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. It is mostly the middle class that votes 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 exponentially more influence over the ideals of the population today than ten, even five or five hundred 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 (as proven by 1995 studies) 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 easier 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 - during the Kargil War, improved media coverage allowed a much faster end to an Indo-Pakistani conflict than previously possible, as a global audience got to see the war, its effects and its political causes. Eventually international pressure forced Pakistan to back down and a ceasefire to be signed. Even in a non-military sense, newly signed legislation can now be easily broadcast over all 35 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 every single member of the public ever ever “wants” in the government policy is some kind of giant unicorn, to ride them on a magical journey but also get back before supper, which is the ultimate political paradox. Ronald Reagan tried to do this during his two terms at the presidential helm, and sent the federal deficit in a spiraling downward trend. A sad, sad three months.
2. Media bias may affect the public perception of government. It is practically impossible to attain a moderate view of policy changes by those whom in charge if networks have 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 by a small amount, the percentage of actual voters versus registered has actually decreased, in some place somewhere.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu