The new relationship of politics and media - the case of Hungary The Orbán government divides the Hungarian nation into “national” and. In this episode Dr Benjamin Moffitt examines the role social media has played in the rise of populist politics. Also, what responsibility should. The increasing influence of the media on society in general and on the behavior of The relationship between journalists and political actors is actors ( administrators, politicians, local/national/European stakeholders).
The parlous state of the newspaper business has done nothing to diminish the extraordinary executive power of the people who run it. If anything, it has increased, by making everyone's job more precarious. In this world, unlike in politics, people will do what they are told. As in any dictatorship, the leaders sometimes find that their underlings are trying to fulfil their wishes without having checked what they are first.
That's why politicians do not just fear newspapers. They also envy them. It's what makes their relationship with editors and proprietors so different from their relationship with, say, the BBC, which has much more power to influence the views of its audience not least because it is so much more trusted than the press.
What the BBC does not have is the sort of internal power structure that politicians respect.
Best frenemies: politicians and the press | Media | The Guardian
The director-general can't control his underlings in the way Murdoch can control his: The result is that the BBC irritates politicians in a way the press does not. It never does anything nearly so unpleasant as the worst excesses of the tabloids, but nor does it ever do exactly what it is told. It's a bit like the police in this respect: Newspapers are more like the army: Politicians like that, which is why senior politicians so much prefer the company of generals and editors to chief constables and BBC executives.
It makes them feel in control. Of course, the journalists and generalsfor all their disdain for politicians, like it, too. Getting to hang out with the prime minister tells the world that they matter. Newspapers have another sort of power that politicians both fear and envy: Powell tells me this is one of the things that most infuriated him about the BBC when he was working in Downing Street: If this were true, fewer of them would come unstuck that way: Politicians have to be pretty thick-skinned just to survive, which makes them relatively hard to intimidate.
But most other people, including almost everyone who works in the media, hate to see themselves exposed in print and know the harm it can do. The most impressive display of raw power by a newspaper in recent years was not directed against a politician.
It was directed against Jonathan Rossa man whose political views count for nothing. But the Daily Mail, by showing it had the power to take a stray remark from Ross and turn it into an issue that not only cost him and his producers their jobs, but also forced the resignation of the controller of Radio 2the most successful station in Britain, let everyone know what it was capable of. This is real political power because it is used to intimidate the people the politicians would need on their side if they wanted to stand up to the press.
It is not only targeted against the BBC.
The new relationship of politics and media - the case of Hungary
The other totemic victim of the press in recent years was Lord Hutton during his investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly. Judges, it turns out, are also much less thick-skinned than politicians.
But when he came to his conclusion, he got completely monstered by the newspapers. He is still licking his wounds. So they have to give the attack hounds of the press something to satisfy them. You might think judges were above how they are portrayed in the media, but apparently not: The reason this matters is that the future of press regulation is on hold until Lord Justice Levnson delivers his inquiry's report into phone hacking.
The judge will need to be brave. Powell for one is not holding his breath. So will politicians ever feel empowered to take on the press for themselves? The difficulty, as Powell points out, is always timing. You are too busy firefighting.
But there is another problem. As well as having short attention spans, newspapers also have long ones. They are still there long after the politicians have gone, which means they always get the last word. At the beginning of the film The QueenTony Blair is ushered into Downing Street and told by his monarch that he is her 10th prime minister.
It is not hard to imagine a similar scene being played out in the court of Rupert Murdoch. David Cameron, after all, is his seventh prime minister. Murdoch resembles the Queen in more ways than he might like to admit. As well as being autocratic, press power also tends to be dynastic the Daily Mail still belongs to the Rothermeres; Murdoch is still desperate to pass some newspapers to his children, as his father passed some newspapers to him.
A lot depends on being able to outlast the politicians. The web has undone plenty of things about the newspaper business, but so far it hasn't undone that.
Newspaper owners can keep their power in the family in a way that democratic politicians can't, however much some of them the Clintons, the Bushes might like to try. One day soon that might change.
Best frenemies: politicians and the press
The web, as well as altering the way we consume news, has also speeded up the business cycle: As yet, this hasn't reached the newspaper business. No new national title has been launched for more than two decades, and none has gone out of business, with the exception of the News of the World. But if newspapers start folding, and newspaper ownership starts changing hands more rapidly than it has done in the past, that might finally break the spell of the press barons.
If it does happen, though, the politicians won't simply feel relief. They will also feel a pang of regret and perhaps even of panic. The web, for all its ability to cut newspapers down to size, can't offer politicians the same comforts. Newspapers represent the sort of power that politicians know, understand and respect. However much they might complain, as Blair did in his dying days in office, about the "feral" qualities of the press, it is nothing compared with the feral qualities of the web.
No one can control it. As Henry Kissinger complained of Europe, when you want to call the internet, who do you call? At least Murdoch offered that reassurance — a voice at the end of the line. In liberal democratic countries it informs the public and acts as a watchdog of the government. Unfortunately, in practice, most of the time the media plays different roles. Although, the political transparency is impossible without mass media coverage.
Politicians, even governments can manipulate the coverage of information to achieve their political and economical goals through diverting audience attention. According to some sources, there are two types of media: And information poor, that is voters. In this case politicians deploy the mass media to communicate with voters. Most voters are almost entirely dependent upon the mass media for information about the political process, candidates and issues.
Juergen Habermas, a German sociologist, defines the media as a space for public discourse which must guarantee universal access and rational debate in society. But, in practice, the free market rules and competition create restrictions for journalists, and commercial television channels are forced to respond to the interests of advertisers, as well as politicians. The technological development changed the politics-media relationship.
In the new media environment various social networks and blogs started to play a significant role in communication and the society became an active player. An ineffective, not classical media make politicians likely to pander and control the media.
Television The dominant and powerful medium of political communication in our contemporary world is television. It creates, with the internet, new forms of political reality and the virtual world.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA AND POLITICIANS Essay – by Elena Chobanian
Television is the right place for the celebrity coverage, for political conflict and so on. Stories about backstage political manoeuvring and control offer a kind of transparency. However, they divert attention from substantive policy debates, and since politicians know how important media is to influencing citizens, television through its image manipulation helps create a new reality populated by media consultants, pollsters and others.
Internet The internet, an another important medium for politicians, has enhanced the effects of television by shortening the news of reporting, makings mass distribution of information inexpensive making possible new journalistic sources that compete with television coverage.
The internet is a mediated access to wide range of information, two-way communication channel, distribution channel for wide variety of content, low barriers to entry for access and global reach of a connected network.
Media events manipulate political transparency. Politicians stage events are covered by the media, which show them engaged in the business of governing over public policy issues. They show the politician with own family, like an ordinary, likeable person.
Media events offer basic information, but in fact they offer political image and showmanship. American politics has employed media events for many years. For instance, the Clinton Administration has used media events to great advantage. Thus, thrusting entertainment in citizens, politicians keep people from watching other things. Shanto Iyengar, professor of Political Science and Communication Studies at UCLA, researching the framing effects of news coverage on public opinion and political choice, expressed: