Media, Society and Politics
Wolfsfeld – Introduction
Politics is above all a contest in which the media plays an important role.
Note from the picture that we presume that politics are not fair, this is why we have a group of the
powerful and the challengers. The audience and active users are those that the journalists and
non-professionals would like to reach with their content that they’ve created for/in any form of
media. The two-way between the people and the media exists because the media are influenced by
the people and the people react to the media. Also note the entire box, this represents the political
environment and is crucial when investigating cases. What might be totally normal now might not
have been 10 years ago. This can be due to moral, technological, and pure political landscape
differences.
The five important principles of this book to remember include:
1. Political power can usually be translated into power over all forms of media
2. When the powerful lose control over the political environment, they also lose control over
all forms of media
3. Every political story is biased
4. All forms of media are primarily dedicated to telling good stories, which can often have a
major impact on political processes
5. Many of the most important effects of the various forms of media on citizens tend to be
unintentional and unnoticed
Wolfsfeld – Ch. 1 Political Power and Power over the Media
Think of this: journalists run after the politically strong people while the politically weak run after the
journalists. Which in its turn is related to the first principle of political power usually being
transferred into power over all forms of media. You might even say that the relationship between
journalists and politics is a competitive symbiosis. It is symbiotic because there is an interdependent
relationship with shared goals and it is competitive because while they need each other, they do not
want to pay for each other’s services. This causes a lot of news and opinions to get lost in the
“important opinions” of the elite.
This doesn’t mean that the small political actors never get their moment in the news, after all,
journalists need to find conflicts and sometimes the conflicts lie with the “weaker” ones. It also
doesn’t mean that the elites have complete control over what is said about them, but they can use it
to their advantage. Just like Trump who used the negative publicity as proof that the elites were out
to get him.
You can put questions around the democracy even in democratic countries like the US. After all, they
are not fully independent from politics. Imagine how it goes in even less democratic countries.
,How the powerful enjoy the digital media:
1. They can afford people who will “work the web” 24/7
2. Powerful people are inherently interesting even for the web (continuing their attention and
making “friends”)
How the powerful struggle with the digital media:
1. It is easier for the public to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation
The ever-building pressure of the folk on the leaders and these types of theories causes some
political leaders to shut off the internet during chaotic times.
Besides politicians, other individuals, companies and organizations also make an appearance in the
news. Here, the rule of power translating to the media also holds. It also holds in cities and
countries, namely we’re more likely to hear of an event happening in the US than in Afrika and even
more likely to hear of an event in NY than Arkansas.
There are three ways to enter the news:
- Front door
Perfectly prepared what they’re doing and why they’re doing it
- Side door
Civil disobedience, and thus not completely destroying every day life. Non-violent actions
such as blocking a road
- Back door
For the weaker actors. They only get into the news if they’re doing something different
It is even to some extent true that actors have an influence on how they’re reported by the news.
Cumulative inequality refers to the fact that those who need attention in the media the most are
often those for whom it is the hardest to get it. If Google is looking for a legislation change it has
more chances of making the news than if Ostriches LLC wants to.
The four major goals that political movements try to achieve with the help of digital media:
1. Mobilize supporters for their cause
2. Have their messages go viral
3. Have an influence on the politicians and other movers of the world
4. Have a real impact on the problem
However, there is a downside to digitally recruiting people, they feel like they’ve done their share
and don’t actively take the streets. This is called slacktivism.
Mullen et al. (2010) – The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model: A critical approach to analysing
mass media behaviour
The propaganda model (PM) was developed by Herman and Chomsky in 1988 and tried to explain
the behaviour of American mass media.
The liberal-pluralist view of how political systems operate within capitalist, liberal-democratic
societies suggests that there is a healthy ‘marketplace of ideas’. It thinks that there is a good balance
of opinions and worldviews that make up the pathway that society takes. Moreover, the media is
seen as a watchdog that assists the public by adding the checks and balances together. The
Marxist-model on the other hand sees the media as part of the ruling elite. The media supposedly
supports the dominant world view. From this, Herman and Chomsky eventually formed their model.
