Mass Media and Congressional Campaigns in US

Mass Media and Congressional Campaigns in U.S.

This is a study on the mass media principles and how they are used in congressional campaigns in the U.S. It has 12 sources.

In view of the strong economic-based relationship that exists between the congressional elections and the mass media, more rigid laws need to be established in addition to a screening process for each candidate through which they all have to pass in order to represent the American people.

The media plays an important role in contemporary political activity, as it is a key communicator. This communication is supposed to serve the needs of the people as a whole and bring information to them that would serve their interests. However, such media may be the tool of politicians, as they may manipulate certain important information about themselves in order to gain popularity. Ideally, it is the media that is used to distort reality and gain popularity.

The media itself may not really beware of the reality of the situation, as its interest is to report what they are given to understand. On the other hand, the media may consciously participate in misleading the people. This perhaps would be the result of them having something to gain economically or in kind in the future. Theories of the mass media in relation to elections have established links from this perspective, and one may not rule the possibility.

Analysis: In most places, where media is strong, it has been seen that the society is more diverse and segregated. Society is segregated to avoid unity among the working classes in a capitalist society for fear that they might unite and overthrow the ruling class. In a Democratic country, the government always reminds the people that they all are entitled to their rights, and that there is freedom and justice in everything thing they do, provided that it is within the accepted norms of the society. The people in these countries have been given to understand that the institutions are just, and are devoted to their betterment. The media for instance is supposed to be for the use and the good of the people. But in reality, it is not. This is because of the manipulation (manufacture of news and agenda setting) of truth to suit the needs of the ruling classes (Cohen and Young, 1980).

Miliband sees a fairly direct control of the ruling class on the media. He says, "Most newspapers in the capitalist world have one crucial characteristic in common, namely their strong, often their passionate hostility to anything further to the Left than the milder forms of social democracy, and quite commonly to these milder forms as well" (Mass Media, 2003).

There are several theories that aim at exposing links between elections and the mass media, particular congressional elections. Though there are skeptical views to these too one cannot totally rule out the possibility of this relationship. This is because of the fact that congressional elections are elections that are extremely sensitive to economic conditions.

Stigler's argument is an example of the denial of a relation between the congressional elections, but yet it at some point reveals "conservative" specifications, and almost admits to the existence of a systematic relationship.

Another dimension that aimed at exposing the relationship between the mass media and the congressional elections was Edward Tufte's research into the matter. It may even be said that it is Tufle's study that comes closest to revealing that the economy and politics shape congressional elections (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

It is suggested that provided that the performance of the incumbent party is "satisfactory" in accordance with some system of measure or standard, the voter votes to retain the current governing party. This enables the voters to receive the same policies that they find satisfactory. This is something that perhaps has been demonstrated in the recent 2002 congressional elections in the United States (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

If, on the other hand, the voters see the performance of the incumbents as "unsatisfactory" then they vote against the government, and therefore lend the competing party a chance to rule. This theory is referred to as the "economic voting" theory.

In contrast to the "economic voting" theory is that of Steven Weatherford, who sorts out four different forms of economic variables. He asserts that these may shape votes: personal financial experiences and expectations: perceptions of general economic conditions; evaluations of the government's economic performance; and party images on economics (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

Donald Stokes and Warren's theory holds that voters are actually interested in which candidate has the most to offer. Naturally, this would be the most commonsense thing for any voter to do, and this means that the voters are aware of whom they are voting for.

Findings about Senate Thomas Mann revealed that voters in congressional elections were in fact aware of whom they were voting for. Not only did these individuals recognize their candidates by name but surveys one them in detail revealed that they knew about each one. This work was supported considerably by the 1978 CPS National Election Study (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

It exemplified that voting behavior was dependent on the relation that a candidate had to his or her party and also on the image of the candidate. This is so important to the voters, as they believe what they are told about the candidate through the media. However, this is the main point that is taken advantage off by the candidate through the media.

The candidate's main job is to make sure that he has a good image before the public. It does not really matter what kind of personality a candidate might have in reality because he can create an image of himself through the media. Of course, funding for this is essential, but there are also many sources that are willing to partake in the candidates' aspiration depending on what the candidate is willing to give them in return when they win (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

In cases where the candidate is really willing to render large enough support to the source of funding, the source can then make sure that it pumps in enough funds to popularize the candidate. Simply, what has to be done is pay the media to do what the candidate wants. Of course, the image also has to be in sync with what is acceptable to them. This refers to their right wing views, but since most candidates are aware of this they already have their approaches carved out and presented, as the media would want it.

