Government perception affected by mass media

The United States primarily runs off a rational-legal authority (often known as a bureaucratic authority) type of government, where power is legitimized by enacting rules and regulations. However, modern developments in the mass media have drastically changed the public perception of government actions.

Roots of Power:

America is not a direct democracy; rather it runs off a system called “indirect democracy.” The United States has such a high rate of economic inequality that in our stratified society the rich have exponentially more political clout than their middle/lower class counterparts do. However, it is mostly the middle class America that does vote the politicians into power, and it is the job of the media to keep them informed of the occurrences in Washington D.C. The mass media today has exceptionally more influence over the ideals of the population today than ten, even five years ago.

Advantages versus Disadvantages

"Benefits of increased media exposure:"

1. More exposure of government activities to public- Realistically, not many people have the time to watch C-SPAN all day and filter through the filibusters and endless debates about laws that are perhaps not even going to affect the general public. However, it is a lot more efficient to read a summary or an outline of the proposed bill in the local newspaper.

2. It is a more efficient way to transport information- Towards the end of the Civil War in 1850; it took Andrew Jackson in New Orleans over a month to receive word from Washington D.C. that the South had fallen. Newly signed legislation can easily be broadcasted over all 50 states instantaneously and immediately put into effect.

3. There is less chance for political corruption- During the early 1900’s; muckrakers criticized President T. Roosevelt’s every action. Before the spread of mass media, political corruption could easily be accomplished. In modern times, information can be instantaneously delivered.

"Disadvantages of increased media exposure:"

1. The level of scrutiny towards government is much higher- Some political ideas may not be the most “pleasing” to the public. What the public “wants” in the government policy is lower taxes with increased spending, which is the ultimate political paradox. Ronald Reagan tried to do in his two terms at the presidential helm, and sent the federal deficit in a spiraling downward trend.

2. Media Bias may affect the public perception of government- Americans all over the country rely upon 4 major networks for news: CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. The first three networks are all controlled by mostly “liberal” boards of trusteesfact|date=July 2008 while FOX is very extremist conservative. It is practically impossible to attain a moderate view of policy changes if networks has even the slightest amount of bias.

3. The perceived advantages of media exposure may be overrated- Logically, if more people are informed on political issues, then it would be acceptable to imply that more people are voting. However, this is not the case, whereas voting has increased a slight amount, the percentage of actual voters versus registered as actually decreased. While the exponentially expanding media coverage is background checking next elections candidates to being inside the War against terrorism, American’s knowledge of the political system has not increased as the access that the media has learned about government.

Resources

Fournier, Ron. (2005 May 17). “Changes in media, politics systems make compromise, bipartisanship tougher.” Associated Press.

Gourley, Catherine, Media Wizards: a behind-the-scenes look at media manipulations, Twenty-first Century Books, Brookfield, CT, 1999.

Stephens, Mitchel, The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word, Oxford University Press, New York, NY 1998.

External links

* [http://www.pipa.org/ Program on International Policy Attitudes ]

See also

* Propaganda