Syllabus | Sample Exams | Paper Guidelines | Sample Papers| Current articles

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA
By Stephen Ansolabehere
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/elect00/media.htm

The following is an excerpt. For the complete article, see the web site given above. -R.P.

POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN 2000 AND BEYOND

Many foreign observers fear that their own elections will become more like those in the United States. They are concerned that their politics will come to be "made for television," with political campaigns slickly packaged to fit into 30-second advertisements and "sound bites" of the candidates' most quotable quotes for the evening news. Such fears are not unfounded. One of America's most distinctive exports are campaign consultants. The men and women who manage presidential campaigns in the United States are increasingly being hired abroad to help prime ministerial candidates formulate the media strategies of their parties.

Television in the United States, however, has clearly broadened and improved our political discourse. Television is a truly democratic medium. All people may enjoy it; literacy and wealth are no barrier. The main concern with television as a mode of political communication is whether the views represented on the news and other programs reflect a broad range of society or just a limited set of viewpoints. Up until the 1980s, the typical community received only three channelsâ those of the national networks ABC, CBS, and NBC. Such a limited range of information constantly raised concerns about the breadth of views reflected and the fairness of journalists'' coverage of politics. Technology reputedly limited the number of channels that could be offered.

In the 1980s, all that changed. Deregulation of the telecommunications industry in the United States allowed the creation of an extensive cable network. Today, nearly every community is served by cable TV (also called community access television). The average community in the United States now receives 30 channels of television, which present viewpoints of every imaginable aspect of American society. Americans can even watch the House and Senate at work on a national cable service called C-SPAN, whose coverage has included the vote to impeach the president of the United States.

As the opportunity to communicate has expanded, so too has the amount of public discourse on television. With an expanded number of outlets, there are now greater opportunities for political leaders to present the case for many different public policies and ideologies. Cable television has been the venue for debates over issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, national health care, and the size of the federal budget. Perhaps most important, cable has allowed people to take part in political debates and have a more immediate impact on public decision-making. The public's reactions to the free trade, health care, and budget debates influenced the ultimate decisions reached in Congress about these issues. We have also seen the emergence of a new sort of programming, the "town meeting," which brings together Americans from all walks of life to discuss important issues, sometimes directly with the president of the United States.

Television, indeed all media in the United Statesâ changes constantly, as technologies of electronic communication improve. And as the technologies of communication improve, so too do the workings of democracy. These changes, of course, do not come without costs. Many people long for the immediacy of contact with their representatives that comes with direct, personal campaigns. In a large democracy this isn't possible. Changes in technology have not been an obstacle to democracy in the United States, but have made democracy more of a reality. New media, especially the Internet, will only improve political communication.

The Internet, in fact, has already changed public discourse in the United States, but in subtle ways. It has revolutionized American journalism: reporters now have unparalleled access to government documents and databases, public and private libraries, and archives of newspapers and other publications. As yet, however, the Internet has proved a poor way to advertise. Though many candidates have Web sites, none have used them to broadcast advertisements. The reasons are simple. Unlike television, the Internet has high barriers to entry. Users need access to expensive computers and understanding of how to navigate the Internet's byways.

All of this may sound familiar. Similar arguments were made in the 1960s about the limits of television as a mode of communication. As access to the Internet grows, however, and it becomes easier to use, the Internet will rise as a major means of political communication. Over the next 10 years, as a new political generation comes on-line, the Internet will probably surpass television as the main mode of communication. And with the Internet will come an even greater ability for the public to talk back.

Stephen Ansolabehere is a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of The Media Game and Going Negative: How Political Advertising Shrinks and Polarizes the Electorate, and he has written extensively on electoral politics in the United States.

Syllabus | Sample Exams | Paper Guidelines | Sample Papers| Current articles