AMERICANMEDIAANDELECTORALPROCESSINTHE21STCENTURY

Thomas Jefferson once declared: Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without

newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.1 Though he was a

harsh critic of the media and its criticisms, Jefferson fully realized the importance and necessity of the press as a

vehicle for truth. Through the centuries the majority of America has echoed this sentiment, adopting the

Enlightenments philosophy of the press as a valuable tool. In the last 10 years, the already prevalent role and

influence of the mass media has grown even more profoundly, especially in the electoral process. Print and

broadcasting media in the 21st century, especially the internet, has revolutionised the role that the media plays in

electoral politics including providing a new platform for elections to be debated and discussed, largely

contributing to the campaign strategies of candidates and magnifying and proliferating the impact that bias in the

mediahasontheelectoralprocess.

Historically, the traditional roles of the media in electoral politics has been to serve: 1) as a watchdog of

democracy by investigating and uncovering corruption and the abuse of power in the electoral process and

expose those responsible to the people, 2) as a voter educator, responsible for informing the public about

candidates, issues and events and how they can be more active in electoral politics, 3) as a gatekeeper,

determining what issues and candidates are extensively covered and for how long, 4) as a campaign platform

for candidates and parties to provide the electorate information regarding their attributes, political agendas, and

proposed plans and 5) as a scorekeeper, keeping track of who is winning and who is losing in the eyes of the

public as an election progresses.2, 3 At the beginning of the 21st century, these roles were primarily filled by

radio and television. However, over the last 14 years, the rise of theWorldWideWeb and widespread use of the

internet and social media by millions of Americans has created new roles and revolutionized the way the media

impacts electoral politics. The Internet creates a platform for people of different opinions to debate issues

concerning candidates and share their opinions with one another, which makes a huge impact on elections.4 One

of the earliest and most prominent examples of this profound impact on electoral politics occurred in 2004 when

Republican candidate George W. Bush was reelected as President. Bushs victory has been largely attributed to

the use of collections of online diaries and web logs known as blogs, an internet tool that had been relatively

unknown as little as four years earlier, and the influence of celebrated bloggers who were political

conservatives.5 Today, Americans use social media as a format to debate and discuss elections with people from

all over the country who they would otherwise, without the help of social media, never have the chance to talk

to. This allows for voters to get a wider perspective of the opinions of other voters outside of their own regions.

Since a voter from a predominantly liberal city like, for instance, San Francisco, may have a drastically different

understanding of a political topic than someone from a relatively conservative city, like Salt Lake City, having a

platform in which voters from these two cities can easily discuss and hear each other out on a topic can have an

undeniable impact on the voting process. A report on Social Media and Voting conducted by the Pew Research

Centers Internet and American Life Project during the 2012 Presidential campaign reported that at the time the

survey was conducted 30 percent of registered voters had been influenced to vote for Barack Obama or Mitt

Romney by their friends and family on a social networking site, while 20 percent of registered voters had

influencedotherstovotebypostingonasocialnetworkingsitesuchasFacebookorTwitter.6

Due to the weak state of political parties in recent years, politicians are increasingly dependent on media to

directly connect with potential voters on a national scale.7 The electoral process and mass media have a very

close and essential relationship when it comes to candidates cultivating relationships with potential voters and

gaining familiarity with the public. As some candidates start off relatively unknown to the general public, one of

the first essential tasks a candidate tackles is to become a household name in politics with an image and

campaign slogan that is easily recognizable.8 Candidates use the media to introduce themselves to the public

through brief paid television ads called spots and short film segments aired on news broadcasts called

visuals in which candidates are shown engaged in a seemingly candid activity which reporters deem affective

and interesting enough to show on their news broadcasts, such as visiting a childrens hospital or giving food to

the homeless.9 In this way, a previously unknown candidate can establish himself or herself as a serious

contender in the election simply by getting their name out and forming a relationship with the press.10 This gets

the people talking about the candidate and kickstarts the growth of their political fan base and future audience.

Once they have established their political presence and become relatively familiar to the public, candidates will

use the media to personalize their image and make themselves more likable and relatable to potential voters

who are not won over by wordy, serious political debates and press conferences.11 For example, candidates may

arrange to shoot a family photo spread for a popular magazine that includes photos of them in their homes with

their families, laidback and carefree in casual clothing or having fun engaged in a popular American pastime.12

This kind of campaign technique aims to humanize the candidate and make him more relatable to the average

