not working], and Hardy and Jamieson).
Lastly, it is clear that certain media outlets and their executives have their own agendas and biases and depict them through their reporting. Of course the classic example of this is Rupert Murdoch and his large organization which includes Fox News, although there are others.Reality #3- Media outlets (and individual journalists) are making more and more money and therefore becoming even more profit seeking.
I think the problems with this reality are obvious and don’t need much discussion, but I will highlight here 2 very important quotes:
1) Kovach and Rosensteil state that if independent news is replaced by self-interested commercialism “posing as news” then:
“we will lose the press as an independent institution, free to monitor the other powerful forces and institutions in society.”
2) Helen Thomas takes this further and calls the current state, which Kovach and Rosensteil feared, a “tragedy”:
“It’s a tragedy to have one-newspaper towns with no competition, and having the media broadcast outlets think that entertainment is more important than the issues.”
The fact that this reality exists I think is pretty clear, and, furthermore, there is no shortage of data to support that the media has moved away from reporting the “real news” and our commentators (or dare I say “experts”) are now entertainers (see “A Face in the Crowd” and my post), and even given great nicknames like “America’s Boyfriend” (I had to throw that in).In addition, we know that this reality extends to individual journalists (and some of the more “trustworthy” of famous ones, Judith Miller [cough cough]-see Massing and Massing responses), and this may be more disturbing. If we cannot trust the executives of media outlets, or the individual reporters because they just want to get “front-page” material, then where do we turn? How can we possibly function as a democratic society when even the journalists cannot fulfill their responsibility (or at least what Helen Thomas defines it as) to the public?
Reality #4- The new idea of what passes for “news” and political commentary
While it has become evident throughout the semester, both in the classroom and online (see here among others), that I am happy about the rise of political discourse in new and informal ways, and there is evidence to say that these more “entertaining” forums do succeed in educating those who would otherwise go uneducated (see Baum, Annenberg Election Survey, and Peterson), this reality comes with many consequences (I will keep the detail brief here again because I think much of this is self-explanatory and needs little clarification)
1) Although political information is vast, and more people are “informed” then ever before, this doesn’t necessarily lead to “correct voting,” aka voting for the candidate who would best suit the needs and wants of the voter (Lau, Anderson and Redlawsk).
2) Although there is more political news and discussion in the media, and specifically on television, there are also more alternatives and therefore there isn’t more political knowledge and voter turnout (Prior).
3) Although more people are watching political discourse on television and gaining their political knowledge from it, this leads to a false sense of political activity which hurts the larger political environment (Hart). Similarly, while more people are engaging in political discourse online and gaining information from it, which doesn’t necessarily lead to and increase in political activism (Reeher).
4) The “incivility” of political discourse as it is portrayed on TV leads to greater interest, but causes less trust in government (Mutz and Reeves) and the way in which this “incivility” and discourse is portrayed leads “audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise” (Mutz).
5) Although blogging is viewed as a form of journalism (and even a successful tool in the classroom) and a large amount of political discourse takes place through this up and coming medium (Lemann, Lenhart and Fox, and Kerbel and Bloom), “everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist today. They don’t have any professionalism, they don’t have any standards, and we have been infiltrated by that” (Thomas).
So how exactly did these realities manifest themselves in the election of 2008? I’m glad you asked…
Reality #1- Using the media to set a narrative and convey an agenda
Where do I begin?
We know from all of our discussions, mostly online, that candidates use the media to portray their agenda and narratives in both “positive” and “negative” (Or “attack”) ads. While there is not shortage of proof from the 2008 campaign, I am only going to highlight a few of them.
I think that the most obvious case of setting a narrative, was Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" and "Change" narrative which was fleshed out by the professor in a post shown here:
Which I (to summarize my analysis from here) believe was strongly aided by the amount of coverage that Obama, and his narrative, were given [which statistically was more then McCain’s] and is supported by the following Pew Statistics:
And whose findings were perceived by Americans:
I would also like to note that it is clear that the Obama campaign’s strategy was much better then McCain’s, because when he tried to convey his narrative through the following ads and failed using the same media outlets as Obama:
Obama "praises McCain"...
