The mass media is, ‘A major shaper of public opinion, and thus vital to any understanding of modern politics’. Discuss with regard to mass media

One can imagine several ways in which media influences public behaviour. Anyone on the street will agree that media influences them. However, academics call for more analysis of the validity of such claims, as the one in question. I believe that the media is a major shaper of public opinion and plays a vital role in modern politics and how it operates. How vital, is a question that needs analysing.

To understand the effects of media on the public’s opinion, we need to understand what is meant by mass media. It has been defined as “the various agents of mass communication and entertainment: newspapers, magazines and other publications, television, radio, and the cinema.”[1]We need to add to this definition, the various different forms of new media opened up by the internet, such as blogs, online journals and newspapers which has gained popularity in the latter part of the 20th century especially among young people. Mass media’s functions include, predominantly, entertainment. The political function of media is more indirect and subtle. It includes the collection, organisation and dissemination of news and information and aiding in public debates. Also, “At societal level, mass communication is now indispensable to: the acquisition of power; the legitimisation of authority; the enforcement of social norms; and the organisation (including the definition) of public opinion.”[2] Media is also used as a tool for mobilising the public.

Democracy entitles the right of political decision making to everyone through means of voting and expressing their opinion. Effectively, what voting does is to measure the public opinion on a candidate, his/her stand on issues and approval of a particular candidate. The notion of democracy has evolved from rule ‘of people, for the people, by the people’, to a more representative process, whereby elected individuals and parties represent us in parliament and government, and express our views on issues. While this process made governing easier logistically, it also meant that the public is distant to a certain degree, from the ‘public’ sphere. A medium which relays information from the private arenas of government to the households and streets was needed. This device came to be the mass media.

“God made the people read so that I could fill their brains with facts, facts, facts- and later tell them whom to love, whom to hate, and what to think” Lord Northcliffe.

Several studies done on the effects of mass media on society have proven what many of us have suspected: mass media has important effects on society in general and on elections specifically. However, the strength of these effects depends on a variety of other factors such as the length of exposure time and the variety of media sources.

Earlier studies of mass communication measured conversions or changes in political attitudes and found that there was little evidence to support this claim. For example the Elmira study of the 1948 presidential campaign showed that only 3% shifted parties between August and October.[3] Studies done by Berelson and his colleagues also found that there was little evidence of a bandwagon effect. Rather, their studies concluded that mass media “crystallises and reinforces more than it coverts”.[4] ‘Crystallises’ here refers to learning and sharpening of political attitudes and ‘reinforcing’ to strengthening of pre existing political attitudes. This suggests that the media has a teaching role to the public. But opinions and attitudes do not form from thin air. They have to be established from some point and it is almost always based on primary or secondary information gathered from the media which is the most readily available source. So the earlier studies did indicate that the public learnt from mass media. The more exposed you were the more information you had. But as political attitudes are built up over time, no immediate attitude change was observed.

McCombs and Shaw’s study of a group of voters from Chapel Hill attempted to demonstrate that by controlling and choosing news stories, editors, news reporters, broadcasters and staff play an important role in shaping political reality. This, they called agenda setting. They were interested to see whether there was a correlation between what was being emphasized by the media and what the group of people considered important. Their findings showed that voters tend to place emphasis on the same issues as the media. It also showed that voters paid attention to political news regardless of where it was coming from. While three candidates highlighted on different issues, the important issues that the voters emphasized on were the issues being given attention by the media, not by their preferred individual candidates. There was also evidence that undecided voters attended well to all news compared to voters affiliated with a particular party or had already decided on their choice.[5] This is an important finding as campaigns today are becoming targeted towards the median voter rather than extreme thinkers. Therefore, campaigns can use media sources to their advantage to try and swing the median voter to their advantage.

The press makes or breaks a candidate. Campaigns for office have never relied on mass media as much as now. The media not only keeps the public abreast of what the candidates think are important, but they also make a candidate and his/her traits obvious or silent. Candidates who receive more coverage are better known. In a study done among 1018 British adults in 2001, more than half of the polled claimed that leader and party image mattered to them in an election.[6]In trying to explain the poor turnout in the British General Elections of 2001, researchers have found that the poor media coverage was a dominant reason. The media had come to the conclusion that they were bored of the election. And the coverage was minimum and mostly focused on electoral process and procedure rather than issues and leaders which public was more interested in. And most reports on the elections were negative rather than positive. Because of the lacklustre way the campaign was covered in the media, the public did not get much chance to see the candidates and their positions.

