There is no doubt that mass media plays a fundamental role in shaping the general public’s perception of the political process. Most citizens have neither the time nor the inclination to follow the ins and outs of political intrigue and debate. Thus, newspapers, television, radio and other widely accessible outlets of information take on the role of an intermediary that distills daily developments down into news stories, video clips and sound bites that serve to inform the population about current political issues.
A media outlet has a myriad of ways to shape the public’s perception of a politician’s statement, speech or position on an issue. Politicians often claim to have been quoted out of context or that the media has simplified a nuanced issue in an unacceptable manner.
However, in my opinion, a news item containing a statement or position of a political figure has far greater potential for shaping public perception than any framing technique of a given media outlet. A single letter after a candidate’s name, whether it is a R or a D has far greater effect on public perception than most other factors do.
Take a moment to think about that. When you read a political statement, do you always check to see which political party the politician is from? I know I do.
What’s more, I think this is a primary factor in how each individual examines and evaluates ideas. Although the portion of the electorate with a partisan identification has declined since the 1950s, the American political system remains organized around political parties. A solid core of the electorate identifies with each political party. Thus, for a politician, identification with one party or another is almost necessary to win an election.
As a thought experiment, try imagining a world without these letters in news stories. Would this lead to mass panic and confusion, as suddenly people lose the bits of information that prime them to accept one idea over another? Unlikely. Would politics as we know it change forever? Probably not. However, that doesn’t mean there might not be some effect.
Perhaps citizens would be more willing to consider new and different ideas from a lawmaker if he wasn’t instantly pigeonholed and discounted or ignored based on his membership in one party or another. For that matter, politicians might be more willing to reach out and work together if it were not a matter of either agreeing with the enemy or betraying their allies every time it was reported in the media.
While this makes for an interesting thought experiment, I realize that this possibility is, of course, unlikely and an artificial attempt to control speech and information. However, I think that when television stations such as Fox News start resorting to mislabeling Mark Foley or Arlen Spector as Democrats, party identifications may be having too much of an impact. The now infamous incidents show perfectly how the mass media can influence political news via pandering to partisan influences.
As citizens, I firmly believe that we should all be wary of a reflexive reaction toward or away from one political party or another. Political parties are a necessary and useful tool for organizational purposes. However, blocking out an entire side of an issue simply because of the D or R affiliations that I mentioned earlier does not help resolve a conflict. Contending and debating over issues helps generate a more effective response to them. This cannot occur if one side refuses to actually examine and understand the argument of the other. Instead, once a person succumbs to ideological blindness, it makes him that much easier to manipulate.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in history and political science.
