Effect of New Media Technology on Political Thought and Theory - Essay Example

How new media technology affects political thought and theory due: This paper seeks to research on how new media technology affects political thought and theory. The new media technology plays a critical role in the American society and its democracy. Journalists are seen to be protectors of the system of the government. They have been nicknamed the “the watchdogs of democracy”. There is always tension between the media and politicians. This is because the media is continuously accused and recommended for various aspects in the American political life. The public relies on the news from the media as their source of information about politics. The Politicians also depend on the news for the same and also for both election and governing (Graber & Dunaway, 2014). Politicians believe that money, time, energy they devote to press relations will be paid back by the public in the form of re-election or support for their policy proposal (McCombs, 2013). According to Harris (2010) the first media produced in the United States was newspapers and other printed materials. The other new materials which include televisions and radios were developed in the 1920s and 1930s which was the twentieth century (p. 264). Currently, the internet is the novel media technology, and it is vastly used (Papacharissi, 2002). As a new media technology continues to develop, so is the manner in which political and government news are reported and presented. For instance, the radio made it possible for the government and political leaders to communicate directly to the United States citizens instead of using the newspapers. The most effective uses of this new media were to connect with the people. Television influenced political campaigning. As mass media becomes more advanced by the day, the capability to reach thousands and even millions of citizens is high. Understanding and uncovering the effects of the media on the public turns out to be difficult. It has taken decades of research to on the effect of the media to the public, but still understanding the media’s influence on its audiences remains incomplete and unanswered (Harris, 2010). As evidenced by Sheldon (2001), in the early days of the 20th century when newspapers, radio and motion pictures were becoming a commonplace in the media, the new media was thought to have remarkable effect on how the public felt as well as behaved (p. 204). The priming theory emerged that the new mass media was controlling the masses of people and the public. This begun in 1938, when the radio program known as War of the worlds, was broadcasted. Almost a million of its listeners in the United States began to panic, believing that the nation was under attack. This is an instance of how the media can heavily influence the public (Sheldon, 2001). In the 1970s, it was concluded that mass media had an effect on the public. Research showed that there were strong media effects in the areas of agenda setting and framing (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Evidence of strong media effects in these areas continues to be found in research conducted even in the 21st century (Harris 2010). Agenda setting has been mentioned above in this essay as one of the major roles that the mass media plays. Agenda setting has a significant implication for sub government and policy networks. These policies work to respond to public demands and negotiate policies with the citizens and solutions to address those needs. This implies that the media not only has to be considerate to the desires of the public, but also has to cover its issues and events in ways which may influence the public viewers and their opinions. Sub-governments and policy networks also need to be aware of the media primes issues because it has an effect on public opinion and potentially, on policy and the political status. Priming theory relates to media reporting as it helps members of the public to assess their leaders; regarding their performance on policies. For political leaders and policy makers, the medias influence in this area means that they will have to consider how their decisions might be perceived not only by the community, but also by the media. The circumstances that media influence politics include the media time depiction of the news and events; this is when the Politician’s and the governmental elites are split over a particular issue, whether the policy is of a particular stage of development, through the public opinions, through the new technologies and finally through particular norm, retinue and values. These circumstances continue to provide an understanding of the current considerations being discussed regarding how media affects public policy. The institution and leaders of the American political systems have grown increasingly dependent on the news mass media. The press also has emerged with more autonomous force, driven by its own desires and imperatives. On a critical outlook, the press is less dependent on the political leaders than it was a century ago (Comstock & Scharrer, 2007). In the primary days of the 20th century, the nation and mass media was deliberately opinionated, and still is in some or rather many democratic nations. Media channels in other democratic countries, Europe and other nations, are funded by campaigners of one political point of view or another. When America was developing, newspapers were dependent on the political support of public officials and rich supporters of particular views. As a result, the "news" reports of these papers simply wrote exaggerated articles (Lester, 2010). Possession of the media houses began to change in the mid1800s, and after some time, it stopped to be administered by advocates in definite positions. To date the media still depends on the assistance from government news bulletin sources, but it no longer relies on the government or wealthy political leaders for existence. This implies that the continued existence of media channels in todays environment is secured by evaluations and does not object on protecting wealthy people, but keeping the politicians happy (Jillson, 2013). This means that politicians have to strive and work hard to make their message heard. In 1800, political leaders could assume that their messages could get aired in a newspaper just because they were accountable for the financial subsistence. Contrary to this era, politicians contest among themselves to get their messages relayed to the public via radio and television. They, therefore, strive to convince the mass media to report their messages in a manner that the American people will like them. The mass media reports about politics are always in an extremely exaggerated way. Most of the American citizens accuse the media of having political prejudices. The public, for example, usually, blame the media of being excessively sympathetic with politicians (Comstock & Scharrer, 2007). President Bill Clinton would however not agree with these terms because he was exposed to cruel treatment from day one of his assignment in the office of the president, and throughout his presidency reign and after. The media in this case it is probably more precise to claim that it has its preferences. Moreover, journalists always appear to be suspicious of the motives of elected Politicians and politicians running for office. Looking at the years that the politicians maintained and possessed the media houses in the country, the news reports used to be as per what they said and what they wanted it to be. Today, the news reports are as per what reporters say and want. This shows the evolution and turn of power in the media industry. Currently, in this setting, politicians try to persuade the Media houses to see news as per what they want them to see it. However, the journalists are hesitant to be controlled; nevertheless it does not keep the politicians from trying. As evidenced by Jillson (2013), ceremonial bill signings and summits that execute no substantial business are all attempts by political leaders to put across their message (p. 136). At times, the media cover these areas as news events, and at times they are disregarded. Politicians often try to go through the media so as to reach the citizens directly with personal presences and speeches, but still these events are put to be in a scale of more important or less important by the media. This is because the media has become very doubting of the politicians’ motives (Graber & Dunaway, 2014). To sum it up, it is apparent that the media and politicians have very different necessities and motives. Therefore, they contend among themselves. A new era has seen the changing foundations of political communication. This has led to making the democracy strong, by the public having an opinion impacted by mass communication. References Comstock, G. A., & Scharrer, E. (2007). The psychology of media and politics. Amsterdam [etc.: Elsevier. Graber, D. A., & Dunaway, J. L. (2014). Mass media and American politics. CQ Press. Harris, R. A., & Tichenor, D. J. (2010). A history of the U.S. political system: Ideas, interests, and institutions. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. Jillson, C. (2013). American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. Routledge. Lester, L. (2010). Media and environment: Conflict, politics and the news. Cambridge, UK: Polity. McCombs, M. (2013). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. John Wiley & Sons. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere The internet as a public sphere. New media & society, 4(1), 9-27. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9-20. Sheldon, G. W. (2001). Encyclopedia of Political Thought. New York: Infobase Pub Read More