Political Socialization - Essay Example

? Political Socialization Political Socialization Introduction Western society is supposed to be free. We are free to believe as we wish in an ideological, religious, and cultural sense. For the most part, the citizenry is permitted to carry on living their daily lives in the way that they see fit as long as they do so within socially constructed norms. It is the reality, however, that much of our mindset comes from what other people want us to believe. Access to information is critical in order to ensure that we possess enough knowledge in order to make our own informed decisions on a wide variety of issues. The primary source of that information comes from the media. While the media in most western countries runs independently from government regulation within boundaries, it increasingly seems that they are not communicating all sides of any given story. When it comes to politics, the media becomes critical. Messages and information are disseminated through various media outlets including the television, Internet, and newspapers. Consumers, or private citizens, depend on this information since it allows them to formulate important decisions about who they feel should best govern the nation. As such, in recent years it appears that media has been more and more important to the political landscape of a country. They can shape policy and see to it that certain people are elected to office. It is indeed a big task, and media companies need to realize their responsibility to balanced and fair reporting of all of the facts, not just those that they feel will shape the course of the country in the direction they want to head. The media should provide reliable information, faithful reporting, and neutral guidance through the television, Internet, and newspapers because it is important that they convey positive information and do not misguide or leave out important information that the population needs to hear. The Influence of Television Since the days of black and white television, the media has had a profound impact on the political life in society. Television was the format where politicians were able to speak to the country. In fact, it was back in 1960 that America had its first Presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Millions of people tuned in to hear what each candidate had to say. The impact should be obvious. In countries as populated at the United States, or as spread out geographically as Canada, people running for political office depend on the television to get their message out to the masses quickly. In addition, political parties and action groups depend on television advertising to point out their particular policies and why they feel the public should support their agenda. Another way that television impacts the political socialization of a country is through the actual political news that they choose to report and the spin that they put on certain topics. All three of these aspects combine to dictate the shape of politics, to a large degree, throughout much of the world. Let us analyze that first presidential debate. Many considered Richard Nixon a near certainty to win the election, but Kennedy dominated the series of debates broadcast on television. In addition, his campaign instituted a series of catchy jingles that caught the nation’s attention from coast to coast. Television enabled the charisma that was Kennedy to be displayed to the entire nation, rather then simply being delegated to a series of political rallies in select locations. At the same time, Nixon could not do the same. Television did not display him well, he underperformed in the debates, and his campaign never seemed to generate the same media attention that Kennedy’s did. In this manner, the media, in the form of television, almost single handedly delivered the election to Kennedy. He did not win a landslide victory, to be certain, but the amount of victory can largely be attributed to the influence of television (Mayer, 2007, p. 32). It is not only individual citizens that worry about the importance of television in national politics. Politicians are growing increasingly wary as well. There was a recent account in the United Kingdom, for example, where numerous people were calling out the television networks for allowing one politician considerably more airtime to accuse the Prime Minister of wrongdoing in regards to certain fundamental political issues that were pressing at that time. The opposition had little to no opportunity to defend itself, including the very office of the Queen herself. As Lord Windlesham (2005) recounted, “For some weeks in the February and March editors and reporters, politicians and publicists, were greatly concerted with the part television plays or ought to play in politics” (p. 375). There have been questions about the way in which interviews take place, the environment in which they are conducted, and the power the interview actually possess in such situations. Many people in the western world are coming to the conclusion the television was becoming a more powerful political force in the country than the Parliament or Congress themselves. Because many hearings and meetings are closed to cameras, television reporters then resort to often second hand accounts of what has taken place. Those accounts often distort the facts, leading the public to not truly understand or know what their own elected officials are working on (Windlesham, 2005, p. 376) This also creates the potential for news stations to report favorably on items that reflect their own political ideologies, without true regard for a policy of balanced and fair coverage. Many social activists and concerned outsiders are encouraging government meetings, such as the floor of Parliament and Congress, to be opened and freely accessible to all television viewers. In this manner, television would lose its ability to shape their own method of political socialization. Concerned citizens would be able to actually observe the political dealings in their own country, formulate their own opinions based on facts given by the politicians themselves, and be free from biased reporting. As described in this section, activists have long worried about the influence television truly has in the way we view politics in general. This has been an issue since the inception of television. Many ideas have been presented to move television media, perhaps even force them, to provide a more balanced approach to their media coverage, but little has actually been done. This is a sixty-year-old problem that continues to this day. Until television is open to not only the wealthy, but to any politically minded person who desires to truly make a difference, politicians will continue to come from the elite class. Television needs to lose its focus on reporting on only the major political parties, but lend a balanced voice to all interested parties. To be fair, however, television is not the only form of media the influence political thought and, in essence, conditions people to think in a certain way. Let us examine a few other types of media that are equally to ‘blame’. The Influence of the Internet The Internet is a relatively new player in the political arena, but it has quickly become a dominant force in political discussions globally. With the advent of social networks alone, numerous political candidates and parties are now portraying their entire platform on the Internet. As discussed in the previous section, television used to be the dominant player in shaping political thought, but it was largely reserved for big spenders. The Internet has leveled the playing field in that regard. For a relatively small investment and in some cases for no cost at all, political candidates for office, in addition to political action groups, can have an active presence on the Internet, gaining thousands and even millions of followers in a relatively short period of time. Because this form of media outlet is not regulated, however, the public needs to be extra cautious before believing everything they see and hear on the Internet. The Internet can be used to research a range of political issues, from domestic to foreign. Nearly anyone can contribute or post videos. This means that you have a great deal of useful and balanced, unbiased, reporting that is placed on the Internet. Unfortunately, this also means that a great deal of information posted in place on the Net simply to further an individual’s or groups own agenda or policy. Even worse, some information posted on the Internet is blatantly false and place there simply out of hatred toward an individual, organization or country. With all of this in mind, the Internet is still a viable form of political reporting, but each society must take caution in the sources that deem as credible (Scheuerell, 2008, p 181). As Chadwick (2006) states, “The exponential growth of the Internet has been nothing short of astounding” (p. 5). The Internet has enabled nearly everyone to get involved in local, national, and international politics to the extent that they desire. Forums are now easily accessible by anyone who has an interest of getting involved with a host of issues. As Chadwick (2006), networks are popping up in communities around the world that allows individual citizens to get involved in a political debate online without ever having to attend rally or other political event. This alone has created the need for politicians to be actively engaged in these forums in order to determine the mood or atmosphere of their constituency on a host of issues. This has both its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it forces politicians to be involved with the community on a scale never before seen. If they are not active on the Internet today, many might perceive them to be uninterested in the concerns of the people that elected them to serve in the first place. On the other hand, politicians do need to act with their conscious and not with a future election on their mind. By being constantly bombarded with political statements online and voter polls, many might begin to question their own decisions and actions when in office. This could be counterproductive to the democratic process and would be a direct result of the Internet serving to socialize the public in a political way. Today, common everyday people wanting to express their own opinions and thoughts write cyber blogs. It has been that, “Blogs are written by average people who transform into cyber journalists to not only report on events or offer editorial opinion, but to also use their online forums to call into question what they see as lapses in judgment by mainstream media” (Chadwick, 2006, p. 154). These new revolutionary bloggers are having a positive impact on the way that the media records political events. When discussing newspapers and television, we are referring to media outlets that are largely autonomous. They have been free for years to report what they want and on the terms that they set. With the advent of the Internet, however, others have been able to easily call into question anything that is reported on the TV or printed in the newspaper. In addition, anything on the Internet can quickly be argued with. This has opened up an entire new series of dialogues in democratic politics (Shehata, 2010, p. 301). The Internet is ripe for bloggers of all sorts. Many such writers can be classified as either liberal or conservative, and generally they do not provide a balanced approach when writing about their particular political views. There is a political war being waged on the Internet that pits the two sides against one another. For a casual observer to make much sense out of it all is a difficult task at best. Instead of trying to provide balanced and opposing viewpoints on a topic or political candidate, bloggers often become fixated on stating their own opinion. In so doing, they ignore other viewpoints and end up not even paying attention to recent developments. Someone reading their blog may be swayed to their way of thinking simply because of crafty writing or well-stated opinion. When this occurs, then society is giving in to the power of the media once again. In days past, the media consisted of paid professionals that wrote about a host of issues. As we have discussed, those professionals often abuse their power and write about their own agenda, but the hope has always been that they at least attempted to provide a balanced approach to their writing. This has all changed with the emergency of the Internet. Now, almost anyone can instantly become a member of the media. They can report in real time about any event they are attending, and they will provide their own unique spin on things. It is difficult today to distinguish the amateur journalist from the professional, and all the while the country continues to politically socialize as they read. The Influence of Newspaper Journalism Newspapers and news journalists specifically have a historical significance in terms of politics. While newspapers seem to be dying, with many going out of business or relocating to an entirely Internet presence, their influence is long lasting. For decades, newspapers were the sole connection that people had with the world outside their own circle of influence. Even in the early days of television, newspapers were like gold in the media. They were the single most important place that people went to look for factual information about the world. What people read in the newspapers became the truth; even it was blatantly biased, or even false. In this manner, newspapers could potentially socialize a particular segment of the population towards a particular political leaning simply based on the style of reporting that they deployed (Birks, 2011, p. 129). This, to a smaller extent, continues today. Birks (2011) makes the interesting point about how newspapers designed to speak for the people. As such, they have generally been considered to be populist in nature. The reality is, however, that they can all be oppositional. They can promote dissent of various sorts in order create a ‘media sensation’, thereby selling more papers. Newspapers have also been accused over the years of being a primary catalyst to mass protests in