The Link Between Media and Politics

Jan Leighley, in her book Mass Media and Politics, lays out five models of Mass Media journalism. Each one of these models is able to stand on its own in terms of a standard for Media production. The essential difference between the five, and as we will see, a sixth, is the relationship the Media has with the government and the citizenship.

The first of these models is the one to which, normatively, every journalist would subscribe, namely, the "Reporters of Objective Fact Model". In this model, the media takes on a passive role in reporting, and acts rather like a clear conduit for information rather than an amplifier. They shouldn't comment on any information nor conduct debates, host magazine shows or even provide entertainment. They are assumed to report "just the facts" without any prejudices or biases. In class we agreed that C-SPAN is relatively the best-fit program for this model. Although they do not really have narration, the viewers get just what they want - pure information to make their own judgements. In evaluating this model, it is clear to see how not many people would want to tune into this particular type of reporting. Taken for granted the fact that it would be ideal for the polity to know exactly what is going on in their government circles, it is practically impossible for the mojority of Americans, who form the working class, who have their own lives, families and work to tune into every single meeting the Committees of Congress are having and have the time to process it into their political world-view. The media industry would quickly run out of funds for lack of advertising due to lack of viewership. Debra Stone, in evaluating this model in a more abstract sense, concludes that it is practically imnpossible to give over "just the facts" without some twist towards the interperative lenses. "To name is to take a stand; is it terrorism or resistance; terrorists or freedom-fighters; radical cleric or leader of freedom-fighters (Class Discussion, Oct. 25, 2006)?" Another aspect through which we must critically evaluate the "Reporters of OF Model" is when Walter Cronkite said, "and that's the world tonight", he must have left something in the world undiscussed in the 22 minutes he had! This point confirms a line Professor Pimpare is always fond of repeating: "The media can't tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to think about;" and that hardly fits into the OF model.

The next model of Leighley is the "Neutral Adversary Model". This model assumes the role primarily of a watchdog on government and understands itslf to be another institution of govrnment. It plays into the assumption that all government officials and elected officers are self-interest seeking and it is the job of the media to be a "truth-seeker". This model doesn't take the citizenry into the scene as much as other models (see Public Advocate Model below) and leaves the job inthe hands of reporters. I am not so sure how much positive feeling this model would throw on the public view of the government, which isn't in the greatest of stages right now. It would increase their disfavor and many might decline to run for office for fear of the "Medial Eye". Another detrimental consequence to utilizing this model is the amount of information the government would be willing to provide for the media agencies. "Reporters and news organizations depend on government institutions for relatively cost free information, so playing a neutral adversary role could be costly (Leighley, pg. 99)." In terms of keeping the citizenry informed through entertaining means, this model would work well and would proabably not have too much trouble in obtaining funds from advertising businesses.

The next model of Leighley is the "Public Advocate Model". This model assumes that the citizenry play an essential role in the reporting process as they provide the que as to what the media should aim their focus. An important aspect of their approach is that they would provide lively debate and discussion with politicians for the sake of enlightening their viewers. They would not fall into the trap of government bias for they themselves would be a self-supporting agency and therefore free from special interests. They would therefore not be timid in questioning and seriously acting as a check on government policies. This model assumes that citizens are interested and want to be informed.

The next model is the "Profit Seeker Model". This model assumes that the primary goal of the media should be to turn a profit and be able to compete with other major corporations and even entertainment TV shows! They would obtain this through advertisers, who would pay incredible amounts of money if the ratings for the station are high. This, I beleive, is the most realistic of all the models and the least abstract as it posits what Arthur Jensen from Network "prophesised" to Howard Beale. He reprimands Beale and tells him that he has "meddled with the forces of nature", and that the lifeblood of the world is not democracy, nor even public opinion, but rather buisness... the world is one big buisness; and the media play a major componant of it, as they are the primary medium between the polity and the government. This model is the antithesis of the Public Advocate and Tocquevillian model since it really doesn't care for the political knowledge of the citizenry and democracy, but rather - the bottom line. One could potentially ask: We're just giving the people what they want, if they want to watch 147 shows of Law and Order, they'll get it, if they want to watch C-SPAN, they'll get that, so what's so wrong with fusing the Profit-Seeker model with the Public Advocacy model? We dispelled that myth in class with the story of the Nebraskan and Sushi: How does the Nebraskan, whose had steak all his life know he will like sushi? He doesn't, the only way he'll know is if he tries it. The same thing with the media, they provide us with the shows first (sushi) and we decide if we like it. The public are not necessarily the initiators of the typology of shows.

