Notwithstanding this, politicians need channels of media in order to be imaged for their voters in a favorable way; in turn, journalists need politicians for their news making. In such a context, in a given paper it is stated that journalists are unavoidably close to politicians; however, in given conditions their judgments should be as independent as possible.
To start with, previous century showed that journalists and politicians were working as the partners. Historically, media were included in the wider field of power, elections and politics. In particular, successful ideological propaganda of World War I and the 1930s are the most dramatic cases in this context (Blumer and Gurevitch, 1995, p. 11). In fact, these social spheres showed themselves as really powerful in the retrospective; and so, it is crucial to realize the scale of this impact. In combination of journalism and politics, mental influence caused by media appeared to be much more effective than torturing bodies by physical violence in the previous centuries (Mateos, 2009). This is the reason why the unity of media and politics was inevitable as together they double the influence they accomplish. And so, media steadily forgot to report on and about politics as independent observer; in turn, journalists behave as active participants in the political struggle (Blummer and Gurevitch, 1995: 4). Therefore, analysis of journalism will be insufficient if political component is eliminated from its content.
Moreover, previous bipolar system that determined international relations also led to the emergence of ideologically specific media. In this context, Robert McChesney discussed the influence caused by the former political situation in America which paralyzed all the efforts to create more democratic system free of corporate media (McChesney, 2004). As a result, the three-dimension approach to define media appeared: private (or corporate),