Media And Policy

Whether it is through the eyes of the camera or words of a magazine the media has a strong impact on our day to day lives, most importantly, our Government. Juan Williams identified the impact the media on our government when he highlighted that the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights movement used the media to force the government to look at their issues. "Their hope was, in the beginning, a fragile one. Wherever they went it was clear to them by then, the media would go as well, and where the media went, the federal government reluctantly would have to follow" (p.xx). Henceforth, the media is used as a vehicle for federal change.

If one traces modern journalism to the nineteenth century they will see that the media has always been used for the use of Federal change. Upton Sinclair's celebrated exposй of the meat packing industry in Chicago The Jungle etched stark pictures in the public mind that helped contribute to stronger government regulation (Spitzer, 1993, p.3). The Nigerian Press was used to educate the public of their lack of cultural awareness. The record and the standard instituted a vigorous campaign of cultural consciousness which sought out to stimulate a greater interest in African history, language, dress, names, etc (Omu, 1978, p.107). This created a strong public opinion that the government could not ignore, and allowed the press to take on a role of opposition toward the government. It encouraged a sense of political and nationalist awareness and involvement by providing a medium of criticism of the authorities, spreading disaffection with aspects of official policies and programmers and coordinating movements of agitation (Omu, 1978, p.ix). Television broadcasts became a major vehicle because a camera shows bias. Evidence of the bias can be seen in the broadcast of Edward R. Murrow's "Harvest of Shame," which was initially broadcasted on Thanksgiving Day 1960. It dealt with the appalling conditions of America's Migrant workers. At the end of the program Murrow issued a specific call for legislative remedy (Goodman, 1990).

By definition of the word media and the law of the land, media cannot make policies. This does not mean that, however, that the media cannot decisive influence over policy structure, content or timing (Spitzer, 1993, p. 6). This influence can be seen through the heavy support, by the media, of gay rights. While homosexuality and gay rights have been significant topics in our nation's dialogue for years, the mainstream media has used breaking news stories to promote the agenda of the small but vocal gay activist community (Bozell III, 2004, p. 117). The media plays a pivotal role in influencing policy because it is the conduit, regulating the flow of communication between the policy makers, and therefore policy itself, and others in the political system who might seek any different policy (Schattschneider, 1975). The media has made it clear that they intend on covering this issue until reforms are made in favor of gay rights. As soon as the Supreme Court overturned the Texas law banning homosexual sex, gay rights groups looked ahead to their next goal, and the national media was happy to support their campaign (Bozell III, 2004, p. 119). Now, gay rights groups are pushing for same sex marriages to be legal. The federal government made it a state issue, which has allowed states like Vermont, California, Connecticut and Oregon to legalize same sex marriages and to also create unique and individual laws regarding similar subjects.

The government uses the media to present a fear and a remedy to it, for all to see. The effects of 9/11 received instant news coverage that concluded terrorism still exists; America is not liked, can still be attacked, and also posed the question, "What will the government do about it?" The attacks led to huge coverage, which played right into the hands of the terrorists. The media was abused by the terrorists, and sent fear to Americans that the government had to cure. When the media emphasizes terrorist events it helps to facilitate two of the universal goals of terrorism. The first is that the terrorists gain publicity and draw attention to their cause. The second goal is to influences public attitudes about the root of their politically motivated violence, when the media shows heinous events and over exaggerates them. Brian M. Jenkins summed up what terrorism is when he said, "Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not the actual victims. Terrorism is theater." (Jenkins, 1985).

Another way the media has become a vehicle is by exposing public concerns, and using them to propel politicians forward within the government. The media's influence on the political campaign has a huge impact on government policy. In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers do not only learn about a given issue, but they also learn how much importance they should attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position. By reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well determine the important issues concerning the public, and the media may set the "agenda" of the campaign. (Mccombs, Shaw, 1972). In terms of economic voting, voter's perceptions of economic indicators can be more important than the statistics themselves. This distinction is particularly important in understanding George H. Bush's defeat in 1992. Relentless negative reporting on economic performance during the election year affected voter's perceptions of the economy, and the altered perceptions influenced voting behavior. Ordinary least squares regression is used to demonstrate the media's impact on economic evaluations,