The Mass Media and Politics

The central idea of democracy is that ordinary citizens
should determine what their government does. Citizens cannot hope to control officials, choose candidates, speak intelligently with others about public affairs, or even make up their minds about what policies they favor, unless they have good information about politics and government. Most of the information must come through the mass media. How well democracy works, then, depends partly on how good a job the mass media are doing.

The media play a number of roles in a democracy. First, the media can act as a watchdog over government. The First Amendment to the Constitution helps ensure that the media can expose officials' wrongdoing without fear of censorship or prosecution. This is a treasured American right that is not available in many other countries. However, freedom of the press in the United States is not always perfect. There are examples of journalists in America who have been jailed and deported because they were suspected of "subversive Communist or terrorist activities." Overall, however, the U.S. is widely regarded as having the most free press in the world.

Second, the mass media inform the public about its electoral choices. The media explain what the political parties stand for, and how the candidates shape up in terms of their personal character, knowledge and experience, and positions on the issues.

A third role for the mass media is to present a diverse, full, and enlightened set of ideas about public policy. The media investigate how well current policies are working, what alternative policies are available, and what effects they might have.

Beyond these three roles, the mass media play other important roles in the political system. The media act as a vehicle for government officials to speak to citizens, educating, persuading, or perhaps, manipulating their opinions. The media may also act as a channel by which the government finds out what the public wants. Finally, the media, with their own goals and interests, may themselves participate in the political process, influencing political leaders and public opinion.

Structure: The Development of Journalism
in America

Early newspapers in America had only a limited distribution and were usually expensive to buy. Many of the early newspapers were organs of political parties which argued issues in a fiercely partisan fashion. Such limited media could not carry out the watchdog role very successfully or convey full information about electoral choices or public policy.

Modern newspapers have been made possible by technological developments and the growth and modernization of American society. During the nineteenth century, newspapers acquired machinery for large-scale printing, a sizeable audience of readers, and an extensive network for gathering news. The invention of the telegraph revolutionized news gathering and transmission, allowing for the creation of news organizations such as the Associated Press.

Sensational treatment of the news and yellow journalism emerged at the end of the nineteenth century. William Randolph Hearst was a publisher of the New York Journal whose sensationalist reporting stirred up war fever against the Spanish over control of Cuba in 1898.

The continued growth of telegraphed national news and large- circulation newspapers led to a new sort of news. For the most part, newspapers dropped sensationalism in favor of bland, objective news stories that relied heavily on interviews and that scrupulously attributed all opinions to named sources. The development of wire services meant that political news could be spread much more quickly to much bigger audiences and in a more uniform way than ever before.

This trend was accentuated by the development of large newspaper chains, owned by the same company with uniform editorial policies. Thus, the changing structural factors of industrialization and technology affected the nature of political communications and the shape of politics.

Radio, television, and magazines also have a profound effect on communications and politics. Radio stations were established all over the country in the 1920s. Magazines grew at this time as well. Beginning in the 1920s, Henry Luce's Time, the weekly newsmagazine, brought analysis and interpretation of the weeks' news, written in a quick and colorful style, to hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of readers.

The television revolution transformed America's media beginning in the 1950s. By 1960, 87 percent of American households had televisions. The three television networks began providing national news that became the major source of news for most Americans. Practically all (98 percent) of American households have televisions today. As the television news medium continues to grow, radio news programming has undergone somewhat of a rebirth.

Personal computers create possibilities for ordering special information and news. Video recorders have also aided in information gathering as ordinary citizens can provide news organizations with news pictures of newsworthy events. We see, then, that the transformation of the mass media in the United States has been shaped by structural developments in the U.S. economy and society. The most important structural changes have involved population expansion and dispersion, technological innovation, and new forms of corporate business organization.

How the Media Work

In the United States, the media are large businesses that are privately owned. Some television stations and newspapers (particularly smaller ones) are owned locally by families or by groups of investors. Many of the biggest stations and newspapers, however, are owned by large media corporations, which in turn, are often subsidiaries of enormous conglomerates.

