Media Creates Political and Ideological Controversies - Essay Example

Media creates Political and Ideological controversies Evaluate whether media coverage creates political and ideological controversy around issues such as immigration, Illustrate using examples from media coverage The media can create multiple realities for its viewers. In terms of political and ideological controversies, it has a huge impact on its audience because of the vastness of its reach. Media coverage of issues and events has a great influence on an audience. The size of the impact has been largely debated upon by theorist. Lowery and DeFleur (1988) described the effects of the media like those of a metaphorical bullet has an immediate affect on the behaviour of its entire audience. Their theory is better known as the ‘magic bullet theory’ or the ‘hypodermic-needle theory,’ where the main idea is that an entire audience can be instantly affected by an idea presented by the media. Audiences are seen to be susceptible to any message or information that is presented by the media. As per Lowery and DeFleur’s theory media has an immense impact on it viewers. This theory endorses great power and influence to the media. Although later research disproved this theory, it was evident through the findings (Hyman & Sheatsley 1947) that audiences were not brainless recipients of information and formed their own opinions of media’s projections of news and events. But fact remains that even though media coverage may not be able to completely form a public’s opinion on just one front, it is responsible for how they view the world. This is where the agenda setting theory of mass communication comes in. while the media may not be able to tell us exactly how we should think, it does specify what we should think about. “The agenda-setting theory was originally developed to explain the influence of t he mass media in determining which political issues become important in elections. Adroit committee members and politicians claim that if you can control the agenda you can control the meeting.” (Sutherland & Sylvester 2000). Basically the most crucial function of media is to act like a gateway between the public and government. It’s the media who provides information regarding political matters and matters regarding policy and governance. Newspapers aim to cover politics and issues related to politics follow the guidelines that journalists must remain “politically correct” and neutral and “present” covering all sides of the argument (Sloan & Mackay 2007) Unfortunately, researches done on the topic have shown that there’s a “slant” in news coverage which exists to influence our thinking regarding political issues. Research has shown that mostly media slant is focused in coverage related to political and election campaigns, where media needs to influence the general public. But very few researches have been done to check why the media slant is involved in such specific issues such as “immigration” and why is it covered by “negatively” slanted media coverage. Immigration policy is one of the most important, outstanding and politically pertinent problems in American politics. Although it has been a major concern, lately it has cropped up in the news and national news reports as the nations top agendas. (Sloan & Mackay 2007) For example, uproar was caused by a senate proposal which called for the most Extensive changes in the immigration policy of the U.S in over ten years. The vast media coverage of immigration had many people and the public asking questions, which resulted in the public having an opinion regarding the immigration policy. (Kuypers 2008). The way the media covers a particular issue has an effect on the way the people will approach and think about that issue. When the issue is something as crucial and controversial as immigration, where the risks are high for many people, the way the media portrays it is very important in order for it to be shaped appropriately in the eyes of the general public. (Kuypers, 2008). The main idea of the media and press being the neutral ground is well established and it is expected that professional reporters and journalists not be influenced by their personal political beliefs while reporting or covering the issue. Unfortunately many of the American people see the media as biased or slanted. Even more damaging is the fact that media critics make claims and personal comments and offer their views on the news. Mostly two things are understood by the general public, that 1) the media coverage and news has a “broad-minded” and liberal slant because most reporters are like that, broadminded and 2) the news has a “conservative” slant because their companies have the said policy interests. The blame however can not be placed in the hands of the journalists alone. Environmental and institutional limitations also affect the coverage. To sum it up, the objectives of making profits and to attract the general public are the top reasons for media slants (Zilber & Niven 2000). One unswerving trend is the propensity of the media is to put emphasis on the astounding and the negative. Researches have shown that media tends to emphasize on such topics as violence, crime, sex and topics which are tabooed in the public. A lopsided and tactful emphasis on the negative and the sensational tends to attract more