essay on media and politics

12.1 The Media as a Political Institution: Why Does It Matter?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain the importance of a free press both in the United States and abroad.
• Describe how the media acts as a watchdog and give examples.
• Understand and define how political information is mediated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. —The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution

The press is the only profession explicitly protected in the United States Constitution. Many attribute this protection to James Madison and his writings in the Federalist Papers , but the idea of a free press stretches back to well before Madison wrote out his ideas on what constitutes a perfect democracy. The origins of the free press in the United States can be traced back to Cato’s letters , a collection of essays written in the 1720s by two British writers, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon . Using the pseudonym Cato, they published their articles in the British press, criticizing the British monarchy for its corruption and tyrannical practices. Decades later, American colonists felt the effects of these letters during their own struggles against the Crown, 1 and in 1776, Virginia became the first state to formally adopt a constitutional provision to protect press freedom. 2 Why is the idea of protecting the press so embedded in the United States’ concept of government, and why is this concept so important? Do other nations protect the media to the same extent, or even more? The next section will examine these questions.

The Fourth Estate and Freedom of the Press

The importance of a free press can be boiled down to a sentence from esteemed University of Illinois at Chicago lecturer Doris Graber ’s seminal work Mass Media and American Politics : “The mass media . . . serve as powerful guardians of political norms because the American people believe that a free press should keep them informed about the wrongdoings of government.” 3 Another common way of defining the media’s role is to say that it acts as the fourth estate , or the unofficial fourth branch of government that checks the others. The term fourth estate is credited to Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle , who wrote, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporter’s Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” 4 In other words, people look to the media—the fourth estate—to keep the government in check. The role of the media must be protected if it is to carry out that task.

Throughout US history, the media has fulfilled this role as intended. In the late 1960s, Rand Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg provided classified documents to the New York Times and the Washington Post proving that the government was concealing protracted military involvement in the Vietnam War. The New York Times withstood government pressure and a Supreme Court case to go on to publish a series of articles now known as the Pentagon Papers , which revealed the extent to which the American public had been lied to about the country’s progress in that war. The Watergate scandal is perhaps the most famous example of press freedom and the role of the press as watchdog (another term for the fourth estate ). In this instance, a government informant known as Deep Throat fed Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein confidential information about then president Richard Nixon’s corrupt campaign practices. An ensuing series of investigative pieces by the two journalists revealed multiple abuses of power in Nixon’s reelection campaign, and their reporting ultimately led to the indictment of multiple presidential aides and the eventual resignation of the president himself.

In this video clip, investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, editor Barry Sussman, and former executive editor Ben Bradlee recall how, when they worked for the Washington Post in 1972, they broke the story of the Watergate scandal, a story that started with an investigation of a break-in at a Washington, DC, hotel and led to a constitutional crisis, the resignation of President Richard Nixon, and almost 50 criminal convictions.

In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the president’s argument—that prior restraint 5 was necessary in order to protect national security—was not enough “to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment ,” 6 and this is the most important First Amendment case because it addresses the sweeping right of the press and press protections in the 20th century. Watergate showed how a protected press is free to serve one of its main purposes, which is to reveal government misconduct. New Yorker staff writer Richard Harris wrote at the time that, “The press was potentially Mr. Nixon’s enemy—far more than the courts or Congress, because only the press could dig out and tell the story (whatever help reporters might get from the courts or Congress) in a way that would arouse the people to demand an accounting.” 7

Watchdogs do not have to be journalistic behemoths like the New York Times or the Washington Post. In the United Kingdom, a small, independent newspaper called the Rochdale Alternative Paper revealed decades-long abuse allegations against Liberal Party MP 8 Cyril Smith . The exposé in the paper, which had a circulation of 8,000 at its highest, 9 eventually led to both a police and an independent government investigation into a child abuse ring that involved several high-level government officials, including MP Peter Morrison, the private secretary to then prime minister Margaret Thatcher . 10 Another way to understand the watchdog function of the press is through the term muckraker , referring to reform-minded investigative journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States (late 1800s to early 1900s) who exposed the wrongdoings of industry leaders. One famous example of a muckraker was Upton Sinclair , who wrote the novel The Jungle based on the corrupt and inhumane practices in American meatpacking companies at the turn of the 20th century. The publication of The Jungle led to governmental action on food safety. In his 1919 work The Brass Check , Sinclair exposed the journalism industry’s penchant for yellow journalism , or journalism that relies on catchy titles and human interest stories to drive sales over well-researched articles or pieces on civic affairs. Sinclair was not afraid to take on media titans such as William Randolph Hearst , who owned the nation’s largest chain of newspapers at the time.

Watchdogs and muckrakers act as a check on government action and corruption. They play an important part in exercising the role of a free press as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. As Yale University professor and member of the Council on Foreign Relations Timothy Snyder writes, “If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so.” 11 The media allows the public to understand what is happening in government in order to hold elected officials accountable. Or, perhaps more simply put, “A free press is important because it is the freedom upon which all of our other freedoms are contingent.” 12

How free is the press? The answer is not black and white, as evidenced by the 2021 World Press Freedom Index . Published every year by Reporters Without Borders , the Freedom Index measures freedom in 180 countries “based on an evaluation of pluralism, independence of the media, quality of legislative framework and safety of journalists in each country and region.” 13 The map in Figure 12.3 below shows that the press is freer in some countries (in pink and purple on the map) than in others (in blue and green).

According to the index and as reflected in the map, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark have the freest presses in the world. Notably, Norway tries to discourage media concentration in order to ensure a variety of outlets, something that will be discussed in later parts of this chapter. The 2021 index ranked the United States 44th, after South Africa (32nd), Botswana (38th), and South Korea (42nd).

George Mason University professor Sam Lebovic explains that two main factors, the rise of concentration in ownership and increased state secrecy, are responsible for the inadequacy of press freedom in the United States, which is an ongoing and serious problem. 14 The modern US media faces unprecedented struggles against declining viewership and revenues, which work to limit the number of outlets and decrease the number of working journalists. At the same time, legislation such as the Patriot Act , passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has made it more difficult for the press to verify state information because of increasing pressure on sources not to cooperate and prosecution of journalists who do ascertain information. In addition, the Trump administration further hampered press freedoms through the prosecution of news sources, public statements that discredited journalists, and encouragement of foreign leaders to take steps to restrict their own media. 15 The future of press freedom in America, while still unstable due to media concentration and surveillance laws such as the Patriot Act, may show some signs of improvement; in a speech on Press Freedom Day in 2021, President Joe Biden decried the imprisonment of 274 reporters worldwide, criticized the lack of local media outlets, and said that the United States “recognize[s] the integral role a free press plays in building prosperous, resilient, and free societies.” 16 Despite these laudatory comments about a free press, however, it is clear the United States faces challenges in protecting journalists’ ability to fulfill their roles.

