Policymaking is a political process which is affected by various social and economic factors (Hofferbert, 1974) and media systems play an integral role in shaping the social context in which policies are developed. Through the media, citizens learn how government policies will affect them, and governments gain feedback on their policies and programs. Media systems act as the primary channels between those who might want to influence policy and the policymakers '' controlling the scope of political discourse and regulating the flow of information. Textbook policymaking follows an orderly sequence where problems are identified, solutions devised, policies adopted, implemented, and lastly evaluated (Mazamanian & Sabatier, 1989). In reality, the policy process is more fluid, where policies are formed through the struggle of ideas of various advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1991) in what has been described as a policy primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995). The policies, on which the media focuses can, and often does, play an important part in determining the focal issues for policymakers.
One of the fundamental roles of the media in a liberal democracy is to critically scrutinise governmental affairs: that is to act as a watchdog of government to ensure that the government can be held accountable by the public. However, the systematic deregulation of media systems worldwide is diminishing the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in policymaking process governing the media (McChesney, 2003, p. 126). The relaxation of ownership rules and control, has resulted in a move away from diversity of production to a situation where media ownership is becoming increasing concentrated by just a few predominantly western global conglomerates (M...
... middle of paper ...
... small media reforms (like public journalism) will be enough to reduce the commercial and corporate imperatives driving our existing media systems (Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 235). Instead, a fundamental reform of the entire system is needed, together with a wider institutional reform of the very structures the media systems work within, our democracies. This will be a difficult task, due to powerful vested interests benefiting from the status quo, including media, political and economic elites. Reforms will need to be driven by campaigns mobilising public support across the political spectrum, to enable the citizens of the world to have a media system that works to strengthen democratic principles as opposed to undermining them. This task is challenging, but it will become easier once people begin to understand the media’s role in policymaking within our democracies.
Media finds its central role in the democratic debate in providing information, analysis, and a diversity of perspectives to the public. In recent years, with what is known as a media revolution, the amount of telecommunication outlets has increased dramatically. Often called “a product of healthy market competition,” the media revolution has theoretically expanded the public’s access to a multitude of facts, opinions, and general information (Miroff, et al. 2015). However, with a
Fog, A. (2004, May 4). The supposed and the real role of mass media in modern democracy. Retrieved from Agner.org: www.agner.org/cultsel/mediacrisis.pdf
Rhetoric is often used by the media to sway or influence the opinion of the reader. This influence is not always deliberately used, but it is used nonetheless. This influence can affect a number of things, including politics. This influence on politics makes the rhetoric a useful yet possibly dangerous tool. The connotations in the words used by the media in regards to politics can greatly influence potential voters. This rhetoric influences the way that ordinary citizens see the candidates and the election system as a whole. Studying the way that the rhetoric influences these citizens may help future candidates use this language to their advantage. Also, citizens may be abIe to better equipped to determine whether or not they have formed their own opinions without bias from the media or outside sources. Knowing how the media influences citizens can help one to remain logical. Also,
Influence; it is an essential force inherent to all decisions, mindsets, and values. Sometimes influence, be it intentional or not, is easy to uncover, but other times it goes unnoticed despite the great impact it can have. Influence can come about in many forms, be interpreted in multiple fashions; it all contributes to the idea that the roots of influence are not always necessarily clear. This is increasingly the case with the effects of the Canadian media on politics as more people continue to consume additional media on additional platforms at additional convenience. Essentially, it is easier to consume media than it has ever been before. On the aggregate, the Canadian media is able to impact a larger audience while inducing additional influence on Canadian elections as a consequence of a meager regulatory board resulting in media corporations holding too much influence in Canadian elections.
It is imperative that people understand the concentration of media ownership, also referred to as media consolidation. This term refers to a course of action whereby a few individuals or organizations control an increasing share of the mass media. Research reveals increasing levels of consolidation in many media industries that are already highly dominated by a very small number of organizations. Media consolidation is closely related to issues of editorial liberation, media bias, and freedom of the press (Common Cause 2007), which are usually discussed by those who view it as dangerous to society. This paper will argue that media consolidation via the Internet is disadvantageous to society, and the federal government should not keep the door open for the continuing consolidation of the electronic media.