audiences and more people. The media takes advantage of such topics and increase their profits (Zilber & Niven 2000). In politics and public strategy and policy, the efforts to maximize their profits can endorse slants in news coverage. This can mean that the public will indirectly force the media to air negatively slanted stories in favour of their wants and preferences and the media, in order to gain profits will air those stories, slanting the news in favour of the audience, causing the whole general outlook to change. So similarly in the case of immigration, if the media and news organizations and casters perceive a negative attitude of the audience towards immigration, they will air negatively slanted coverage about immigration. According to researches (Branton & Dunaway 2009) and compilations of poll data, it has been concluded that the attitude towards immigration is less hostile in areas near the border than in areas away from the border. The public opinion polls show that people residing closer to the U.S-Mexico border were more likely to rate immigration as one of the most important of problems that is faced by the country, than the people who were much more farther away than the border. Other researches suggest that people’s attitude towards immigration and immigration-related policies also vary with the distance from the border. Based on the research, its been concluded that news channels and organizations that are closer to the border, take immigration as a major concern and the audience to which this media coverage is broadcasted, perceives immigration-related issues, negatively. Hence the changes in the media behavior towards immigration, influences the way newspapers and news channels those are close to the border cover this problem. (Sutherland & Sylvester 2000) In a newspaper, there is the editorial section which offers the newspapers opinion and then there is the opinion section. These two sections provide the general public, the editor and the owner of the newspaper, a platform where they can discuss and express their political views. One of the most primitive defenses against neutrality in media is the line between the editorial section and opinion section. It is there to prevent personal opinions from influencing the news. However researches show that the material offered in these pages can favor one policy and view point over the other. This media bias may reflect the perception of the audience or the perception of the newspaper. Newspapers may vary their viewpoints, offering their own while omitting others, or omitting their own and favoring just one viewpoint altogether. As previously discussed, the news channels and reporters more close to the border of the U.S-Mexico, may perceive their audience as people who hold negative views of immigration. It that’s the case, then the content they offer in their opinion pages will be slanted towards the negative side and will reflect the views in a negative fashion (Branton & Dunaway 2009). The public opinion is influenced by political expression used by prominent figures as Bill O’Reilly and is also influenced by slanted media coverage of immigration. A recent study has shown that media channels and outlets all over the United States displays that the public shows concern and neglect to this issue of immigration with the shift of the media coverage on immigration. The concern of the public over this issue and vast security at the borders has places this issue at the centre of the national debate. One of the biggest proofs of this is the fact that in the time period before the 2008 elections, there were about 20 legislation pieces which were under being deliberated upon, dealt with some aspect or the other of immigration. As we have concluded, media messages have known repercussions for the general public; hence it is important to understand the influences on the coverage of immigration. Negative news coverage on immigration can cause negative attitude and behavioral consequences towards this issue. Furthermore, if negatively slanted media coverage towards immigration is continued, it mat cause perceptions of threat, negative news reports on immigrants, and negative news coverage. It can have especially ominous consequences for intergroup attitudes and behaviors among people closer to the border. Many people argue over the fact that the renewal of the mass immigration is the largest and most prominent story of the nation and the census of the year 2000 has confirmed that this has caused a demographic shift, which in turn has caused occupational, industrial, educational and developmental changes in America. We have seen mainstream media’s obvious and unconcealed bias while reporting on every aspect of political issues. Biggest examples of this fact are the MSM reports and war on terror reports from Iraq, where the number of people killed by terrorists reaches monumental proportions. And yet the reports of the successes of finding terrorists are neglected and pushed under the carpet. The barefaced bias is most obvious in reports that broadcast the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah in Lebanon, complete with photographic evidence. Media is known to criticize the Administration for their multi-lateral approach when dealing with North Korea and Iran and, in the same media is known to criticize the same