A Look at the Relationship Between Media and Politics

The media has always had a close relationship with American politics. From the Gazette of the United States to the New York Times, they have been the linking point between what happens in politics and the public. If it wasn't for the media, you and me may not know or have an idea of what goes on in Washington. Everything political would operate and stay under complete secrecy. The media as a whole is important but there are 4 roles that are especially vital.

The first of these 4 important roles is that of the signaler role. Journalists themselves have the belief that part of their job is that once something important political happens whatever it may be, they need to alert the world of what is going on. Waiting for a big story to break is important part. They are ready to attack the story whenever and wherever it takes place. Just realize this the next time you pass by an accident or fire and you see a news van speeding down the road or a news chopper flying through the air swiftly. Developments of things that happen in Washington are especially important also. Someone is usually on the scene in the capital when something happens. An example of this would be John Roberts reporting from the lawn of the White House when Colin Powell speaks out against foreign policy or about Iraq. Toggling the switch of the public attention level is the last thing a signaler role does. Equal coverage of all news details across the board puts it on the agenda for the public to grab onto it. It may not always be right but it definitely gets to the publics' hands.

Next up on this list of important roles is a little ditty called the common-carrier role. The main basis of it is to provide an appropriate channel for politicians to use when communicating with the public. It is of universal importance. Logically, somebody can't love or hate a politician if they do not hear what their stances and platforms are and politicians are unable to get this public feedback if they do not publicly state what they are about. The capital is a natural hotbed for reporters. Since this is true, public relation and media departments are going to give information pertaining to news stories about politicians that will not backfire on them in the long run. After this in the journey, the media is going to take what they hear and give their own take on it. Journalists are also going to have the ultimate advantage over the politician in what gets mentioned. Mr. President will get a fraction of the airtime for his banter from what he originally wanted because of mister journalist

Watchdog role is next up on the list. In this regard, the press is on call ready to pounce on any politician who crumbles a widely accepted standard or practice. As with any other groups of things, there is going to be some conflict. This rift happens to be between watchdogs and common-carriers. A watchdog stays at one end of the room far away from the politician in distance and also has somewhat of a question mark with their beliefs. On the other side of the room closer is the common-carrier who strives to keep closer political ties. Criticism of the constant search for political wrongdoing is brought up typically. To battle back this, the government size enables an ample supply of bad things to occur and to be covered. The media has on more than one occasion, veered to the negative coverage side. In these days, everything has come out into the open for fair

game of coverage good or bad. Critics may not agree with the media's search and glorification of negative information but that is what gets the public's attention when it comes down to it.

The last role on this exclusive list is that of the public-representative role. This basically comes down to being a public spokesperson and advocate. Some will argue though that journalists flat out do not serve as well a public representative as a politician would. Two main arguments come up with this. The first would be that the public accountability of journalists and politicians are not at the same level. Journalists are saved from that little thing called elections. The only person who journalists are not saved from is a person called their boss. The media presses on regardless of who is voted in or out of office. Number two would be that a journalist in search of a solid news story requires no bias and no views. On the other hand, to be successful with public representation, views are essential. In general the media is out to get a good news story, not necessarily ignite the world with views. The pursuit for a pure profit and high ratings/readership also come into play.

In general, I think the signaler role is vital in feeding the public's appetite for political caliber stories, the common-carrier role is important in providing the necessary channel for politicians to tell the public what they are about so the public can form their views on them, watchdogs are necessary in the fact of exposing wrongdoing in

Washington when it happens and public-representatives know the clear difference between who makes the best public representative and who is out to clearly make profits and get huge ratings/readers. As far as the media goes today, I think they do a pretty solid job of getting the news out to the masses. Sure, some news channels and newspapers may be biased but it brings viewers in and it provides a variety for everybody. Essentially, you want as many people paying attention to the news. Everybody may not agree with the way a certain news station or newspaper brings the news out but you have the top choice of action: turning the channel or shutting the tv off or not buying the newspaper.