The next model is the Propagandist Model. In this model, the Media functions in cooperation with the government and views itself as a rationalizer for their decisions. “It is to support and advance the interests of those in positions of power.” They are viewed solely as an instrument of the political elite and the special interests. Their primary income still comes from advertising, however. In evaluating this particular model: since they act in consonance with the government there will be great setbacks in providing the public with what they need to know to be effective and infomed citizens, since the Media in this model, are too timid to approach their “bosses” to argue with them. They will rather work to help create the reality that the politicians desire. This model works well when the government requires the support of the people and helps with getting information from official sources. The problem comes in when those sources aren’t checked critically. A practical difference could be seen in reporting from before to after the engagment in Iraq (see below).
The final model is the Tocquevillian model. This model views the media as the primary modicum of information to inform the citizenry and the binding of all civilization. Thomas Jefferson is known to say: “If I had a choice between governement without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should never hesistate to choose the latter.” “…nothing but a newspaper can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment. A newspaper is an adviser that does not require to be sought, but that comes of its own accord and talks to you briefly every day of the common weal, without distracting you from your private affairs. Newspapers therefore become more necessary in proportion as men become more equal and individualism more to be feared. To suppose that they only serve to protect freedom would be to diminish their importance: they maintain civilization.” Tocqueville looks at the media not only as an everyday informant of the daily news, be it local or federal, but it is the stringer of society – it creates that forum in which people can read it and gain enough information to be an informed citizen. He views media in general and the newspaper in particular as the primary mode of association. Since people are so spread out, they need the newspaper to bring them together. This view assumes that people in general are self-interested and they require the newspaper to link them into various associations. It views the government as a reactionary force to the will of the people. This may be too ideal though, you have to have some distrust of government and the focus of the media should also be to watchdog the government, not just create associations. It also doesn’t address the issue of civilized debate, much like blogs nowadays where the commentators are basically on the same page as the authors (Class). Tocqueville assumes this to be the case even with the newspaper: “A newspaper, therefore, always represents an association that is composed of its habitual readers.” His model is excellent for his day when people were actually reading more than traveling, but nowadays when you have people working 9-5s and mass transit, you need some entertainment to get you into the news and politics. You would also need some discussion and debate. It is also hard to apply Tocqueville to our current society since he leaves out the role politicians would play in the press.
The one I would pick to rise above the rest and become the standard by which all MSM is judged would be the public advocacy model combined with the Tocquevillian model. The standard for current American Mass Media seems to be the Public Advocacy model. You need to make politics interesting and appealing to a broad range of people if the government will truly be a Democratic Republic, with representatives representing an informed citizenry, rather than working dads and soccer moms running around casting a blind-eye-ballot to whoever is first on the list. The job of the media is to increase political knowledge while keeping their ratings up. A piece of the Public Advocacy model is that it is interesting; now, if people are tuning in, then advertisers would rain down the cash and you could subsume the PS model under the PA model. This is also the best because it opens the door to the future and leads into a Tocquevillian utopia since in its ideal form, citizen journalists come to the fore and work with the media to inform themselves while keeping a watchful eye on the government. I would also like to combine this with the Tocqueville model since associations are key to the fabric of a democracy (see Federalist #10). This model works well for the government, relative to the Neutral Adversary model, which assumes that politicians are self-seeking. This one assumes that to an extent, but still puts some trust in the government, and views it as an extension of the people, and assumes that the polity will communicate with their officials after being informed. It holds up not objective fact because it accepts the fact that it would be too boring and may not bring the country together, it rather lauds debate and discussion, which according to Leighley: the way we overcome the effects of propaganda and minimize it, is by increasing political knowledge, education in general, debating and conversing as more of a part of your life. Those three are the principle ways that reduce the effects of political communications. This fits perfectly into the PA model since it fulfills all three. The other models do not assume this to such an extent and do not view the public as such an essential piece to the medium puzzle.