administration for unilateral actions in Iraq. Such cases of media bias are mostly supported by what the audience wants to see. One of the examples is how, In October, 2000, Arabs in Jerusalem, stoned a taxi in which an American Jewish student was riding. The Arabs then dragged the student out of the car, beat him and stabbed him to death. A local photographer took a picture of the victim with an angry Israeli policeman and printed it under the caption “An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount” The photo and the false description was broadcasted worldwide and portrayed the Israel’s as the aggressors and the Palestinian’s as the victims. This is an example of “media unwillingness to present the vulnerability of the Israeli side and brutality of the Palestinians.” Another example is 2 pictures in the New York times, October 2000, one of the pictures shows an Israeli soldier with his automatic rifle in firing position and in the second, a Palestinian is shown, also holding an automatic rifle. The caption under the Israeli photo states “An Israeli, facing stone throwers in Hebron” whereas the caption under the Palestinian read “at the burial of a Palestinian killed in the Gaza Strip” The Israeli was portrayed as the aggressor, fighting against harmless stone throwers whereas the Palestinian is shown as an innocent soldier attending a funeral of one of the victims of Israeli aggression. Media plays a very crucial role in society and provides us with information that is later molded into our personal opinions and thoughts regarding political issues. This is the case so the media should broadcast the facts as they are without any personal opinions of their own. When the reporting and news casting is biased and cast reports in which one side is “good” whereas the other side is “bad”, what is being reported is not news but “opinions”. It is impossible that any network or news channel or journalist has not been accused of media bias. Media bias doesn’t have to be outright retaliation against one viewpoint in favor of another, it can be subtle, merely a choice of the right words and phrases. A person who reports has to keep in mind and guard his expression against his thoughts. His opinions can become a case of media bias simply through the wrong choice of words or the wrong tone of voice while delivering a news report or writing a piece. Everyone is at liberty to their personal opinion and their own view point and is free to express it as they see fit. Hence every person, including influential media people and figures, are expressing their own beliefs, despite their best interests not to. The main problem is when these media figures stop thinking about media bias and slanted media broadcasts and what they could do to effect society and its opinion. One of the forms of media bias is the news casters or news channels failure to include all the points of view of a certain story. When this happens, the opposite point of view is not mentioned or has been failed to be mentioned. However, it is also virtually impossible to include ALL the opinions and viewpoints of a story, since issues are approached at from more than two sides. The inability to represent all sides of a story is indeed classic media bias but it can’t be called as intentional bias since there is no time to simply cover all the points, and may stick to the two classic sides that are democratic and republic. However media will still be labeled as biased since it can’t represent all the viewpoints and only its own People can digest only a certain amount of information each day and if they are to read, watch and listen, to news and information that is extremely biased, slanted and wrongly cut, they tend to be hugely misinformed. When not given the clear picture, people tend to draw out conclusions on their own and from what little and limited information they receive from the media. Most media figures think it’s their right to use their power of free speech over the news channels to express their personal viewpoints and opinions, even when their said view point is picked up in retaliation with another public figures view point. Sometimes the media people will benefit the public and try to present more than one side of the story References Lowery, S. & DeFleur, M. (1988): Milestones in mass communication research: media effects: Longman, 1988. Branton, R., & Dunaway, J. (2009). Slanted Newspaper Coverage of Immigration: The Importance of Economics and Geography. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 257-273. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00313.x. Hyman, H. & Sheatsley, P. (1947). Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail: Identifiers Public Opinion Quarterly, volume 11. the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Sutherland, M. & Sylvester, A. (2000), Advertising and the mind of the consumer: what works, what doesn't, and why: Allen & Unwin, 2000 Mackay, J. & Sloan, W. (2007) Media Bias: fidning it, fixing it: McFarland, 2007 Zilberm, J. & Niven, D. (2000) Racialized coverage of Congress: the news in black and white : Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000 Kuypers, J. (2008) Title Politics and communication in America: campaigns, media, and governing in the 21st century: Waveland Press, 2008 Original from the University of Michigan Read More