The Press and the Democratic Process

While reading The Press And The Democratic Process by Iyengar and McGrady, my perspective on the relaxed regulation of the press changed. Originally I thought that the FCC’s (the Federal Communications Commission) lenient regulations on the media had allowed the media more freedom to report on politics and other issues so that we, the citizens, could be overall, more informed. Although now, I think that the lack of stricter regulation of the different media channels’ coverage of politics in the U.S. hurts us more than it benefits.
In order to have a completely democratic society, all members of said society must have equal access to power, in governing politics and in the information outlet of the media. One limiting aspect of the media in the U.S. is the all around private ownership between the separate media companies such as NBC, CNN, ABC, etc.. This private ownership effects the information given to the people because of the constant competition for capital. News media companies are just like the other media companies in the sense that they must turn a profit and generate revenue to succeed. This competition leads the news channels to report on more mainstream and entertainment based topics.
On the positive side to privately owned media systems here in the U.S., they are not going to be as regulated by the government or as censored as a government owned media channel would. Although according to Iyengar and McGrady, this leads to a “mediatization” or “Americanization” of political campaigns that tend to focus more on the person running in the campaign than that of the overall goals and policies of the particular party who that person has been chosen to lead. A current example of this media would be the overuse of a quote from the current candidate running for the seat of Vice President for the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, and her media attention grabbing line, “they say the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick”. This quote caused a widespread stir among the public and therefore too much coverage on Sarah Palin herself and not enough coverage on Sarah Palin and her policies that she will be standing behind and fighting for by being a representative of the Republican Party.
Another large key role that the news media portrays in our society is that of our “watchdog”. The news media serves on behalf of its citizens, us, to make sure that the government officials stay well within their bounds of political propriety. Or to make sure that they don’t do us wrong and that they do as they promised us they would do. Unfortunately, this democratic ideal of informed and active citizenship is fading faster than we can say “democracy”. Since 1968 when primary elections were adopted forcing candidates to appeal directly to the public, the media has been juggling the fate of the people in their hands. On one hand we have an age of television that has contributed to the overall voice of democracy allowing these candidates to get their messages out to the people through the black, white and technicolor screens of the TV, and on the other hand we have the ever competing, privately owned media channels as I have mentioned above.
As Iyengar and McGrady point out, “Compared to most other democracies, the United States is characterized by weak political parties… Many Americans lack strong ties to a party” therefore causing such a phenomenon as “floating voters”, or voters that are wild cards in the voting spectrum. These citizens in our democratic society are voters that are heavily influenced by the constant competing media channels and what they tell them about the individuals that are chosen to represent the particular parties. For example say one of these “floating voters” hears a news report that Sarah Palin is a terrible person because she told a lie, and that Democratic Vice President running mate Joe Biden has been a charitable volunteer for forty years, that said citizen is more likely to choose the Vice President Joe Biden who was propagandized in a positive light than Sarah Palin who was not. These two bits of information told through a form of mass media are pretty irrelevant to how the two candidates might work from their position if elected. Yet because they are spread to a mass audience over news media networks associated with spreading “positive” information to the people, apathetic citizens are more likely to take these pieces of information to heart rather than become involved and research the particular candidates themselves.
Apathy, unfortunately, has become more and more apparent among citizens in our democratic world today. The influence of mass media in our culture has only grown with the advances in technology. Now that we have the internet at our disposal as well as the TV and radio, it is easier for us to look at all of the different media channels and decide for ourselves which one we want to believe in or which ones we don’t. Our democracy is still a democracy, although, if we want it to keep growing stronger, we must become more active and take up these new outlets of the media to express ourselves and become active citizens.