Policymaking is a political process which is affected by various social and economic factors (Hofferbert, 1974; Mazamanian & Sabatier, 1989) and media systems play an integral role in shaping the social context in which policies are developed. Through the media, citizens learn how government policies will affect them, and governments gain feedback on their policies and programs. Media systems act as the primary conduit between those who might want to influence policy and the policymakers – controlling the scope of political discourse and regulating the flow of information. Textbook policymaking follows an orderly sequence where problems are identified, solutions devised, policies adopted, implemented, and lastly evaluated. In reality, the policy process is more fluid, where policies are formed though the struggle of ideas of various advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1991) in what has been described as a policy primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995). The policies, on which the media focuses can, and often does, play an important part in determining the focal issues for policymakers (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988; Linsky, 1986; Pritchard, 1992; Soroka, 2002).
One of the fundamental roles of the media in a liberal democracy is to critically scrutinise governmental affairs: that is to act as the ‘Forth Estate’ of government to ensure that the government can be held accountable by the public. However, the systematic deregulation of media systems worldwide is diminishing the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in policymaking process governing the media (McChesney, 2003, p. 126). The ensuing relaxation of ownership rules and control, has resulted in a move away from diversity of production to a situation where media ownership is becoming increasing concentrated by just a few (predominantly western) global conglomerates (Bagdikian, 2004; McChesney, 1999). Obvious problems arise for democratic processes, when huge media conglomerates also fulfil the role of powerful political actors; their close links with the corporate economy are widely considered to limit their ability to investigate the government and represent all points of view. Consequently, in the same way that Habermas (1989) described the colonisation of the public sphere by large corporations, the political sphere is now being colonised by the media, and politics has begun re-orientating itself to satisfy the logic of media organisations (Meyer, 2002, p. 71). Therefore, the media are active participants in the policymaking process and the ability to stimulate change or maintain the status quo depends on their choice of subject (or policy issue) and how they frame it. Active (investigative) reporting attempts to shape policy outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that it always represents the most successful approach for gaining policy changes (Spitzer, 1993, p. 7). In fact, sometimes passive (straight) reporting can have a greater influence on policy choices. When this occurs, media independence is largely bypassed, as the news generated depends solely on the information released (as public relations material) from legitimate news sources. For example, White House staff routinely make ‘leaks’ - expressively to influence policy decisions (Davis, 1992, p. 143; Hertsgaard, 1988, pp. 122-123; Robinson, 2001, p. 948). Linsky noted that journalists regard “leaks… as indispensable to their work” and that they are aware of their use by officials in return for scoops (1986, p. 202). The media may also influence policy outcomes through their ability to exclude certain policy options from the media, which “sets the boundaries for ‘legitimate’ public debate” (Borquez, 1993, p. 34). Such analyses have led some researchers to posit that the media has a powerful monolithic influence on all policy processes, while others suggest it plays an insignificant role in policy making processes; a more likely scenario is that its degree of influence varies considerably, being issue based in...
Bibliography: Auerbach, Y. & Y. Bloch-Elkon (2005). Media framing and foreign policy: the elite press vis-à-vis US policy in Bosnia, 1992–95. Journal of Peace Research, 42, 83-99.
Bachrach, P. & M. S. Baratz (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125.
Blair, T. (2003, February 15). Blair speech - key quotes. News.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2765763.stm
Boyd-Barrett, O. (2004). Judith Miller, the New York Times, and the propaganda model. Journalism Studies, 5, 435-449.
Brown, W. J. & R. C. Vincent (1995). Trading arms for hostages? How the government and print media “spin” portrayals of the U.S. policy toward Iran. Political Communication, 12, 65-79.
Carey, A. (1995). Taking the risk out of democracy: propaganda in the US and Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Carvalho, A. (2005) Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: discursive strategies in the British media. Critical Discourse Studies, 2, 1-29.
Chang, T. (1993). The press and China policy: the illusion of Sino-American relations 1950-1984. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Chipoux, F. (1992, August 30). Bosnians getting arms from Islamic countries. Manchester Guardian Weekly.
Compaine, B. (2002). Global media. Foreign Policy, 133, 20-28.
Cryle, D. & J. Hillier (2005). Consent and consensus: politics, media and governance in twentieth century Australia. Perth, W.A.: API Network, Australia Research Institute.
Dahlberg, J. (2005). The corporate colonization of online attention and the marginalization of critical communication? Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29, 160-180.
Davis, A. (2002). Public relations democracy: public relations, politics and the mass media in Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Davis, A. (2003a). Public relations and news sources. In S. Cottle (Ed.), News, public relations and power. London: Thousand Oaks.
Davis, A. (2003b). Whither mass media and power? Evidence for a critical elite theory alternative. Media, Culture & Society, 25, 669-690.
Davis, R. (1992). The press and American politics. New York: Longman.
Doherty (2005, February 7). Propaganda and the BBC. Zmag.org. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=7189
Ellwood, D. T. (1988). Poor support: poverty in the American family. New York, Basic Books.
Freedland, J. (2005, June 22). Yes, they did lie to us. The Guardian (UK).
Gibbs, D. (2000). Realpolitik and humanitarian intervention: the case of Somalia. International Politics, 37, 41-55.
Gilboa, E. (2005). The CNN effect: the search for a communication theory of international relations. Political Communication, 22(1), 27-44.
Gowing, N. (1996). Real time TV coverage from war. In Bosnia by television. London: British Film Institute.
Guzzardi, W. (1985). The secret love affair between the press and government. Public Opinion, 8, 2-5.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hallin, D. C. (1986). The "uncensored war”: the media and Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hawthorne, M. R. (1993). The media, economic development, and agenda-setting. In R. J. Spitzer (Ed.), Media and public policy. Westport: Praeger.
Herman, E. S. & N. Chomsky (1988). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Herman, E. S. (1993). The media’s role in United States foreign policy. Journal of International Affairs, 43, 23-45.
Herman, E. S. (2005). The politics of the Srebrenica massacre. Zmag.org. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=8244
Hertsgaard, M. (1988). On bended knee: the press and the Reagan presidency. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Hilgartner, S. & C. L. Bosk (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
Hofferbert, R. I. (1974). The study of public policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Klaehn, J. (2002). A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’. European Journal of Communication, 17, 147–182.
Klaehn, J. (2005). Filtering the news: essays on Herman and Chomsky 's propaganda model. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Lee, M. A. & N. Solomon (1992). Unreliable sources: a guide to detecting bias in the news media. Lyle Stuart
Malek, A. & K. E. Wiegard (1997). News media and foreign policy: an integrated review. In A. Malek (Ed.), News media and foreign policy. Norwood: Ablex.
Manheim, J. B. (1997). Going less public: managing images to influence US foreign policy. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern?: politicians, voters, and reporters in America. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document