Party Politics and the National Media


A compilation of articles written by Group 10





Here in America, we try to pay close attention to everything that goes on in the government. Whatever decision they make we want to know when, where, why, and how. This is because whatever decision that they make will determine what will happen with this country as a whole in the long run. So what is the best way to find out what’s going on with our government? Why the media of course. The media plays a major part in every aspect of the government including what happens in elections, the reporting of major military operations and how the American people will react to certain political situations or scandals. Here are some the ways that the media affects the way we think when it comes to the government.


The Right to Laugh: Media Satire and its Role in Politics.


By Greg Palmer

In times of political and world turmoil such as the ones we live in today, one may find it impossible to turn on a television or open a newspaper without finding some work that aims to criticize or express opinion about the state of things. Straight ahead and well written essays and reports and serious discussions are always important and the most common method for challenging the status quo. However, in our media saturated world, satires and political comedy are also valid and potent weapon. Throughout the history of the 20th century and continuing stronger than ever today, political humor and satire has played a significant role in how we as a society perceive, judge, and run our government.
True satire is meant to firstly challenge an idea or thought construct and in effect evoke change, all the while making its audience find humor in the idea it challenges. Television programs such as Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, Dennis Miller Live, Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and even more mainstream fare such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno all derive much, if not all, of their humor from lambasting the government, its decisions or personalities.
One recent case where the mass media poked fun at and satirized the government was the year 2000 election. In the time where ballots and votes became confused and the state of Florida became the punch-line to many a water cooler joke, shows such as the ones above took the story and ran with it. From the very beginning the satire of political figures played its role in the election. According to the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of Americans under the age of 30 receive around 26% of their information about candidates, amongst other political matters, through late night comedy television. This trend has been labeled by many “Infotainment.” The viewers are receiving information about political issues and their government, but through a sarcastic or humorous filter that creates a different culture of informed citizens.
When the poll results in the 2000 election came in, the jokes seemed to last longer than the re-counts. Even now 3 years later the jokes continue to be evoked. Recently at the academy awards, while on stage to receive his academy award for his very humorous gun control documentary “Bowling for Columbine” Michael Moore called George W. Bush “a fictitious president” while following with jokes about the pope and the Dixie chicks.
Indeed, when we live in an entertainment and media saturated culture such as the USA, such comments as Moore’s are inevitable. In fact, they are needed. Part of what makes the government work is the ability for the public to challenge and cause change in the way things are, it is a necessary part of our system. The humor that these sly comedians bring allows us to be part of the world and connects us with the government. Also, it has been found that using satire or entertainment to express some ideology or political idea makes its consumption much easier, almost subversive. In other words, it is much easier to convince an audience of your point in a debate if you entertain them and bring the statement being made down to a more common universal level
In addition to the satire on television, print has had a long history of playing its role in poking fun at the government. Nearly since their inception, political cartoons have been instrumental in reflecting and changing public opinion and the government. In the same way as spoken jokes, political cartoons force the viewer to reconsider or take notice of a political event or way of thinking. The hope is to call attention to or evoke change through the humor.
The force that satire and humor plays in the media’s take on government and politics is strong. It would be a crucial error for a person to deny it in these modern times. In this country we are lucky to have the freedom to evoke change through any means available to us. We can comment on our government in any format we wish. Especially in the later part of the last century, humor has been one successful and biting mode of attack.


The Media’s Role in Presidential Campaigns


By Mariah Plymale

The media is suppose to act as a friend to the president and often times, the media feels portrayed because they often get blamed for the outcome of a campaign race. Some say that the media uses it’s own personal view therefore, leaving the other candidate without any publicity. The media is seen either as a friend or an allied to a president running for office. In most cases, the media is seen as a friend. The media often follows around the president and is there with him through the whole thing. The problem with the media following around the president is that the media picks up on a lot of information that should only be the presidents and the media often puts the information on air just to get a story out of it. So on the other hand, media is can be seen as an enemy, more than it is seen as friend.
According to Stephen S. Gottlieb, wrote an article on The Media’s Role in Political Campaigns, he says, “The media is often in too much of the presidents life. They often try to dig up the dirty work about presidents and put the unnecessary information on TV just to try and attract a bigger audience.” That is the truth because we often hear more things about the presidents family members or past then we do hear about what they are going to do for our country and what their positive aspects are that they have to offer us as a country. Right before a big election case, the media usually goes hunting for information about the president’s background and such to have for the start of the presidential campaign.
Another example of the media giving facts about the presidents’ life came from the 2000 election. Have you heard the story about how President Bush has a drinking problem? Almost all of you have probably heard the story because it was broadcasted on every channel. According to Landover Baptist Church website, it is where President Bush’s pastor, Deacon Fred, works, it stated, “Pastor Deacon Fred received a phone call from Mrs. Bush asking him to come over and help out Mr. Bush with his alcohol problem. She finally took the chance to call after the President lose consciousness and fell to the ground cutting his face open. When Pastor Deacon Fred arrived they thought of an explanation for the bruise left on his fast and came up with that the President choked on a pretzel while watching football alone in the White House.” That shows how much the role of the media plays. They came out with the Presidents alcoholism problem during his election just to try to change people’s opinions about their vote. That is what it means to go ‘digging’ around in peoples business just to get a story.
We need the media to have positive aspects of our presidents because that is where we get all of our information. According to the Hess Report, taken on Campaign Coverage in Nightly Network News, it states that, “ Exposure to the news media does influence public awareness of elections. The media can either bring us for a president or against a president very easily.” With the media drawing out the bad aspects of a president it is very easy for America to go against that president. The media has that special power to get a certain president votes and each channel is different. A viewer can get mixed opinions about a president just by watching two different television stations. That is how easy it is for the media to influence our opinions. In the end, the media is seen as an allied for presidential campaigns.


