Understand Politics
Page 18
* * *
Media influence over political events
It is alleged that the role of the media extends beyond merely influencing the outcome of elections: it may also promote major political episodes.
In the United Kingdom it was alleged that the Social Democratic Party (formed in 1981) was a media creation. This argument suggested that the heavy emphasis placed in the media on ideological divisions within the Labour Party was a major factor in inducing a number of social democrats to form a new political vehicle to advance their views.
The initial successes enjoyed by that party were also attributed to media interest in the party’s affairs – an interest that waned when the Falklands War commenced in 1982.
* * *
However, the extent to which the media influence political affairs is open to debate. It is one social agency among several others (which include the family, the workplace or the neighbourhood) which may affect political conduct. Those without established political views or loyalties (who are described as ‘don’t knows’ in opinion polls) may be most susceptible to media influence.
The suggestion that the media can influence the political behaviour of at least some members of the general public thus implies that issues such as ownership and political bias are important in a liberal democracy. It may mean that some parties have an unfair advantage.
SPIN DOCTORS
The important role played by the media in determining the outcome of political activities makes it essential that parties undertake measures to ensure that they are favourably projected. Those who undertake this work are termed spin doctors.
A spin doctor is concerned with ensuring that the policies of a political party are effectively presented to the electorate in order to ensure their maximum popular appeal. The term was first used in America in the 1980s and the United Kingdom Labour Party’s success at the 1997 general election was heavily influenced by the manner in which spin doctors were able to manage or manipulate the reporting activities of the media, particularly the newspapers, so that their policy and criticisms of the Conservative government received favourable coverage. Following Labour’s victory at the 1997 general election, a number of spin doctors were employed in order to secure governmental control of the media’s agenda so that journalists would be placed in the position of responding to government initiatives rather than putting forward proposals of their own. The main advantage of this for the government was that it gave it the appearance of being in control of situations.
The position occupied by spin doctors as middlemen between politicians and the electorate provides them with considerable power, since to perform their functions effectively they are required to exercise much control over political affairs and in particular a party’s media relations. This may have disadvantageous consequences for the operations of liberal democracies. Spin doctors might feel it necessary to dominate elected politicians to the extent of devising policy proposals which they deem to have popular appeal or imposing censorship on the media. If a spin doctor acts for a party which is in government, this may take the form of seeking to control media activities by bullying journalists into favourably reporting the activities of the government or denying access to government sources to journalists or publications which adopt a critical stance to it. Further, the emphasis which they place on presentation and image may become a substitute for policy so that the attention of electors becomes diverted from the contents of government proposals and is instead focused on issues such as delivery, appearance or image. The role of spin doctors may also accelerate a trend whereby official pronouncements on government policy are made in the media rather than in legislative bodies, whose work thus becomes devalued.
ADVERTISING AND MARKETING
The importance attached to presentation in contemporary election campaigns has also ensured that advertising and marketing are important aspects of these contests. In the UK, the advertising firm of Saatchi & Saatchi played a key role in the victories of the Conservative Party in 1979, 1983 and 1987. The poster Labour isn’t Working that was produced for the 1979 contest (which mocked the record of the 1974–9 Labour government on unemployment) was widely regarded as having played a key role in securing the victory of Margaret Thatcher and ensured that aggressive marketing campaigns would become a feature of subsequent UK general elections.
Questions
How do the media seek to influence political behaviour?
Do they succeed in achieving their aims?
Cross-media ownership
* * *
Insight
Ownership gives media proprietors the potential to influence political outcomes through the biased or selective coverage of events.
