Sarah Cavanaugh PS290 Media and Public Opinion The relationship between the media and American democracy

is a complex and interesting one. The media has become increasingly the primary mode of communication between the governed and our governors. It is the means through which we compile our information and knowledge of issues and events. The idea behind the sometimes seemingly excessive media coverage is that a broadly informed public helps assure that the democracy is both responsive and responsible. Our media is founded on the core constitutional principle of free press, that the media is pluralized and free from direct political control. With this sentiment comes the emergence of a disconnecthow free from government control can the media really be, and in a world increasingly exposed to more forms of media, we are exposed to more and more mixed messages from various media sources. With the end of the Cold War came the emergence of the theory of the CNN Effect, which has manifested itself mostly in the humanitarian interventions of the 1990s through present day. The rationale behind the CNN effect argues that the media shows images of atrocities, followed by journalists and opinion media criticize the government for doing nothing. At this point the government feels pressured to do something, and when this pressure becomes too much, manifests itself in the governments intervention, such as in Somalia or Iraq. Using this effect as an explanation for foreign policy argues that the U.S government has been forced to intervene through the medias increasing independence and their tendency to frame issues rather than simply report facts. Conventional wisdom says that a government is unlikely to intervene without domestic support, but the end of the cold war brought more or less an end to perceivable direct threats (until 2001,) and intervention has become more a matter of choice rather than obligation. Through framing, then, the media has the ability to change the criteria people value most. Similarly, while public opinion is developed out of rationality, it is heavily dependent on the information portrayed to it. If the information given to us by the media is inaccurate or incomplete, we run the risk of violating our democracy through the government responding to inauthentic voices and risking harm, or through the government ignoring public opinion altogether. Public deliberation manifests itself into public opinion through the medias role as mediator. However, this results in grave implications if the media does not accurately represent the masss beliefs, opinions, or values, or fail to successfully communicate information to the public, thus giving it an inaccurate representation of the issues at hand? Can the public be misled into supporting policies that they otherwise would not? While something like this is difficult to measure, it undoubtedly happens, and when it does, it is undemocratic. American democracy functions on the rule of the majority coupled with respect to individual and minority rights. When media influence represents the

interests of a minor group rather than the needs of the majority, however, it violates the democratic process. Our governments policy-makers answer to a small inner circle, which consists of experts in given fields, lobbyists, and the media. When the media is given the power to select and shape the presentation of messages, and to influence the agenda through the framing of public issues, we lose a core element of our democracy. While the American media is reasonably free from government control or threat from government agencies, it is not entirely unaffected by the governments power. For example, if a given media outlet incurs the governments disapproval, they are susceptible to being gradually denied information or leads that outlets that seem to show a pro-administration bias may enjoy. On the other hand, the past decade has seen an enormous expansion of the mediafrom the advent of the 24 hours news channel, to the rise of politically biased commentary. But perhaps more influential than anything else is the emergence of social media networks. Today, anybody with reasonable access to the worldwide web can input their opinions and views via blogs, twitter, and facebook, to name a few and most prominent outlets. While pluralism of the press is a fundamental ingredient to the success of democracy and freedom of the press and access to information, we have reached a point in the past decades that has switched from pluralism to an online free-for-all. Unfortunately today, the only thing alerting us to the difference between factual reporting and conspiracy theories is our own common sense. While everyone in this country has a right to vote and voice their opinion, not everyone has the common sense to base their opinion around factual reporting? And in an era when falsehoods and exaggerations are as readily available, if not more so, than factual reporting, the democratic process is becoming increasingly jeopardized. At the end of the day, media outlets are businesses, or owned by conglomerations, of which the end goal is to make a profit. Businesses that place public interest over profit generally fail, while those who place importance on profit are more likely to find success. News businesses are not immune from this principle, and are just as vulnerable to the financial interests of their owners or investors as other major markets are. Much is said about the press being free from government control, but freedom of the press is a two way street. The press also must act responsibly and must be held accountable to its own excesses. When the press begins to construct or mold the consent of the American public, it does a disservice to not only our foreign policy objectives abroad, but our democracy at home as well.