A study of the United States and Latin America provides an example of how this idea of the importance of a free press is shared across cultures. In the study, journalists representing both cultures shared a common definition of a free press as one that functions without government pressure and to promote social and economic development. 17 This study considered whether or not a free press is related to increased economic development, a question that to date has not been conclusively answered. While the notion that political freedoms (such as freedom of the press) should naturally encourage economic growth and increased standards of living is a common one, current research has not found conclusive evidence either supporting or refuting the claim. 18

There is more of a consensus on the benefits of a free press when it comes to preventing corruption. Studies of press freedom around the world, conducted by scholars in England, Argentina, and Australia, confirm this theory. 19 In this way, the watchdog role that the press plays is based on democratic ideals and has real-world effects for the public.

The Mediated Nature of Political Information

The political information most people receive is mediated information . What does this mean? Unless they work directly in government, most citizen’s understanding of politics comes completely from the media, whether via television news, podcasts, or social media feeds. The media may be a gatekeeper, but it is also a storyteller. As such, it is important to realize that what people see in the media is actually a manufactured view of the political world. Journalists and others who create the news follow routines and are influenced by institutional values that manifest themselves in media content. As Columbia University professor Herbert Gans writes in his study of the American media, “The news does not limit itself to reality judgments; it also contains values, or preference statements. This in turn makes it possible to suggest that there is, underlying the news, a picture of nation and society as it ought to be.” 20 Gans acknowledges that professional journalists try to be objective, yet the news does in fact make judgments and value statements. For example, crime news alerts viewers to the idea that there are undesirable actors within society and that criminals should be punished. Judgments and value statements such as these are different from political bias; while some news outlets are overtly liberal or conservative, Gans’s study shows that the media produces stories with cultural values that people may not detect because they are so used to seeing stories presented this way. For example, according to Gans, ethnocentrism and altruistic democracy are two of the key enduring values in the news. Ethnocentrism in the news refers to the idea that the American media values the United States above all other nations. This manifests most obviously in war coverage, where the press rarely questions American involvement—and to do so would be unpatriotic. In a similar vein, Gans explains that the American news media emphasize an altruistic democracy , the ideal held up by the media that politics should be based on public service and for the public interest. 21 In these ways, the news makes statements about what is right and what is wrong and presents political news through these lenses.

Journalists also share other professional values as to what makes a “good” news story, such as proximity, negativity, scope (how big is the story?), timeliness, and unexpectedness (novelty). 22 Because journalists share these professional values, there is a certain homogeneous quality to the news, otherwise known as pack journalism . This means that people receive the same type of news story repeatedly, though this has been changing since the advent of online news, a topic that will be discussed later in the chapter. Journalists’ common ideas about what should be in the news and why color their coverage and presentation of the news—and, as a result, the public’s perception of politics.

It is important here to note that the concept of news values differs across countries—what is newsworthy in the United States may not be in other nations—and the role of the media differs as well. A study on the news in Japan found that strong cultural forces and local needs drive how news is produced and delivered. 23 Other scholars have found that Western news organizations highlight human interest stories, while Arabic news focuses more on social responsibility and Islamic values. 24 University of Leicester Professor Vincent Campbell echoes the sentiment that news organizations in different countries are fueled by different values and that this influences what stories their audiences see. In authoritarian countries, journalists focus less on performing the watchdog role and more on promoting state activities. 25 This is the case in countries such as North Korea and China, where the state government runs the media.

Related to the idea that the media in large part decides what is a good news story is the concept of the media’s gatekeeping role and its agenda-setting powers. In other words, according to agenda-setting theory , the media decides both what to ignore or filter out and what to show the public. As University of Texas professor Maxwell McCombs and University of North Carolina professor Donald Shaw write, “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position.” 26 Whether it is a producer who selects the topics for the evening news or an algorithm that creates a social media news feed, people know what is “news” by what is fed to them, they know what is important based on how often it gets airtime, and they understand that there are lead stories and stories that don’t matter very much. The public doesn’t make these decisions; professionals within the news industry make them for the public. (Later parts of this chapter will discuss how this power dynamic has changed thanks to social media and how, in many ways, it is no longer media professionals who select what the public sees.)

If the media decides which stories to present, it also has a hand in deciding how stories are presented. According to framing theory , the way the media frames political information can affect people’s understanding of it. University of Illinois professor David Tewksbury and University of Wisconsin professor Dietram A. Scheufele explain:

“Artists know that the frame placed around a painting can affect how viewers interpret and react to the painting itself. . . . Journalists—often subconsciously—engage in essentially the same process when they decide how to describe the political world. They choose images and words that have the power to influence how audiences interpret and evaluate issues and policies.” 27

For example, a study on gubernatorial races found that female candidates were more likely to be framed in terms of personal characteristics than their male counterparts, who were more likely to be framed in terms of their positions on policy issues. 28 In a separate study, researchers found that one common way the Dutch national media framed news on the European Union (EU) was in terms of assigning responsibility for social problems to the government. This study suggests that the Dutch media’s presentation of political news reflects the public expectation that the government will provide social welfare programs. 29 By highlighting certain aspects of a story and ignoring others, frames can affect people’s judgments and opinions on policy issues, and just as with agenda setting, elected officials fight to make sure they are framed in the correct light.

The public, and individual viewers, should know that while the media is a critical tool that aids people’s political decision-making, it is guided by professional values that dictate the content. Individuals’ views on politics can sometimes be out of their control, but they can work to assemble a better picture of the world by turning to a variety of media outlets and becoming aware of what goes into story selection. While internal pressures (such as professional norms) or external forces (such as authoritarian governments) can influence how the media portrays information, ownership can also affect what the public sees. The next section will examine the different types of media—and, perhaps more importantly, who owns them and how this affects their role in the political world.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Political Science
• Publication date: May 18, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/12-1-the-media-as-a-political-institution-why-does-it-matter

© Jan 3, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History

Political Science

• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Media Effects in Politics

Introduction, general overviews.

• Reference Resources
• Early Maximal Effects Studies
• Minimal Effects
• Methodology
• Content Analysis
• Multiple Effects
• Conditions for Media Effects
• Media and Race

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Advertising and Election Campaigns in the United States
• Brexit, British Politics, and European Integration
• Effects of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Public Opinion and Behavior
• Framing Effects in Political Communication
• Impact of C-SPAN on US Democracy
• Mechanisms of Representation
• Media Politics in South Asia
• Negative Campaigning
• Personalization of Politics
• Post-Communist Democratization
• Public Opinion and Public Policy in Advanced Democracies
• Sport and Politics
• The Internet and Politics

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Cross-National Surveys of Public Opinion
• Politics of School Reform
• Ratification of the Constitution
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Media Effects in Politics by James Druckman LAST REVIEWED: 29 November 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 29 November 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0033

Most of what citizens know about politics comes from what they learn via the media. Scholars began studying the influence of media messages on citizens’ opinions and behaviors as soon as radio became widely available in the 1920s and 1930s. The extent of media influence is of both practical and normative importance. Political campaigns hope to understand how and when communications transmitted via the media influence citizens’ opinions, and theorists study the origins and nature of citizens’ preferences as the basis of democratic government. The field of political media effects is interdisciplinary and includes political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, communication scholars, economists, anthropologists, and others.