The lacklustre election coverage not only failed to give the electorate the chance to connect with the candidate, but it also failed to inspire people, especially young people, to go out and vote. In contrast to the 2001 election in Britain, the ongoing USA presidential election is turning out record numbers of young people (18-24yrs) even though it’s only the primaries. What is different this year is, the candidates are turning to more modern types of media that young people can easily access: things that they are used to. Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, announced her candidacy on the internet, clearly in a bid to reach out to the younger voters. Political blogs and internet are just a few ways media is mobilising youth and other voters in USA elections. Media is often used this way, especially during elections. Even otherwise, as most voters do not keep up to date with politics in between elections, media often plays a vital role in informing the public about ongoing issues and debates.

Often it is questioned whether media shapes the public opinion, or whether media is just a reflection of what the public is feeling. This means that public and media reflects on different incidents in the same way: that they see the same message in the different conflicts. Evidently, this is not the case. Media does not respond to news the same way the public does. Newspapers often judge any incident by its newsworthiness: the way it could enhance theirs and the newspaper’s opinions. It would be naive to consider that editors of newspapers, programmes, e.t.c. do not have their own agendas or bias in choosing the news stories and headlines. If not the editors, then the owners, in hiring their editors and other related activity, may push their own views on the related media vessel. These ‘actions’ may happen unconsciously or consciously and because of the “subtle nature of processes like the selective recruitment and internalized expectations, highly confidential nature of overt intentions” make it difficult to properly assess this.[7]

One could assess how much states view the media as a threat or an asset. With regard to how much states value media, it is evident in the often close relationships state officials have with reporters and media officials and vice versa. The media is needed by the government to often legitimize their actions. State leaders have often used the media as a tool to develop stronger relationships with the public; for example George W. Bush addresses the nation weekly on the radio. Some states see media as a threat to their legitimacy. Some states restrict the public’s access to it, Iran, Pakistan and China being some examples.

The bottom line is, that media does influence public opinion. These effects may not be short time but rather visible over a long period of time, which suggests that influence on public opinion is dependent on other factors such as exposure time and density. Preference of family, social groups or society of certain kinds of media may also influence one’s opinions. Media is an important part of democracy. Mass media has a substantial effect on how citizens think and moreover, on what they think about. And what media says has direct effects on what policy makers do. Policy makers usually look for favourable opinions from media sources as they believe that media shapes public opinion.

The question remains, to what extent? Public usually gets information in two ways: directly from the source and from indirect sources such as mass media. Armed with the information, the public makes decisions about issues affecting their lives. As it is less likely for a large proportion of the public to have access to direct sources they have to rely on indirect sources thus showing that public opinion does rest majorly on what the mass media projects: thereby making mass media a force to be reckoned with.

Bibliography

Axford, B., Browning, G., Huggins, R. and Rosamond, B., Politics: an Introduction 2nd edition, 2002

Blumler, J. G., Bogdanor, V., (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, 1987

McCombs, M. and Shaw, D., ‘The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 1972, p176-187

McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003

Page, B., ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1996, p20-24

Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47

Worcester, R. and Mortimore, R., Explaining Labour’s Second Landslide, Politicos, 2002
Campbell, I., McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003
[1] Campbell, I., McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003
[2] Blumler, J. G., Bogdanor, V., (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, 1987
[3] Berelson, Lazarsfield and McPhee, ‘voting’, p23, tab 3, as cited in Mc Combs, ‘Mass Communications in Political Campaigns’ p171 cited in Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47
[4] Ibid. p248 as cited in as cited in Mc Combs, ‘Mass Communications in Political Campaigns’ p171 cited Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47
[5] McCombs, M. and Shaw, D., ‘The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 1972, p176-187
[6] Base: 1018 British adults 18+, 29 May 2001, Source: MORI/The Times cited in Worcester, R. and Mortimore, R., Explaining Labour’s Second Landslide, Politicos, 2002

[7] Page, B., ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1996, p20-24

‘A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do’. Does this sum up the essence of political power?

“Politics is... about the uneven distribution of power in a society, how the struggle of power is conducted, and its impact on the creation distribution of resources, life chances and well being.”[1]

Power is one of the most central concepts in the study of politics. Therefore, it is important to study the concept of power and the way it’s exercised. Under the conditions that the person has power and chooses to use it, the ultimate goal of having power is to make the other person do something that you want. In this sense, the statement in question sums up the essence of political power. However, it is hard to agree completely with the phrase “would not otherwise do”. If we are agreeing, we are assuming we know what the other person’s reactions will be in a certain situation. This is sometimes not possible because everyone does not act the same way in every situation. Human beings often evaluate their potential gains and losses from any situation before they make a decision which may sometimes be or not be the decision we had assumed they would make. However, any ‘powerful’ person will and can certainly influence the other’s choices and can override any objections. This power can be exerted in different ways. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the ways in which political figures exert power over the masses and to prove that it is mostly through constricting the realm in which society acts that power is exerted.

