The role of the media

                Politics is primarily consumed via the distorting lens of the media. The media is a term that incorporates a number of sources ranging from television stations to footage uploaded onto You Tube. Yet whatever the context, the media is a hugely important player within the electoral process. Moreover, the proliferation of the media has grown rapidly since the 1990s. Millions of people have the technology to upload recorded images onto the net, thereby enabling the public to view images and access information it might otherwise have missed. Politicians therefore have very few hiding places left. Perhaps the stand-out example from recent times is the “macaca” moment. Senator George Allen was being video tracked by an activist working for his opponent. Rather than keeping calm and aloof, he delivered an outburst that could at best be described as gibberish and at worst be considered a racial insult. Either way, it cast doubt upon his ability to govern and George Allen subsequently lost the election. Being shown to flip-flopping on an issue by the media can also be very damaging. For instance, in 2004 John Kerry was quoted as saying that he voted for the $87 billion raised to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he actually voted against it. That said; a verbal gaffe does not always spell disaster for a leading politician. In terms of dependent factors, the ability to spin the news is absolutely crucial.

Each party has their own cheerleaders within the media. For the Republican Party, Fox News does an invaluable job. It provides airtime for conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, its political stance is supportive of the Republican brand and its reporting has a pro-conservative bias. However, conservatives routinely claim that this is necessary in order to counter the liberal bias within the mainstream media. Those on the right of the political spectrum see themselves as standing up for the ‘truth’ against the forces of liberal-secular America. Quite frankly, it is always possible for conservative figures to rail against the liberal ‘lamestream’ media. Whether this is exaggerated or an accurate depiction is of course debatable.

                Liberals also have their supporters within the media. In terms of television stations, MSNBC leans towards the liberal side of the fence. In terms of newspapers and periodicals one might consider the Huffington Post, the Nation and Mother Jones (or MoJo). It was the latter that published Romney’s ill-judged remark that 47% of Americans would never support him because they see themselves as “victims.” However, the US is a pluralist society with many sources of information. It is possible to gain information from all possible perspectives, even those on the political margins. Unlike an autocracy, no one ideological perspective entirely dominates the airwaves or blogosphere within the states.

The tone of political debate within the states can be vitriolic and unbalanced. Right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh routinely denounce liberals in quite personal terms. Occasionally, this has slipped into unpleasant racial connotations in the case of Barack Obama. Similarly, those who express their opinions via The Young Turks such as Cenk Uygur depict right-wing conservatives in bitter language. For example, Sarah Palin has been subject to a level of character assassination that highlights a degree of double standards from liberals in regards to sexism (Pearlman, 2012).

               

The absence of balance within the American media may be explained via simple market forces. There is little financial incentive to offer a balanced assessment when the target audience is content with a skewed version of events. Commenting on politics is comparable to gossip magazines, in that it centers upon hearsay and OMG moments rather than objective journalism. This lowering of the tone is also mirrored in congressional debates. Moreover, it is very difficult to reach out beyond the aisle except for those rare occasions when the nation feels under threat in some way. Increasingly, Americans have their own (pre)judgments confirmed rather than challenged via their choice of media. The problem is exacerbated further by a predilection towards residing in areas with other ideological soul-mates. Liberals will tend to locate around the North-East, the Great Lakes, the West Coast, Universities and inner-cities. By contrast, Republicans tend to gravitate towards Middle America and rural areas. The public are thereby retreating into their political tribe; making them less inclined to listen to the other side of the political fence.

The nature of the media has fundamentally changed in recent years. Firstly, the media is more fragmented than previous generations. People gain their news from a wide number of sources at a time and in a format which suits them. This means that if a politician does not take a pro-active approach to a potential story, the gap may be soon filled by his/her vociferous opponents. If a politician does not exert control over the media in some way, then they can very easily be blown off course by the prevailing winds. Secondly, the media has become much more biased. It exists to provide exactly what its customers expect. The impartiality of a Walter Cronkite-figure is little more than a distant memory. Thirdly, the news is presented in a more sensationalist fashion (Gardner, 2009). In order to grab the public’s jaded attention, politicians and pressure groups routinely engage in deliberate exaggeration or distorted half-truths.

The media is self-evidently an important agent of secondary socialization and a key influence on voting behavior. When seeking to fully understand the impact of the media upon voting behavior, there are two contrasting theories to ponder. Both offer a convincing explanation of the way in which the media shapes voting behavior in the states. As one might anticipate, there is evidence to support both theories.

Beginning with the more traditional account, the hypodermic syringe theory suggests that images are injected into the body politic by the media. This theory implies that the media is a powerful agent of secondary socialization. The time spent by politicians portraying their positives, neutralizing the negatives, ‘spinning’ stories and so on would certainly imply that politicians perceive the media to be a significant determinant of voting behavior. It seems implausible that any politician could ever be elected without mastering the media. Political consultants such as Dick Norris, Karl Rove (nicknamed ‘Bush’s brain’), David Axelrod and Joe Novak (nicknamed ‘Low blow Joe’) truly are the new Kingmakers of modern politics.

The two-step theory offers a more nuanced perspective. Whereas the hypodermic syringe theory implies that the role of the public is largely passive, the two-step theory suggests that the public also play a role. The two-step theory is based upon the assumption that individuals are social beings and react to stimulus around them. As such, most people formulate their political views via the influence of opinion leaders (such as celebrities who adopt a political stance); who in turn are influenced by the mass media. This has arguably been exacerbated by new social media, where political campaigns can be launched through Facebook and Twitter. According to this theory, ideas flow from the media to opinion leaders to the general population.

The media could be said to both reflect and reinforce the divide between red America and blue America. Red America tends to listen to conservative talk-shows on the radio, watch Fox News and reads newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post. Blue America however watches MSNBC, listens to NPR, has a high opinion of PBS and is more likely to read the Washington Post. One of the defects within the American system is that there is no equivalent of say the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In the United Kingdom, the BBC is legally required to be neutral. Those media sources that are funded by the US government (such as PBS) are widely perceived to be pro-liberal. This assumption may well be centered purely on the source of funding, which certainly implies a liberal approach rather than a free-market perspective.