If a source is not available or if the funds through sources are not enough for the candidate to make a severe enough impact on the public, them the media itself might be able to help the candidate. This can be done if the candidate is willing enough to offer the media owner perks later when he is successful. From then on, it would probably even easier for a candidate to be successful, as the media possesses the tools and could do a lot more due to it having a lot more to gain in return (Conflicting Theories of Congressional Elections, 2003).

The media can be used for portraying good images for individual candidates, and so, it is an appropriate tool for candidates. But how do candidates get to use this tool? And who is in charge of this tool? Is there just a sole proprietor or more? Do people get to hear what they want to or are they filled up with things that are just images of the candidate?

The way that media has influenced the world is quite obvious because of the way that one observes society behaving according to what they see in films. Images used in movies are misleading and often lead society to perceive things that are non-existent. Common examples of these are the way that priests and professors dress. The dress code itself is an image that carries special meaning.

The meaning that is portrayed through the dress code of a professor suggests that he is civilized and a leader of students. A priest too is a leader with a sanctified touch to him. These two seem to be perfect social figures in moral aspect, yet reality has exposed their weaknesses. They both are capable of possessing characters that are bad for society. They may not be the virtuous characters they are supposed to be and actually be deviant behind closed doors. This is exemplified in the way that many clergymen have been exposed as having illicit relations among each other and with youngsters whom they were supposed to be educating under the name of religion.

Due to the fact that human beings are image-conscious and are impressed by what is put before them to view they are likely to accept as real. So, if human beings are so easily spoon-fed, they could also be subdued appropriately through advertisements of congressional candidates that portray good images. By purchasing 30-second flashes on the most-watched television channels, candidates may increase their familiarity.

In addition this, candidates may even succeed in having subliminal messages or slogans played on television. These are messages that work on the psychology of the public every time they see the slogan.

Subliminal messages are messages that are concealed in advertisements, and are a much-debated form of messaging to the public. Though Psychological Research has suggested the subliminal advertisement cannot possibly stimulate an individual's actions, people are still skeptical over these results because of conflicting views of some researchers who argue that these concealed messages can have an impact on individuals.

According to the APA there is no way that discrete messages could be passed on through advertising that is meant for an entirely different purpose. They say that it is impossible for the human mind to perceive messages that they are not really paying attention to. These kinds of statements seem to overwhelmingly refuter any indication of the subconscious mind at work.

In contrast to this there are many researchers who say that discrete messaging is very possible. An example of this is very well demonstrated in the way an individual tends to get up from his or her seat after a while of 'Drink Coke' has been flashed across the screen in cinemas. During adds this might be a common practice for cinema managers to do, and it is suspected that coke sales were increased by up to 20% through this means. However, the manager of a cinema who is said to have been involved in such an advertisement denies the whole practice. It is not known why he would have been so reluctant to come out with the truth about subliminal advertising. (Strahan, 2002) However, it is the image that the candidates are mainly interested in.

In present times, a good image and an equally good message is not enough, as financing a campaign is said to be as important. This is because of the understanding that the media has been bought up by several elite class groups, In order to get to the people, an individual standing for an elections would have to win the support of these elite. This is the reason why there are so many elite class people associated with the candidates. It is also known now that there are elite individuals willing to pay several handouts to candidates for perks (Voting, Campaigns and Elections, 2003).

As a result accepting these handouts, candidates once elected have no options to but to associates themselves with these kinds of individuals who or may not be corrupt. Serving them and doing them favors could become a problem for them later on, as they own large portions of the 'upper tier' of the media. It is through this ownership that the elite may do anything to expose the elected individual. Undoubtedly, this is a pessimistic side of election business, but it perhaps would also be counted as realistic.

All the money that is put into congressional elections does not come from taxpayers' pockets. In fact, in recent years there have been restrictions imposed on candidates so that there is minimum expenditure from congressional funds, and hence the taxpayers' money is saved.

Previously, congress had issued certain limits on funding and spending, and in response to this was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which lent partial public funding for campaigns. It also required full public response of all contributions and expenditures.

