“To understand the complexity of the relationship between the Internet and [the electoral, deliberative, and monitorial] dimensions of democracy, we must recognize that the democratic potential of any communication technology will always be limited by the character of existing social, political, and economic power relations, as well as by the attitudes, orientation, and activities of governments, citizens, and corporations.”1 It seems that despite the democratizing potential of narrowcast communication technologies such as the Internet, our interpretation of the democratic status quo will always be subject to the contextual arrangement made manifest by broadcast media and established societal institutions. The problem with this is that the corporate controlled mass media limits the amount of alternative perspectives in order to favor their vision of what can and cannot be considered “popular” culture, which contributes to a failure in democracy. “[Mass media] systematically prioritize certain types of…information at the expense of others, leading to a narrowing of the [media’s] value as a means by which to give voice to alternative perspectives.”2 When perspective is limited the democracy suffers and this is what the media has been doing over the past several decades. Political ideals, purchasing patterns, and even religious beliefs are tailored to fit the mass media’s prescription of what’s “popular” because we are a social species who is easily lead by bandwagons. If the majority say’s it’s right then the general consensus is that it is. This mental manipulation is a major degradation of America as a democratic nation because when we allow the masses to define the norm all of a sudden we become susceptible to the manipulation of private interests and expel the alternate perspectives that make a democracy function.
It’s as if there are, at least, two worlds in America; one of the well-to-do, and another of the struggling for if ever there was an absence of universal truth it’s found in the seedy underbelly of popular culture. Attitudes, values, and ideals, are seemingly manufactured by the private concerns of mass media in an attempt to manipulate the vast swells of public opinion into channels of their own design. Take, for example, our country’s instigation of the Iraq War. In a post 9/11 America the majority of people felt, with some justice, a sense of urgency to enter the Middle East. Fanning the flames of these attitudes was the mass media and almost immediately feelings of urgency became fires of rage that swept across the nation. Right Wing political pandering coupled with extensive media coverage/support caused many somewhat rational Americans to ignore common sense and buy into deceptive media tactics designed specifically to mislead the public into an unjustified war based on blood and oil.
According to a Pew research study conducted in March of 2008, some 78% of Americans in 2003 felt it was the right decision to invade Iraq.3 That number has now decline about half to around 34% but it just shows how much the media played a role in manipulating public opinion. There was little information, almost no international support, and yet the majority of Americans bought into the war. Because the President and the corporate controlled media was able to pander effectively to people’s emotions after the attacks of 9/11, common sense was replaced with common nonsense and mass media’s stranglehold on public perception was exemplified.
So if the media has such a grip on public perception that it can almost define the consensus of thought, what influence do political ads have on the very nature of our democracy? In order to better answer this question I analyzed and assessed Democrat and Republican political ads from 2000 to 2008 to see if I could find any trends that might mirror the current status of American Politics.
One of the most significant points of my assessment is the apparent decrease in relevant information from 2000 to 2008. The 2000 election ads were primarily information based with ads focusing on differences in policies and the effects they would have. The majority of “attack” ads brought up relevant information concerning differences in policy and although there were some like the Republican’s “Dangerous World” ad that were predominantly based on fear, the consensus of all the ads was one of relevant information based on opposition rather than attack.
In 2004 there was a surge of web and other privately sponsored ads such as the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” that really showcased the growing trend of attacking presidential nominees by both private and public sponsors. The web created a whole new medium for ads to be published and instead of focusing more on relevant information and party differences, they published ads like “John Kerry, International Man of Mystery” and “Kerry’s Coalition of the Wild-eyed,” which related Kerry and others to people like Austin Powers and Adolph Hitler. More significantly was the increase in fear and emotion based tactics such as the Republican’s “Finish it” ad and the Democrat’s “Juvenile” ad. The commercials from the 2004 election showed little to no increase in relevant information and instead focused on degrading the opposing candidate and appealing to the sentiments of war torn Americans.
During the 2008 election the sheer amount of ads shot in upwards of 50 different commercials aired on both on television and the Internet. The negative trend continued, however, as approximately 54% of Democrat ads attacked the opposing party, which was still less than the 62% of Republican ads that attacked Obama/Biden. Emphasis was placed on the Internet in 2008 as several more ads were web based this year than in the past eight years- all of them negative (Spare the Democrat’s “Yes We Can” ad). One of the important things to note about 2008 is that while the Democrats posted several ads with relevant information, such as the “American Stories, American Solutions” webisode, the majority of the 2008 Republican ads on the livingroomcandidate.org website were profoundly negative. However, for the most part ads on both sides of the political spectrum contained little information voters could use to base meaningful judgments and focused more on bashing or returning fire on the opposing candidate- something the media has prescribed since the beginning.
In my personal assessment of almost every political ad from 2000 to 2008, I have come to the conclusion that the mass media has progressively deteriorated the state of American politics for the past 8 years not because ads have changed drastically, but because they should have. By now we should see an increasing trend in meaningful information and despite Obama’s significant efforts to do otherwise, the majority of campaign ads still favor the same old mass media prescribed politicking based on negative ads, retribution, and heart-string plucking. This illustrates the argument I made earlier that the mass media has a stranglehold on public perception, which is causing a degradation of America as a democratic nation. Because the media rather than the public have dictated the status quo for so many years, it has slowed and even regressed the somewhat common sense transition of campaign ads from fear and attack to meaningful information with which voters can base election decisions. Although President Elect Obama has shown some outstanding characteristics in pushing for the latter during this election, he is still subject to what the mass media dictates as normal because the media, rather than the masses, continue to dictate the status quo.
As narrowcast media continue to expand and more people begin to realize the democratizing power of the Internet, I believe that in future elections we will see a trend towards more information-based politics concerned with meaningful information rather than pander, fear, and attack. We are just getting used to the recent tools for democracy provided to us by the Internet and it will take some time for these tools to disenfranchise the existing power structure. As more and more people continue to blog, post, comment, and form web based coalitions and NGO’s designed to influence change, the true power of the Internet as a democratic tool will be realized and this nation will be the better for it. Until then we must do what we can by posting opposition and creating web-based coalitions that will combine the influence of many into a wave of reform that will renovate the American political process.
Works Cited
1.) Longford, Graham, and Steve Patten. "Democracy in the age of the Internet."(Forum:
Democracy & the Internet). University of New Brunswick Law Journal. 56
(Annual 2007): 5(11).
(1) Ibid., page 6
(2) Ibid., page 12
2.) Pew Research Center Publications, “Public Attitudes Toward the
War in Iraq: 2003-2008.” March 19, 2008.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-
anniversary
(3) Ibid., Link
3.) The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952-2008
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004
No comments:
Post a Comment