Politics and show business seem to have become industry. Do you agree with this? Consider the ‘media-‐ization’ of politics in your answer. Should the media or the politician be ‘more responsible’?
The media had a very important role in shaping the world of the twenty-first century as we see it today, as a huge theatre. Media have being building our image of the world, which is so much as building the world itself in our minds. For many things, it does not matter if what we think is real or not, but which our beliefs and attitudes are. The importance of the media is such that they have made our world to be one only stage in which everybody can be the audience. Lots of individuals want to be players, but there is no time for everybody to act. If you don't act, you do not exist. Everything happens under the light of the media. Media are not media any more. They are not in the middle between politicians and society or between citizens and reality. They take part. They have interests or they are owned by people that have interests. The growing intrusion of media into the political domain in many countries has led critics to worry about the approach of the "media-driven republic," in which mass media will usurp the functions of political institutions in the liberal state. However, political institutions in many nations have retained their functions in the face of expanded media power. The best description of the current situation is "media-ization," where political institutions increasingly are dependent on and shaped by mass media but nevertheless remain in control of political processes and functions. The forms of politics began to change very quickly since Kennedy´s elections in 1960, reaching its climax in the current elections. The mediatization of politics is absolute. The trips, the hobbies..., everything the politics do and not do is published, or at least known by the media. Everything is determined by its media impact. There are three radical changes: the use of the marketing resources to "sell us" the candidates, the selection of natural media channels as television for the expression of political messages, and the recruitment and influence exerted by imported consultant professionals professional for the design of the campaign strategies. When it comes to contemporary media coverage of politics, some thinkers come up with “the media malaise theory”, pointing out the public disenchantment toward the leaders and the institutions. In our visual society, politics build their image through television, playing with the boundaries of “infotainment”, satisfying people who watch news as entertainment. It is often suggested that politics has become a minor form of show business, which is a term for the business of entertainment. Some people answer to this argument that all the voices should be represented in a democracy, which is the justification of the existence of some show business programs. The question to asked is then how should the media contribute to the functioning of a representative democracy. And how should the media position themselves between the state, the market, and the society. It can be wondered whether there is a risk of feeling more than thinking. This essay will consider the media-ization of politics and see to what extent the criticisms have been justified and how the system has responded. The responsibility of the media will be pointed out to understand to what extent the concept of the citizen has been replaced by the consumer. In the battle of “romantic pessimists” versus “pragmatic optimists”, it will be showed that some kind of regulations play the role of safeguards. To finish, evidence of ways to resist will be put forward since the medias are not the only to blame in the media-ization of politics. In a way of thinking, it can be argued that politics has become a minor form of show business because of the media-ization of it. The signifiant role played by the media in contemporary Western...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document