,Like the Marxist worldview it concerns itself with exploring the relationship between ideology,
communicative power, and social class interests. All in their book Manufacturing consent. They talk
about the five filters:
1. Ownership, size and profit orientation of mainstream media
2. Advertising as the principal source of revenue for mainstream media and the corresponding
influence of advertising values on news production processes
3. Mainstream media’s routine reliance on agents of power as the primary definers of social
reality
4. Organized flake that represents a mechanism of social control
5. Various ideological forces, which may be deployed and adapted to correspond to elite
interests when required
Lecture 1
Even though the internet has changed the way we do and hear things it is still ever needed to be
heard. Wolfsfeld argues that if you don’t exist in the media, you don’t exist politically because it has
close ties to: become known, mobilize supporters, influence public opinion, and influence policy.
Powe, culture and ideological bias. Note that Wolfsfeld ignored the economical biases. Herman’s
propaganda model argues that because media are commercial companies, they promote
self-censorship. Chomsky and Herman argue that the 5th pilar of democracy is in no way the media.
Power = the intentional causing of effects
Power is also hierarchal, one is on top and the other is submissive.
4 types of power:
1. Physical force: literally limiting options
2. Agenda-setting: changing the basis of choices
3. Preference-shaping via institutions: shape the “meaning” and significance of things
4. Values-shaping: ideological and discursive hegemony and disciplining
Framing is making aspects salient while keeping others silent.
Ideological hegemony – Certain values are dominant throughout society and will therefore be
stimulated everywhere.
5 filters of media which is ideological apparatus (trying to show us a certain part, not everything):
- Size and ownership (who owns the media)
Powerful people want to control the media and will therefore even buy the media
- Advertisement (due to commercialization)
News media cater to political prejudice and economic interests of advertisers, news is
merely a filler for the advertisers
- Sourcing (who speaks)
Who/which side is invited to talk about the news. Deviant opinions are marginalized.
- Flak (afweergeschut/ the threat)
If there is negative story, mass corporations and the powerful have a team that is ready to
state that it is completely opposite
- Fear (make them afraid)
If you want to change behaviour you need to prick their fear
, The first wave of criticism (80s/90s) was on the notion that PM overstated the power of the
‘propaganda system’ and downplayed popular opposition to the elite preferences; played a
conspiratorial view of the media; in short, it was not elaborated enough.
The second wave of criticism (early 00s) was focused on its name being more connected to the
media effects than the media performance.
Wolfsfeld – Ch. 2 Political control and media dependence
The second principle is: When the powerful lose control over the political environment, they also
lose control over all forms of media. In order to understand political, we must look at what
successful keeping political control is. It consists of three things:
1. Their ability to take control in important and relevant events
With critical events it is easy to lose control. Namely, everyone has an opinion, and the
internet can help spread these views. Political success often leads to media success (which
often leads to more political success). If everything runs smoothly, politicians are less likely
to be subjected to public criticism.
2. Their attempt to take control over the flow of information
In absolute regimes, one of the biggest fears is losing control over the information that is
spread to the outside world. This can undermine your legitimacy. Leaks are bad for
politicians and good for journalists. The control over the flow of information is directly
related to the level of democracy in the country. Molotov argues that media is great for
dictators because they can voice their opinions unfiltered, and they can keep close tabs on
their citizens.
3. How much leaders are able to mobilize a broad consensus in support of their policies,
especially among the political elite
With “WEIRD”- countries we mean: Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic countries.
A good example of the intertwining of media and politics during ‘events’ is the Arab Spring of the
early 10s. The media got the “blame” for spreading the disgust against the political leaders at the
time and thus for keeping the protests going. However, if there were no events and everything was
running smoothly, the politicians would have been ready to take the credit. One must therefore
always look at the different conflicts as well as the different stages where conflicts occur.
Another good example is the Vietnam War, many people still believe that people only got a problem
with the war because they got informed by the horrors of the war through the media. Note that
political leaders didn’t take control effectively, they had no control over the flow of information and
there was no ability to create consensus, even amongst the political elite.
The political-media-political cycle shows us that the media reacts to political events after which they
will report, and the politics will react again, media reacts, etc. The media thus does not merely
reflect political change; in many cases they can magnify and accelerate change. In the early stages of
the Iranian war, the military still had quite a lot of support through ‘embedding’ journalists into their
military units. This resulted in control over the flow of information as well as great reports. However,
when the army vs. army part was over reporters became more sceptical and the army lost control
over the flow of information.
In the current digital landscape, internet and social media also proposes to be a threat against
controlling the flow of information. Therefore, many political leaders shut off the internet in times of
political chaos. In such countries, at those times, political dissatisfaction might tell you more than
the internet or other channels of communication.