Viewing the media through the lens of the PA/TQ model, it appears that the current MSM have not lived up to the standard. A myth that McChesney debunks is the myth that the corporate media have developed by way of natural progression through the market system: “The operating assumption in most discussions of the US media system is that the media are a natuaral province of the market… To the contrary, the US media system – even in its most “free-market” sectors – is the direct result of explicit government policies and in fact, would not exist without those policies. Most dominant media firms exist because of government granted and government-enforced monopoly broadcasting licenses, telecommunication franchises, and rights to content (copyright) (pg. 19).” Corporate control in this sense actually contradicts the PA model.

The Public Advocacy/Tocqueville model seems to have been too high a standard for the MSM/Big Media of today. Let us examine this thesis. The PA/TQ Model prides itself on advocacy for the people against the governement, the production of true, well-debated information, room for association and of course, fun. The MSM prides itself on its relationship with corporate big business and governement officials rather than the people of “We the People” in the Constitution. There was a time that journalism was a middle-class job, but now, the people on TV are at the top 10% of the income distribution, while the anchors share in the top 1% (Class Discussion 10/23/06)! This is hardly a middle-class job advocating for those in the same class. The professionalization of the media can be compared to the same instance with Congress. Congressmen and Senators, posing as delegates of the people and representing their constituency, range in the top 10% of the income distribution as well (Class). Perhaps this should not come to many as a surprise as there are only six companies that own virtually everything in the US. In a Capitalist Democratic State, why wouldn’t people want to pursue their own interests and team up with big business, if it would gain them a profit? The professionalism, profit-seeking and status-seeking of the Media corps has cost the American people valuable information and the ability to serve their country’s democratic process as informed citizens.
Big Media has not lived up to the standard of the Public Advocate Model. This is highlighted in the movie Network. The point from this movie is that the media puts on a façade of news, but they really look towards the bottom line as their gauge. Howard Beale, who has had enough of the scripting and choreography his station, UBS, has played out, and he tells his audience this and decides to embark on a quest for truth. Although this is risky for UBS, they decide to go through with it since their ratings couldn’t have been any worse. They basically move into the Public Advocacy model by accident; and they’re only there because it fits into the Profit-Seeker model as well. But when Beale starts sharing the inner workings of UBS and how the media in general tries to delude the audience into believing what the policy makers want them too, he gets himself assassinated (also a profit raiser). The point of this movie is to reveal Profit-Seeker model of Big Media within the façade of the Public Advocate Model.
Jon Stewart, while on Crossfire, took the role of Public Advocate while he played the hosts into the role of propagandists for the politicians. He criticized their interviewing methods as “theater” and that it was all scripted from the outset. This again is a case of another model within the façade of the Public Advocacy Model. In other words, Crossfire seemed like it was having serious discussion and debate, when in reality it was propagandizing for the government by asking all the right questions. In the middle of the tirade, Stewart says:
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
Stewart is suggesting that the Big Media, under which Crossfire falls, do not act in the interest of the public, but rather in the interest of CNN, or Big Media, or even government. Stewart says “but you can sleep at night” to emphasize the point that, in a Public Advocacy model, you don’t have to worry about being the lapdogs of the politicians by spinning the people.
Another aspect of the Public Advocacy Model is the enlightenment of the citizenry. This is essential for a democracy to work since the people have to be in dialogue with their elected representatives. Nowadays, Big Media are to blame for too many shows on sex, violence and scandal. While these shows are entertaining, which is also a part of the PA model, they are taking the place of important, realistic thoughts which should be in the minds of people. When PA model says that the Media should be entertaining, it means in its political field. To have 147 different versions of Law and Order and Survivor is not enlightening. And even the News shows themselves are dealing with the aforementioned themes. “A central preoccupation of the news has become the activities and personal lives of celebrities… Politicians stand a far greater chance of becoming the object of news media scrutiny if they are rumored to have ten outstanding parking tickets or to have skipped out on a bar bill at a topless club than if they quietly use their power to funnel billions of public dollars to powerful special interests.” Why should this be so? Why isn’t the media acting as our advocates? Because “fluff is cheaper and easier to cover than hard news and rarely angers those in power, while it provides an illusion of controversy to the public (McChesney, pg. 86).” Let’s face it, in the Cost-Benefit analysis, wherever