Our discussions this week went a bit further in analyzing media’s role in society, the power it has over policy-makers and consumers alike. The main focus was to determine whether or not the media influence policy, or whether the media is used by policymakers to propagate an agenda. It’s an interesting debate, with evidence that could prove either side—in the end, however, I think that it’s a constant flux between both.
Hafez argues that media follows rather than leads. In many cases, this is true. Media, particularly the news industry, tailor their content to the interests of their immediate consumers. Because media is a profit-driven industry, it makes sense for organizations to make this effort. Media need content to make up their programs for distribution, and will take both what they find and what is provided for them. It’s when they fail to do the former that the audience can be misled, as was the case with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Policy-makers drove this agenda, playing on personal ties to patriotism and fear, and the media followed along—and, just a few years later, several news outlets apologized for their scant reporting, knowing that it contributed to the public’s opinion of the war.
Several of our readings this week argued that there needs to be certain conditions, a perfect storm of sorts, for media to drive foreign policy. For instance, there must be a vacuum among policymakers, a disagreement about what the right decision is, for the media to step into. And the media need a conscious, wide-scale effort in one direction for the public to pick up and take on virally. Given the multitude of communication technologies available, it’s not hard for a story to go viral anymore.
But do the media drive policy? It would be naïve to say that the media hold no sway over public opinion, or policy-making agendas. I would argue that media is the most powerful industry that one doesn’t need a license to practice. In fact, it is the notable exception. Doctors and lawyers must go through an arduous education and swear oaths in order to be seen as authorities. Politicians need to be voted into office in order to make anything happen.
Journalists today just need a computer and a coffee shop with decent Wi-Fi to reach an audience of millions. Of course, they must gain the trust of their followers, but because someone identifies themselves as a “journalist,” the public has an almost implicit trust that they’re out for the public good. (I’m not suggesting that journalists and media professionals require licenses to report the news or distribute their content—on the contrary; the fact that the media is open to everyone is one of its greatest attributes. And there are legal processes to hold media accountable—it’s called libel. And the self-regulation by members within the media is also notable.)
Given the reach of media, in both technology and the people who can use it, media play an important role in not only reporting policy but sometimes dictating it. As we discussed in class, media fit more into a system of ecology rather than absolutes, always balancing between two extremes and ending at equilibrium.
Another example that parallels the argument of the media as a policy-driving force, is the 2008 protests against the Korea-US free trade agreement, an issue that recently came to light at the G20. As rumors spread that US exports of beef to Korea were tainted with mad cow disease, thousands of Koreans took to the street driven by fear-inducing reports by one Korea's most prominent news networks, MBC. Other networks soon picked up on the story and ran with it, spreading a great deal of irrational fear. Two years later after the storm quieted and people began to forget it was ever on their minds, MBC issued an apology for not fact-checking their reports and therefore causing unjustified panic. A similar fear-driven media campaign occurred late last year because of the spread of H1N1, with the interesting, and slightly xenophobic slant that it was being brought into the country by foreigners. In both cases, the Korean news media picked up on stories and rather than ask questions, encouraged public anxiety.
ReplyDeleteBut while the networks followed the leads of one another, their stories had significant implications on policy. The mad cow scare was enough to delay certain parts of the KORUS FTA, which was still being discussed as of this past week. The H1N1 scare had consequences for the foreign population in Korea, who were subjected to numerous mandatory medical guidelines. I found it very ironic that around the time MBC was issuing their apology about mad cow, they were fresh from the H1N1 hysteria-and seemingly had learned very little!
I also believe that media nowadays has great influence on publics and policies. Yet it may differ from place to another since in some countries media is still in government hand. Therefore, media does play its role but not as its in some other countries where media is somehow independent. and I really liked the thought of having media partitioners going through what lawyers, politicians or doctors go through in order to practice their jobs.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in Saudi Arabia for example, until recently some media figures who have great influence on publics come from modest educational and professional backgrounds. For a long time media has been a taboo field that many people did not want to get involve in, but this has changed nowadays, but still somehow restricted for females.
I think that you're raising some interesting points and many times it's hard to see what came first the chicken or the egg. BUT something I think is important in this discussion is to differentiate the media, are we talking about the commercialized media or are we talking about the media that has grown tremendously the last few years with independent journalists, bloggers and twitterers. To make this distinction I think we get another discussion, if the independent journalists and the bloggers could have a say in public policy isn't that the same as saying that the civil society has a say in the politics in a new way. Although I do believe that the commercialized media, lobbyists and politicians sometimes have each others backs and because of that it's hard to see who's driving the agenda. But with independent media there's a hope of change that the discourse might not be that one sided.
ReplyDelete