As the number of studies on how media messages influence citizens’ opinions and behaviors has grown, scholars have compiled comprehensive research overviews. Some of these works, such as Ansolabehere, et al. 1993 ; Graber 1993 ; and Iyengar and McGrady 2007 , explore media effects with a focus on politics and democracy more generally. Others, such as Nabi and Oliver 2009 and Preiss, et al. 2007 , situate political media effects relative to other types of effects, including effects on health opinions and aggression. Emmers-Sommer and Allen 1999 and Nelson, et al. 2011 review empirical studies of media effects. Other literature focuses on the routines that determine the content of media messages. One classic example of this work is Gans 1979 .

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Roy Behr, and Shanto Iyengar. The Media Game . New York: Macmillan, 1993.

A textbook overview on the evolution and effects of media in American politics. This covers a wide range of topics, including media bias, media effects, and the evolution of the media industry.

Emmers-Sommer, Tara M., and Mike Allen. “Surveying the Effect of Media Effects.” Human Communication Research 25.4 (1999): 478–497.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00457.x

A meta-analysis of media effects research published in Human Communication Research . The results provide clear evidence that media messages facilitate learning and influence attitudes that, in turn, shape behavior. The paper also highlights the moderating effects of age.

Gans, Herbert. Deciding What’s News . New York: Vintage, 1979.

A seminal book that explores the routines that occur in newsrooms. It presents results from an anthropologically oriented study of major newsrooms.

Graber, Doris A. Mass Media and American Politics . 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1993.

A classic textbook on the role of media in American democracy. It covers a range of topics, including the historical evolution of the media.

Iyengar, Shanto, and Jennifer A. McGrady. Media Politics . New York: W. W. Norton, 2007.

An exploration of how media influences politics with a focus on new media effects. Includes audiovisual resources that are useful for students.

Nabi, Robin L., and Mary Beth Oliver, eds. The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects . Los Angeles: SAGE, 2009.

A volume that covers a wide range of methodological and substantive issues on media influence. This includes overviews of media priming, news, advertising, and educational programming.

Nelson, Thomas E., Sarah M. Bryner, and Dustin M. Carnahan. “Media and Politics.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science . Edited by James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia, 201–213. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

A review of experimental work on media effects in politics. Topics include agenda setting, framing, priming, and new media. Emphasis is placed on why experiments have helped advanced media effects research.

Preiss, Raymond W., Barbara Mae Gayle, Nancy Burrell, Mike Allen, and Jennings Bryant, eds. Mass Media Effects Research . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007.

A comprehensive overview of how media influence attitudes and behaviors in many domains, including health, politics, children’s programming, and so on.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Political Science »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Oceania, Gender, Indigenous and Ethnic Political Represent...
• Advanced Democracies, Electoral System Reform in
• Advanced Democracies, Public Opinion and Public Policy in
• Africa, Comparative Politics of
• Africa, Ethnic, Linguistic, Religious, and Regional Minori...
• Africa, Public Opinion in
• Africa, Women’s Political Representation in
• African Development, Politics of
• American Indian Politics
• Ancient Chinese Political Thought
• Arab Spring, The
• Arab-Israel Conflict, The
• Arendt, Hannah
• Argentine Government and Politics
• Aristotle's Political Thought
• Arms Race Modeling
• Asia, Environmental Politics in
• Asia, Water Politics in
• Asian American Mobilization and Political Identities
• Australia and New Zealand, Comparative Politics of
• Authoritarian Regimes, Lawyers in
• Authoritarianism in Russia
• Authoritarianism in the Public
• Authoritarianism in Turkey
• Bicameralism in Stable Democracies
• Big Data in Political Science Research
• Biopolitics and State Regulation of Human Life
• Birthright Citizenship
• Brazilian Foreign Policy
• Brazilian Political Development
• Business-State Relations in Europe
• Campaign Finance in the Era of Super-PACS
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canadian Government and Politics
• Candidate Emergence and Recruitment
• Caribbean, Elections and Democracy in the
• Celebrities in US Politics
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industria...
• China, Political Economy of
• China's One-Child Policy
• China-Taiwan Relations
• Chinese Communist Party
• Chinese Economic Policy
• Chinese Nationalism
• Civil Society in South Asia
• Civil War in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Civil-Military Relations in Asia
• Class in American Politics
• Climate Change and Politics
• Collective Memory
• Colombian Politics and Government
• Comparative Capitalism Theory
• Comparative Industrial Relations in Europe
• Comparative Political Economy of Resource Extraction
• Comparative Politics of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bis...
• Comparative Politics of Chile and Uruguay
• Comparative Politics of Federalism
• Comparative Politics of the Middle East and North Africa
• Computational Social Science
• Congress, Defense, and Foreign Policy
• Congressional Reassertion of Authority
• Conservative Litigation Strategies and Groups in US Judici...
• Constitutional Politics in Asia
• Constitutionalism
• Corruption in China
• Cosmopolitan Political Thought
• Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspective, ...
• Critical Elections, Partisan Realignment, and Long-Term El...
• Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School
• Cuban Political Development
• Cycles of Protest
• Democracies, Political Clientelism in
• Democracy and Authoritarianism, Empirical Indicators of
• Democracy and Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Democracy and Dictatorship in Central Asia
• Democracy and Minority Language Recognition
• Democracy in Latin America
• Democratic Citizenship
• Democratic Consolidation
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Democratic Theory
• Democratization
• Democratization in Africa
• Democratization in Central America
• Democratization in Mexico
• Democratization in the Muslim World
• Development of Survey Research
• Diasporas and Politics
• Direct Democracy in the United States
• Dual Citizenship
• East Africa, Politics of
• East and Southeast Asia, Political Party Systems in
• East and Southeast Asia, Women and Politics in
• East Asia, Civil Society and Social Movements in
• Economic Voting
• Effects of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Public O...
• Egalitarianism
• Election Forecasting
• Election Laws in Democracies
• Election Observation and the Detection of Fraud
• Electoral and Party System Development in Sub-Saharan Afri...
• Electoral Assistance
• Electoral Change in Latin America
• Electoral Institutions and Women’s Representation
• Electoral Reform and Voting in the United States
• Electoral Volatility in the New Democracies of Latin Ameri...
• Electronic Voting Systems
• Emotion and Racial Attitudes in Contemporary American Poli...
• Environmental Governance
• Environmental Politics among Advanced Industrial Democraci...
• Ethnic Diasporas and US Foreign Policy
• Ethnic Politics
• Eurasia, Comparative Politics of
• European Parliament, The
• European Social Democracy
• European Union, Politics of the
• Extension of Voting Rights to Emigrants
• Failed and Weak States in Theory and Practice
• Far-Right Parties in Europe
• Federalism in the United States
• Feminist Political Thought
• Field Experiments
• Filibuster, The
• Gender and Electoral Politics in the United States
• Gender and International Relations
• Gender and Political Violence
• Gender and Politics in South Asia
• Gender, Behavior, and Representation
• Gender Gap in US Public Opinion
• Gender Stereotypes in Politics
• Genetic Underpinnings of Political Attitudes and Behaviors
• German Politics and Government
• Global Inequality
• Globalization and the Welfare State
• Globalization, Health Crises, and Health Care
• Governance in Africa
• Governmental Responses to Political Corruption
• Gridlock and Divided Government in the U.S.
• Health-Care Politics in the United States
• Historiography of Twentieth-Century American Conservatism,...
• Hobbes’s Political Thought
• Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of
• Hume’s Political Thought
• Hybrid Regimes
• Ideal Point Estimation
• Identity and Political Behavior
• Ideological Reasoning in Politics
• Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding
• Immigrant Incorporation in Canada
• Immigrant Incorporation in Western Europe
• Immigration and European Politics
• Immigration and International Relations
• Immigration Politics and Policy in the United States
• Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior...
• Implicit Attitudes in Public Opinion
• Income Dynamics and Politics in North America and Europe
• Income Inequality and Advanced Democracies
• Income Inequality in the United States, The Politics of
• Independent Voters, The Study of
• Indian Democracy
• Indigenous Politics and Representation in Latin America
• Indigenous Rights and Governance in Canada, Australia, and...
• Indonesia, Politics of
• Informal Practices of Accountability in Urban Africa
• Institutional Change in Advanced Democracies
• Institutional Factors Affecting Women’s Political Engageme...
• Intellectual Property in International Relations
• Interest Groups and Inequality in the United States
• Interest Groups in American Politics
• Interethnic Contact and Impact on Attitudes
• International Conflict Management
• International Criminal Justice
• International NGOs
• International Political Economy of Illegal Drugs
• Internet and Politics, The
• Intersectionality in Political Science
• Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific
• Iran, Political Development of
• Israeli Politics
• Italian Politics and Government
• Judicial Supremacy and National Judicial Review
• Judiciaries and Politics in East Asia
• Kant's Political Thought
• Labor Migration: Dynamics and Politics
• Labor Politics in East Asia
• Land Reform in Latin America
• Latin America, Democratic Transitions in
• Latin America, Electoral Reform in
• Latin America, Environmental Policy and Politics in
• Latin America, Guerrilla Insurgencies in
• Latin America, Social Movements in
• Legal Mobilization
• LGBT Politics in the United States
• Liberal Pluralism
• Libertarianism
• Local Governments in the United States
• Machiavelli’s Political Thought
• Malaysian Politics and Government
• Marx's Political Thought
• Mass Incarceration and US Politics
• Media Effects in Politics
• Mexican Political Development
• Mexican Politics and Government
• Military Government in Latin America, 1959–1990
• Minority Governments
• Minority Political Engagement and Representation in the Un...
• Mixed-Member Electoral Systems
• Modern Dynastic Rule
• Modern Elections and Voting Behavior in Europe
• Motivated Reasoning
• Narrative Analysis
• National Interbranch Politics in the United States
• Nationalism
• NATO, Politics of
• Neoclassical Realism
• New Institutionalism Revisited, The
• Nigerian Politics and Government
• North America, Comparative Politics of
• Oil, Politics of
• Online Public Opinion Polling
• Organized Criminal Syndicates and Governance in Mexico and...
• Origins and Impact of Proportional Representation, The
• Outcomes of Social Movements and Protest Activities
• Partisan and Nonpartisan Theories of Organization in the U...
• Partisan Polarization in the US Congress
• Partisan Polarization in the US Electorate
• Party Networks
• Party System Institutionalization in Democracies
• Peace Operations
• Personality and Politics
• Philippine Politics and Government
• Plato’s Political Thought
• Policy Feedback
• Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion
• Political Ambition
• Political Economy of Financial Regulation in Advanced Ind...
• Political Economy of India
• Political Economy of Taxation, The
• Political Geography in American Politics
• Political Humor and Its Effects
• Political Institutions and the Policymaking Process in Lat...
• Political Obligation
• Political Participation and Representation, Black
• Political Parties and Electoral Politics of Japan
• Political Roles and Activities of Former Presidents and Pr...
• Political Thought, Hegel's
• Political Thought of the American Founders, The
• Politics and Government, BeNeLux
• Politics and Policy in Contemporary Argentina
• Politics, Gender Quotas in
• Politics of Anti-Americanism
• Politics of Class Formation
• Politics of Disaster Prevention and Management
• Politics of Ethnic Identity in China
• Politics of Financial Crises
• Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia
• Politics of Higher Education in the U.S.
• Politics of Internal Conquest in the United States and Can...
• Politics of Japan
• Politics of Natural Disasters, The
• Politics of North Korea
• Politics of Science and Technology
• Politics of South Africa
• Politics of Southern Africa
• Politics of the American South
• Politics of the Philippines: From Rizal to Duterte
• Politics of the US-Mexico Border
• Populism in Latin America
• Positive and Negative Partisanship
• Postcolonial Political Theory
• Postcolonialism and International Relations
• Preferential Trade Agreements, Politics of
• Presidential Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspectiv...
• Presidential Persuasion and Public Opinion
• Presidential Primaries and Caucuses
• Private Governance
• Protest Participation
• Public Opinion in Affluent  Democracies
• Public Opinion in Europe toward the European Union
• Public Opinion in New Democracies and Developing Nations
• Public Opinion on Immigration
• Public Opinion toward the Environment and Climate Change i...
• Public Presidency, US Elections, and the Permanent Campaig...
• Qualitative Methods, The Renewal of
• Race in American Political Thought
• Racial and Ethnic Descriptive Representation in the United...
• Recruitment and Selection for Elected Office
• Redistricting and Electoral Competition in American Politi...
• Referendums and Direct Democracy
• Regime Transitions and Variation in Post-Communist Europe
• Regional Integration
• Regional Integration in Latin America
• Regional Security
• Regulating Food Production
• Religion and Politics in Latin America
• Religion in American Political Thought
• Religion in Contemporary Political Thought
• Religion, Politics, and Civic Engagement in the United Sta...
• Republicanism
• Rousseau’s Political Thought
• Rule of Law
• Russia and the West
• Science and Democracy
• Science and Social Movements
• Secession and Secessionist Movements
• Semi-Presidential Systems
• Social Networks, Mass Publics, and Democratic Politics
• Social Policy and Immigrant Integration
• South Asian Political Thought
• South Korea, Politics of
• Southeast Asia, International Relations in
• Southeast Asian Politics
• Spanish Politics and Government
• Spectacle, The
• State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa
• State Formation
• State, The Nature of the
• State-Society Relations in South Asia
• Stereotypes in Political Reasoning
• Supreme Court and Public Opinion
• Supreme Court of the United States, The
• Systemic Theories of International Politics
• Taiwan, Politics of
• Tea Party, The
• Thailand, Politics of
• The Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspecti...
• The New Right in American Political Thought
• The Politics of Parenthood: Attitudes, Behavior, Policy, a...
• The Politics of Waste and Social Inequalities in Indian Ci...
• Third-Party Politics in the United States
• Tocqueville’s Political Thought
• Transboundary Pollution
• Transitional Justice
• Transnational Private Regulation
• Trust in Latin American Governing Institutions
• Turkey, Political Development of
• US Military Bases Abroad
• US Politics, Neoliberalism in
• US Presidency, The
• US Presidential Campaigns and Their Impact
• Venezuela, The Path Toward Authoritarianism in
• Voter Support for Women Candidates
• Voter Turnout
• Voter Turnout Field Experiments
• Voting Technology and Election Administration in the Unite...
• War, Factors Influencing Popular Support for
• Welfare State Development
• Welfare State Development in Latin America
• Welfare State Development in Western Europe
• West Africa, Politics of
• White Identity Politics
• Women and Conflict Studies
• Women’s Inclusion in Executive Cabinets
• Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights
• Women’s Political Activism and Civic Engagement in Latin A...
• Women’s Representation in Governmental Office in Latin Ame...
• Women’s Representation in the Middle East and North Africa
• Workers’ Politics in China
• Youth and Generational Differences in US Politics
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Neuroscience and Techno-politics: toward a Common Framework

Digital security: 5 alternatives to passwords, openmind books, scientific anniversaries, what’s happening in the arctic affects us all, featured author, latest book, the new media’s role in politics.

The new media environment is dynamic and continues to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated, ways that have serious consequences for democratic governance and politics. New media have radically altered the way that government institutions operate, the way that political leaders communicate, the manner in which elections are contested, and citizen engagement. This chapter will briefly address the evolution of new media, before examining in greater detail their role in and consequences for political life.

New political media are forms of communication that facilitate the production, dissemination, and exchange of political content on platforms and within networks that accommodate interaction and collaboration. They have evolved rapidly over the past three decades, and continue to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated ways. New media have wide-ranging implications for democratic governance and political practices. They have radically altered the ways in which government institutions operate and political leaders communicate. They have transformed the political media system, and redefined the role of journalists. They have redefined the way elections are contested, and how citizens engage in politics.

The rise of new media has complicated the political media system. Legacy media consisting of established mass media institutions that predate the Internet, such as newspapers, radio shows, and television news programs, coexist with new media that are the outgrowth of technological innovation. While legacy media maintain relatively stable formats, the litany of new media, which includes websites, blogs, video-sharing platforms, digital apps, and social media, are continually expanding in innovative ways. Mass media designed to deliver general interest news to broad audiences have been joined by niche sources that narrowcast to discrete users (Stroud, 2011). New media can relay information directly to individuals without the intervention of editorial or institutional gatekeepers, which are intrinsic to legacy forms. Thus, new media have introduced an increased level of instability and unpredictability into the political communication process.

The relationship between legacy media and new media is symbiotic. Legacy media have incorporated new media into their reporting strategies. They distribute material across an array of old and new communication platforms. They rely on new media sources to meet the ever-increasing demand for content. Despite competition from new media, the audiences for traditional media remain robust, even if they are not as formidable as in the past. Readers of the print edition of The New York Times and viewers of the nightly network news programs far outnumber those accessing the most popular political news websites (Wired Staff, 2017). Cable and network television news remain the primary sources of political information for people over the age of thirty (Mitchell and Holcomb, 2016). Consequently, new media rely on their legacy counterparts to gain legitimacy and popularize their content.

Ideally, the media serve several essential roles in a democratic society. Their primary purpose is to inform the public, providing citizens with the information needed to make thoughtful decisions about leadership and policy. The media act as watchdogs checking government actions. They set the agenda for public discussion of issues, and provide a forum for political expression. They also facilitate community building by helping people to find common causes, identify civic groups, and work toward solutions to societal problems.

The diversity of content disseminated by new media has created opportunities such as the ability for more voices to be heard.

New media have the potential to satisfy these textbook functions. They provide unprecedented access to information, and can reach even disinterested audience members through personalized, peer-to-peer channels, like Facebook. As average people join forces with the established press to perform the watchdog role, public officials are subject to greater scrutiny. Issues and events that might be outside the purview of mainstream journalists can be brought into prominence by ordinary citizens. New media can foster community building that transcends physical boundaries through their extensive networking capabilities. Although legacy media coverage of political events correlates with increased political engagement among the mass public, mainstream journalists do not believe that encouraging participation is their responsibility (Hayes and Lawless, 2016). However, new media explicitly seek to directly engage the public in political activities, such as voting, contacting public officials, volunteering in their communities, and taking part in protest movements.

At the same time, the new media era has acerbated trends that undercut the ideal aims of a democratic press. The media disseminate a tremendous amount of political content, but much of the material is trivial, unreliable, and polarizing. The watchdog role pre-new media had been performed largely by trained journalists who, under the best of circumstances, focused on uncovering the facts surrounding serious political transgressions. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein inspired a generation of investigative journalists after revealing President Richard Nixon’s role in the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, forcing his resignation (Shepard, 2012). Much news in the new media era is defined by coverage of a never-ending barrage of sensational scandals—be they real, exaggerated, or entirely fabricated—that often are only tangentially related to governing.

This chapter begins by briefly addressing the evolution of new media in the United States to establish the core characteristics of the current political media system. We then will focus on the role of media in providing information in a democratic polity, and will examine the ways in which new media have impacted this role. The diversity of content disseminated by new media has created opportunities, such as the ability for more voices to be heard. However, the questionable quality of much of this information raises serious issues for democratic discourse. Next, we will discuss how the new media are integral to political coverage in a post-truth society, where falsehoods infused with tidbits of fact pass as news. Finally, we will contemplate the ways in which the watchdog press is being overshadowed by the mouthpiece press which serves as a publicity machine for politicians.

The Evolution of New Media

New media emerged in the late 1980s when entertainment platforms, like talk radio, television talk shows, and tabloid newspapers, took on prominent political roles and gave rise to the infotainment genre. Infotainment obscures the lines between news and entertainment, and privileges sensational, scandal-driven stories over hard news (Jebril, et al., 2013). Politicians turned to new media to circumvent the mainstream press’ control over the news agenda. The infotainment emphasis of new media at this early stage offered political leaders and candidates a friendlier venue for presenting themselves to the public than did hard news outlets (Moy, et al., 2009). During the 1992 presidential election, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton famously appeared on Arsenio Hall’s television talk show wearing sunglasses and playing the saxophone, which created a warm, personal image that set the tone for his campaign (Diamond, et al., 1993). The fusing of politics and entertainment attracted audiences that typically had been disinterested in public affairs (Williams and Delli Carpini, 2011). It also prompted the ascendance of celebrity politicians, and set the stage for a “reality TV” president like Donald Trump decades later.

Political observers and scholars contemplated the advent of a “new media populism” that would engage disenfranchised citizens and facilitate a more active role for the public in political discourse. New media had the potential to enhance people’s access to political information, facilitate wider-ranging political discourse, and foster participation. Initially, the public responded positively to the more accessible communication channels, calling in to political talk programs and participating in online town hall meetings. However, new media’s authentic populist potential was undercut by the fact that the new political media system evolved haphazardly, with no guiding principles or goals. It was heavily dominated by commercial interests and those already holding privileged positions in politics and the news industry. Public enthusiasm eventually gave way to ambivalence and cynicism, especially as the novelty of the first phase of new media wore off (Davis and Owen, 1998).

