Location: Featured Articles > Archive
Media & the Democratic State
JNI
The media in modern democracy is the channel between the state and the individual, and therefore has immense power. Common to all descriptions of the relationship between the media and political institutions is an implicit understanding that a deep, evolving, and uneasy relationship exists between the two. The real questions then, are the degree of influence each exerts, on whom and to what extent; as well as the present and future allocation of power in the relationship. I believe that the two institutions are so deeply intertwined that the relationship can best be described as symbiotic, with political actors offering access to information and resources, and the media offering exposure and content. I also believe that the relationship is tipped in the media’s favor because it has fewer institutional restraints than the political institutions.
The rise of the media as an institutional force in political communication can be explained by the concepts of personalization and mediatization. Personalization manifests in an increased importance of individuals and a decrease in importance of political parties and institutions (Rahat & Sheafer, 2007). This has had the affect of shifting the way the media presents politics, to focus more on the individual politician’s image. Furthermore, politicians picked up on these changes and adapted their behavior accordingly.
Mediatization is common to almost all democratic countries (Mazzoleni, 1999). It is a process whereby mass media has become increasingly independent of and influential on political institutions (Stromback and Kaid, 2008). Stromback and Kaid (2008) discuss the evolution in democratic societies from mediated politics to the mediatization of politics. According to the theory, the media first starts as the medium; then becomes independent; political actors then learn to adapt to media processes; and finally, political actors adopt media processes. The effects of mediatization are immense – they condition politicians’ behavior, forcing them to conform their style and substance to the ‘rules of the game’ in order to gain exposure and reach the polity. The intrusion of media into politics also means that politics is framed as a ‘game’, with sensational coverage of political events and leaders (Mazzoleni, 1999). This may be because the media are corporate ventures and people are viewed more as consumers (Stromback & Kaid, 2008, p.8). Taken together, these processes fostered deep interaction between the two institutions and led to development of ‘rules of the game’ that moderate their behavior.
The Media
A major source of power for the media is its control over exposure to the general public. The media is driven by the competition for consumers, and thus ‘newsworthiness’ is the media’s main rule of the game for the (Stromback & Kaid, 2008); ‘news’ is that information which is important and interesting (Sheafer, 2001). This has the effect of encouraging political actors to make news “as a way to achieve political power and accomplish policy goals” (Cook, 1998, p.114).
The media has an arguably important role due to its ‘effects’. By this I refer to the effect of tone and content in the media on public opinion. Even assuming that the effect is minimal, political actors still perceive it as pivotal and part of the ‘rules of the game’. A good example is ‘the influence of a presumed media influence’ (Tsfati & Cohen, 2005), demonstrated by a study showing that Knesset members who believe that the media influences their voters work harder to achieve media attention.
‘Indirect cognitive effects’ posits that the greatest media effect is its ability to affect the information available to the public (Lippmann, 1922), and thus also affect the public’s response to political behavior. A media frame is “a central organizing idea” used to interpret events and highlight certain issues as relevant (Gamson, 1989, p.35). Many studies have shown the effect of media framing (Kahaneman & Tversky, 1981; Nelson, Clawson & Oxley, 1997) and they indicate that political actors must craft their public image and message in a media savvy way.
Agenda-setting is when the media influence public opinion by emphasizing certain issues over others. Priming is when the media makes some issues more salient than others, thereby influencing the criteria by which the public judges political actors. The best way to understand the two concepts is through the sentence: “high on the media’s agenda in the run-up to the election was economics, thus the public was primed to evaluate its leaders’ general performance through their economic performance.” The ability to set the agenda and prime the public, if true, is critical. Finally, due to personalization and the profit-making purpose of the media, the political campaign has been transformed into a ‘horse race’, with media focus on individual traits, sleaze, and polls.
