Push and Pull: Government and Media's Interactive Relationship

Over the course of the last few weeks, our group has been researching the many different ways in which media and politics interact. We have decided to try and synthesize all the information we have gathered into a cohesive final blog that describes this relationship.

link

Mary Beth wrote in her blog post about how media informs us. Without media, the public would not be informed about what is going on in the political realm, what the issues are, who is a contender, or what is going on in the world.

As she says in her blog "The media acts as the bridge between the government and the people. The only way to gain political awareness is through media consumption. There is no direct communication between the United States and the American people. The media is the informant.”

Taylor focused a lot on trends and found that the trends of mass communication can be seen all throughout the political realm. Some of the particular topics that were focused on were demassification, convergence, interactivity, and globalization. She was able to use great examples to back up her research due to the current Presidential election. Our group posed the question “What has more influence: media on politics? Or politics on the media?”

Taylor came to the conclusion that media has more of a role on politics Due to the impact media plays on society, politicians have to carefully edit their actions. News today is all about the latest scandal and what can be made entertaining. When you combine politics and scandals, it can take things to a whole new level.

Matthew tended to agree with Taylor and found that issues of political stereotyping, socialization, narcoticizing dysfunction, agenda setting, and the two step flow theory all point in the direction that the media shapes politics. Media is the source of our political information. Media shapes the issues our politicians debate. Media creates identities for our political parties. The amount of information media releases to the public desensitizes the voters to political issues.

link

Jordan’s research pointed to some conclusions that were different than those of Taylor and Matthew. Delving into researching the role of media as a political watchdog was much like diving into a whirlpool of murky water.  The relationship between the government and media is very cyclical in nature, with both entities pushing and pulling against one another. She agrees that media can frame political issues and set the agenda, but there are many avenues for the government to influence media. Jordan talks a lot about them in her most recent blog.

Finally, Carly focused on the economics involved. 

Click here for link

She found that when the media tends to focus on the financial aspects, the public views the politicians negatively since all the focus is around them and their money. Even though some think the amount of money used for the campaigns is ridiculous, that money is what benefits the candidates in getting ahead in the race. The financial support of politicians is a huge topic in media currently, and will be for quite some time because money is always a point of contention and concern.

link

In the United States, the media will always be inherently tied together with the political system. As the medium for transmitting the information, the media has an intrinsic power over our politics and how we view them. We are a people powered by technology and communication, with almost unlimited means of obtaining information. Because of this we must be careful to make sure we are analyzing media for ourselves, not just consuming it without thought.

link here

Media Convergence and Interactivity Among Politics

Social media and politics play an important role for political candidates. It is crucial for a candidate to have media convergence. Certain social site, likes Twitter and Facebook, are key factors in gaining attention for the candidates. All of the social websites, newspaper, magazines, and any other media outlet come together to support or rally for one cause, recently this being the political elections. One particular article summarizes how social media dominates elections. “On Twitter, Mitt Romney has about 376,000 followers, Newt Gingrich has more than 1.4 million followers, Rick Santorum has close to 165,000 followers and Ron Paul has about 27,500 followers. They are all dwarfed by President Obama, who dominates the Twitterverse with more than 13 million followers. Of the GOP candidates on Facebook, Romney last had about 1.5 million likes, Gingrich has 295,979 likes, Santorum has 177,829 likes and Paul with 908,056 likes. But again, President Obama surpasses all the GOP candidates with 25.5 million likes.” Utilizing the power of the social networks is extremely important for politicians gaining an advantage in the race.

Media interactivity and convergence are closely related. Interactivity involves a close relationship between the user and the source. In this case, we are talking about the politicians and their social media sites. In one article, the author studies President Obama’s use of social media in his 2008 election. President Obama took 5 major steps to get his audience to listen to him. “1. Build his political brand 2. Create MyBarackObama.com 3. Present across multiple social media sites 4. Donations 5. Encourage participation.” The President needed to be up to date on all of his sites and encourage his audiences to check out his social media. Without their support, then the President may have not won the election. “The effectiveness of Obama’s online strategy to engage and mobilize people can be seen in some of the numbers:

•                6.5 million online donations

•                $600+ million campaign funds raised, most of it online

•                13 million email addresses

•                1 billion email sent

•                2 million profiles on MyBarackObama.com

•                200,000 offline events planned

•                400,000 blog posts written

•                35,000 volunteer groups created”


Social media is one of the most influential parts of a political election. “For anyone doubting
that a social media message is fleeting, 94 percent of social media users of voting age
watched a political message in its entirety on a social media site…” The number of social
media sites used for political elections is outstanding. As I said earlier, without this kind of
technology who know where we would be in the political spectrum of the world.