* * *
Traditionally media operations were discrete: a ‘separation of media powers’ existed in many liberal democracies whereby ownership of the print media was divorced from other major forms of communication such as radio and television. While it became increasingly common in the twentieth century for newspaper ownership to be concentrated in relatively few hands by a process of mergers, such processes were conducted within the print media. But this is now changing. Increasingly, media owners have financial interests in various forms of communication including newspapers, journals, radio and television. This is what we mean by ‘cross-media ownership’. In the remainder of this section we consider why this development occurred and what problems might arise as the result of it.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-MEDIA OWNERSHIP
The role of the private sector in ownership of television companies has had a profound influence on this development. In many European countries television was initially viewed as a form of public service. It was operated by the state (sometimes using the mechanism of public corporations as is the case in the United Kingdom) whose main duty was to ensure that news was reported in an impartial fashion: objectivity and balance were the guiding principles of public service broadcasting. This situation was different from that in the United States where broadcasting organizations were privately owned.
The monopoly enjoyed by public service broadcasting was eventually challenged by the private sector, which sought to make a profit from this form of communication. This gave rise to commercial television which was exclusively funded by advertising revenue (unlike public service broadcasting which was mainly funded by its users paying a licence fee, sometimes – as in the former state of West Germany – topped up by income derived from advertising). The costs involved in establishing a television channel made it essential that established business and commercial interests involved themselves in commercial television. In many countries, however, commercial broadcasting was initially subject to state supervision. This was justified on the grounds that the frequencies available for transmission were limited in number and so the state had to regulate the use of this scarce commodity.
However, more recent developments concerned especially with cable and satellite television have facilitated a massive growth in the number of television channels which can be transmitted within any one particular country. Although these may also be subject to some degree of state supervision, these innovations have served to further increase the role of the private sector in broadcasting.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CROSS-MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Cross-media ownership has been considerably advanced by the process of de-regulation, one consequence of which is that the ownership of all forms of media has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This process has occurred in Italy and France during the 1980s and in the United Kingdom has been facilitated by legislation that included the 1990 Broadcasting Act and the 2003 Communications Act (although the 1996 Broadcasting Act did impose some limitations on cross-media ownership). In America the Federal Communications Commission (whose role is to approve media sales) proposed to relax media ownership rules in 2003 by removing restrictions on media ownership, although this intention was blocked by the decision of an appellate court in 2004. In 2006 it proposed to
introduce new regulations whereby media companies could own newspapers, television and radio stations in the same city. Changes in the political composition of this body in 2008 (the majority of whose members were Democrat) was likely to thwart further reforms to cross-ownership rules.
The ability of an individual or a commercial company to have interests in a wide range of media outlets has considerable political significance. These media owners possess a considerable degree of power: as we have already described, they may seek to place ideas on the political agenda or to influence the manner in which members of the general public think or act. Their ability to do so may be enhanced by a situation in which a wide range of media outlets hammer out a common political line.
Cross-media ownership may further erode the diversity of the media, which is regarded as essential in a liberal democracy. It is important that the media articulate a wide range of opinions in order for members of the public to become politically educated. A similarity of views expressed in various media forms may be more reminiscent of a one-party state than of a society which flourishes on the expression of a variety of opinions.
A further difficulty is that commercial concerns dominate the content of newspapers or programmes. A major fear is that stories or programmes will cater for the lowest common denominator: the practices of the United Kingdom tabloid press, for example, will become the standard form of activity. While this problem may seem confined to media operating on commercial lines, it has serious implications for public service broadcasting. If they lose viewers to commercial television companies, their case for receiving all, or any, of a licence fee paid by the public is undermined.
However, it would be incorrect to assume that all developments in the media have undesirable consequences for the conduct of politics. Innovations including desktop publishing, cable and satellite broadcasting theoretically facilitate a diversity of opinion which is beneficial to a healthy liberal democracy. The key consideration is the extent to which companies taking advantage of these developments are able to remain independent. Developments in the mid-1990s in connection with the information superhighway have tended to promote take-overs and mergers, resulting in the formation of large companies with diverse media interests. If small companies are taken over or driven out of business by larger concerns, with interests in a range of different forms of communication, the benefits which could be derived from technological innovations will be lost. It is this concern which has prompted the enactment of national or state legislation to limit the extent of cross-media ownership.
