When discussing the media's role in shaping the public's perception of government, the question of whether the news media is politically biased is bound to arise. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans both complained that news media coverage of the war in Iraq was marred by bias favoring the other side of the partisan and ideological divide. The range of complaints covered events leading up to the invasion, the progress of the fighting and the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. Liberal Democrats charged that the news media allowed the Bush administration to dominate the debate about whether to invade Iraq by failing to examine administration arguments for war and the adequacy of evidence. Additional charges included: the news media paid little attention to evidence showing that the American public was opposed to unilateral military action against Iraq; and the Pentagon practice of embedding reporters into combat units distorted information. The conservative Republicans charged the media turned defeatist when the military's drive to Baghdad was slowed by sandstorms and attacks and focused almost entirely on problems rather than the significant achievements during the occupation and administration of Iraq. Given the partisan divide in government and in the country it is not surprising that the Democrats and Republicans are locked in ideological combat. In this chapter the authors argue the usefulness of the media as a tool of democracy. The biases result in news coverage that is more entertainment than news.

ROLES OF THE MASS MEDIA IN DEMOCRACY

Chapter 6 explores how the mass media function as a political institution and how the media interact with other political actors and with governmental institutions. The nature of the mass media in the United States has been shaped by structural factors, including technological developments, the growth of population and the economy, and the development of a privately owned media industry dominated by large corporations. The central idea of democracy is that ordinary citizens should control what their government does. This function cannot be performed effectively unless the public has good information about politics. Since most of that information must come through the mass media, how well democracy works depends partly on how good a job the media are doing.

The textbook points to several possible roles for the media in a democracy. The watchdog role calls for the press to dig up facts and warn the public when officials are doing something wrong. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution helps to ensure that the media can expose officials' wrongdoing without fear of censorship or prosecution. Despite some violations, the United States is widely regarded as having the most free press in the world. A second role is for the media to clarify what electoral choices the public has. This role calls on the media to pinpoint what the political parties stand for and candidates' positions on issues. Your text notes that the media does not always convey such information effectively; reporting is often superficial and may concentrate on image, sensationalized incidents, or style rather than substance. The third role for the media is to present a full and enlightening set of ideas about public policy to the public, illustrating how well current policies are working and possible alternatives and effects. This role may involve educating, persuading, or manipulating opinions.

Media stories have substantial effects on the public's perceptions of problems, its interpretations of events, its evaluations of political candidates, and its policy preferences; there is disagreement about how well the media act as public watchdogs and how well they provide information about public policy and electoral choices.

THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE

The text looks at the historical developments that have made the media what they are today, beginning with the limited role of newspapers before the 1830s and then tracing technological developments through the era of the electronic media. Modern newspapers have been made possible by technological developments, along with the growth and modernization of American society and public education that created a large, literate audience. The development of wire services meant that political news could be spread rapidly to large audiences; the trend was accentuated by the development of large chains of newspapers. The changing structural factors of industrialization and technology changed the shape of political communication and the shape of politics, resulting in increasing objectivity and broader circulation of the media. The book argues that today there are three types of newspapers (along with mass chains): "serious" papers that focus on substantive public issues like the New York Times and the Washington Post; specialized, urban-based minority papers that provide focused, alternative news for minority groups; and sensation-driven supermarket tabloids which also at times do "political" stories that sometimes end up in the mainstream press.

A wide variety of magazines appeared in the 1920s - journals of opinion, weekly news magazines, large-circulation magazines, and numerous specialized journals. Luce's Time was the first newsweekly, followed by others. During the 1970s and 1980s, national editions of several newspapers became, in effect, daily news magazines for a national audience. While not all of these survive, magazines and specialized journals provide a wide variety of information and entertainment of diverse sorts.

Commercial radio stations with broad audiences were established in the United States during the 1920s. Radio became a prime source of entertainment and of political information, exemplified by President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats. Radio brought news directly to the living rooms of the American public. Modern radio has undergone a resurgence with music, frequent news bulletins, lengthy call-in talk shows in which diverse political opinions are voiced, nationally syndicated talk shows, and extended news analysis and commentary.

The American mass media was transformed again by television, which was invented just before World War II and developed commercially in the late 1940s. Television was adopted on a large scale in the 1950s; today, 98 percent of U.S. families own at least one television set, and nearly two-thirds of American families have cable service. Cable provides a myriad of new outlets for information. C-SPAN (Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network) broadcasts unedited speeches, congressional proceedings, committee hearings, interviews, and other political events. CNN gives round-the-clock news. Americans rely most on television for their news, and also say it is most reliable.

Personal computers in many homes create new possibilities, such as discussion of politics by e-mail, and registering public opinion by wire. In particular, the Internet provides a myriad of avenues for information outside traditional media outlets. Possibilities exist for custom feeds of television news for local mixing, two-way video communication, and instant electronic referendum voting. While the potential exists for these to revolutionize communications and revitalize democratic discussion and participation through cyberspace, the Internet also allows for unreliable sources or fringe viewpoints to be aired alongside trustworthy and mainstream voices.

Transformations of the mass media in the United States have also been shaped by structural developments in the U.S. economy and society. The result is a vast and pervasive mass media industry which has enormous effects on politics and which makes it technically possible (a possibility that is not necessarily fulfilled) for citizens to get the kinds of information they need in order for democracy to work properly.

