Media has negative effect on politics

Media has negative effect on politics

Manipulate reality 
 

Authoritative theory.  

Authoritative theory was articulated to define the relationship between the press and the authoritarian environment in Europe during the old days of monarchs and emperors. Under this political system, the mass media, (private or public) are clearly subordinate to the state and are restrained from criticizing of the government of the day or its officials or both. Furthermore, the authoritarian philosophy sees the mass media as only existing for the interest of the government and the elite in the society. To ensure the continuance of such status, a variety of methods is used to impose and legal trial. Such methods include licensing, censorship and legal trial. This theory did not allow freedom of the press. At no time is the press expected to criticize the government even when the press is privately owned. 

Libertarian theory 

Libertarian theory is the opposite of authoritarian theory. This philosophy advocates that people should be left free and given access to all types of ideas from which they should freely choose. Also known as free press theory, it posits that media should be owned by anybody who has the means and the desire to do so, and that media should be liberated from government control so that they can provide a free market place of ideas for the enlightenment of the people. In other words, this theory believes in total freedom of the press. One great philosopher that contributed to the libertarian theory of the press was John Stuart Mill in his book titled On Liberty. He argued that if we keep silence on an opinion, we might be silencing the truth and a wrong opinion may contain a grain of truth. Another person who contributed to the libertarian thought was Thomas Jefferson. In his defense of freedom, Jefferson said that if he were to choose between government and newspaper that he will rather have Newspaper than government. 

Soviet-communist theory 

Soviet communist is also called the Soviet-communist theory. Soviet communist theory is referred to as the new authoritarianism because of its similarity with the authoritarian theory. This theory believes in strict control of the press. The theory is of the argument that the press should support the government and not oppose it. In the societies where the Soviet media theory is in operation, all mass media; Newspaper, magazine and broadcast stations are owned and operated by the government. This means that private ownership of the press is forbidden in the Soviet communist Political system. 

Relationship between the government and the mass media could be seen in terms of control and ownership. Control in the sense that government uses a lot of measure to control the affairs of the mass media to avoid being ridiculed by the mass media. Again, ownership in the sense that government owns the mass media or is in partnership with mass media, thereby influencing each them. Government in a bid to have absolute control of the mass media, venture into media ownership with the view of bringing the media to serve as propaganda tools for them. The media practitioners under this sort of media control may not be entirely objective in handling issues of government policies for fear of falling into the hands of the law. They live by the popular maxim, which holds that “he who pays the piper dictate the tune” and in this way, throwing professional demands of objectivity, accuracy, balance etc. to the winds. 

Even in United States, mass media is still been influence by government although not authoritatively but with appealing force. Although, their relationship seems dynamic, improving as the years goes by, becoming more symbiotic than parasitic. In developing countries, especially in war torn countries in Africa, a journalist can lose his life if he dare attack the government with his pen. 

We tend to hear fewer of the once notorious journalistic questions with regards to governmental action. The media just ends up parroting the government with regards to what is going on. Rosenberg and Feldman accuse the news media of being relatively uncritical and asking few questions when George W. Bush announced that the United States had been victorious in the Iraq war. Commenting on the Iraq war, Arianna Huffington said that “media watchdogs acted more like lapdogs.” 

The business of political journalism has become less about asking tough questions and more about being the first to announce what the government recently did. Also, reporting is generally interpreted through the political lens of whatever organization publishing it. Fox is republican, MSNBC is democrats, and CNN pushes their own agendas. 

How can we even begin to discuss issues of this magnitude in such time frames? Of course we can’t. The fact is, these political ‘debates’ are far more a media and popularity gimmick than a tool for understanding how we can shape the fate of our society. News media get lots of content they can feed the beast with, and political candidates get a chance to score points against their opponents in these brief clashes. 

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediahistory.html 
 

The media has a tremendous effect on politics and the politicians themselves. It is within human nature to believe what is told to us. We tend to believe the media because research is done by them and they are a main source of information. Dan Rather, who does the CBS “Evening News”, was accused of a counterfeit story that could have brought down George Bush, particularly because it was released right before the election. The report focused on George Bush’s service in the National Guard, and weather it actually happened or not. It was later discredited because documents it relied on were artificial. Another example of how the media is terrible for politics is it can be very one-sided. Most of the larger news stations are owned by an extremely rich democrat or an extremely rich republican. Stations such as NBC, Viacom, ABC, CNN, CBS, and FOX and newspaper corporations such as Gannett, Knight-Ridder, The New York Times, Times Mirror, and The Washington Post are all owned by wealthy individuals, and at times can be very biased. “…these ties cannot help but seriously bias and compromise news coverage (1)”; therefore the whole truth is not given. If the media is allowed to have free reign about what they are allowed to say, it could easily bring down the career of any politician it is against. 
 

The media not only plays a role in American political affairs, but international political affairs as well. Sometimes media coverage in international political affairs can be for the better or for the worse. During the Vietnam war, people were all for it as first, but when reporters and television stations started showing what was actually happening the public turned against the war and against president Johnson “…the Pentagon was thereafter much more careful to control what foreign correspondents and TV crews would be allowed to see and report. (3)” When the president of the Philippines, Marcos, was having his people killed, the media stepped in and helped when thousands of Filipinos were dieing. Due to the extensive news coverage 500,000 Filipinos living in Southern California were offered reassurance and did not have to return to their homeland to protect their families. The media is also covering our war with Iraq right now. Many people disagree with Bush’s decision to declare war on Iraq; most are calling it a war for oil. Reporters are over in Iraq filming and doing interviews with soldiers and people who live in Iraq. The media coverage has practically left the country divided on the issue because they withhold some of the information from the American public. The media also covers non-American involvement in other countries that allows us to see what is going on. A recent example of this would be the hostage situation at a school in Russia. Getting up to the minute information like this gave Russian immigrants or those who have family in Russia, somewhat peace of mind. The media plays a vast role in American and international political affairs. 

The news media were showing their bias, but it is not a liberal or a conservative one. It is a preference for criticism. The press, as the scholar Michael Robinson once noted, seems to have taken some motherly advice and turned it upside down: "If you don't have anything bad to say about someone, don't say anything at all." (4)

In politics which material can be forbidden

Fahrenheit 9/11 where and how it was forbidden

wikileaks

Impact of media on politics

Videos