On August 1st, 1981 Music Television (MTV) launched; the first song, The Buggles, “Video Killed the Radio Star”. The first song was suiting, as the iconic image of the astronaut placing the MTV flag on the moon quickly became synonymous with the changing age of the music medium. Quickly people flocked to MTV to see new music and find the current trends. The way in which the news media has changed follows directly in this same path. Much in the same way the Obama administration made government more accessible to the public, the internet has made media more accessible and interactive. It has also led to the legacy media having to struggle to stay relevant and in play. Impacts on public policy remain; the way they touch public policy has changed. The media’s role in public policy is both central and pivotal; the media acts as the information outlet to the public, while acting as a check for the government.
The legacy media is under fire. The advent of the internet has created a more interactive medium that has brought forward many different views from around the world. Walter Lippman wrote of an island where in which Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans lived together in 1914. The island was secluded from the world, only receiving news every six weeks. At this time World War I was beginning, the inhabitants of the island were unaware of this. “For six strange weeks they had acted as if they were friends, when in fact they were enemies”. This comment shows that how concealed communities were at that time. The paradigm has changed drastically since then, of which, McLuhan has named the “Global Village”. With this, McLuhan is referencing the change from the seclusion of the past to the international inclusiveness of the current culture. The access to television allowed for people to see far expanses of the world, while the internet has enhanced this with the ability to interact with other cultures.
The vastness of the internet and the expansion of television channels has led to negative externalities, known as “The Expansion of Choice” (EOC). The EOC refers to the copious amounts of media that the public has access to. In years past media outlets were limited; however, today consumers have multiple outlets to receive media. This gives them more entertainment choices, rather than being exposed to the news. This has led to nightly sitcom’s, comedy talk shows, and even sporting events becoming platforms for political rhetoric. As this paradigm shift evolved, the concern of political socialization comes into play.
Prior to the 1970’s, it was thought that most youth received their political information via school and from parents. As research was conducted, it was found that most young people started to receive their political information through some form of mass media. Throughout all forms of media, consumers are exposed to different cultural ideologies. Forms of mass media have not only formed people’s cultural orientations, they have also restructured them. This can be described as “resocialization”. This can be seen in the evolution of sitcoms and other such shows. This can be shown by the downfall of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). Prior to television being readily available, families gathered around the radio. A popular show was Superman, the platform which Stetson Kennedy saw to bring down the KKK. Rather than approach the problem head on, he infiltrated a local chapter. He then leaked the names of leaders to the radio show. The show then used the names as despicable villains for Superman to thwart. This quickly changed the view of the KKK, preventing them from functioning.
With the ability to access different media outlets, consumers have the choice of which opinions they want to be exposed to. This has developed partisan selective exposure (PSE); where in which an individual’s political beliefs dictate their media choices. A consumer can now avoid opinions that they disagree with and seek self-satisfaction by following only the media of which they agree with. This has shaped public policy by creating a polarization of the political parties. Those that choose to allow PSE to be placed on them, limit themselves from opposing views. This has created the “gridlock” affect in government and social realms. This limits understanding and bipartisanship. In years past the legacy media was the only route in which news could be seen or heard. Consumers are now exposed to fragmented news or news that is tailored to their views. This creates a further divide amongst the citizens and the political parties.
The media has shaped public policy by using the act of gatekeeping. This is the determination of which stories will be published or aired. In doing this the media can control what stories are heard, putting more impacting stories on the frontline. This harnesses public opinion, moving the public to back certain policies and oppose others. The media also uses the “watchdog” concept to shape public policy. Investigative journalism has been a cornerstone of the media. Not only does it draw in consumers, it acts as a watch for political elites. Journalist are the first to expose a problem and make it widely known. McChesney notions that this paradigm has begun to shift from being a strictly media controlled field to the use of citizen journalism. This approach uses citizens to collect information and compile it for the professional journalists to publish or broadcast the story. Through this the media can shape the formation and implementation of policies.