you could find the most benefit with the least amount of cost – that’s where the story is, unfortunately for us. For example, CBS’s choice to place Katie Couric as the anchor for the Evening News was more motivated by her looks and comport than by her insight. CBS’s huge promotional campaign in advance of Katie Couric’s arrival as anchor of its evening news program paid a rich dividend, at least on her opening night: the broadcast drew 13.6 million viewers on Tuesday, its largest audience in more than eight years, according to preliminary estimates by Nielsen Media Research released yesterday by the network and its competitors (CrankyDocs). To evaluate the MSM on this issue with regard to the standard of the PA/TQ model, we could suggest that it does provide entertainment, but it would be hard-pressed to argue that she does a better job enlightening the viewers. She was criticized just her first night as anchor as being too fluffy. Again, this is journalism falling below the standard.
As a final evaluation of how the MSM has fared using the standard of Public Advocate/Tocqueville Model, I will turn to how the press handled the Iraq War during the leadup to the war as opposed to their behavior after.
One of the biggest puzzles of today is how President Bush received so much widespread support for a war that was doomed (we’ll see) to failure at the worst and internal violence at the best? The answer to this, as was discussed numerous time in class throughout the semester was the linkage the members of the Bush Administration made between Iraq and 9/11 (see Cranky Doc’s – “A cheap shot), the hype he built up around WMDs and the War on Terror. Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy, in his book Politics and Propaganda, lays out three characteristics of propaganda: (1) Rhetoric, (2) Myth and (3) Symbolism. The president and the administration were experts in using rhetoric to their advantage. The most famous example is the president standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln with the sign “Mission Accomplished” blazed across his background. As we all now know, the mission isn’t yet accomplished. This is just one example among many. So, how is the media to blame for this seeming deception on the part of the president and the administration? This past summer, while working in Congressman Steve Israel’s office we had the privilege of hearing from a photographer from Newsday ©. He told us that his job is to get the picture and walk out; he couldn’t really care for the content of the event. In this case, as in many cases, the administration took this into account and knew the press wouldn’t question them in plastering a “Mission Accomplished” sign behind the president – they framed the event through rhetoric. The media is also to blame, in part, for the lack of opposition to the Iraq war. It is widely agreed upon that the US is in a difficult position now and is not sure whether to pull out or stay the course; if we had sufficient information before the engagement into war, we could have made better choices. For example, the CIA reported that there is no evidence at all of WMDs (Sept. 9), why didn’t the media question Bush before the war? Some might argue that they did question the motives of the president before the war, but the true answer to those questions were avoided as an arrow shot against an oily shield. (VIDEO). The FOX news station is notorious as fitting perfectly into the Propagandist/Profit-Seeker Model of Mass Media. They have “cut costs to the bone by replacing expensive conventional journalism with celebrity pontificators. Using this formula, Fox News was able to generate roughly equivalent profits to CNN by 1999-2000 and spent far less than CNN to do so (McChesney, pg. 79).” A result of the way Fox News cooperated with the government and didn’t provide so much by way of serious reporting is evidenced by the table (inset), which shows how the viewers of Fox News believed the implied claims of the President that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The press, for a variety of reasons, didn’t act on behalf of the public interest, especially in terms of soldiers’ lives, and were too timid to challenge the administration. And they would admit it:
Boehlert cited an interview from Hardball with Chris Matthews with Jim Lehrer as saying that it was not possible for journalists to foresee the messy aftermath of the Iraqi Liberation Operation. He claimed as well that its not fair to charge reporters with the mishap since the rhetoric coming out of the White House (which according to Ms. Leighley is the primary source for official news) kept referring to the upcoming war as "Liberation" and not "Occupation":Lehrer: I do. The word "occupation," keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was "liberation." So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.Matthews: Because?Lehrer: Because it just didn't occur to us. We weren't smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our -- in retrospective.
After the apparent stalemate in the war, however, the press lived more up to their namesake – the press, and was not satisfied with answers that avoided the question. They were not on such seemingly friendly terms with the administration. (Compare the clips, the first one which is posted on the bottom is the way the press treat Bush now, after the mess up, and this is the link to what the press was like at the leadup to the war): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.html
So, perhaps one could make the argument that the model of media in the lead-up to the war was Propaganda, while after was Neutral Adversary and Public Advocate.