various locations through the United Kingdom and the United States, and indeed globally (p. 129-130). Newspapers are the oldest form of political socialization. They give politicians legitimacy, while at the same time retaining the power to destroy a career with one run of the press machine. Through their use of editorials, commentaries, and their choice of what to write about, newspapers have formed the basis by which millions of people make their political decisions. To this day, for example, newspapers in America have a longstanding practice of formally endorsing candidates for political office. If a reader has grown to respect and admire a particular paper, they might formulate their decision to vote on particular issues or candidates based simply on this endorsement. While these endorsements do not carry as much weight as they once did, they certainly demonstrate the lengths to which newspaper media will go in an effort to influence the political socialization of a country (Halbrooks, 2013). Newspapers also tend to take sides on a host of politically charged issues as well. From budget debates to immigration debates and everywhere else in between, newspapers frequently try to influence a particular constituency by encouraging them to lean a certain way. Temple (2005) hints that this is a form of populism, as news media often attempts to reinforce certain popular assumptions through their own creative methods of journalism. Consider the issue of immigration reform in the United States. Depending on what part of country one is in, the newspapers in that area will likely write about the topic from a different perspective. There are liberal leaning newspapers that tend to focus on a need for more relaxed immigration policies, while conservative writers and papers will tend to advocate for stronger laws in this regard. Interestingly enough, newspapers tend to reflect the views of their readership. Or, perhaps, voters simply are conditioned to believe a certain way politically based on years of reading either a conservation or liberal leaning paper (Shehata, 2010, p. 308). Newspapers have also been shown to spark various political protests. Birks contends that, “Research indicates far more of a correlation between the two forms of protest as a supplementary form to compensate for the shortcomings of conventional political activity, whereas those who are electorally disengaged are also unlikely to protest” (2011, p. 132). This further demonstrates the perceived power the newspapers have over society. As this research indicates, those people who rarely, if ever, read the newspaper are less likely to be politically involved and, therefore are not as likely to participate in political protests or movements. Those who are avid readers, however, will tend to form heated opinions on a wide range of issues and take action accordingly. That action can lead to participation in protests or a host of other movements, often dictated by the beliefs propagated by the newspapers themselves. Finally, newspapers are a traditional way of informing the public about certain events. During political campaigns, for example, many major newspapers will assign a report to cover the campaign extensively. They will report certain events, issue a schedule, and basically provide free advertising for the candidate and their stated policies. There is an issue here, however, with newspapers provided balanced reporting. They will tend to give more space in the newspaper to the candidate of their choice. They will also neglect some of the lesser-known candidates, in exchange for candidates that they deem to be more newsworthy. Rather than truly inform the public about sides of a particular election, or a given policy that is being debated, papers tend to make up their own minds first and then work hard to sway the voters to that same line of thinking. Again, the power that the newspaper holds over society is somewhat diminished today, but one cannot ignore its long-standing influence over the populace in terms of political thinking. Conclusion In countries like the United Kingdom and America, the media is powerful. They always have been. To ignore that power would simply not be a wise course of action. Balanced and unbiased reporting used to be a trademark of journalism; the attempt was not made to make political statements, but rather to simply report the facts and to issue the words of others as they reported. In this ideology, however, seems to have gone away in exchange for media sensationalism. In order to sell more papers or gain more television advertisers, the media now tends to focus more on what they want to communicate to the public. They may not even give a voice to the minority and may refuse to point out certain aspects of a candidate’s life or campaign. If a television viewer, or and Internet or newspaper reader, is not careful, they can slowly be socialized by the very media outlets that they tend to gravitate towards (Cary, 2010). In conclusion, journalists and anyone charged with the responsibility of reporting about political events need to be cognizant of their responsibilities. They need to present facts and give a voice to all sides of an issue, not just the ones that agree with their own personal views. It is often difficult to separate one’s personal opinion from what they are writing; yet this should be the goal of the journalist and any free-thinking individual. Humans are designed to think for themselves, but they often need to be presented with compelling information before making their own informed decision. If all of the information they are given is biased, or leaning in a certain direction, an individual will often tend to reflect their own thinking in that direction as well. Perhaps, this is why countries in the west are geographically divided between conservatives and liberal and nary the two shall mix. References Birks, J. (2011). The politics of protest in newspaper campaigns: Dissent, populism and the rhetoric of authenticity. British Politics, 6(2), 128-154. Cary, M. (2010). 5 Ways new media are changing politics. Retrieved March 19,2013 from www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/02/04/5-ways-new-media-are-changing-politics. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press. 384 pages. Halbrooks (2013). Media and Politics. Retrieved March 19, 2013 from http://www.media.about.com/od/mediatrends/a/media-and-politics.htm. Mayer, J. (2007). American media politics in transition. New York: McGraw Hill. 352 pages. Scheuerell, S. (2008). Gallup poll: using the Internet to learn about the influence of public opinion in politics. The Social Studies, 99(4), 181-186. Shehata, A. (2010). Pathways to politics: how media system characteristics can influence socioeconomic gaps in political participation. The International Journal of Press Politics, 15(3), 295-318. Temple, M. (2005). Carry on campaigning: The case for ‘dumbing down’ in the fight against the local electoral apathy. Local Government Studies, 31(4), 415-431. Windlesham, L. (2005). Television as an influence on political opinion. The Political Quarterly, 35(4), 375-385. Read More