Freedman argues that the individuals and groups who own and finance the mass media control media content – or the information that is available to the public (Freedman 106). One prominent issue that the Canadian media industries encounter is the excessive concentration of ownership in the mass media. In their 2014 article, “Media Ownership, Public Participation, and Democracy in the Canadian Mediascape,” Leslie Regan Shade and Michael Lithrow state that the concentration of ownership occurs when a tiny number of media corporations “end up (through mergers and acquisitions) owning the majority of media [outlets],” thus limiting the amount of information and content the public has exposure to (Shade & Lithrow 177). Moreover, the excessive concentration of ownership results in less competition in the mass media industries; an increase in the political and economic power of these concentrated media corporations; and a lack of diversity of viewpoints in the media content, as marginalized communities have little to no ownership or control of the mass media (Freedman 106; Shtern and Blake 89). Shade and Lithrow assert that Canada has “one of the most consolidated media systems in the world,” with four mass media corporations – BCE Inc. (Bell), Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications and Quebecor – owning and controlling a majority of the media outlets (Shade &
Do the public and the media influence American Presidential campaigns? Are there any connections between politicians, especially presidents, and the media? And how exactly does the structure of US politics look like? All these questions and many more are answered in this diploma thesis.
The article “Why Americans Hate the Media” takes a look at how the media has taken their journalistic duties to another level that does not promote the ideas and questions that the American citizens whom the journalist report to are concerned about. The media has found a way to keep their ratings and the hype of politics alive by sensationalizing hot-bed issues. In the article “Why Americans Hate the Media” written by James Fallows it states that “Perhaps the public has good reason to think that the media’s self-aggrandizement gets in the way of solving the countries real problems” (Fallows) which leads to the fact that, although the media knows that they are skipping over the American citizens view and sending their own message, but somehow
One way in which government achieves this objective, is by its ability to misuse the media’s ability to set the agenda. Contrary to popular belief, media is in fact an enormous hegemony. In fact, separate independent news organizations do not exist. Rather than creating an independent structured agenda of their own, generally lesser smaller news organizations adapt to a prepared agenda, previously constructed by a higher medium. Based upon this information alone, it is quite apparent that media functions in adherence to the characteristics of a hierarchy.
Stromback, J. and Esser, F. (2009) Shaping Politics: Mediatization and Media Interventionism, in Lundby, K (eds) Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, pp. 205-223.
There for we say yes, media can have a sizeable political impact, especially when a politician controls a substantial share of the media. Media is therefore bad for democracy. Stated throughout this paper is the level of bias that is displayed in the media. This level of bias sways the public far right or far left. Their decisions are based on a political point of view.
The first is the crisis of viability. The chance of success in the journalism in the mainstream is approaching a decline due to the transformations in technologies and new access to multiple sources of information. The second is a crisis in civic adequacy. The contributions of journalism to citizenship and democracy have begun to shift and this shift has caused a question of the relevancy of journalism to democratic processes. In a democratic society journalism plays the role of the government watchdog. The effectiveness of society’s watchdog is now being challenged and in turn alternating the structure of the current democratic society. Many critical theorists of the press during the beginning of the 20th century were concerned with finding appropriate forms of public regulation of the press and journalism to ensure that journalists are writing “news and information about public affairs which sustains and nurtures citizen information, understanding and engagement and thereby a democratic polity” (Cushion and Franklin, 2015: 75) (Dahlgren, Splichal 2016). Journalism is a political entity that influences and informs the public. It is meant to work as a source of public information that helps and does not hinder the general public specifically in political processes. The article
In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then make them appear more salient. Similarly, priming works by repeatedly exposing certain issues to public. As the issues get more exposure, the individual will be more likely to recall or retain the information in their minds. This paper will discuss these three factors played out systemically by media and how our opinions are constantly being influence and shape by them.
India has the largest democracy in the world and media has a powerful presence in the country. In recent times, Indian media has been subject to a lot of criticism for the manner in which they have disregarded their social responsibility. Dangerous business practices in the field of media have affected the fabric of Indian democracy. Big industrial conglomerates in the business of media have threatened the existence of pluralistic viewpoints. Post liberalisation, transnational media organisations have spread their wings in the Indian market with their own global interests. This has happened at the cost of an Indian media which was initially thought to be an agent of ushering in social change through developmental programs directed at the non-privileged and marginalised sections of the society. Though media has at times successfully played the role of a watchdog of the government functionaries and has also aided in participatory
The power of the mass media has once become so powerful that its undoubtedly significant role in the world today stays beyond any questions. It is so strong that even politics uses it as a means of governing in any country around the world. The mass media has not only political meaning but also it conveys wide knowledge concerning all possible aspects of human beings’ lives and, what is utterly true, influences on people’s points of view and their attitude to the surrounding environment. It is completely agreeable about what kind of virtues the mass media is supposed to accent. Nevertheless, it is not frequent at all that the media provides societies with such a content, which is doubtful in terms of the role consigned to it. Presenting violence and intolerance as well as shaping and manipulating public are only a few examples of how the role of mass media is misunderstood by those who define themselves as leading media makers.