Political Communication and Media Reportage as Weak Propaganda - Essay Example

Political Communication and Media Reportage as Weak Propaganda Now, more than ever, the media has a lot of influence over how the public thinks, of what they talk and think about and how they are likely to respond to events. The 'mediaspace,' according to Douglas Rushkoff (1996), "is the new territory for human interaction, economic expansion, social and political machination. It has become our electronic social hall and has also developed into our electronic town meeting. Traditional political debate and decisions have been absorbed by the ever-expanding forums of call-in radio and late-night variety shows." Sometimes, politicians have the same credentials and track records. Therefore, a certain candidate should be differentiated from another one. It is no longer enough for politicians to have solid political platforms and to have experience in public service. Politicians these days need to have mass appeal and be celebrities in their own right. Sometimes, the competent political candidates lose out to less competitive ones because of the inability to recognize this. "To become a celebrity requires recognition as a star player in the field of sports, entertainment, fashion, or politics (Kellner 2003)." Our celebrities today are not only concerned about their professionalism and their performance in their fields of specialty, but of the image they project and the way they present themselves. Politicians have turned into media celebrities and their lifestyles have become as important as their policies. Style and presentation, as well as emotions, not only substance, are important. This is what Lilleker (2006) calls the "aestheticisation" of political communication. We're used to movie stars and talents being concerned about projecting a certain kind of image to the public. But now, even the politicians need to be concerned about their image and the way they appear in public to stay ahead of the game. This shows that the public perception of those who appear in the media are not accidental, but are somehow planned or executed. With the seemingly large scope of the media and the limitless possibilities, the political actors and the media are still able to offer what seems to be a personal encounter to their audience. According to Nass & Reeves' Media Equation Theory (1996), people respond unconsciously and automatically to communication media as if it were human. It is possible, therefore, for the individual to engage in interpersonal communication with the media, however impersonal it may seem. For instance, people know that there is no way that computers or television sets would respond to them, and yet they talk to them as if they were real people. A number of people think that they already know a certain actress or celebrity as well as they know their closest friends, simply by tuning in to the latter's interviews and watching anything with the celebrity on it. This very nature of interpersonal communication between the individual and the media could have resulted to extreme adoration or hate toward the celebrity. But still, more often than not, it is easier to make it work for the celebrity. Based on these observations, politicians now opt to guest on popular talk shows. They want to seem like plain folks, one of the people, as well as to appear nice and attractive. As what we've seen in the former president Ronald Reagan's case, suffering from a debilitating disease or the idea of being vulnerable and human, appeal to the public. Reagan, the first president, who was an actor by profession, had a good plotline for his presidency. He advocated the triumph of market capitalism and the defeat of communism in the Cold War. Yet, during his time, the wealth distribution became uneven, with the wealth going upward, increasing the divide between the rich and the poor. His efforts to strengthen the military cost the United States a lot of money as well as the savings and loan scandal. But despite of this, his ratings were high. Perhaps, his economic failure was overlooked by the people because of their sympathy for his having Alzheimer's disease. The media or any films and television show never portrayed his administration as a disaster and in turn, it was not perceived negatively by the public. In much the same way, political candidates take advantage of this fact to identify with as many people as they can, to speak their language, to own and care about their problems, and propose solutions, while striving to create an emotional connection that can be achieved only with the closest of friends. Nowadays, presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting a lot of help from talk show host Oprah Winfrey, one of the most influential icons on television. Many perceive Oprah as a close friend and recognize her impact on their lives, simply by watching her shows, listening to her advice, using the products she believes in, and identifying with her as a person. A lot of celebrities are aware of this kind of influence they can have on people. Some get paid for it, some don't, claiming that they endorse certain candidates because they believe in them and have faith that they would do what will be beneficial to the public. In one way or another, the political actors must communicate to the public what the government is doing and the policies they have effected. Thus, the need for political communication has become stronger. Political communication is characterized by the intentions of senders to influence the political environment (Denton and Woodward, 1990, p.14). This includes all forms of communication the political actors engaged in to achieve their objectives, communication about them and what they do, and communication from non-politicians like voters and newspaper columnists. In political communication, there are three groups involved: the political sphere or the state and political actors who communicate their actions to gain legitimacy and support; the