The next phase in the development of new media unfolded in conjunction with the application of emerging digital communications technologies to politics that made possible entirely new outlets and content delivery systems. The digital environment and the platforms it supports greatly transformed the political media system. Beginning in the mid-1990s, new political media platforms quickly progressed from the rudimentary “brochureware” website, used by Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992, to encompass sites with interactive features, discussion boards, blogs, online fundraising platforms, volunteer recruitment sites, and meet-ups. The public became more involved with the actual production and distribution of political content. Citizen journalists were eyewitnesses to events that professional journalists did not cover. Non-elites offered their perspectives on political affairs to politicians and peers. Members of the public also were responsible for recording and posting videos that could go viral and influence the course of events (Wallsten, 2010). In 2006, for example, the reelection campaign of Republican Senator George Allen was derailed by a viral video in which he used the term “macaca,” a racial slur, to refer to a young man of Indian ancestry who was attending his campaign rally (Craig and Shear, 2006).

A third phase in the evolution of new media is marked by Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s groundbreaking digital campaign strategy in the 2008 presidential election. Obama’s team revolutionized the use of social media in an election they felt was unwinnable using traditional techniques. The campaign made use of advanced digital media features that capitalized on the networking, collaboration, and community-building potential of social media to create a political movement. The Obama campaign website was a full-service, multimedia center where voters not only could access information, they also could watch and share videos, view and distribute campaign ads, post comments, and blog. Supporters could donate, volunteer, and purchase campaign logo items, like tee shirts and caps. The campaign was active on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as well as a range of other social media platforms that catered to particular constituencies, such as BlackPlanet, AsianAve, and Glee. The campaign pioneered digital microtargeting tactics. It used social media to collect data on people’s political and consumer preferences, and created voter profiles to pursue specific groups, such as young professional voters, with customized messages.

The new media trends established in the 2008 campaign have carried over to the realm of government and politics more generally. Social media have become a pervasive force in politics, altering the communication dynamics between political leaders, journalists, and the public. They have opened up wider avenues for instantaneous political discourse and debate. Research indicates that people’s access to social media networks has a positive effect on their sense of political efficacy and tendency to participate in politics (Gil de Zuniga, et al., 2010). However, there also has been backlash when social media discourse has become too nasty, and users have blocked content or dropped out of their social media networks (Linder, 2016). Social media allow people to efficiently organize and leverage their collective influence. Thus, political leaders are held more accountable because their actions are constantly probed on social media.

Members of the public also were responsible for recording and posting videos that could go viral and influence the course of events.

At the same time, legacy media organizations have come to rely on aspects of new media. Newspapers, in particular, have experienced financial hardships due adverse financial market conditions, declining advertising revenues, and competition from proliferating news sources. The size of traditional newsrooms in the U.S. has shrunk by more than 20,000 positions in the past twenty years, and global newsrooms have experienced a similar decline (Owen, 2017). Legacy news organizations have cut investigative units, and only around one-third of reporters are assigned to political beats (Mitchell and Holcomb, 2016). Alicia Shepard, a former media ombudsman and media literacy advocate, opined, “When newspapers can’t even cover daily journalism, how are they going to invest in long-term, expensive investigative reporting?” (2012). Still, journalists working for legacy organizations continue to do the yeoman’s share of serious news gathering and investigative reporting. Mainstream journalists have come to rely heavily on new media content as a source of news. These trends have seriously influenced the quality and nature of news content as well as the style of political reporting, which has become more heavily infused with infotainment and quotes from Twitter feeds.

Providing Political Information

The complexities of the new media system are reflected in the diversity of available content. The information distributed via the vast communications network runs the gamut from fact-based, investigative reporting from professional journalists to brash fabrications or “alternative facts”—to use the term coined by President Trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway—proffered by the alternative press (Graham, 2017). In the new media era, the boundaries that separate these disparate types of information have become increasing muddled. Professional media editors who regulate the flow of information by applying news principles and standards associated with the public good have become scarce (Willis, 1987). They have been replaced by social media and analytics editors whose primary motivation is to draw users to content regardless of its news value. Audience members have to work hard to distinguish fact from fiction, and to differentiate what matters from what is inconsequential.

A number of explanations can be offered for the shift in the quality and quantity of political information. The technological affordances of new media allow content to propagate seemingly without limits. Social media have a dramatically different structure than previous media platforms. Content can be relayed with no significant third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgement. Individuals lacking prior journalism training or reputation can reach many users at lightningfast speed. Messages multiply as they are shared across news platforms and via personal social networking accounts (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017).

In addition, the economic incentives underpinning new media companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, are predicated on attracting large audiences that will draw advertising revenue. Political content is used to drive consumers to social media products, rather than to perform the public service function of informing the citizenry. Commercial pressures lead media organizations to feature incendiary stories that receive the most attention. Further, while platforms proliferate, similar content is dispersed widely as media power is concentrated in a small number of old and new media corporations (McChesney, 2015). Search engines direct users to a limited selection of heavily trafficked and well-financed sites (Hindman, 2009; Pariser, 2011).

Other explanations focus on the nature of the American political environment that has become extremely polarized, prompting the emergence of political agendas that promote rogue politics. A 2017 Pew Research Center study revealed that the gap between Democrats and Republicans on core political values, including the role of government, race, immigration, the social safety net, national security, taxes, and environmental protection, have grown to epic proportions for the modern era. Two-thirds of Americans fall solidly in the liberal or conservative camp, with few holding a mix of ideological positions (Pew Research Center, 2017; Kiley, 2017).

Speech on new media reflects these stark political divisions, and frequently devolves into expressions of hostility and ad hominem attacks. President Donald Trump used Twitter to ignite a controversy over NFL players who protested racial oppression during the playing of the national anthem before games. He used a derogatory term to refer to players, who are predominantly African American, and urged team owners to fire those supporting the demonstration. Trump’s social media blasts accused the players of disrespecting the flag and the military, which misrepresents the protest agenda and has divided the public along political and racial lines.

Political divisions are reflected in the presence of media “echo chambers,” where people select their news and information sources based on their affinity for the politics of other users. Modern-day new media echo chambers began to form during the first phase of new media, as conservative talk radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, attracted dedicated followers (Jamieson and Cappella, 2010). Social media has hastened the development of echo chambers, as they facilitate people’s exposure to information shared by like-minded individuals in their personal digital networks, with 62% of adult Americans getting their news from social media platforms. Even politically disinterested social media users frequently encounter news articles unintentionally as they scan their feed (Gottfried and Shearer, 2016). The ability of social media to isolate people from exposure to those with differing viewpoints exacerbates political polarization.

A significant segment of the public perceives journalists as removed elites who do not share their conservative values. Political analyst Nate Silver (2017) contends that the national press has been operating in a politically homogenous, metropolitan, liberal-leaning bubble that has become attached to “Establishment Influentials”. He maintains that the mainstream media are out-of-touch with a wide swath of the public. During the recent election this became clear as legacy media institutions are unable to connect effectively with the frustration and anger of people outside of high education and income circles (Camosy, 2016).

Some scholars argue that new media are closing the gap between distant journalists and the mass public by giving voice to those who have felt left out (Duggan and Smith, 2016). The Tea Party, a conservative political movement focused around issues about taxation and the national debt, used social networks for political mobilization in the 2010 midterm elections. Tea Party candidates employed social media to reshape public discourse around the campaign, forging a sense of solidarity among groups who previously felt disenfranchised (Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 2011). Candidates pushing an extreme agenda have amplified this trend. Highly partisan, flamboyant congressional candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who spark political disagreement and indignant rhetoric garner the most supporters on Facebook. They use social media to solidify their political base (Messing and Weisel, 2017).