Sources:

• Are GOP Candidates falling behind on Social Media? -ABC News
• The Evolving Use of Social Media for Political Campaigns -socialmediatoday

• Election 2012: How Social Media Will Convert Followers into Voters -pcmag.com

  
  

Globalization in the Political World

Globalization is a common word in today’s society. When I think of globalization, I tend to imagine all of the continents merging together to form one unified and informed community. Everyone from different communities would be able to come together to discuss important issues and be on the same knowledge level of current events. Sounds great, right? Well, thinks aren’t always as perfect as we may want them to be. On the political spectrum, globalization and politics do not always mash up so well. In a paper by Susan Berger, she writes “globalization undermines the national state…not only by shrinking the resources under national control for shaping economic and social outcomes, but also by reducing the government’s legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public.” There have been many instances that could back up this point. For example, President George W. Bush claimed a “War on Terror” in September of 2001. He was hit hard with criticism. In 2005, Bush came out with a statement stating another reason why America needs to fight this war in Iraq. He claimed that it was needed to “protect the country’s vast oil fields.” The Democrats denounced his war style claiming that “’President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief.’” The American people were beginning to lose faith in their leadership and the authority of the government was being weakened.    

“Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon, but a political, cultural, military, and environmental one as well. What distinguishes globalization today is the speed and volume of cross-border contacts. The challenge U.S. policymakers face today is to recognize that fundamental change in world politics and to use America's unrivaled military, economic, and political power to fashion an international environment conducive to its interests and values.”

In my final blog post, I will be looking at the mass communication trends  of convergence, interactivity, and new definitions. 

Sources Used:

-The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century-Brookings Institute, Ivo H. Daalder

-"Globalization and Politics" by Suzanne Berger

-"Bush gives new reason for Iraq War"- Associated Press

Audiences? Trends? Voting? What is it all about?

Demassification. Concentration. Convergence. Interactivity. Globalization. What are these words you ask? Trends; trends found in mass communication. But what exactly do these words mean? Let’s start off by defining demassification since this will be a major part of my discussion. Demassification is defined as “media’s focus on narrower audience segments” (Vivian 11). The other trends listed above are pretty self-explanatory. In mass media, these types of trends are extremely important. They allow a company, or in my case, the political realm to become invested in their audience and gain the support needed to be sustained.

Let’s look at an example. In an article titled “The Uses of Polarization” by Thomas B. Edsall, he discusses that “a primary goal of a presidential campaign is to incrementally increase margins of support among volatile and persuadable demographic groups…" We can see that it is all about the audience and use of trends like demassification. In the online article he begins to explain the ethnic groups that the Republicans and Democrats tend to advertise towards.

In order for a candidate to gain the attention of the voter, several measures must be taken. There are about 3 that I can think of:

1)                   Pick a cause to support. 

2)                   Make said video or advertisement about the cause to draw in the voter.

3)                   Travel around the country trying to gain the respect and interest of as many

              voters as possible.

These steps seem appropriate, right? On YouTube you can find many

political ads that are linked to a certain "group" of voters. Let’s take a look at one: Can

you guess what "group" he is talking to?

      In an essay by David C. King, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, he outlines “Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter.” He describes the notions that politicians go through and makes known the difference between the stages of voting and the dedication of the politician to each voter in that stage. Does that make sense? Here is a better way to put it: “This paper tracks the relationship between a congressional district’s two-party competition and a member’s fidelity to voter interests.” According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives website, during the 2010 US Representatives Election the state of South Carolina had a total of 1,318,794 voters and the country total was 86,784,957 voters. No wonder trends such as demassification and concentration have to be used to gain the attention of such diverse and large audiences.

      In my next blog I will draw on the topic of globalization and interactivity in relation to the political spectrum. 

Sources Used:

The Media of Mass Communication by John Vivian

"Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter" by David C. King

"The Uses of Polarization" by Thomas B. Edsall

Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 2, 2010 by the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Karen L. Haas