non-state actors and voters who communicate messages to gain influence; and the media outlets. For its part, the media has a dual role. Media outfits receive or pick up news items that they consider to be important and in reporting them, transmit them to the public. The media is needed by the political sphere as political communication must allow feedback from society and encourage participation. Only the media has the capacity to mirror the public sentiment and be an outlet for public discussions and debates. Recognizing the media's power to shape public thought and discussion, political organizations began to take advantage of the persuasive potential of mass media (McNair, 1995, p.7) that the business sector has long been employing. They strive hard to obtain coverage and publicity. More than ample coverage, the political organizations also need to project positive and favorable publicity, and minimize the negative publicity. Thus, political advertising or what used to be called propaganda (Maarek 1995) started. Publicists and political strategists have become indispensable to the political sphere. Perhaps John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was the first president to use television to communicate regularly with the public. His media handlers were able to show positive images of him and his family. The Kennedy administration attracted a lot of media publicity, from his inauguration to presidential trips to the famous Berlin speech and down to the final visit to Dallas. Kennedy must have learned a lot about the media and the need to cultivate an appealing image to the public from his father Joe Kennedy, who happened to be a film producer. From the start, he already knew how to make a good impression on people. Whenever he appeared on television, he was able to portray himself as someone whom people could feel comfortable and secure with. He was articulate and witty but not too aggressive or imposing. Kennedy knew early on that the media can be manipulated to a certain effect, and much like a commodity, he can sell himself. Even after he was assassinated, he was considered one of the greatest American presidents because of the good image he has molded. In this example, we saw how the political actors aggressively employ political advertising to shape public views and exert influence over the voting public. This can be considered weak propaganda, in a sense that the political actors don't have absolute control of the media. In another illustration, Woodrow Wilson was elected president on a peace platform in 1916 because the public was looking for someone who was antiwar. In this instance, the creative use of the media aided propaganda effort by mirroring public sentiment. Wilson and his handlers were able to identify with the publics views, beliefs and values and used that as a connecting point. But when he decided to be committed to war, he needed to change the people's opinion, so he created a propaganda group called Creel Commission. Because of this imaginative use of the media, the Americans began to think positively about the war against the Germans. Just as the political organizations have some agenda, the media too, has certain guidelines and interests which dictate what they would consider as newsworthy. It has certain responsibilities to inform the people and to stimulate discussion of public affairs. However, the selection of newsworthy events and its reportage can never be absolutely objective. Media outfits do not solely exist for public service and also have to survive in this competitive field. Just as the political organizations rely on the media for publicity, the media, at some point, also rely on political organizations and other groups to be able to present information to the public. This relationship of interdependence can shape the way the information is presented and how it is perceived and interpreted by the public. The very fact that the media decided to pick up a news story and give precious space or airtime to it means that somehow, they have agreed to be influenced by the political actors. The political actors become the original source of news items. The media then processes, screens, and interprets the news and its significance for the public. Chay Hofilena (2001) found out in her investigative report that a number of big radio stations and television networks in the Philippines packaged their services for political candidates. For a few million pesos, candidates during the past few elections were able to avail of journalistic services and airtime, where they were given favorable publicity. In one package, a radio station assigned a journalist that would follow the candidate's provincial tours and write positive reports about him. Some broadcasters were given a huge sum of money just to keep them from saying something bad about a particular candidate. In situations like this, it is the non-state actors and voters who stand to lose because they are the ones left in the dark. Together, the political actors and the media were able to forge an alliance. The public may be unable to grasp what the relationship between political organizations and the media is. The media outfits benefit from the political organizations large expenditures to obtain ample coverage by the media while the political organizations benefit by reaching the public and being able to present to them exactly what they have planned. This translates into them getting into public office. All the while, the only conclusion that the public may form is that this particular politician might just be the one to save the day. The importance that the political sphere gives to publicity and political marketing can be seen by the fact that the expenditures on campaigning have dramatically increased over the years. In fact Herbert Schiller noted that the cost of media advertising during elections match the expenditures of the biggest companies for their commercial products and services (1984, p.117). If the business sector treats