Media’s Effect on Government


By Dustin Prater

In the last thirty years, technology has grown and changed more rapidly than it has in the last few centuries, especially as a television medium. This revolutionary spark has changed the way media and news work drastically. This not only effects the viewer and their own perceptions of what is going on in the world around them. But it alters how our government is run, the decisions that are made by our political leaders, and the amount of time that it takes their decisions to reach the average American citizen.
In the beginning of the 1980’s, Ted Turner changed the way that news and media was looked at from the United States to the rest of the world. With the creation of CNN, the amount of time news happened and appeared on television shortened drastically. Not only this but the view and outlook in this country was changed forever too. Broadcasts and views were no longer just centralized to this nation, but the entire world was suddenly given a voice that would no longer be silenced by their own country and lack of freedoms. Not only would Turner air other nation’s footage of news broadcasts but he would air the footage without editing it through American standards. At first, the idea was highly frowned upon by the United States, but after it begin it became less of an American channel and more of a national channel for everyone to get involved in.
On the positive side of this recent media era of our nation, the average citizen can be much more informed than they could have previously. When our commander and chief makes a speech on national television, not only can the citizens of this country watch but the rest of the world can view it instantaneously, just as we do.
However, this country is run as strictly a democracy, so just because a reporter informs us of news, it doesn’t mean that the government agrees with it necessarily. Certainly, the media is thorn in the side of our government just as much as it is a helping hand. If the president makes a major decision for our country, (the recent war decision is a perfect example) while the majority of reporters are respectful toward our fellow politicians, many have the right and will to disagree with them.
The Clinton scandal of yesteryear is a prime example of how the media can bombard us with their point of view so often, that it makes us forget about the outside world and just makes us concentrate on our problems. And focus on this problem we did, it became the subject of conversation and the most watched controversy to date. Many believe that Clinton purposely did this to get peoples attention (mostly the media’s) off of what he was doing overseas in other countries.
In our current war situation however, the government and our nation are much more critical about the reporter’s point of view, especially if that view is being presented oversees or in this case being shown in the country of Iraq. Reporter’s and television host’s are now under the critical eye of the U.S. government and a slip up can not only cause them lose of integrity but the lose of their job. Bill Maher lost his job at ABC due to his over expressed opinions and views. He was displeased with the way our country handles things such as healthcare and the escalating situation involving Iraq. He made a few too many people in politics feel uncomfortable and because of was ostracized and fired on the spot.
In the big picture of things, the media can be just as much a protagonist to our government as can it is an antagonist. It depends many times on the situation that our government is in. Right now, it is a very uncomfortable position, so it’s patients is thinner that is involving the media and can lay a heavy hand to any antagonist out there.


Does Music on Political Issues Affect People’s Views?


By Nicole Power

Music shapes the generation of today. From Bob Dylan to Rage Against the Machine, musicians have been protesting or accepting of politics through music. Art Garfunkel stated “Others see it as musicians' natural role -- even their responsibility -- to voice opinions and galvanize popular opinion on issues of the day”. Unlike the 60’s, there aren’t too many anti-war songs - but there are benefits that artists play to get their point across. Front man of Coldplay, Chris Martin, has joined many others for a concert against the war. He stated, “If you've been on MTV half a dozen times, it seems your opinion matters more than everybody else's - it's a mad situation.” But if that is the situation, I might as well use it to wake people up to the idea that there is no case for war whatsoever" (BBC 1). We've seen dozens of acts quietly bury their edgier songs. We've seen radio play lists rewritten so as not to "offend listeners." That is critical because these songs could offend the general population and result in people tuning out of the station. So, does music on political issues affect people’s views? This an inevitable question because music affects anyone of any generation and age whether it is political or not.


