The Mass Media and Politics

Slowly, but continuously topics of political communications and especially the mass media
have entered the center stage of political science over the last two decades. Nowadays, it seems no
longer conceivable to analyse the political process of European democracies without taking into
account not only institutions of political intermediation like political parties, interest organizations,
and social movements, but also the media of mass communication. The American writer, reporter,
and political commentator Walter Lippmann noted, the mass media are the sources of the 'pictures
in our heads'. They provide citizens with maps of the political world, by influencing their
conceptions of how it is structured, their understanding of the processes going on within this
structure, and their evaluations of its elements (policies, processes, events and actors).
The communication of political information is an important process in the political system,
and the mass media play a central role in this activity. Yet there is extensive debate about both the
extent and the character of the impact of the mass media on politics. Some theorists believe that the
mass media facilitate democracy by allowing a wide variety of views to be expressed. Some believe
that the media are anti-democratic because of their power to manipulate the way people think about
politics at home and abroad. Others are more concerned with discovering the meaning of media
content through analysing interaction between media messages and the culture of specific
audiences. Many critics have accused the mass media of trivialising politics. Because different
television channels and newspapers find that they are competing for a limited number of viewers
and readers, there is the tendency to make the news more attractive by treating it as entertainment
rather than as a serious business.
Only a small proportion of Ukraine’s population is actively engaged in politics and therefore
learns about political affairs from first-hand experience. What the majority knows about politics is
made up principally from what they learn from the mass media. In other words, for those
individuals who do not participate directly in politics the mass media define their ‘real’ world of
politics. The designer Peter Golding has argued that ‘The media are central in the provision of ideas
and images which people use to interpret and understand a great deal of their everyday experience’
(Golding, 1974: 178). This, of course, gives the mass media enormous potential power, since they
can either set people’s minds against the political system or help to generate popular support for it.
The mass media are still developing, to include not only newspapers, magazines, cinema, video,
advertising hoardings, radio and terrestrial television, but also more recently multi-channel satellite,
cable and digital television, the Internet and other embryonic modes such as mass texting. This
growth implies greater choice for the individual but also a globalization of mass communication.
For example, cable and satellite television may expose Ukrainian viewers to programmes that do
not reflect ‘typical’ Ukrainian values. Also the Internet, a linked network of electronic networks,
has created an ‘information super-highway’ which provides an individual living in the remotest part
of Ukraine with access to a world wide web. In so doing it provides the potential for that person to
link up with other like-minded individuals anywhere in the world to create a ‘virtual’ organisation
through which they can pursue political goals.
A common charge against the media is that it increasingly seems to lack the principles of
objective and impartial reporting. Instead, many major organizations seem to be taking one side of
the political spectrum and at best provide relatively biased coverage or at worse act like virtual
propaganda machines for a particular political party. Certainly, some issues are subjective, hence
there can be no universal line of thought, and requiring all news organizations to passively report
only what they see and not include an analytical perspective, would to a certain degree, defeat the
purpose of having a free press.
While some of the general problems regarding the media and liberal democracies today can
be easily identified, it is much harder to come up with an effective remedy. It is very difficult to
completely remove political influence and enforce a perfectly neutral position. Indeed, this would
be counterproductive. The media today does not just report the news but also represents the views
of certain segments of society. As such, many news organizations cater to liberal or conservative
lines when it comes to political information.
A major concern in many liberal democracies is the emergence of media empires, where a
few individuals have managed to concentrate vast amounts of media assets and use them to actively
influence political opinion. Thus, these individuals, from whichever point of the political spectrum,
can deliver a powerful political message on behalf or against a political establishment through their
respective media empires. This is especially damaging if parts of the general public are more
exposed to one particular media empire either due to its high popularity or the lack of alternative
media sources.
The danger in all of this is that it could distort the quality of information that people receive
and that in turn could distort their decisions. If positive issues are reported in a negative manner
then at least some voters will vote against them even if it is contrary to their own interests, and vice
versa. This is made worse when there is a high level of voter apathy, which means people will be
less interested in taking part or learning about particular issues that could affect them. However,
these concerns are nothing new. In fact, with the emergence of the first TV and Radio networks,
governments in the Europe and America put forward legislation that forced broadcast media to
adopt a neutral position. In Europe, in particular, the state often intervened to nationalize major
broadcasting networks.
Furthermore, the rise of media corporations, whose owners were enthusiastic to express their
political opinions, seemed to herald the end of the media empires of yesteryear. Yet, nationalizing
major broadcast networks or heavy-handed regulation can open up the media to government
intervention or censorship, which is highly damaging as well. Even with such efforts, owners of
media empires have adapted by swiftly embracing new technology and expanding to different
broadcast media such as private terrestrial and satellite TV. Today media empires continue to
dominate much of the mainstream broadcast networks in many liberal democracies.