advertising expenses as investment that will almost guarantee added revenues, then it might not be impossible for political actors to treat their advertising costs as the same. Unfortunately, this could be bad news for well-meaning or competent politicians who don't have enough resources. This could also result to the winning candidate's feeling indebted to individuals and groups who have contributed to his campaign funds. Even in an ideal situation where the media outfits don't succumb to the buying power of political organizations, there could still be constraints and limitations in news-gathering. Not all media outlets have enough resources to monitor the movements of all the political actors. Even if they do, it's hard to keep track of what each person is doing and make sure that one particular event or action is more newsworthy than the other. Aside from this, political actors can also take some measures to prevent the media from finding out some unflattering information about them. They could also distract the media and make a lot of noise so as the media will be compelled to give them coverage, thereby eclipsing other parties. Whether the media is open or mum about the parties they support, it would still be manifested somehow. The media allow themselves to be influenced, when they judge a certain party, individual or idea to be newsworthy and report about them. It is impossible to talk about something and not have an effect on the audience. The very subject of the news, its manner of presentation and the length of time it took will be determining factors. Some observers note that the agenda-setting function of the media as their main contribution to the political process (McCombs, 1981). A lot of people have grown increasingly dependent on the media to interpret and make sense of everything happening around them, almost to the point of making decisions for them. Thus, it can be said that the media can decide which issues to give priority to. The length and order of each news items treatment can give the audience an indication of the importance of certain events and ideas. This function of the media is hard or almost impossible for politicians to control as the media has the last say over the presentation and style of the news, unless there are under-the-table agreements, which sometimes happen. McNair pointed out that the media "contribute to policy discussion and resolution" by setting public agenda, providing platforms for politicians to make their views known, and judging and critiquing the political viewpoints." Some may believe that what the media presents is the collective sentiment of people. While this may be true in some cases, it's also possible that what the media presents at a certain time may only be the view of the editor or an individual who happens to have the final say on what the organization's stand will be. "What the politician wishes to say is not necessarily what the media report him or her as having said." (McNair, 1999, p.47) The media also make statements by their interview questions, editorials and commentaries. While it may seem like the media is giving the political actors a favor by featuring them in the news, there's no guarantee that those politicians involved will be presented in a way that they wanted to. They don't have a guarantee that the image they're trying to project will be picked up by the media. In some way, it can be considered a gamble, but sometimes bad publicity can also help. During Bill Clinton's time, the conservatives hated him for his "easygoing personality, dubious morality, and pragmatic politics (Kellner 2003)." His detractors and came out with stories about Clinton's sex scandal involving the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. They even videotaped him, so they would be able to charge him of lying under oath. And yet, in spite of these scandals, Clinton's ratings even improved, and this made his opponents furious. The media outlets and the political sphere maintain a relationship of interdependence. They could work together to influence the public, shape their opinions, and help them make decisions. This sometimes happens, and it's not a question of whether this is inherently good or bad. In the end, it's more important for the public to recognize this interdependence. As individuals, they should be accountable to their own decisions. For this reason, they should not automatically pass on the decision-making process to either the political actors or to the media outlets. References Baudrillard, J. 1988, Selected Writings, Polity Press, Cambridge. Bloom, M. 1973, Public Relations and Presidential Campaigns, Thomas Crowell, New York. Chomsky, N. & Herman, E.S. 1988, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon Books, New York. Hofilena, C. 1998, News for Sale I, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Manila. Kellner, D. 2003, Media Spectacle, Routledge, London. King, A. 1987, Power and Communication, Waveland Press, Illinois. Lilleker, D.G. 2006, Key Concepts in Political Communication, Sage Publications, London. Lippmann, W. 1954, Public Opinion, Macmillan, New York. Maarek, P.J. 1995, Political Marketing and Communication, John Libbey & Company Ltd, London. McCombs, M. 1981, Handbook of Political Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills. McNair, B. 1999, An Introduction to Polical Communication, 2nd edition, Routledge, New York. Parenti, M. 1986, Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media, St. Martin's Press, New York. Patterson, T. 1980, The Mass Media Election, Praeger, New York. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. 1996, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media like Real People and Places, Cambridge University Press, New York. Rushkoff, D. 1996, Media Virus, Ballantine Books, New York. Sabato, L.J. 1989, Campaigns and Elections, Scott, Foresman and Company, Boston. Woodward, G.C. 1991, Political News: Narrative Form and the Ethics of Denial, Praeger, New York. Read More