The Different Coverage of the War from the Different Countries


By Jenna Perrotto

Many people believes that there is an extreme difference on how the United States and many other countries cover the wars. The information you’re given throughout the news and radio should be informative and accurate. Who would think that beyond the United States is more information either more in depth or nothing at all?
A main difference is how they coverage casualties between the countries. Europeans usually share a more exact number than Americans whether it be in deaths, how many bombs were dropped, etc. Which to most people is a big deal, we want to know what’ going on in the war. “USA Today's Shapiro defended America's news coverage. He agreed, "Europe reports that [civilian casualties] more. There are always unintended casualties in a war. These were not systematic," he said. While the Europeans gave the civilian death count more importance. "Even though we will never know how many civilians died, we cannot rely on the version we have been given," he said.” For instance Robert Bassil came to the United States from Lebanon in 2001 he watches CNN as well as Al Jazeera, he said,” there’s not much difference, except that Al Jazeera shows civilian casualties”. Obviously there is a difference when there is blood, and broken bodies everywhere but I think the US is going the right thing. Seeing all of that is unnecessary and will create panic. When people go to war they are fighting for our country and there is going to be casualties, people have to remember that. The United State’s news is one sided, compared to newspapers and new stations in England and Iran. "It's just amazing how the perspectives so different. You're reading an American newspaper that reports on things that are very narrow". What they show on Al Jazeera and Guardian newspaper in London is a lot clearer and shows you exactly what is going on in comparison to what ABC and NBC is doing. American media completely shelters our society for many reasons, but in some aspects you feel uninformed because people across the world know more what’s going on in the certain situations of war.
The Americans and the Arabic new media focus on completely different things, for example the Americans are more in depth with the business side of what is going on with the war. ““The Western news media concentrates largely on the official side of the war: Pentagon briefings, analyses from retired military officials and reports from the troops, says Michael Hudson, professor of international relations and Arab studies at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.” While they are more focused on how much damage is done and how bad is it. Many of their TV and radio stations have many people doing groundwork to cover the fighting. Not only that but the whole way they do the news is different. The tone, mix, and presentation are in a whole new light compared to America. “The Arab news media focus on "what is happening at the other end of the gun," Hudson says. Watch any of the Arab networks, the professor ads, and the "lead offering is almost always the latest damage done."
Another shocking point is how different our points of view really are, and how both parties are reacting to the current situation. For instances the Western society or American new media words it the coalition forces, but the Arabs think much differently, the papers there call us invaders. “Where CNN calls its coverage "War in Iraq," Al-Jazeera calls it "The War on Iraq."


So in conclusion, it is obvious the media is very influential in the scheme of government and politics. It plays it part in helping us make our decision about candidates in election times, reporting military operations, as well as helping us laugh at hard situation the America is going through with satire. The American media machine is a distinct organism which whether we like it or not is a very influential and important part of political life.


By Group 10 -- a.k.a. "The Three-Fourths."

Greg Palmer -- Group Leader
Jakise Oree
Jenna Perrotto
Mariah Plymale
Nicole Power
Dustin Prater
Alana Price
Tristan Palmgren


Works Cited


Stars Sing Out Against War (2003, March 16). BBC News | Entertainment. (1). Retrieved March 24, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2850849.stm.

Pastor Counsels President On Alcohol Problem (January, 2002). Landover Baptist Church. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0102/president.html

Gottlieb, S. (August 1992). The Media’s Role in Political Campaigns. Eric Digest #74 Retrieved March 26, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://eric.indiana.edu/ieo/digests/d74.html

Hess, S. (September 11, 2000). TV Network Coverage of the 2000 Presidential Campaign. USA Today. Retrieved March 23, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/GS/Projects/HessReport/week1.htm

Bennett, S. (May 2, 2002). War Coverage Different for Americans and Europeans. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/weekly_site/weeklypast/020502/story_5.html

Losure, M. (March 26, 2003). A Different Perspective on the War. Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/03/26_losurem_arabtv

Hale, E. Arab Media Focus on Another Side of the Conflict. USA Today. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-30-arab-media_x.htm

Audiences fragmented and skeptical: The tough job of communicating with voters (February 5, 2000). The Pew Research Center for People and the Press. Interest Index, Final Topline, January 12-16, 2000.

Milbank, D. (October 18, 2000). Tracking Laughs is no Joke in Election Year. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36109-2000Oct18¬Found=true

Moore fires Oscar anti-war salvo (March 24, 2003) The BBC Online Journal. Retrieved March 27 from the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2879857.stm