Post-Truth Media

American author Ralph Keyes (2004) observes that society has entered a posttruth era. Deception has become a defining characteristic of modern life, and is so pervasive that people are desensitized to its implications. He laments the fact that ambiguous statements containing a kernel of authenticity, but falling short of the truth, have become the currency of politicians, reporters, corporate executives, and other power-brokers.

Journalist Susan Glasser (2016) argues that journalism has come to reflect the realities of reporting in post-truth America. Objective facts are subordinate to emotional appeals and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion. The public has difficulty distinguishing relevant news about weighty policy issues from the extraneous clamor that permeates the media. The work of investigative journalists has in some ways has become more insightful and informed than in the past due to the vast resources available for researching stories, including greater access to government archives and big data analysis. However, well-documented stories are obscured by the constant drone of repetitive, sensationalized trivia-bites that dominate old and new media. Reflecting on coverage of the last American presidential contest, Glasser states, “The media scandal of 2016 isn’t so much about what reporters fail to tell the American public; it’s about what they did report on, and the fact that it didn’t seem to matter” (2016).

Evidence that Glasser’s concerns are well-founded can be compiled by examining media content on a daily basis. Post-truth media was prominent during the 2016 presidential election. Media accounts of the election were infused with misinformation, baseless rumors, and outright lies. False stories and unverified factoids emanated from fabricated news sites as well as the social media accounts of the candidates and their surrogates. Republican nominee Donald Trump used his Twitter feed to push out sensational, unverified statements that would dominate the news agenda, a practice he maintained after assuming the presidency. He alleged that the father of Ted Cruz, his challenger for the nomination, was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and perpetuated the false claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States (Carson, 2017). False news stories infiltrated reports by legacy media organizations as they relied heavily on digital sources for information. Cable news organizations like CNN and MSNBC amplified Trump’s unfounded claims, such as his allegations that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11, even as they criticized their veracity (Shafer, 2015).

Contrived controversies detract from coverage of important issues related to policy, process, and governance (Horton, 2017). In October of 2017, President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) exchanged a series of insults as Congress considered major tax reforms. The feud dominated coverage of the battle over tax legislation on new media, and commanded the front page of The New York Times . Among the many insults slung over the course of several weeks, Trump referred to Corker as “Liddle Bob,” and tweeted that Corker “couldn’t get elected dog catcher.” Corker called the White House “an adult day care center,” and labeled Trump “an utterly untruthful president” (Sullivan, 2017).

The Ascendance of Fake News

The most extreme illustration of the concept of post-truth reporting is the rise of fake news. The definition of fake news has shifted over time, and continues to be fluid. Initially, the term “fake news” referred to news parodies and satire, such as The Daily Show , The Colbert Report , and Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live . During the 2016 campaign, the concept of fake news was attached to fictitious stories made to appear as if they were real news articles. These stories were disseminated on websites that had the appearance of legitimate news platforms or blogs, such as Infowars , The Rightest , and National Report . A 2017 compilation documented 122 sites that routinely publish fake news (Chao, et al., 2017). Authors are paid—sometimes thousands of dollars—to write or record false information. Some of these authors are based in locations outside of the United States, including Russia (Shane, 2017). They make use of social media interactions and algorithms to disseminate content to specific ideological constituencies. Fabricated stories are spread virally by social bots, automated software that replicates messages by masquerading as a person (Emerging Technology from the arXiv, 2017).

Objective facts are subordinate to emotional appeals and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion.

Fake news stories play to people’s preexisting beliefs about political leaders, parties, organizations, and the mainstream news media. While some fake news stories are outright fabrications, others contain elements of truth that make them seem credible to audiences ensconced in echo chambers. Conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and lies were spread efficiently through Facebook, Snapchat, and other social media, and reached millions of voters in the 2016 election (Oremus, 2016). For example, a fabricated story on The Denver Gardian , a fake site meant to emulate the legitimate newspaper, The Denver Post , reported that an F.B.I. agent connected with an investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails had murdered his wife and shot himself. Other erroneous reports claimed that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to ISIS (Rogers and Bromwich, 2016).

Conditions in the new media age have been ripe for the proliferation of fake news. The new media system has lifted many of the obstacles to producing and distributing news that were present in the previous mass media age. While vestiges of the digital divide persist, especially among lower-income families (Klein, 2017), barriers to new media access have been lowered. The cost of producing and distributing information on a wide scale have been reduced. The logistics and skills necessary to create content are less formidable. Social networking sites make it possible to build and maintain audiences of like-minded people who will trust posted content. Fake news proliferates widely through social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. In fact, fake news stories are spread more widely on Facebook than factual mainstream media reports (Silverman, 2016). Audiences are fooled and confused by fake news, which confounds basic facts about politics and government with fiction. A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that 64% of the American public found that made-up news created a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current events, and an additional 24% believed fake news caused some confusion (Barthel, Mitchell, and Holcomb, 2016). Finally, legal challenges to fake news and the distribution of false content are much more difficult to pose, as it is costly and time-consuming to sue publishers for spreading false information.

An alternative meaning of fake news emerged after the presidential election. At his first press conference as President-elect, Donald Trump appropriated the term “fake news” as a derogatory reference to the mainstream press. Pointing at CNN journalist Jim Acosta, who was attempting to ask a question, Trump exclaimed, “You are fake news!” Trump and his acolytes frequently employ the “fake news” moniker when attempting to delegitimize the legacy media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post , for reporting they consider to be unfavorable (Carson, 2017). Weary of Trump repeatedly invoking the “fake news” label, CNN launched a “Facts First” campaign in response to “consistent attacks from Washington and beyond.” A thirty second video shows an image of an apple, with the voice over:

This is an apple. Some people might try to tell you this is a banana. They might scream banana, banana, banana, over and over and over again. They might put banana in all caps. You might even start to believe that this is a banana. But it’s not. This is an apple.

Facts are facts. They aren’t colored by emotion or bias. They are indisputable. There is no alternative to a fact. Facts explain things. What they are, how they happened. Facts are not interpretations. Once facts are established, opinions can be formed. And while opinions matter, they don’t change the facts. (https://www.cnncreativemarketing.com/project/cnn_factsfirst/)

Watchdog Press or Politicians’ Mouthpiece

The notion of the press as a political watchdog casts the media as a guardian of the public interest. The watchdog press provides a check on government abuses by supplying citizens with information and forcing government transparency. Public support for the media’s watchdog role is substantial, with a Pew Research Center study finding that 70% of Americans believe that press reporting can “prevent leaders from doing things that shouldn’t be done” (Chinni and Bronston, 2017).

New media have enhanced the capacity of reporters to fulfill their watchdog role, even in an era of dwindling resources for investigative journalism. Information can be shared readily through formal media sources, as local news outlets can pass information about breaking events to national organizations. News also can be documented and shared by citizens through social networks. When a vicious category 5 hurricane devastated Puerto Rico and the American government’s response was slow, journalists were able to surface the story as residents and first responders took to social media to provide first-hand accounts to national journalists who had difficulty reaching the island (Vernon, 2017).

