Should Journalists Get Close to Politicians - Essay Example

Should journalists get close to politicians? In the contemporary world of deep interconnections between all the social spheres it is hard to measure the extent to which any part of the society can be independent from the others. Moreover, in the modern conditions of globalized world being completely independent becomes even harder. In this context, media and political processes are also deeply connected due to the influence they provide on each another and society. In particular, it is evident that both journalists and politicians have power to change peoples opinions. However, their roles are different as they are not equal in professional dues and rights. Notwithstanding this, politicians need channels of media in order to be imaged for their voters in a favorable way; in turn, journalists need politicians for their news making. In such a context, in a given paper it is stated that journalists are unavoidably close to politicians; however, in given conditions their judgments should be as independent as possible. To start with, previous century showed that journalists and politicians were working as the partners. Historically, media were included in the wider field of power, elections and politics. In particular, successful ideological propaganda of World War I and the 1930s are the most dramatic cases in this context (Blumer and Gurevitch, 1995, p. 11). In fact, these social spheres showed themselves as really powerful in the retrospective; and so, it is crucial to realize the scale of this impact. In combination of journalism and politics, mental influence caused by media appeared to be much more effective than torturing bodies by physical violence in the previous centuries (Mateos, 2009). This is the reason why the unity of media and politics was inevitable as together they double the influence they accomplish. And so, media steadily forgot to report on and about politics as independent observer; in turn, journalists behave as active participants in the political struggle (Blummer and Gurevitch, 1995: 4). Therefore, analysis of journalism will be insufficient if political component is eliminated from its content. Moreover, previous bipolar system that determined international relations also led to the emergence of ideologically specific media. In this context, Robert McChesney discussed the influence caused by the former political situation in America which paralyzed all the efforts to create more democratic system free of corporate media (McChesney, 2004). As a result, the three-dimension approach to define media appeared: private (or corporate), public (controlled by the government) and community media (social and private that focus on general interest) (Mateos, 2009). In these circumstances, the independence of journalism is really hard to be obtained as media owners are adhering conservative views in media products (HailEris Discordia, 2012). Moreover, the divergent missions taken by journalists and politicians have always been in a “symbiotic correlation” as they need each other and benefit from each other (Lozanov and Spassov, 2011). However, the journalists as people who do not exercise power guaranteed by people’s will are in a weaker position. In fact, the task of media as the watchdog for politicians is possible to be competed if freedom of press and transparency of media structures are guaranteed, fair working conditions for journalists are established, and the plurality of thoughts is allowed (Lozanov and Spassov, 2011, p. 4). Actually, most of these criteria is possible to be met if only there is political will to create such conditions in the country. And so, in order to save journalism as the profession that requires observation and diversity of opinions the real independence is needed. In fact, it is required from the very establishment of journalism as a power to change minds. Nevertheless, such a condition was never established due to the fact that from the very beginning journalists have been in a weaker position in comparison to the powerful owners of their workplaces. In the modern globalization era, the role of media becomes important in international relations. In this context, media appear to mediate the political sphere by providing the global scene for politicians to communicate with their international partners and rivals. And so, current overlap between media and politics is also determined by the processes of interconnections within the globe. In this case, transnational media conglomerates transform the problem of excessive interrelations between journalists and politicians into the global trend. And so, the issue that all the communicational channels are commercialized is crucial as journalism protects the interests of large companies who own them not only within the country but also worldwide. In this context, commercials are frequently presented in contemporary media; in case of TV, the percentage of revenues from advertisement is almost 100% (HailEris Discordia, 2012). This process threatens the liberalization of media itself when it cannot refine democracy (HailEris Discordia, 2012). However, this fact does not deter politicians of powerful countries from maintaining dominance and creating identifications on the global scale in terms of liberal ideology (Murphy, 2008: 5). Likewise, media of the other countries can also use this method in order to justify aggressive politics of their leaders. Therefore, in the global context journalism contains in its methods the danger of local civil wars and international conflicts. In fact, the previous World War German unity of political sphere and media led to the international conflict; as a result of this war, two ideological rivals appeared with the same interconnected actors. Even now, media messages are constrained by five filters: ownership, advertising, reliance on government, flak and construction of the other (HailEris Discordia, 2012). And so, the background of media’s defining role in future conflicts remains. Currently, most part of the world does not have an access to be heard directly worldwide (Unwin, 2012: 4). In particular, not all countries have technological means in order to present their own opinion on the international events. And so, less influential countries are dependent on powerful media in order to get messages for their own news. Actually, this phenomenon threatens people’s freedom of consumer choice, especially when it happens in newly industrialized and developing countries (Murphy, 2008: 7) where the owners are politicians or their closest allies. As a result, the dependent role of journalists which was observed in the previous century was not changed in the modern reality. In this context, newly established social media create