HOW THE MEDIA WORK

Most of the media in the United States are privately owned, usually by very large businesses, and concentration of ownership has been increasing. The centralization of the mass media is significant: owners of these media firms and conglomerates are generally wealthy and conservative. This factor may affect the ideological content of what the media broadcast. Since media corporations are in business primarily to make a profit, the major media must appeal to large audiences and they tend to avoid controversial or offensive material. Moreover, most Americans do not want a lot of in-depth political news, and there is little interest in foreign affairs stories in non-crisis periods. Further, centralization of ownership and production may serve to increase uniformity and decrease diversity in coverage.

The kind of news that the media offer is affected by the organization and technology of news gathering and news production. For one, it is geographically limited. National news has a strong Washington-New York orientation since most reporters are located in those cities. The result is that significant stories from outside the main media centers often do not make it into the national news. Most television news stories are assigned to predictable events such as news conferences; only a few exceptionally important crises are covered with live action footage sent by satellite. Coverage of foreign news tends to be sporadic. A developing story may receive intensive coverage for a few days or weeks, then the story grows stale and disappears from the media. One consequence is that most viewers gain little more understanding of the country than they began with; this makes it difficult to form judgments about foreign policy.

Much of the news that is reported is created or originated by officials and not by reporters. Most reporters get most of their stories from sources such as press conferences, press releases from officials, and comments solicited from officials. A comfortable relationship of mutual needs tends to develop: reporters want stories, and they cultivate access to people who can provide stories with quotes or anonymous leaks. At the same time, officials want favorable publicity and want to avoid or counteract unfavorable publicity. Heavy reliance on official sources means that government officials may be able to control a great deal of what journalists report. Investigative reporting is rare because it is time-consuming and expensive.

Incumbent politicians (current officeholders) are essential news sources, although they receive negative publicity when they are weakened and unpopular or when there is evidence of scandal, most are treated with considerable respect and deference. However, political candidates and officials have been subjected to a relentless barrage of negative coverage in recent years. Whitewater allegations against President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton were doggedly pursued by the media (and by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr) for more than three years leading up to the 1996 election and in the years after. Decisions about what kinds of stories appear depend on professional judgments about what is newsworthy. While there are no set rules about newsworthiness, generally stories in the news share one or more of the following: novelty and unusualness; drama and human interest; relevance to everyday Americans; high stakes and/or celebrity.

Political news does not make much sense without interpretation of what it means and whether it is good or bad. Under the rules of objective journalism, explicit interpretations by journalists are avoided, except for commentary or editorials that are clearly labeled. More common today is the widespread use of experts - many times selected as much for their wit, ability with quotes, and predictable issue positions as for their knowledge.

Observers disagree about whether the media are biased in a liberal or a conservative direction. Surveys suggest that reporters and journalists tend to be somewhat more liberal than the average American on issues such as the environment and civil rights. However, the liberalism of reporters tends to be offset by conservatism among media owners and publishers. One reason that observers often disagree about the question of bias is that bias is difficult to precisely define or measure.

Even if we cannot be sure whether the media are biased (or to what extent), it is possible to identify certain prevailing themes in media coverage - beliefs that are assumed, values and points of view that are emphasized, values that seldom are given coverage. Most news about foreign affairs takes a nationalistic, ethnocentric point of view, which focuses on things that interest and concern Americans and tends to put the United States in a good light and its opponents in a bad light. News also fosters approval of the American economic system, favorable reporting on markets and capitalism while critiquing the role of the government in the economy. Political news also has increasingly focused on negativity and scandal when it comes to politicians and public affairs, especially when these involve wrongdoing, money, or sex. Infotainment, the insertion of entertainment, values into political reporting and news presentation is one of the most dramatic changes that occurs in the news. Many communications scholars agree the limited, fragmented, and incoherent political information characteristics of the media results in news that entertains more than informs.

EFFECTS OF THE MEDIA ON POLITICS

Media coverage influences public opinion and policymaking. First, the media have agenda-setting effects, influencing what issues the public thinks are important by the amount of coverage they give them. The way the media frames or interprets stories affects how people think about political problems; the public's perceptions of problems depends partly on what kinds of stories the media run. What appears in the media affects people's policy preferences. By affecting what people think is important, how they understand problems, and what policies they want, the media indirectly affect what government does when the government responds to public opinion. What appears in the media has a direct effect on policymaking when government reacts to news coverage and investigative reports. Lastly, the media's focus on negativity and scandal may in turn be responsible for the increasing cynicism of the public about politics.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE MEDIA

Government has less legal control over the media in the United States than in most other countries, but the government does enforce various technical and substantive regulations on the electronic media. During wartime or warlike situations, the government has asserted broad powers to control what reporters can see and what they can print. The 1971 Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States) is a landmark decision in which the Court permitted publication of a secret Defense Department history and analysis of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to prevent federal censorship of newspapers or magazines. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to protect freedom of the press against state or local government actions in the same way that the First Amendment limits the federal government. Government can engage in prior restraint (restraint before publication) only under the most compelling circumstances of danger to national security.

The media is also protected against punishment for most kinds of material after it has been published. Punishable obscenity has been narrowly defined by the Supreme Court. Libel (defamation of character) laws are not used against publications that print truthful material or that comment upon public figures, as long as reasonable care is taken not to spread damaging falsehoods. The electronic media (radio and television) are subject to more direct government regulation, though such regulation is now very limited. The Internet has been more open and free of regulation. The USA Patriot Act does allow the federal government to more easily conduct surveillances of Internet and e-mail use by suspected terrorists. Overall the conclusion about the light regulatory hand of the government still holds, though this may change.

Copyright © 1995-2008, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Legal and Privacy Terms