...and says he's right
Of course Obama will raise taxes..
and again...
And how could I forget "Joe the Plumber"...not once...
...but twice
Interestingly enough, Obama’s narrative was so successful that it was even used as the basis for a recent Chabad ad for Chanukah:
Reality #2- The media decides what to report and the weight that each issue should be given. They therefore decide what issues the public is most concerned about.
While there is a lot of data which discusses the amount of attention that certain issues got during the election, there has not been much released (yet) regarding how this exposure led to public concern. However, it is important to realize that campaign seasons are always all about issues (whether they be big or small) and during the 2008 campaign election coverage did dominate the headlines and news broadcasts for the majority of the time. I would argue (and I believe future research will prove) that this expose was one of the main causes that led to the record-setting voter turnout numbers that occurred during the 2008 presidential election.Reality #3- Media outlets are becoming increasingly proft-seeking
Record setting? 2008 was more like record shattering in terms of the amount of money spent by each of the presidential campaign on advertising.
I think these numbers speak for themselves:
Obama- Broadcast Media $308,964,991
Print Media $15,355,720
Internet Media $14,037,426
Miscellaneous Media $1,237,317
Media Consultants $214,001
McCain- Media Broadcast Media $63,491,897
Miscellaneous Media $50,059,497
Internet Media $4,654,183
Media Consultants $625,741
Print Media $5,117
Reality #4- “New Media” coverage is on the rise (for better or worse)
Before discussing this topic I want to highlight one particular moment from one of the televised debates whose ramifications turned out to be large over throughout the rest of the campaign:
This one “sound bite” negatively effected McCain’s campaign (as I discussed here), and his overall appearance as “old” was clearly highlighted when he stood next to the “young” and seemingly unflappable Obama. This visual appeal is one of the reasons why television and other video sources play a large roll in Presidential campaigns and will continue to even in the new era of the internet.
Here are some of the statistics for where Americans got there campaign news from throughout the election:
The internet is clearly above the rest of the outlets, and is on the rise as noted by (Rainie and Horrigan), and some would argue that Obama was “Propelled by Internet” to victory.
In addition to the internet, “Soft-news” was at an all-time high during the campaign and election. Here are some of my favorite highlights:
And my favorite highlight clips [sorry embeding was disabled]
And of course, my dad on “Indecision 2008” (the clip is nowhere to found since Comedy Central put a duplicate of another segments under this segment’s title).
Last but not least….What do we do about this sad state of the media?
I think the answer is short and sweet and best articulated by McChesney:
“Democracy needs journalism; viable self-government in our times is unthinkable without it. But journalism also requires democracy. Unless the citizenry depends upon journalism and takes it seriously, reporters can lose incentive for completing the hard work that generates excellent journalism. The political system then becomes less responsive and corruption grows.”So I guess the real question is how do we get the citizenry to continually depend on journalism and take it seriously…
This answer is not a simple one, but the issue is still very important. In spite of the fact that the President-elect is seeking more direct contact with the public (my post), and is even seeking the public’s opinion on setting his agenda, we still need the media as a check and an alternative source to the White House itself.
As de Toqueville observed:
“The power of the newspaper press must therefore increase as the social conditions of men become more equal”And I don’t think we’ve ever seen a more equal time for news accessibility then at the current moment.
However, there is still work to be done, as Jefferson stated:
“But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them”In this modern age of the internet, we must ensure not only that all of our citizens can read, but that they have access, in some way shape or form, to the internet and its news.
We must also stop feeding the media exorbitant amounts of money which encourages them to continue to show the "clowns" that are now all over our televisions (see Kaplan [in "What Orwell Didn't Know" for this direct correlation). If we are able to influence WHAT is covered by the media as “news,” then we will be well on our way to a better and more ideal society.
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, to echo the words (yet again) of Helen Thomas: “I think that press conferences are extremely important, and this president holds the fewest. But it’s the reporters’ fault because they don’t clamor. Something has happened to the press.”