an opportunity to make journalism independent from politics. In particular, the nature of media is changed with the different target auditory and increasing interactivity. Moreover, these journalists can become “watchdogs” for powerful corporate media (Murphy, 2008: 8). Actually, social media have changed contemporary communication in terms of anonymity, diversity, omnipresence, speed, multitude of roles, objectivity, flexibility and innovation (Auvinen, n.d: 6). In fact, while audience of newspapers had shortened and TV channels became more diverse, social media are becoming more and more popular nowadays (Kuhn and Nielsen, 2014 :8). However, this independence is strictly limited. In case of equal access to digital media, mobile subscription rates are lower for less developed countries, rural areas, women and disabled people (Urwin, 2012: 4). In terms of democracy, not all social media popularize ideas of liberalization and equality; they can also encourage starting wars and exercising violence (Urwin, 2012: 5-6). In this context, Facebook and Twitter played significant roles in recent uprisings (Auvinen, n.d., p. 4). And so, owing Internet leads to the same consequences as owing corporate media, even though these people are not politicians or big corporations (Urwin, 2012: 7). In fact, Charles Arthur (2012) argues on power struggle between Apple, Google, and Microsoft concerning the sequence of search order in Internet. Therefore, social media by changing methods and audiences of journalism does not challenge the rules of creating messages and alignment of force comparing to the other public spheres. As the example of interconnection between politics and journalism, political journalism appeared. Kuhn defines it as “a journalism that generally shares with the majority of politicians, social scientists, and European citizens a legitimist vision of electoral politics, accepting the latters basic legitimacy as indisputable and its importance as given” (Kunh and Nielsen, 2014: 4). In fact, such a position does not guarantee that journalists would tend to behave objectively and independently. Even though there appear lots of voices in media space, most of them is structuralized in such a manner which reflects current political situation in the state and in the world. Moreover, nowadays celebrity politicians appeared as the result of political willingness either to show their features that represent public or use their popularity in order to shape popular opinion (Street, 2004). In addition, politicians tend to hire journalists as advisers (Kuhn and Nielsen, 2014: 7); and so, the basics of impartiality between these two sides is ruined. This also means that the nature of politics itself has changed significantly by these transformations with its members; hence, it becomes even harder to tear media and politics apart. Moreover, journalists in this situation cannot play their watchdog role as they are stuck in personalization, dramatization, blaming, creating soap operas and sundry trivialities (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995: 1). And so, if media serves as tame lapdogs for politicians, it feeds their willingness to shape public opinion. This leads to the corresponding reaction from the public that becomes “more sceptical, less interested, and more scattered” (Kuhn and Nielsen, 2014: 2). And so, journalists as those who work to shape public opinion lose their professionalism and influence if media is overlapped by political sphere so significantly. However, complication of relations with public drives politicians to increase the usage of their own media and public relation agencies (Kuhn and Nielsen, 2014: 10). As a result, journalism becomes gradually weaker under the constant pressure of political sphere. In order to sum up, throughout the years journalists and politicians were struggling in the same field of public interest. Starting with the ideologies and propaganda, media and politics showed the strength of dual impact on the society and public opinion. In addition, corporate media owned by large companies also showed the easiness of medias dependence on the influence of other actors in the public sphere. Contemporary trend of globalization strengthens this phenomenon even more by allowing only certain countries to shape the opinions in international relations. On the other hand, popularity of mobile technologies created social media which diversifies channels of communication and transforms the nature of media itself. However, the above-mentioned trend of exclusiveness is saved in cyber space as only certain companies and countries are influential in this type of media. As a result, political journalism which appeared recently creates the situation when journalists cannot shape public opinion and fall under the political pressure. In these circumstances, the only way to return public trust for media is to move away from both corporations and politicians in favor of civil society. And so, journalists should be as independent as possible from the politicians in order to save the aim of their profession. Bibliography: Arthur, C., 2012. Digital Wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the Battle for the Internet. London: Kogan Page Limited. Auvinen, A-M., n.d. Social Media – The New Power of Political Influence. Suomen Toivo Think Tank. Brussels: Centre for European Studies. Blumer J. and Gurevitch M., 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication (Communication and Society). Abingon and NY: Routledge. HailEris Discordia, 2012. The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News [video online]. Available at: [Accessed 17 August 2014]. Kuhn, R. and Nielsen, R. S. (eds.), 2014. Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective. NY: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. Lozanov G. and Spassov O., 2011. Media and Politics. Sofia: Foundation Media Democracy, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Mateos, C., 2009. Democracies and Media Systems: Action versus Distraction [online]. Project Censored. The News That Didn’t Make News. Available at: [Accessed 17 August 2014]. McChesney, R., 2004. The Problem of the Media. NY: Monthly Review Press. Murphy, P., 2008. Media and Democracy in the Age of Globalization. In: I. Blankson, P. Murphy (eds.). 2008. Negotiations Democracy: Media Transformations in Emerging Democracies (Suny Series in Global Media Studies). NY: State University of New York Press. pp. 1-9. Street, J., 2004. Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6. pp. 435-452. Unwin, T., 2012. Social Media and democracy: critical reflections. In: CTO (Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization). Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. Colombo, September. Read More