1.6 Media Influences on Politics, Government, and Public Policies

When the media place attention and emphasis on certain issues, the public tends to see these issues as important problems requiring government action. The public then judges politicians according to how well they respond to the issues.

Consider the television show 24. It gave its viewers the impression that terrorists were a constant threat to the United States and likely to strike with horrible destructiveness anywhere at any time. At its peak, the show had a weekly audience of approximately fifteen million viewers and reached millions more through the Internet.

This “agenda settingThe power of the media to tell the public what subjects and issues to think about.” power of the media, in effect, tells people what they should be thinking about. The flip side of agenda setting is that when the media ignore issues or policy areas, so too does the public. Thus, for people involved in government or politics, getting an issue in the media, or keeping it out of the media, is important; the agenda influences the public’s awareness and understandings of what should be done by policymakers.

The media are not simply important in getting people to think about an issue; they influence how people think about it. Scholars refer to this media power as “framingThe central idea or theme with which media personnel organize a story and thus give it a point of view..”

As discussed previously in this chapter, journalists bring a perspective to bear on events, highlighting certain aspects at the expense of others, to create a coherent narrative. Such a narrative names protagonists and antagonists, identifies some of the causes of the event described, outlines moral judgments, and may suggest solutions. Framing is inherent in the process of selecting, editing, organizing, and presenting stories. It is often expressed in the television anchorperson’s introduction and in newspaper headlines and opening paragraphs.

The meaning of an event can depend dramatically on how it is framed by and in the media. For example, the public understands a demonstration quite differently depending on whether the news frames it as an exercise of freedom of speech or as a threat to law and order.

Of course, some frames are more convincing than others. A frame’s impact may depend on who is promoting it, what other frames it is competing against, and how frequently it is repeated.

Often, though, news frames are predictable. They express widely shared assumptions and values. The news media framed the events of 9/11 as terrorist attacks on the United States with a response from Americans of national heroism, horror, and mourning.

Out of habit and to simplify complex subjects, journalists tend to cover government and politics with a relatively small repertoire of familiar frames. Relations within and between the branches of government are typically framed as conflicts. Stories often frame politicians as motivated by partisanship and the desire for reelection. Stories about government agencies are frequently framed around bureaucratic incompetence, waste, and corruption.

Framing influences politics by reinforcing or changing what people think of an issue. Different frames call for different policy solutions. Thus, 24 told its viewers that in the grim choice between security and liberty, coercion must prevail, that torture is essential to extract information from terrorists to forestall (usually just in time) their lethal schemes. 

Media frames can provide criteria that audience members use to make judgments about government institutions, public officials, and issues. This is called “primingWhen media (news stories) ascribe responsibility for a problem to a person or institution..” It can occur when news stories identify the person or institution to blame for an event, such as the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. The president is often held responsible for the nation’s problems. Priming effects are strongest “when the news frames a problem as if it were the president’s business, when viewers are prepared to regard the problem as important, and when they see the problem as entangled in the duties and obligation of the presidency.”

Because of its intrinsic importance, reemphasized by the news and entertainment media, fighting terrorism continues as a prominent issue. The president is seen as primarily responsible. Presidential candidates’ competence to combat terrorism thus becomes an important criterion by which the electorate judges them. Note, in this respect, that some of 24’s presidents could not be trusted to execute that duty and obligation effectively.

The media affect what people think about in politics and how they think about it. They also influence what, if anything, people do about politics, problems, and policies.

Media contents can mobilizeTo encourage, even inspire, individuals to engage in political behavior and action. individuals to engage in political behavior, from contacting public officials, to voting, to protesting, to committing violence. In the 1960s, television coverage increased participation in the nonviolent protests of the civil rights movement against segregation in the South. Continuous coverage of the 2009 health-care legislation contributed to generating a wide range of participation by the public. Partisan media particularly foster citizen engagement in politics, as Fox News did for the Tea Party.

The media can influence people in politics without the public being involved at all. Politicians are far more voracious consumers of the news than most Americans. When issues are heavily covered in the media, officials take such prominence as a sign that they may well be called to account for their actions, even if the public has not yet spoken out. And they speak and behave differently than they did when the issues were obscure. Media attention tends to encourage action and speed up the policy process, if only for politicians to get the issue off the table.