The concentration of ownership has been increasing. In 1981, 46 corporations controlled more than half the circulation and revenues of daily newspapers, magazines, television, books, and motion pictures. By 1986, the number has shrunk from 46 to 29. The owners of these media firms and conglomerates are mostly wealthy and conservative; they are certainly not very critical of the American free enterprise system, within which they have done so well. This fact may affect the ideological content of what the media broadcast.

The mass media has become increasingly unified and centralized. There has been a strong tendency for newspapers to merge. Moreover, most newspapers and television stations depend largely on the same sources for news. Almost all major newspapers in the country subscribe to the Associated Press wire service.

Nonetheless, a great deal of diversity remains for those who want to seek it out. There are publications that look at the world in many different ways, including the National Review (conservative), The Nation (liberal), and The New Yorker (lofty).

Media corporations, similar to other corporations, are in business primarily to make a profit. This fact has important consequences. It means, for example, that major media outlets must appeal to large audiences and get many people to buy their publications or the products that they advertise. If most people are mainly interested in entertainment and want their news short, snappy, and sensational, that is what they will get. The profit motive also means that the biggest mass media tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, avoiding controversial material that might seem extreme, too liberal, too conservative, or otherwise offensive to substantial groups of viewers.

The power of the audience to determine what appears in newspapers and on television might be seen as a force for democracy, enabling as many people as possible to see and hear what they want, while those who do not share average tastes can look for specialized media outlets. However, there are at least three possible problems with this analysis.

First, some observers believe that it would be better to offer more political information, even if people were not eager for it, in order to help society as a whole. 

Second, consumer sovereignty over the media is not really the same as one-person, one-vote, majority rule democracy because much of the media caters to the more affluent members of society.

Third, and perhaps most important, media critics point out that advertisers and media owners are not actually forced to maximize the size of their audiences or advertising revenues on every program. They could give up some immediate income for the sake of providing a public service.

The kind of news that the media presents is affected by the organization and technology of news gathering and news production. It makes a difference where reporters are, what sources they talk to, and what sorts of video pictures are available. For national news, most reporters are located in either Washington, D.C. or New York City. Few national news organizations can afford to station reporters outside these cities.

Newspapers and television organizations depend a great deal on wire service reports for news and for story ideas. Few newspapers are able to station reporters abroad and thus international stories don't usually receive in-depth coverage. Most media attention that is focused abroad is devoted to only limited areas of the world, particularly Western Europe and the Middle East. Beyond a few favorite nations, foreign news tends to be episodic.

A newspaper reporter's work is usually organized around a particular beat, which he or she checks every day for new stories. Most political beats center on some official government institution that regularly produces news, such as a local police station, city council, or the White House. In fact, much of the news is created or originated by officials, not by reporters.

Investigative reporting of the sort that Bernstein and Woodward did on Watergate is rare because it is so time consuming and expensive. One study found that government officials were the sources of nearly three-quarters of all news in the New York Times and Washington Post. Moreover, the vast majority (70 to 90 percent) of all news stories were drawn from situations over which the news makers had substantial control, such as press conferences, interviews, press releases, and official proceedings.

Reporters and officials work with each other every day and need each other. Reporters want stories and officials want favorable publicity. Thus, a comfortable relationship tends to develop. This close relationship and heavy reliance on official sources means that government officials may often be able to control to a large extent what journalists report and how they report it. 

Occasionally, high officials resort to direct pressure or intimidation to affect how news is reported. Pressure can also come from media owners and advertisers. However, advertisers, media owners, and high government officials mainly exert influence over media coverage quietly and inconspicuously through the editors and producers who are hired and fired by media owners.

Editors and producers are the people who assign reporters to stories, edit their work, and decide what to print or put on the air. They exert control over journalists, not just by assigning, accepting, or rejecting, and altering their stories, but also by administering praise, criticism, promotions, and advice. Successful reporters quickly learn what sorts of stories please their bosses and what sorts of stories don't. Thus, direct pressure is usually unnecessary.

Political news does not make much sense without interpretations of what it means and whether it is good or bad. Under the informal rules of "objective" journalism, however, explicit interpretations by journalists are avoided, except for commentary or editorials that are labeled as such.