The oxford concise dictionary of politics[2] defines power as “the ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise have done”. Andrew Heywood[3] distinguishes between the two meanings of power. He explains that in a broader sense, power can be defined as “the ability to achieve a desired outcome”. But he explains political power to be “the ability to influence the behaviour of others in a manner not of their choosing”; Or to have power over someone. The German Sociologist, Max Weber defined power as “the chance of a man or of a number of people to realize their own will in a communal action against the resistance of others who are participating in the action”.[4] This means power is the ability to force someone to do things whether they want it or not. Essentially all these definitions sum up the following, with regard to the phrase ‘A has power over B’: A has influence over B’s choices and actions, A has the ability to change B’s choices in the way A wants, A also has the power to oppose and overcome any objections that B might have.[5]

The statement, ‘A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do’, is a definition coined together by Robert Dahl, in his essay, ‘On the concept of power’. It has come to be widely used but has been criticized as well. It ‘disregards the possibility of mutually convenient power relations’[6] where power maybe a resource benefiting both A and B. It also disregards the process of selective decision making. Clearly some decisions are more important than others, so to base the defining of a broad concept such as power, only on the amount of times they get their way is not a very valid approach. It is true that sometimes, ‘a strategic or hegemonic group will allow minority interests to prevail on certain issues which do not directly threaten its domination, reserving its influence for matters of greater significance’[7]. Dahl’s concept of power is easy to observe and measure. However in defining power in this way, as possessed by individuals in decision making process, power is being widely distributed; everyone has power. This is the pluralistic view of political power. In the pluralistic viewpoint, power is widely distributed and evenly dispersed in society.[8] Therefore, patterns in preference shaping are hardly predictable. People, who aren’t necessarily knowledgeable or have no meaningful political voice, also have power. The pluralists’ concerns are to “(a) select for the study a number of “key” as opposed to “routine” political decision, (b) identify the people who took an active part in the decision making process, (c) obtain a full account of their actual behaviour while the policy conflict was being resolved, and (d) determine and analyze the specific outcome of the conflict”.[9] It does not take into account that power may sometimes be exercised in confining the arena of the decision making process to suit the powerful. It is more concerned with the more obvious, observable faces of power. When saying that A gets B to do something he otherwise would not have done, it is also essential to know what B might have done without A in the picture. Would B follow A’s preferences or would B have his own choices to follow? Human rationality is not so powerful that one can be sure of how another person will react in any given situation.

How can one be sure that the non-visible factors do not affect a decision making process? This is where Bachrach and Baratz definition of power comes in. Critical of Dahl’s pluralistic view, they provided an elitist view that said, “Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values that limit the scope of the political process to the public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.”[10] In this situation, A is not sure of what B’s preferences will be and A does not care about them. A is merely making sure that he gets what he wants by reducing the options available to B at the time of decision making. This is known as agenda setting. It is common to see issues that are of tremendous importance to the society or is gaining popularity to be left out of the political agenda. For example, until recently, environmental issues have been left of political agendas and not discussed in policy making meetings. However, now it is gaining more popularity amongst politicians. One may wonder how these items got on the agendas. And the answer is that powerful elites felt that now was a convenient time for the issue to be discussed. It is common to come across situations where a person of tremendous calibre remains silent because he/she fears that they would be in the minority group, their decision will not tally well with the ‘authorities’ or they might end up losing their credibility and popularity. It is clear that it is because of certain restrictions that have been put up by the authoritative figures that one is constrained to act like one would feel. The critiques point out that like Dahl’s method, Bachrach and Bratzs’ view also conforms to only the observable acts of power. They exclude possibilities in which the subjects do not identify themselves as being subordinated or having a preference over something which they are being stopped from accomplishing.