Since then, this certainly means that there is an increased reliance on private funding, which means that there would have to be more private sources willing enough to provide such service to candidates. In accordance with the ownership of the mass media, it is easier to understand how and why candidates are supported in their efforts.

The support lent to them is through the ownership of the 29 largest media systems by the elite in the U.S. The owners are the ones willing to fund the candidates. But in doing so, they know that they are totally capable of spreading the desired image of the candidate. The proportion of the media that they own accounts for more than half of the output of all newspapers, including most of the sales and audiences in magazines, broadcasting, books, and movies. The "top tier" of these output devices, which are somewhere between 10 and 24 systems, are responsible for portraying an image that is of the candidates choice. This desired image is passed down to the lower tier over whom they have less control. They are however instructed to do as planned. It is the upper tier that is so important to the candidate, as it "defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the general public." In addition to this, it is the upper tier that defines whether or not a candidate will go on to be successful or not in whatever party s/he belongs to. This is because of the fact that the upper tier is excessively right wing, due to being owned by the elite capitalists in American society. As a result of this, no candidate with left wing or socialist ideas would ever stand a chance of having a positive figure carved for him or her.

In order for a candidate to get his or her image advertised the way that s/he wanted it, the candidate would have to be able to pay up the large fees required. Through handouts from private sources candidates are able to get their images to the people. However, this means that the candidates would owe something to these generous sources after they get elected.

As written in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the reporting requirements and contribution limits, but rejected limits of spending because it was said that this action would interfere with the freedom of political speech. Though the candidate could spend how much s/he desired the incoming amount would still be restricted. However, in 1979, Congress liberalized FECA. It amended the act allowed unrestricted contributions and spending for state and local party-building in order to stimulate voting activity.

With discussing the funding that goes into campaigns through private and congressional sources it is worth asking whether money really does win an election.

Money alone is not likely to win an election for a candidate because there are a number of factors that influence congressional victory. But it must be considered that money does play a vital role ion getting one's message across to the public. A candidate who has funding in his armory will certainly progress in contrast to one that has insufficient funds.

It is also said that the more an election is uncertain, which means the less information available about the candidates, the more the chances are that money would be an integral factor in the outcome of an election.

In recent times there are several changes that have been discussed in the media. The government has been considering the type of content that is being brought to the people, and there is need to focus on who owns the media and what they are doing to society.

In recent times, the government has been considering weakening the rules of media ownership. They have realized what several of the owners are up to, and this needs to be curtailed because of the fact that the people are being misled at every election for instance. This is not the only thing that the media is responsible for misleading people. In addition to this, the youth is suffering greatly. This is because of the fact that they are being shown images that are not suitable for their growing minds, and hence they are becoming more and more volatile. Juvenile crime rate has gone up in recent times due to the influences that they are receiving through the media.

The media has the power to influence the minds of those who are enthralled by it, and in the case of adolescents and other youngsters, present-day media serves as the greatest encouragement for them to commit violent acts.

Violence on television is one of the first things that is used as bait to attract a larger number of viewers. It also appears that the Internet is not far behind, as this is the medium through which all that is available collectively on radio or television can be provided.

Perhaps more important than the destruction of the youth, the campaigns for elections that are also influenced by the power of the media is also another reason for changing the way that things are being run. It is so common that congressional campaigns are in fact not always run in accordance with the principles that they are supposed to adhere to. Three major principals that candidates for congressional campaigns should adhere to are honesty, fairness and responsibility. These three principles are ones that define what candidates' images. However, it is common to see deviance from them (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

First of all, it must be realized that by candidates opting for the use of funds to create false images of themselves and repeatedly have their names and faces flashed on television they are psychologically programming people to remember them. It is true that persistence is part of the campaigning but excessive persistence using immense funding is hardly close to being honest.