The media shapes public policy in many ways. While the approach has changed, the affect it has on the government has not. The reach of the media has increased, the way news is delivered has been altered, and citizen socialization has become dynamic. Even through all this, the media still has a powerful impact on politicians and public policy. The media has created an approach that has allowed citizens to be more involved, whether using social media or the use of citizen journalists. With all this considered, public policy will continue to be affected by the media, regardless of the medium.
Malcolm, I enjoyed your perspective. The media is a power, power thing. They have the ability to change the perception of many things and can even shape the direction of policy. The media has convicted and/or vindicated people before they have had due process. The media has created thing, destroyed things, ruined things, and built things. Unfortunately, we tend to believe everything we see on TV, Social Media, read in print, and certainly hear on the radio and those views (at times) become the perception of reality. We have become complacent in that information is seconds away via smart phone, tablets, computers, etc. from anywhere at anytime. We are human so we seek pleasure and avoid conflict so we take the easiest path. The easier the path, the more we tend to believe it. I like leprechauns and unicorns, but they are not real……
This is a great article in response to how our media is influencing the public’s view on politics, leaders, and the means by which we receive our news. After the 2016 presidential debates and elections, I have become more interested in learning about how individuals form opinions about political leaders, policy changes, and the way that people read into news via social media.
In response to your opinion that legacy media is struggling to stay afloat in a world of social media and media on-the-go, I completely agree. People are turning away from radio and newspaper and turning to Twitter and word of mouth. In terms of receiving news, I believe that social media is only going to keep growing and growing. Social media has the power to do so much good in our nation and that should not be ignored. However, it is the public’s job to understand the credibility behind each news source and social media site.
If a person only receives news through word of mouth and through opinions of others, we will have a nation filled with misinformed constituents. As mentioned in the article above, most people used to receive information through school and parents. Many people have the same political ideologies as their parents, which is fine, but that must make us question if people are forming their own opinions or if they believe what they’ve been told. This is a question that applies to many cultures and topics, and nevertheless, one that policy decision makers should research.
Going back to the media’s influence on the way we view news and stories, gatekeeping and the gridlock affect is ever present. Household news stations like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC with different political inclinations are notorious for gatekeeping. Though it is inevitable to provide every ounce of detail in a non-partisan fashion, withholding information to make news stories look favorable or unfavorable to viewers occurs more than one may think.
The media has massive influence on our every day lives and as a public policy students, it is our role to consider how we should communicate and how people may perceive the message at hand. Overall, great article that I agree with. Thank you for taking the time to bring this topic to mind and making me reconsider the way we receive news.
I think the importance of the role the media plays in politics in any country is a great conversation to have, and one that needs to remain ongoing. This is why we call the media the “fourth estate” or “fourth branch,” right? The Founders felt that, because the people exercised absolute sovereignty in the country, the most critical tool in their belts for becoming and staying educated – the press – had to remain outside of government control and censorship.
As more Americans have gained the ability to attend school and become formally educated, the importance of the media in keeping us all informed has only grown. It’s really culminated in the advent and proliferation of access to the Internet. Now, people can access information from a variety of sources, right or wrong, and arm themselves with a plethora of knowledge before making political decisions. Now, there is no one “trusted” source of information in the way Walter Cronkite once was.
And, of course, the impact this is having on policymaking today cannot be understated. We’ve seen our middle ground collapse as the country has become increasingly partisan, no doubt at least partially due to the increased amount of partisan information we have available at our fingertips (Pew Research Center, 2016). As you said, there’s even a term now for people who use their value systems to determine what media they consume. And being exposed only to information that fits into our worldviews seems to push us into holding more extreme positions until we cannot see past our own biases to understand one another. This is why our politicians are holding more extreme positions these days, and why politicians who consider themselves centrists are becoming less common (Bump, 2016).