Most interpretations are left implicit or are given by experts who are interviewed for comments. Most of these experts and commentators featured in the media are ex- officials and are usually in harmony with the political currents of the day. That is, they tend to reflect a fairly narrow spectrum of opinion close to that of the party in power in Washington, D.C., especially the party of the President.

Few subjects arouse more conflict and disagreement than the question whether the mass media in the United States are biased in a liberal or a conservative direction. For years, a number of journalists and scholars have maintained that the media tend to be a pro-establishment, conservative force, reflecting their corporate ownership and their dependence on official sources for news.

During the 1980s, conservative critics counterattacked, arguing that liberal media elites regularly published and broadcast anti-establishment, anti-authority news with a liberal bias. Surveys of reporters and journalists suggest that they tend to be somewhat more liberal than the average American, though by no means radical. The personal values of reporters probably affect what appears in the media, though there is little or no systematic evidence about the extent to which they actually do.

In contrast, the personal values of owners and top managers of media corporations tend to be very conservative. Such people are not very interested in undermining capitalism or, for that matter, increasing their taxes or labor costs. They are certainly not interested in offending their advertisers.

One sign of conservatism in the media is provided by newspapers' endorsements of presidential candidates which are usually decided by the owners and publishers of the newspapers. Since 1964, more newspapers have backed the Republican candidate for President than have endorsed the Democrat. Observers will probably continue to argue about bias in the media simply because bias is difficult to define and to measure.

Even if we cannot be sure whether the media are biased, it is easy to identify certain tendencies in media coverage, certain beliefs that are assumed, and certain values and points of view that are emphasized while others seldom appear. Most news about foreign affairs, for example, takes a definitely American, patriotic, or ethnocentric point of view. Ethnocentrism, along with a heavy reliance on U.S. government news sources, means that most foreign news coverage fits well with U.S. foreign policy.

Studies show, for example, that the media historically have gone easy on such right-wing dictators as the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, and Somoza of Nicaragua, as long as they were firm allies of the U.S., even when they were very unpopular with their own people.

In foreign policy crisis situations, the reliance on official news sources means that the media sometimes propagate government statements that are false or misleading, such as the government's account of the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Another tendency of the media is to run stories generally approving of our American-style capitalist economic system and disapproving of variants or alternative systems, such as European social democracy. Individual corporations are criticized for errors and misdeeds, but the economic system itself is rarely challenged. Finally, another tendency of the media is to treat incumbent government officials with respect and deference.

To say that the media have these tendencies--whether we choose to call them "biases" or not--is to say that the media are influenced by the major structural and political forces in the United States. The position of the United States in the international system and the nature of the U.S. economy and social system affect every individual and institution in the country, including the media. The political forces that are dominant in the country at a given time also tend to dominate the media. This puts limits on how well the press can perform a watchdog function.

Effects of the Media on Politics

Scholars once believed that the mass media have only a minimal effect on politics, but that view is now discredited. The media do make a difference. They have an impact on public opinion and on policymaking in a number of different ways.

Several studies, for example, have demonstrated that the media play an important role in setting the policy agenda. The topics that get the most coverage in the media are the same ones that most people say are the "most important problems" facing the country. Of course, media managers don't arbitrarily decide what news to emphasize. Their decisions reflect what is happening in the world and what American audiences care about.

Nonetheless, some research has indicated that trends in what the media cover sometimes diverge from actual trends in problems. Examples include periodic surges and declines of stories about the AIDS epidemic or about the drug problem.

Experiments also show that the media's framing or interpretation of stories affect how people think about political problems. What appears in the media also influences people's policy preferences. One study found that changes in collective public opinion (i.e. changes in the percentage of the public that favored various policies) could be predicted fairly accurately by what sorts of stories were on the network television news between one opinion survey and the next. By affecting what people think is important, how they understand problems, and what policies they want, media broadcasters and news publications indirectly influence when and how government responds to public opinion.

Censorship and Government Regulation

In the United States, government has less legal control over the media than do governments in most other countries. In fact, the U.S. Constitution offers strong protection of freedom of the press. Nevertheless, the government does enforce various technical and substantive regulations on the electronic media.