It would appear that the New Media is a bittersweet appearance in terms of the Public Advocate Model of media. On the one hand they are an incredible source of enlightenment, and an exciting one at that; there are a plethora of websites and news outlets that expand the horizons of knowledge to anyone who seeks it out. When it comes to the blogosphere, there are some flaws, especially when you consider the lack of authority and focus. Dan Gillmore, in his book we the media, quotes Chris Allbritton, an individual who raised money through his blog, as saying: “A blogger has to pick a topic and stick to it… most blogs are too unfocused (pg. 156).” But, popular blogs have thousands of readers and have just as much influence as an MSM outlet. The New Media’s ability in forming associations is unmatched. I think de Tocqueville would be proud of the New Media. Aside from the many websites revolving around political interests and associations, there are websites for dating, vacation ideas and astronomy to name but a few. So far so good. But if we compare further the New Media with the PA model, we find some holes. For one, there is really not that much debate across group lines on the Internet. The comments on the blogs are pretty much homogeneous and those who argue would be looked upon as trolls. When it comes to the characteristic to be a watchdog on the government, they also come up short. The government is extremely large and bureacratic, the New Media is more democratic and direct. So, even though there have been some cases of the blogosphere affecting the government, they are limited in scope. Gillmore brings the case of the Korean website, OhMyNews.com, which led to the election of a new president of the country.
When compared with the Traditional Media, I would have to say that even though the NM beats out the traditional in terms of the PA/TQ model, there are still some holes that the NM must yeild to the traditional sources. The most clear-cut difference is in the connections the MSM have with official sources of news. If we dive right into the blogosphere and remove MSM, to quote Jonathan Noble, this is the “death of authoritative information as we know it.” But you could also look at it as that you are entrusting the knowledge of mankind back to the people; so it could go two ways. But even Gillmore is wary of the NM in this regard and view the job of the traditional journalists to be a filter. “The job of the journalist, more than ever, is to be a filter.” The traditional journalists are to keep their prior connections to the government, but there has to be a shift in medial thought, almost a revolution. In order for the NM to have enough political muscle as the traditional media is if they develop relationships with politicians, and this would only happen if politicians, as busy as they are, find time to go online and chat with constituents – the makers of the NM.
The potential for the New Media to develop into the Public Advocate Model of Mass Media, as I said before, they would need to have Congress become more interactive and democratic. This is because an important aspect of the PA model is the interaction the media has with the government and to advocate for the people. In the case of NM, where the media is the people, there need to be a breakdown somewhat of formality and professionalism within the government and the media. I am not sure how feasible this will be since status plays a big role. So, when Kevin Sites created a blog when he was in Iraq, his mother company, CNN made him stop it because they felt it wasn’t professional enough (Gillmore, Chapter 6). MSNBC welcomed it though; so there is some hope. In a way, they could become more connected with politicians. For example, “Counselor Tobin got himself known out there with his daily video blog – and his electorate got to know him a lot better than his opponents who had mere texts (Class Discussion, 11/27/06).” If other politicians were to do this, then the NM could be entertaining while enlightening the viewers. If it would also be possible for there to develop in the future a blog specifically designed to bring together different points of view, this would work incredibly well for the PA and Tocquevillian model. However, McChesney warns us as to the possibility of the Big Media pulling the carpet from under our legs, so to speak. “If media firms are allowed to become vastly larger they will in effect be handed tremendous power to shape how NM technologies are developed… (McChesney, pg. 217).” We have to be wary of Big Media even in the New Media.
In conclusion, the combonation of the Public Advocacy Model and the Tocquville Model of Mass Media seems to be the standard to which MSM and New Media should be judged. It incorporates entertainment with true, lively debate and should work well to create an informed polity who will act effectively in a democracy such as ours. The MSM have not really lived up to that standard as they have come under the umbrella of massive corporations and are on friendly terms with politicians. The consequences for this have been many lost lives in Iraq due to the timidity the media felt in questioning the motives of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war. New Media seems to be on the rise, but we can’t take traditional journalism out of the picture so long as they still have access to the primary sources of news. Although the NM have a Tocquevillian character to them, they still are too vast to fit his description of the media being easily accessable. The NM also must work on its ability to cross group lines and steer clear of Big Media. When writing about the future of New Media, Dan Gillmore hypothesizes: “Only one thing is certain: we’ll all be astounded by what’s to come (Gillmore, pg. 158).”