Media and US Politics - Essay Example

How the Media Plays US Politics Like most countries in the world, the United s of America and its people use and encounter different types ofmedia everyday, their choices ranging from television, radio, film, print and online. Most media outfits, especially in the United States, the control rests on the hands of private corporations or companies which are concentrated on gaining profit through sales and advertisements. Television and radio in the U.S. are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Some major television channels are NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, The CW, PBS, HBO, CNN, MyNetworkTV and ION Television. As for the radio, the U.S. broadcasts both in FM and AM frequencies. Just like all around the world, the readership of the print medium has been steadily declining due to the rise of the online medium. And although there are many famous broadsheets, most of these have adapted a political stance, almost making them a means of propaganda. National news wires like Reuters and the Associated Press, on the other hand, have been known (all over the world) for their wide coverage in the U.S. and around the world. This is the same for the news magazines like Newsweek and TIME. As for U.S. cinema, it has become one of the most famous media industries in the world, having had international success in merchandising and advertising. Since the media can be seen, heard, felt and known throughout many parts of a country, one can realize how much impact it has on the people. Almost everything that an average American knows comes from a major newspaper, television network or radio station and whatever is translated into such media outfits come from the reporter or journalist's point of view. This point of view proves vital in the instances that the journalist "chooses" what qualifies as news by choosing what to write about. "Framing" also affects what the audience understands the issue at hand. Some things may not even exist for some people just because they are not aware of it. Together with profit, these media corporations also reap criticisms. Issues of media ownership, bias, extortion, professionalism and even ethics come to mind when one talks about the media. In the U.S. specifically, many media outfits have adapted a political stance, contrary to the assumption that media should be objective. Today, the difference between most newspapers is not actually the content but their vested interests and its history goes a long way. For example, Benjamin Franklin, under a pseudonym, wrote an article in a publication recommending that the government print more paper money in 1728. However, Franklin did not mention that his printing company intended to bid for the said project. Fifty years after, the U.S. Congress gave birth to media censorship with the passing of an order which basically prohibited the people from having dissenting opinion from the government. A few years later, former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln closed many newspapers on the claim that they were biased. During the time of President Richard Nixon, the media played a central role in divulging the administration's secrets. The Watergate scandal proved that the pen really is mightier than the sword. When the 1900s came, bias screamed from many newspapers, with them openly campaigning or supporting a certain politician, political view or party. Moreover, many newspapers went against each other or were used by opposing governments for propaganda. False reports also came to be as the times progressed. In 1994, the Freedom Forum conducted a survey of reporters and editors in Washington to determine their political leaning. The press people were asked outright of their political affiliation, the percentages indicate their answers: 50% Democrats, 4% Republican. Regarding ideological persuasions, 61% were liberal while a measly 2% were conservative. As for their vote in 1992, a whopping 89% voted Clinton and Bush got 7%. According to an article last year in the Washington Times, most Americans think the media is guilty of making culture "immoral." The article also said that according to the National Cultural Values Survey conducted by the Culture and Media Institute (CMI) of the Media Research Center, "Americans who care about the nation's moral condition should insist that the media strive to more fairly represent all views, including those of the orthodox." The survey which covered the opinion of about 2,000 Americans showed that the adverse effect of media does not only stem to the political side but also to the religious side as well. More often than not, people do not realize how powerful the media's role is. The media actually helps in the formation of U.S. politics. It is the media who decides what issue is to be played up or played down. It is the media who decides to what extent something may be discussed or sometimes to not have it discussed at all. Take for example John Edwards, U.S. senator and vice-presidential candidate in the past who was let down by the media. As a political candidate, he was great. He led the race against his opponents because he knows what his platforms were and he knew how to communicate them. The only problem was that the American media did not seem to like him. He was ignored and was reported on negatively more than the other candidates, the same goes for Howard Dean in 2004. Aside from influencing public opinion, the media also shapes a candidate's image. This image, which most of the sponsors or supporters look for, more often than not determines the future of a candidate's future. Political candidates would be able to get the positions if only they knew how to play the media or play with the media properly. For example, Barack Obama was definitely able to generate a mass support through the media. He knew just what to say, things that allow him to get media exposure and things that would get him the sympathy of the voters. More specifically, his campaign tango with Hillary Clinton made the media coverage spicier. He knew that the media would be willing to follow the two of them anywhere in order to get gossip-worthy news. So this is another time when the negative effects of media may be seen. The media really does thrive on conflict and most of the time, "good" news is not at all played up. Whatever great disaster happened, it is the focus of the day, or even of the decade. This is because the media immediately assumes that this is what their viewers, listeners and readers want. What's worse is that sometimes the media makes the conflict seem graver than it really is, making it a tool of the power players for propaganda or power struggle. These power players include politicians who use the media to generate negative publicity for their opponents. Supporters or sponsors of politicians also play a role in the game, using the media to give an upperhand to their favorite candidates. And sometimes even the media companies themselves play up their favorites sometimes for sheer pleasure. Having said all these, it is obvious that the media backing or intervention is done by a select group of people, making it unfair for those who do not have a hold on the media - something which should not even exist. I haven't even begun discussing here how the government itself influences the media and not the other way around. So we should really realize that the media has so many dimensions, and we'd better understand them all before we get caught up again with the power playing. Bibliography Akin, J. 2005, 'Mass Media', Beyond Intractability Version IV, viewed 31 July 2008, < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mass_communication/>. Americans see media aiding moral decline 2007, Washington Times, viewed 31 July 2008, . Bozell, L. 1999, The Role of Media In America, Media Researh Center, June 4, viewed 31 July 2008, Herman, E. 1993 'The media's role in U.S. foreign policy', Journal of International Affairs, viewed 31 July 2008, . Weisbrot, M. 2008, 'Media Has Large, Often Unnoticed Role In National Politics', The Huffington Post, February 27, viewed 31 July 2008, . Read More