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

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