(This is an archived extract from the book Patterns of Power: Edition 2)
In this book’s terminology, media communication is an important mechanism for negotiation. There are problems, though, in the way the media operate and the impact they have on political debate:
· Media publicity tends to turn politicians into celebrities and plays an exaggerated role in deciding who can be a politician and who should lead. This encourages personality politics (6.3.4.2).
· Political discussion becomes trivialised by politicians looking for sound-bites rather than robust arguments.[1]
· Politicians can try to use ‘spin’ to avoid criticism, sometimes to the extent of misleading people.[2]
· The media can also apply ‘spin’:
‒ They might select stories on the basis of pleasing their target audience, without offering a wider context or the other side of an argument.[3]
‒ Many are sensationalist.[4]
· Contrary to people’s expectations, what is published might not be true; some Internet sources are irresponsible.
If the media are mostly free from censorship (as is preferable if they are to play a full part in public debate), education is people’s only protection against misinformation – as discussed later in this chapter (6.8.1).
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] Ronald Dworkin drew attention to the trivialisation of political discourse when speaking about this book at the RSA on 1 February 2007, and referring to sound bites:
“The quality of the public discourse, if you can call it that, is really insulting. The arguments addressed to the [American] nation by politicians largely consist of sound bites meant to be repeated on television or in commercials that are composed of nothing but sound bites and meant to go in for 20 seconds in the commercial breaks in football games.”
The audio file can be consulted at the British Library's Drama and Literature Recordings Section, by making an appointment via e-mail at drama@bl.uk. The event transcript may be available by contacting the RSA Archive via e-mail at archive@rsa.org.uk.
Ronald Dworkin’s book, Is Democracy Possible Here?, refers to the same topic (p. 129).
[2] Britain’s ‘New Labour’ government, under the leadership of Tony Blair, was repeatedly accused of ‘spin’: communicating in a way which would be believed, would be popular, and would not draw criticism – even when the substance is unpalatable. Andrew Marr described this phenomenon in an article which was published by the BBC on 10 May 2007, entitled How Blair put the media in a spin. It was available in May 2014 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6638231.stm.
[3] A WND article on 27 June 2014, entitled "FAITH UNDER FIRE" and subtitled "HOMOSEXUALS WAGE HOLY WAR ON ISRAELI VILLAGE", reported a court ruling in favour of a lesbian couple who had been refused permission to marry in the village. The article failed to mention the wider context: people's equality under the law. The article was available at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/homosexuals-wage-holy-war-on-israeli-village/.
[4] For an example of sensationalism, a WND article on 19 June 2014 had the startling headline “Obamacare showing signs of 'financial death spiral'”, yet it acknowledged that “Hogberg cannot say with absolute certainty that the die is cast for the death spiral”. This article was available at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/obamacare-showing-signs-of-financial-death-spiral/.