Democratic State
The concept of ‘indexing’ underscores the media’s recognition of the notion that ‘official sources’ provide the best access to the most credible political information (Cook, 1998). The indexing theory states that journalists develop frames by ‘indexing’ the range of views expressed in mainstream government debate on a given topic (Bennett, 1990). Being the source of political power and information cannot be underestimated, because information is the media’s commodity, and “government officials tend to be the most often quoted sources for the news” (Cook, 1998, p.95).
The state’s power is also derived from its ability to control access to information. That is, it can determine the time and place of the interaction, and even the agenda (A prime minister’s press conference is a good example).
For political challengers not found within the framework of the governing institutions, it is very difficult to serve as an authoritative and credible source. Political challengers are thus rarely deemed newsworthy enough to receive exposure. The best hope for challengers is to make enough noise so that the political elites listen and begin to integrate it into their dialogue. Criticism of the Vietnam war, for example, only gained traction when congressional sources began raising doubts (Cook, 1998).
The relationship between the media and state often plays out in the realm of public opinion, where personalization and the proliferation of soft news and infotainment has bred cynicism of politics, especially among young viewers (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). There is also clear evidence that the public agenda follows closely that of the media (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The cumulative effect is that political actors must take notice and adapt to media-affected public opinion.
Israel Media-State relations as viewed through the peace process
In the context of the peace process, the media-state relationship is apparent. Personalization and mediatization can be seen in two ways: Netanyahu, stalwart of the Likud ideology and party, opted to support a ‘two-state solution’ after being elected PM, contradicting his party’s platform. And by making his personal appeals for Abbas to return to the negotiating table via the media, he reveals how he has adopted the media as an intermediary, not only to communicate with another world leader, but also to communicate a message to his people that he is actively involved. The constant declarations by the government about the peace process may be interpreted as its attempt to remain newsworthy; and the effect of the ‘game’ frame is evident in Netanyahu’s constant polling, which permits him to assess his moves with the aid of public opinion.
The media, when discussing the peace process, frame Netanyahu as a man trying to satisfy two opposing publics at once – the settlers and members in his party who reject concessions versus the general public – and they question his intentions and authenticity regarding peace. This frame appears to be embraced by the general public, both right and left, who use it to justify their support or opposition for him.
The power of political actors can be seen in the fact that real movement in the peace process emanates on a governmental level, and thus the government controls the information and is the ultimate source for such matters. Non-governmental sources are not authoritative and thus not newsworthy. Even though the views of the Opposition and Arab parties are indexed, it is mainly for their value as official responses. The ‘unofficial’ anti-freeze movement might be a good example of a political challenger being indexed by journalists, but it should be noted that their stories were given an authoritative stamp by institutions like Yesha and right-wing political parties or factions. Netanyahu’s speech about the two-state solution encapsulated the state-media relationship well: Netanyahu set the conditions and the agenda of the event; yet the frame, agenda, and tone of the final product were determined by the media.
Clearly, a symbiotic relationship of necessity exists between the state and the media. For political actors, exposure to and communication with the public is crucial to attaining and retaining power. For the news media, information is the sought-after commodity, and there’s usually no more credible and newsworthy source for political information than the political establishment. But for all the talk about it being the “fourth branch of government” (Cater, 1959), the reality is that the media has greater freedom and less institutional restraints, as its corporate ownership guarantees its independence and its singular pursuit of newsworthy information. The imbalance is reflected in the proliferation of alternate sources of political communication, like infotainment and soft news, and the spectacle of political actors continually having to play catch-up and adapt to the new media channel.
[1] Mediated politics is where mass media is the main channel for political discourse between the electorate and the government institutions (Stromback and Kaid, 2008, p.2).
[1] According to Lazarsfeld’s ‘Minimal media effects’ model, which followed the findings of his study The People's Choice (1944).
Related content
Ariel Harkham |
Ariel Harkham |
Ariel Harkham |
David Matlin |
Ariel Harkham |
Eshkol Avanim |
All rights reserved © JNI 2010
