'The Role of Mass Media in the World of Politics\r'

'The mass media gyps a in reality all-important(a) role in everyday life. It is very much the lonesome(prenominal) form of education which is acquirable to or so, and as much(prenominal) has a very powerful influence all over race”s beliefs and opinions. This influence is never more(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) than(prenominal) homely than when analysing the relationship amongst the media and governmental relation. regime stool justifiably be exposit as THE briny determining figure in our lives, the study influence over umpteen facets of day to day living, much(prenominal) as finances, healthc atomic number 18 and employment.\r\nThe media is the major extraction of information about governmental affairs, and as such has control over what we actually k right off about the semi semi insurance-making governance and what we may never honor out. As a result of this, it establishs inevitable that the media has a certain ‘hold” over t he policy-making theatre. The media can judge, approve and criticise. It can progress to or break political careers, eve parties, and the information which the media provides helps the public to form attitudes, responses and opinions towards political events and actors. Thus it becomes very important for the political parties to keep the media ‘on-side”.\r\nIt is obvious that the media does keep back some impingement on politics, that the master(prenominal) question should be to what extent, how does it manifest itself and why should we care any expression? For the purpose of this study the media provide be described as the nip, TV and radio. On the face of it the media is in that location simply to communicate, or act as a transmitter of information between the political world and the consumer. However, probably since the subvert of the second world war, it has become work out that the media can often have a hidden maturatenda when reporting politics.\r\n Indeed, unriva conduct of the nearly contentious issues over the inhabit few years, at least since I have been ‘consuming” media products, has been the debate over media ownership. This has been particularly evident in the press, the most notable case organism the Rupert Murdoch empire” †password Inter home(a). I will start move out by discussing the case of the press, as I believe that this is traditionally whither much of the impact on politics has occurred, although I will discuss later how this may be changing.\r\nOne major area of tending about press reporting of politics is the apparent ‘dumbing down” of the coverage, even amongst the broadsheets, and the opinion that this may have on politics. In 1993 Labour MP, and current Home Secretary, cuckoo Straw published a compact research report into the press coverage of parliament, ( Negrine, 1998,p1). In doing the report he sight how Parliamentary issues were right away covered to a mu ch less(prenominal)er degree than in the past, issue from between 400-800 lines per day in The Times in 1988, to fewer than degree centigrade lines in 1992.\r\nThis seemed to show that the broadsheets were following the rag standard of dumbing down. This has led to the worry that the press is trivialising the political process in the UK. government activity is becoming increasingly personality led, quite an than policy led. An event may have political significance or importance, but it will only really be seen as such if the press frames it in a way that makes it provoke and appetizing to the reader. It therefore becomes a accompaniment of political life that personalities are more interesting to the majority of the public than policies.\r\nThis has inevitably led to a change in the political landscape, initiated and perpetuated by the media. There are instantaneously some(prenominal) key features to politics in the late twentieth century which were not there before. â₠¬Ëœ semipolitical marketing”, the utilize of ‘negative campaigning” and the approach of twist doctors have all led to tending of an ‘Americanisation” of the political process. As nearly as the press, TV has played a major role in ushering in the age of the soundbite. The media has opened up a larger, more accessible audience to the politicians, which many of them find hard to resist.\r\nInstitutions such as the domicil of Commons are becoming less and less a way of relaying policy issues and raising concerns, as the political arena is increasingly acted out in the media. Which advancement seeking politician, trying to gain nutriment for their companionship, would choose the Commons over a highly publicised TV syllabus such as Question Time, or a high circulation newspaper such as The Sun. There has also been a decline in local political party politics, as political communication has become more and more a national rather than local event.\r\ nThe American way of leader found, rather than party based politics has become a reality. This has been evident in the way that Tony Blair has become a media star, never more so than when his married woman recently became pregnant. The celebrity motion picture of the aboriginal Minister has also led to accusations that he lacks real political subject matter. Some would vocalise another example of the ‘trivialising” of politics has been the introduction of TV cameras into the domiciliate of Commons. When it was archetypal proposed in 1966 it was heavily defeated on the yard that TV cameras would ruin the unique and sexual atmosphere of the house.\r\nIn 1989 the house first appeared on television. Strict guidelines were issued over what could be shown, including the use of head and shoulder shots only and the banning of reaction shots. There was coarse unease amongst the sitting MPs, including the then blush Minister Mrs Thatcher, who said at the prison term: â €Å".. if you are not careful you can freeze with TV there…. it is going to be a different House of Commons, but that is that”, (Politics UK, 1991, p208). There was a piecemeal thawing of hostile opinion towards the TV cameras, with some exceptions.\r\nDavid Amess, MP, protested that the cameras had managed to, â€Å".. trivialise our proceedings and foray that very special atmosphere that we had here”, ( Politics UK, p208). The main political parties now recognise the crucial role the media has to play in their success and have reacted accordingly. Political strategies now incorporate media strategies. They try to moderate the media in range to create a favourable image of themselves. In order to achieve this we have seen the introduction of pro media managers.\r\nThe media dominated world of politics now needs professional management. Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell are two such media experts. They have been part responsible for transforming the Lab our Party from being unelectable to gaining a runaway victory in the 1997 global election. Indeed it has been said that Tony Blair spends more time in meetings with his image and media advisors than he spends discussing policies with his cabinet, which may be a torment trend for UK politics. There are several ways that these people can attack to manipulate the media.\r\nOne such way, many would say to the detriment of the democratic process, is the correct of debates which are stage managed to ensure a friendly audience and the communication of well rehearsed answers. There is also a gigantic deal of emphasis placed on image management, and specifically the image of the party leader. This is very evident when looking at the current leaders of the two main parties in the UK today. Despite the best attempts of nonprogressive central office to jazz up the image of William Hague, he still retains the image of a dull, almost incompetent twit.\r\nOn the other hand Tony Blair has the image of a dynamic, if slightly shallow, leader. This tends to ignore the fact that Hague is maybe a more intelligent and paying attention politician than Blair. Another good example of this is the differences between Ronald Reagan and Michael Foot. Reagan was a remarkably lowly politician, but, being a trained actor, he was very good at transfer what was essentially a simple message. Foot, on the other hand, was a very consummate politician and public speaker.\r\nHowever, his unkempt carriage was not at all media friendly, and later defeat in the 83 general election he was cast off in favour of a more media friendly Neil Kinnock. Reagan had two successful name as US President. Many business organisation that this indicates a move away from real political issues towards a fickle political world where image is everything and political substance nothing. It is clear that a personality face-off or a sex dirt can now be more damaging to a political party than an actual polic y disagreement.\r\nBut should we be very concerned about this, and barely how much of the shifting political feed is down to the media. Some observers point to the fact that plain, unassuming politicians such as whoremonger Major and George Bush have enjoyed vastly successful political careers. This may declare that the public can only be fooled to a certain degree by slick media management, and may eventually draw in sick of being ‘force feed” so called perfect politicians, with little or no political ability.\r\n'