Joes, less politically active voters who will in turn be more inclined to vote for the Candidate now that they feel

aconnectiontohimorher.13

However, many Americans believe that the personal beliefs of members of the press creates biased media that

can unfairly manipulate the publics opinion.14 When it comes to attacking and criticizing electoral Candidates

in the media, most members of the press are most likely influenced by antiauthority bias, meaning they are

automatically suspicious and distrusting of political candidates before they have any substantial reason to be,

due to past experience with manipulative and dishonest politicians. This suspicion and distrust is reflected in a

writers media coverage and gives the writer a negative perspective and attitude towards the candidate. Another

factor that is creating bias in the media is that print reporters are realizing that in this day in age there is no way

they can compete with television when it comes to objective journalism in which the facts are reported in a

straightforward, nononsense fashion.15 To stay afloat, newspapers are doing more and more stories involving

interpretative reporting in which writers venture further than simply stating the who, what, where and when of

an event, but also highlight the reasons why the event happened they way it did. Encouraging reporters to add

their own interpretations to media coverage opens the door for increasingly conjectural stories riddled with the

personal opinions and interpretations of the journalists who wrote them, instead of solely factbased stories. The

public often falls victim to bias within the media because we are more likely to believe what we are told by an

authoritative media source such as a prestigious newspaper or a wellknown television network, even when

we ourselves have learned little to nothing about the topic.16 Misleading stories and information that lean in the

favor of one candidate over another can manipulate voters to support a candidate they didnt previously support

or shun a candidate they previously favored. Some writers will use what is known as loaded language when

discussing a Candidate to persuade readers to form a specific opinion about a Candidate without actually saying

anything that would blatantly demonstrate the reporters bias.17 Lastly, in order to get attention and business in

the highly competitive world of media, reporters are often prone to using sensationalism at the expense of

accuracy. A reporter may exaggerate a scandal and stretch the truth to make it more shocking and entertaining

for their own personal benefit, while simultaneously sabotaging to Candidates chances to win and denying the

public the right to know the truth about what is going on.18 All of these factors contribute to the bias that floods

much of 21st century media, causing a question as to whether the media really benefits the world of politics or

hindersit.

In summary, the obvious impact the internet and other print and broadcasting medias of the 21st century have

on the opinions and voting preferences of the American people, demonstrates the medias undeniable influence

on electoral politics. Without these media outlets our political culture and electoral process would be

unimaginably different than the seemingly flawed, but none the less, amazingly productive and successful

electoralsystemthatAmericanpoliticsthriveontoday.

ENDNOTES

1.ThomasJefferson.TheFounders'Constitution.Volume5,AmendmentI(SpeechandPress),Document8.TheUniversityofChicagoPress(1987).http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs8.html(accessedOctober25,2014) 2.OverviewofMediaandElectionsTheImportanceoftheMediatoElections,MediaandElections:3rdEdition.ACEElectoralKnowledgeNetwork(2012).http://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/me/me10/default(accessedOctober25,2014)

3.RoleofTheMediaintheElectoralProcess.ElectoralCommissionofZambia(2014).http://www.elections.org.zm/media_role.php(accessedOctober25,2014)

4.Ibid.

5.UnitedStates:bringingthebloggerstoheel?MediaandElections:3rdEdition.ACEElectoralKnowledgeNetwork(2012).http://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/me/me10/default(accessedOctober25,2014)

6.Election2012onSNS,PoliticsFactSheet:HighlightsofthePewInternetProjectsresearchrelatedtopolitics.PewResearchCenter(2014).http://www.pewinternet.org/factsheets/politicsfactsheet/(accessedOctober26,2014)

7.PartiesandCandidatesintheElectoralProcess.PartiesandCandidates:2ndEdition.ACEElectoralKnowledgeNetwork(2012).http://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/pc/onePage(accessedOctober20,2014)8.JamesQ.WilsonandJohnJ.Dilulio.AmericanGovernment:APEdition,10thEdition.(HoughtonMifflinHarcourt,2005),233.9.WilsonandDilulio,242.10.WilsonandDilulio,242.11.WilsonandDilulio,240.

12.AndrewPaulWilliamsandJohnC.Tedesco.TheInternetElection:PerspectivesontheWebinCampaign2004(Rowman&Littlefield,2006)103104,PDFebook.13.JamesQ.WilsonandJohnJ.Dilulio.AmericanGovernment:APEdition,10thEdition.(HoughtonMifflinHarcourt,2005),240.14.WilsonandDilulio,303.

15.Dr.WilliamT.Horner.Lesson1:TheMediaandDemocracy:TheoryandHistory,PoliticsandtheMedia(WritingIntensive).UniversityofMissouri(2010).https://services.online.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2339/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx(accessedOctober25,2014)16.Dr.WilliamT.Horner,PoliticsandtheMedia(WritingIntensive)17.JamesQ.WilsonandJohnJ.Dilulio.AmericanGovernment:APEdition,10thEdition.(HoughtonMifflinHarcourt,2005),303.18.WilsonandDilulio,304305.