Who knows what the future holds for the relationship between the media and politics? Will we continue to use media as a weapon to divide ourselves off from one another? It certainly seems that way right now, but I’m also hopeful that the all-encompassing reach of the Internet is something that hasn’t yet really normalized in our society. Once it does, perhaps we will begin being more responsible with it. Perhaps we will use this as an example of why critical thinking and research are two absolutely vital tools needing emphasis in childhood education. Either way, it will be fascinating to watch it all play out.
Thank you for your thoughtful piece!
Bump, P. (2016, January 13). The unprecedented partisanship of Congress, explained. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/heres-why-president-obama-failed-to-bridge-the-partisan-divide-graphed/?utm_term=.7aa91b14902a.
Pew Research Center. (2016, June 22). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center: U.S. Politics and Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/.
I have found myself over the past five or six years pondering whether the information overload climate we have today is preferable to a bygone era (say 200 years ago when not everyone could read or could access the news of the day which at that time would have been newspapers) when only a fraction of the public was “informed”. On the surface one would automatically assume that situation today is vastly more preferable to the past. I suppose I also prefer this current era for the same reason as others would. The vast majority of the general public has more information at their disposable than at any other point in human history. But that, in and of itself, presents a quandary. We have more information, and the most dispersed and easily accessible platforms for the dissemination of said information than ever before. But what have we done with it? To a large extent what we’ve collectively accomplished is separate ourselves into hated factions. Left versus right or progressive versus conservative. We identify more with one ideology over another (for a host of reasons not limited to but including upbringing, social influence, economic opportunity, geography, demographics, etc.) and then become so entrenched with our chosen side that any information contradicting our ideological view is either ignored, explained away, or attacked on anything but its merits. To me, I view this climate of information consumption as little different than a time 200 years ago when a significant portion of the population was not formally educated or routinely caught up on news. To me, it’s just another way of being “uninformed”. Being uninformed can mean not having access or the ability to digest information (the situation 200 years ago) and it can also mean having so much information at hand that there is no clear consensus on a narrative for reality except for the one we willingly choose to adopt. Perhaps I’m being pessimistic but I don’t see much of a real difference. We’re living in a time with unbounded opportunity to share and digest information and knowledge and we are squandering it because we would rather actively choose to behave as factions and tribes.
This is an interesting post on how traditional media is shifting from a select group of journalist to the hands of the people. With social media channels such as twitter and facebook and with a the advancement of video and mobile technology, we are no longer at the mercy of a news channel and waiting to get the news is a thing of the past. This shift in our culture has given a rise of power to the people. With traditional media, the conversation is one way as we are presented an “unbiased truth” with our trust grounded in objective journalist integrity. However, with the rise of social media and live video footage, we are seeing more and more everyday that objectivity is not always present and much of what we are presented, in the name of news, comes with a clear political agenda. Since we now have access to live accounts from people who are physically present at the source, the conversation is dynamic and the ” unbiased truth” that traditional media would have us believe, is under fire. This fire is mostly fueled by real time accounts that do not line up with what we are being told by the traditional media channels. A recent example of conflicting accounts would be live citizen-based coverage vs traditional media coverage of the Las Vegas massacre. Conflicting reporting such as this lends itself to distrust for traditional media and when people start asking why the reporting is conflicting, conspiracy theories that support establishment and government corruption evolve. These theories lead to an overarching distrust in the policy makers and the policies themselves.
Malcolm, great job with your examination of the influence of media and public policy. As I read your submission, I thought of how D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, served as political propaganda to support segregation policies and practices of the era. Unfortunately, we have historically used “moral panic” in this country to enact legislation, implement policy, etc. Likewise, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 as well as later legislation outlawing marijuana were the result of propaganda of the evils of the drug, often spurned through the cult classic, “Reefer Madness,” which depicted marijuana as a drug which causes violence, mental illness, and curtails moral values. More contemporary examples of “moral panic” induced by the media include the panic of juvenile “superpredators,” which resulted in a legislative response, creating harsh penalties for juvenile offenders, and the fear instilled post-9/11 of terrorism, which resulted in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, and controversial searches by TSA at the airport (due to the high tech screens which are very revealing).