Influences of Media and Activists in Politics

¶ … Tomorrow

On many occasions, civil liberties or civil right events have influenced the sense of social responsibility in the U.S. government. One of these was the March on Washington, which was one of many major protests in the early 1960s for civil rights for African-Americans. The rally occurred in 1963 in Washington, DC, and there were 200,000 people. The point of the march was to "shed light on the political and social challenges African-Americans continued to face" (Foner & Garraty, 1991). This is where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his I Have a Dream speech. The march was a key event in changing the course of public discussion about civil rights, as it brought the issue to the mass consciousness of the American people. From that point, government was spurred to act to protect people's rights as it never had before. Less than one year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and this remains a benchmark piece of human rights legislation in America.

There are other instances where civil liberties or rights events have influenced the U.S. government. The arrest of Ernesto Miranda in Phoenix in 1963 proved the flashpoint for the reinforcement of Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment provides for, among other things, protection against self-incrimination. In this case, Miranda was arrested and held in an interrogation room, cut off from the outside world, and without being given any advice with respect to his rights. The Supreme Court found that this violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights (FindLaw, 2015). The key to this case is that while there are laws put into place -- in this case in the Constitution -- it is often left to the judicial branch to provide for the interpretation of such laws. All police departments, which are branches of local government, are hereby compelled to advise all people taken into custody of their rights. The Miranda case bolstered the social responsibility of government in that it strengthened protections for Americans against undue prosecution, persecution by law enforcement and provided a boost to protections against self-incrimination.

2. Media events can influence public perception of government agencies. Often, this is for the negative. One instance occurred when the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) instituted full-body scans and pat-downs for people boarding aircraft. This decision was met with furor on the part of the public, but the public was definitely spurred by the media. An example of the media influence on public opinion with regards to these security measures would be editorials in major newspapers decrying the measure as unconstitutional, fomenting the opposition to the measures by positioning the measures against people's basic rights (Rosen, 2010).

In this case, the publicity heightened public concern about the policy, but the TSA has not changed its policies. In some instances, smaller victories against the TSA's security theater have been won (Martin, 2015), but overall this is not particularly common, despite public outcry over the tactics that the agency uses. The media shaming of the TSA has definitely influenced public opinion by giving greater voice to the frustration and anger that many feel with respect to post-9/11 airport security, but the security measures are largely still in place.

The media spends a lot of time on the military, for better and for worse. Movies about all branches of the military are often quite heroic in nature, though not always. Some are fairly critical, but in general the tone is positive, and influences positive opinions about the military branch of government. One example is the upcoming movie The Finest Hours, which portrays a Coast Guard rescue of an oil tanker off Cape Cod. The four Coast Guardsmen who were on that mission, in a blizzard, are portrayed as heroes, and there has been advance press about the movie to highlight this point (MacQuarrie, 2014). This is one of many examples of the media influencing the perception among Americans of the military as heroes, which is one of the most universal public opinions held in the United States. The media may not need to convince people on the issue, but the steady reinforcement certainly helps to influence how much people think about it.

3. While it can be difficult to get much clarity about the actual beliefs and objectives of the two main parties without delving into stereotypes, one that stands out is the role of government in the lives of everyday Americans. Roughly, Republicans historically have aimed to have less government involvement while Democrats have accepted more. This excludes the factions of the Republican Party that introduce invasive, faith-based legislation and just concerns the more libertarian, free-market side of the party. The ethics of the degree to which government should be involved in the lives of Americans are complex, so the approach that politicians take with respect to that issue will have a profound ethical impact on the country. Less government intervention typically favors those who already have strong positions in terms of wealth and power, and creates negative outcomes for those who lack strong starting positions, placing them at disadvantage. The trade-off is that if government becomes too involved, this will often come at the expense of personal liberty. This is not to equate wealth with liberty, but when you see things like the individual mandate in the ACA, put in place specifically to compel younger, healthier people to pay for insurance they may not need, simply to balance out the compelling of insurance companies to cover those who are already sick or high risk, that becomes a clear example of the trade-off between individual liberty and the common good. In one sense, politicians take their lead from the public on such matters, but there are ethical outcomes of the different stances of the two parties. On the health care issue, Republican ideals of small government led to millions of people having no health coverage, with the attendant negative health outcomes. Under Democratic ideals, people have found their freedom of choice with respect to a key consumer product, insurance, infringed upon, which is especially egregious in light of the fact that on the whole, the insurance company always wins (they always turn profits as they are informed about the actuarial risk of a client than the client is).