Giving more credibility to the less visible is Lukes’ definition of power. He outlines the three dimensional view of power which is a more complex understanding of power and away from the Behaviouralism approach. He argues that A certainly exercises control over B, but a more “effective and invidious” [11] form of power is exercised when A shapes the preferences of B. Lukes asks, “…is it not the most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things…”[12] Lukes simply coins together the arguments’ proposed by Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz together with his own to provide a three dimensional view of power which comprises of “(1) the strategies, struggles and practises that characterise the decision-making process; (2)the actions and inactions involved in the shaping of the agenda for decision-making process; and (3) the actions and inactions similarly implicated in the shaping of perceived interests and political preferences.”[13] This gives rise to the idea of a society which is created to fulfil the needs of the elite and more importantly, the society’s interests and preferences are also shaped by the elites. As Dahl said in “the Ruling Elite”[14], “...one could argue that even in a society like ours a ruling elite might be so influential over ideas, attitudes and opinions that a kind of false consensus will exist...the manipulated and superficially self imposed adherence to the norms and goals of the elite by broad sections of the community”. In a situation such as this, either the consensus can be broken or it may be maintained. Dahl talks about the ensuing decision making process that follows after the consensus has been broken. Lukes’s argument is more on the time before the consensus breaks where people can be ‘bullied’ into ‘an incorrect appreciation of the interests and act against them’.[15] Lukes portrays a society which is structured in a way that people do not know their real interests from what they believe their real interests to be. This is referred to as thought control or what Lukes called “the radical view of power and it overlaps with the notion of soft power.”[16] The notion of soft and hard power is an important one here. Hard power refers to the ability of one actor to influence another with the use of threats and sanctions or rewards. This would apply more to the observable exercise of power that Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz defined. Soft power is “the ability to influence other actors by persuading them to follow or agree to norms and aspirations that produce the desired behaviour.”[17] Soft power does not use threats or force. It usually is seen to reduce the need for hard power as it’s more important in a world of “global interdependence and freer flow of communication and information”.[18] Lukes argument is essentially similar to the concept of soft power.

Max Weber, in his essay, Politics as a Vocation,[19] talks about three ways in which individuals can acquire power; patriarchal power or traditional power supported by traditions and myths, Bureaucratic power or legal power supported by legal agreements or structures which gives certain rights and authority to the persons in power and finally charismatic power which is supported by the leader’s personality. All of these are ways in which an individual can control the society by either being the powerful in decision making process, agenda setting or by preference shaping.

Powerful figures may restrict the items on the agenda of policy makers, duel it out in the decision making process or in fact shape the way people think and what they believe. These are the three faces of power as proposed by Dahl, Bachrach, Baratz and Lukes. Others have proposed other definitions of power such as power as context shaping.[20] Whatever the definition, essentially, power is to exercise control over another person and to get them to do something you want. It may not necessarily be something that the other person might not have wanted. It may in fact be exactly what he would have done. However, it is safe to say, the statement “A gets B to do something that he or she would otherwise not do” somewhat sums up the essence of power.




Bibliography

Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S., ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56, 1962, p947-52

Barry, B., (eds), ‘Power and political theory’

Gerth, H.H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds), ‘From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology’

Goodwin, B., ‘Using Political Ideas’, 5th edition

Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p45-52

Heywood, A., ‘Key Concepts in Politics’

Heywood, A., ‘Politics’, 3rd edition

MacDonald, K. I., ‘Is ‘Power’ Essentially Contested?’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, Jul. 1976, p380-382

Martin, R., ‘The Concept of Power: A Critical Defence’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3, Sept., 1971, p240-256

McLean, I. and McMillan, A. (eds), ‘Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics’, 2nd edition

Morriss, P., ‘Power in New Haven: A Reassessment of ‘Who Governs?’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, Oct. 1972, p457-465

Oppenheim, F. E., ‘Power’ Revisited’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 40, No. 3, Aug. 1978, p589-608

Stoker, G. and Marsh, D., ‘Introduction’, in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds), ‘Theory and Methods in Political Science’, 2nd edition

Young, R. A., ‘Steven Lukes’s Radical View of Power’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/ Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 11, No. 3, Sep. 1978, p639-649.





[1] Stoker, G. and Marsh, D., ‘Introduction’, in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds), ‘Theory and Methods in Political Science’, 2nd edition, p9
[2] McLean, I. and McMillan, A. (eds), ‘Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics’, 2nd edition, p431
[3] Heywood, A., ‘Key Concepts in Politics’, p35
[4] Weber, M., ‘Economically Determined Power and the Social Order’, in Gerth, H.H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds), ‘From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology’, p180
[5] McLean, I. and McMillan, A. (eds), ‘Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics’, 2nd edition, p431
[6] Martin, R., ‘The Concept of Power: A Critical Defence’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3, Sept., 1971, p240-256
[7] Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p45-52
[8] Heywood, A., ‘Key Concepts in Politics’, p35
[9]Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S., ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56, 1962, p947-52
[10] Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S., ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56, 1962, p 947-52
[11] Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p45-52
[12] Lukes (1974), p. 24, quoted in Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p45-52
[13] Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p. 45-52
[14] Quoted in Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p. 45-52
[15] Young, R. A., ‘Steven Lukes’s Radical View of Power’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/ Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 11, No. 3, Sep. 1978, p639-649.
[16] Heywood, A., ‘Politics’, Chapter 1, p11
[17] Heywood, A., ‘Politics’, Chapter 7, p142
[18] Heywood, A., ‘Politics’, Chapter 7, p142
[19] Weber, M., ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in Gerth, H.H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds), ‘From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology’, p77-128
[20] Hay, C., ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics, 17 (1), 1997, p45-52