At least since the 1920s and 1930s, the press has enjoyed a great deal of constitutional protection. The First Amendment provision that Congress shall make no law "abridging freedom of speech, or of the press" has been upheld by the Supreme Court to prevent federal censorship of newspapers or magazines. Only under the most pressing circumstances of danger to national security can the government engage in prior restraint, preventing the publication of material to which it objects.

In 1971, for example, the Nixon administration attempted to prevent several newspapers from publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers. These were reports complied by the Pentagon that gave a devastating account of misrepresentations, falsehoods, civilian bungling, military blunders, and deception by American officials involved in the Vietnam war.

The Nixon administration claimed that publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times would be a threat to the national security. The administration took the issue to the Supreme Court which decided in favor of the newspapers. The Court declared that newspapers were fulfilling the responsibilities of a free press and could not be forced to stop publication by the Nixon administration. The Pentagon Papers case was important in reaffirming the media's constitutional rights.

In addition to enjoying constitutional protection from prior restraint, newspapers and magazines are also protected against most kinds of punishment after they have printed something. Punishable obscenity, for example, has been narrowly defined by the Supreme Court. The Constitution has been interpreted as preventing libel laws from begin used against publications that print truthful material or that criticize public figures as long as the publications take reasonable care to guard against spreading damaging falsehoods.

Although the government places few formal regulations on theprint media, the same cannot be said for the electronic media. The federal government has broad powers to regulate use of the airwaves, which are considered to be public property. Ever since the passage of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 which established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government has licensed radio and television stations and has required them to observe a number of rules as a condition for obtaining licenses.

For example, FCC rules specify the frequencies on which stations can broadcast and the amount of power they can use. Also, for a long time, federal rules prohibited networks or anyone else from owning more than 5 VHF stations around the country (in 1991, this restriction was appealed). Through informal mechanisms, the FCC has also put pressure on stations to provide a certain number of hours of news and public service broadcasting. Thus, government regulation created an artificial demand for news programming before it became profitable and contributed to the rise of network news and its expansion.

For many years, stations were asked to abide by the fairness doctrine which required that licensees present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. This led to efforts at balancing in order to present at least two sides on every issue mentioned. Fairness, however, is not easy to define. In order to achieve balance, should air time be offered to all alternative views? The FCC long ago made it clear that it did not intend for all alternatives to be examined.

During the 1980s, the FCC decided to drop the fairness doctrine. Similarly, the equal time provision of the 1934 Communications Act required that except for news programs stations that granted (or sold) air time to any one candidate for public office had to grant (or sell) other candidates equal time. This threatened to cause a great expense for the media when minor party candidates insisted on their share of air time or when opponents wanted to reply to political speeches by incumbent Presidents in election years. Some media outlets tried to avoid controversy altogether by curtailing political programming.

The Mass Media and Democracy

Mass media are essential to the workings of democracy in a large modern nation. Without media, ordinary citizens would have little hope of learning what was happening abroad, what their government was doing domestically, or what sorts of candidates were running for office.

Thus, the spread of mass media in the United States, and the penetration of newspapers, radio, and television into millions of homes, has undoubtedly helped democracy. It has made it much easier for ordinary citizens to form policy preferences, judge the actions of government, and figure out who they want to govern them.

At the same time, however, many advocates of democracy are highly critical of the media. Scholars who would like the media to be highly informative, analytical, and critical, are appalled at the personalized, episodic, dramatic, and fragmented character of most news stories. Others observers worry about ideological biases from a leftist media elite or from a corporate-owned and fundamentally conservative media industry. Some criticize the media's nationalistic and ethnocentric tendencies to support official U.S. foreign policy at the expense of ignoring important things that are happening in the world.

If the mass media fail to present informative and analytical coverage of political issues, doesn't that constitute a major flaw in democracy? A shortage of information would certainly seem to make it difficult for citizens to make informed judgments about political issues.

Nonetheless, some observers believe that people don't need a great deal of detailed information. Perhaps skimpy treatment of the news is enough, they say, as long as it is not terribly biased and as long as diverse elite interpretations are offered to the public. In their view, the critical question is whether political competition exists and whether contending political parties and groups are expressing diverse views in the media.