* * *
Mergers in the media industry (media consolidation)
In January 2000, the American company Time Warner announced a merger with the world’s biggest internet service provider, America Online. This $350 billion deal created the world’s fourth largest corporation, called AOL Time Warner. It was described as the world’s first fully integrated media and communications company and united a wide range of news and entertainment outlets (including a major cable television network) with a major online service provider.
* * *
Questions
What do you understand by the term ‘cross-media ownership’?
What problems affecting the conduct of political affairs might arise as the result of this development?
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
The media consist of a wide range of mechanisms to communicate information on political affairs and current events to the general public.
The media may aid the operations of liberal democratic politics by stimulating public interest in political affairs and holding politicians accountable for their actions.
Media coverage is selective and may give preference to events it deems ‘newsworthy’ at the expense of those that lack sensation or glamour.
Media activity needs to find a balance between the privacy of the individual(s) who may be subject to media scrutiny and the public’s ‘right to know’ about them and their activities.
The media assume a prominent role in the conduct of contemporary election campaigns and politicians devote considerable attention to cultivating a favourable media impression.
Issues such as media ownership may result in the presentation of a biased interpretation of political issues or events.
* * *
8
Constitutions
In this chapter you will learn:
why states have constitutions
the distinction between codified and uncodified constitutions
the process of constitutional reform in the UK.
Definition
* * *
Insight
A constitution sets a framework within which a country’s system of government is conducted. It establishes rules which those who exercise the functions of government have to obey. All future actions performed by the executive and legislature, for example, must be in conformity with the country’s constitutional provisions. If this is not the case, the judiciary may set aside these actions through the process of judicial review.
* * *
There is usually one document which contains information concerning the manner in which a country’s system of government operates. Examples of what we term ‘codified constitutions’ include the American Constitution which was drawn up in 1787, the Irish Constitution of 1937 and the French Constitution of 1958. The provisions of codified constitutions have a superior status to ordinary legislation and provide a key point of reference whereby the activities performed by the executive and legislative branches of government and subordinate authorities such as state or local government can be judged. Actions which contravene it may be set aside by the process of judicial review. Britain, New Zealand and Israel, alternatively, are examples of countries which do not have codified constitutions.
However, it would be impossible to include all the material relevant to the government of a country in one single document. Codified constitutions are supplemented by several additional sources to provide detailed information concerning the operations of a country’s system of government. A constitution sometimes establishes broad principles of action whose detailed implementation is left to legislation. Such statutes constitute a further source of information concerning the manner in which government functions. Other sources include declarations made by judges whose work may involve interpreting the constitution. These written sources are supplemented by the adoption of practices concerning the way in which government works. These are usually referred to as conventions.
* * *
Conventions
The manner in which a country’s system of government operates is often determined by unwritten customs or practices rather than by specific constitutional enactment. Such constitutional conventions may fundamentally alter arrangements contained or implied in a country’s constitution.
The 1958 French Constitution gave the National Assembly the power to dismiss prime ministers. However, their willingness to accept that they could be dismissed by the president, even when enjoying the support of the legislature, facilitated the extension of the president’s power. The American Constitution envisaged that Congress would be the main source of legislation. In practice, however, the president subsequently assumed a major role in initiating legislation.
* * *
Codified constitutions are traditionally drawn up following some major political event or crisis which necessitates the reconstruction of the apparatus of government. There is a widely felt need to ‘start afresh’. In America, new arrangements for government were required when this country secured its independence from the United Kingdom in the late eighteenth century. A similar situation required an Irish Constitution to be written following the First World War. In Italy and the old state of West Germany, defeat in war and the collapse of fascism necessitated the construction of new governing arrangements. In France, the Algerian war provided the occasion for the drafting of a new constitution in 1958, thus bringing the Fifth Republic into being.
Questions
With reference to any country with which you are familiar, give three examples of constitutional conventions.
Outline why these are important for the conduct of government in that country.