False imaging is something that is extremely unethical because of the fact that it is actually lying to the people. This is the first step that candidates are taking in representing and serving their people and therefore they should approach the whole campaign with more honesty (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

If a candidate wants to be more honest in his efforts, this may be done through portraying images that are real and nothing should be exaggerated. However, due to the fact that competition may be stiff between candidates of different parties it must be said that funding is always the key issue. Candidates need to spend as mush as possible so that their names are known well enough. It might be considered an honest effort in campaigning even if the funding put into it has gone into millions but the underlying factor should be that the image portrayed is one that is real. In time to come if the candidate is selected there should not be any surprises for the people, such as fraud and the like (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

In addition to honesty, candidates should also be fair in their approach to attracting the attention of the people. This refers to the ethical approach that should have, which is highlighted by having regard for the competing individual. A candidate of one party should never indulge in mudslinging in order to bring down the other candidate in the eyes of the public. If it is in the interest of the public, and there are points that should be exposed, a complaint may be lodged with the concerned authorities to double check the background of such an individual (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

It must be remembered that a candidate can also bring down his or her own image if s/he indulges in mudslinging or even indulges in pulling down a candidate through revealing some of his or her crooked past.

Besides being fair and honest about one's image it must also be realized that whatever a candidate says about him or herself and the promises that s/he makes to them should be real and intentional. If a candidate fails to act in accordance with this approach s/he is obviously not fir for the job. It must also be realized at this point that the candidate is an individual that is campaigning in an attempted to be appointed as a servant of the people, and hence s/he should be the one to comply with what is expected of him or her (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

Another principle in addition to fairness and honesty that should be focused on is the eventual responsibility that has to be adhered to throughout a candidate's commitment to the job in future. Leading the people is a big responsibility because of the fact that there are so many lives that are dependent on the action of one person. Hence, as a candidate for a congressional election one has to be responsible enough to make the right decisions every step of the way.

Responsibility that candidates should exemplify should be seen a t all levels. This includes responsibility towards the people and to one's self. Considering him or her self the candidate needs to be conscious, and this is because of the fact that in accordance with his or her own thinking the safety and security of the people are affected (Gregory Meeks on Principles & Values, 2001).

Time and again, it has been witnessed that candidates do not adhere to the principles that are vital in order to make them good representatives of the people. An example of this is seen in the case of the candidate Fletcher, as he attacked his opponent

Scorsone, and came to be termed as aggressive. This is something that is not ethical according to congressional election campaigning, as one cannot expect to lift his or her image higher by bringing down the name of someone else. However, Fletcher was victorious (1998), as he had more money than his opponent. Here it is established that the amount of money that an individual candidate possesses does significant improve his or her chances of winning (Profile of the Kentucky Sixth Congressional District, 2003).

The 2002 elections too were a farce in the eyes of democracy, as the people who should have really represented the United States were standing up again for election. This is was because of the fact that the Florida incident during the 2000 elections was a catastrophe. Real democracy did not prevail, as voters were denied their rights there through inappropriate arrangements that enraged voters in that state. However, from the time that George W. Bush was elected the media has been on his side. This typically exemplifies the manner in which the mass media and the top notch officials work in tandem.

The war on terrorism is an example of the way that the media and the present government have co-operated. The war on terrorism is an effort that was glorified since its onset, and in spite of President Bush gaining office through deceiving voters in Florida he is the central figure being given most attention in the efforts in fighting terrorism.

Ever since the Florida deception with the counting of votes people have taken a stance and opposed such practices. However, it does not really make much difference as the processes still continue and the people still remain blinded by the officials along with the connivance of the mass media.

The only way that things can be ameliorated in the country is through making appropriate and concrete changes in the law. These laws should be ones that should be strictly followed. This is because of the fact that whatever follows in the country will be dependent on these laws. The two basic steps that need to be taken in order to bring back voter confidence include changing the laws regarding the ownership of the mass media and also screening candidates.

The government endeavors to put the ownership of the media out of the hands of some individuals, but in the process what is feared is that there will be few important sources left, and these will be run by even fewer powerful people. This means that instead of the government ameliorating the condition they are actually centralizing ownership even more (Sabato, 2003).

In the past, media ownership rules have been created so that companies that own them do not have more influence than is intended. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been in favor of making severe changes to the ownership rules, and if this is what is going to materialize then nearly two-thirds of the markets in the U.S. could wind up having just four local news sources, and just one newspaper/TV corporation could control more than half the news audience. Also, two-thirds of the reporters in any given market will be controlled in this way.

If the FCC were to succeed giving in to the rules for media ownership, there would be a handful of owners of networks, stations, and newspapers across the nation. As a result of this, the public would suffer, as the media would not really belong to them. Democratic principles are supposed to ensure that the media remains a tool of the people and not of a few owners. The public would not be informed as they would like to be as they would be forced to be influenced by what the owners of the media want them to be influenced by.