However, there are aspects of the media’s watchdog role that have become more difficult to fulfill. Countering outright lies by public officials has almost become an exercise in futility, even as fact-checking has become its own category of news. The Washington Post ’s “Fact Checker” identified almost 1,500 false claims made by President Trump in just over 250 days in office (www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker). Sites focusing on setting the record straight, such as PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck, can barely keep pace with the amount of material that requires checking Despite these efforts, false information on the air and online has multiplied.

There is evidence to suggest that the new media allow political leaders to do an end-run around the watchdog press. In some ways, the press has moved from being a watchdog to a mouthpiece for politicians. This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that there is a revolving door where working journalists move between positions in the media and government. Some scholars maintain that this revolving door compromises the objectivity of journalists who view a government job as the source of their next paycheck (Shepard, 1997).

The media act as a mouthpiece for political leaders by publicizing their words and actions even when their news value is questionable. President Donald Trump uses Twitter as a mechanism for getting messages directly to his followers while averting journalistic and political gatekeepers, including high ranking members of his personal staff. Many of his tweets are of questionable news value, except for the fact that they emanate from the president’s personal social media account. Yet the press act as a mouthpiece by promoting his tweets. A silly or vicious tween can dominate several news cycles. In an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiomo, President Trump gave his reason for using social media to communication with the public and the press that supports the notion of the mouthpiece media:

Tweeting is like a typewriter—when I put it out, you put it immediately on your show. I mean, the other day, I put something out, two seconds later I am watching your show, it’s up… You know, you have to keep people interested. But, social media, without social media, I am not sure that we would be here talking I would probably not be here talking (Tatum, 2017).

When rumors and conspiracy theories are believed, they can have serious consequences. This point is illustrated by the “PizzaGate” conspiracy theory that spread on social media during the 2016 presidential election. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, were accused of engaging in satanic rituals where they personally “chopped up and raped” children. Wikileaks released personal emails from Podesta’s account indicating that he enjoyed eating at a pizza restaurant Washington, D.C. The Twitter hashtag #pizzagate began trending. Rumors alleging that the restaurant’s owner was running a child sex ring began circulating. Believing the rumors to be true, a man drove from North Carolina to liberate the purported child sex slaves. He fired an assault rifle inside the pizza restaurant as staff and patrons fled. He is currently serving a four-year prison sentence (Aisch, et al., 2016; Fisher, et al., 2016).

New media have both expanded and undercut the traditional roles of the press in a democratic society. On the positive side, they have vastly increased the potential for political information to reach even the most disinterested citizens. They enable the creation of digital public squares where opinions can be openly shared. They have created new avenues for engagement that allow the public to connect in new ways with government, and to contribute to the flow of political information.

At the same time, the coalescence of the rise of new media and post-truth society has made for a precarious situation that subverts their beneficial aspects. Presently, it appears as if there are few effective checks on the rising tide of false information. Substituting scandal coverage for serious investigative journalism has weakened the press’ watchdog role. The ambiguous position of the media as a mouthpiece for politicians renders journalists complicit in the proliferation of bad information and faulty facts. It is important to recognize that American journalism has never experienced a “golden age” where facts always prevailed and responsible reporting was absolute. However, the current era may mark a new low for the democratic imperative of a free press.

Aisch, Gregor, Jon Huang, and Cecilia Kang. 2016. “Dissecting the #PizzaGate Conspiracy Theories,” The New York Times, December 10. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html?_r=0

Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2: 211-236.

Barthel, Michael, Amy Mitchell, and Jesse Holcomb. 2016. “Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion.” Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americansbelieve-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/

Camosy, Charles. 2016. “Trump Won Because College-Educated Americans Are Out of Touch,” The Washington Post, November 9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-college-educated-americans-are-out-of-touch/?utm_term=.b900fe12b964

Carson, James. 2017. “What is Fake News? Its Origins and How It Grew in 2016,” The Telegraph, March 10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/fake-news-origins-grew-2016/

Chinni, Dante, and Sally Bronston. 2017. “Despite Attacks on the Press, Public Supports Watchdog Role,” NBC News, July 9. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/despite-attacks-press-public-supports-watchdog-role-n781046

Craig, Tim, and Michael D. Shear. 2006. “Allen Quip Provokes Outrage, Apology,” The Washington Post, August 15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html

Davis, Richard, and Diana Owen. 1998. New Media and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Diamond, Edwin, Martha McKay, and Robert Silverman. 1993. “Pop Goes Politics: New Media, Interactive Formats, and the 1992 Presidential Campaign,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 37, no. 2: 257-261.

Duggan, Maeve, and Aaron Smith. 2016. The Political Environment on Social Media. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/political-content-on-social-media/

Emerging Technology from the arXiv. 2017. “First Evidence That Social Bots Play a Major Role in Spreading Fake News,” MIT Technology Review, August 7. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608561/first-evidence-that-social-bots-play-amajor-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

Fisher, Mark, John Woodrow Cox, and Peter Hermann. 2016. “Pizzagate: From Rumor, To Hashtag, To Gunfire in D.C.,” Washington Post, December 6. file:///C:/Users/Diana/Dropbox/Sabato%20Volume%202016/Pizzagate_%20>From%20rumor,%20to%20hashtag,%20to%20gunfire%20in%20D.C.pdf

Gil de Zuniga, Homero, Nakwon Jung, and Sebastian Valenzuela. 2010. “Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement, and Political Participation,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 17: 319-336.

Glasser, Susan B. 2016. “Covering Politics in a “Post-Truth” America,” Brookings Essay, December 2. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/covering-politics-in-a-post-truth-america/?utm_campaign=brookings-comm&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=38712889

Gottfried, Jeffrey, and Elisa Shearer. 2016. News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. file:///C:/Users/owend/Downloads/PJ_2016.05.26_social-media-and-news_FINAL-1.pdf

Graham, David A. 2017. “’Alternative Facts’: The Needless Lies of the Trump Administration,” The Atlantic, January 22. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-pointless-needless-liesof-the-trump-administration/514061/

Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2015. “As Local News Goes, So Goes Citizen Engagement: Media, Knowledge, and Participation in U.S. House Elections,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 77, no. 2: 447-462.

Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Horton, Alex. 2017. “The Crazy Summer of Trump Controversies That You’ve Already Forgotten,” The Washington Post, August 19. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/19/the-crazy-summer-of-trump-controversies-that-youve-already-forgotten/?utm_term=.868a02cceef2

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Joseph N. Cappella. 2010. Echo Chamber. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keyes, Ralph. 2004. The Post-Truth Era. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Kiley, Jocelyn. 2017. “In Polarized Era, Fewer Americans Hold a Mix of Conservative and Liberal Views.” Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2017/10/23/in-polarized-era-fewer-americans-hold-a-mix-of-conservative-and-liberal-views/

Linder, Matt. 2016. “Block. Mute. Unfriend. Tensions Rise on Facebook After Election Results,” Chicago Tribune, November 9. http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-facebook-electionreaction-family-1109-20161109-story.html

Jebril, Nael, Erik Albaek, and Claes H. deVreese. 2013. “Infotainment, Cynicism and Democracy: The Effects of Privatization vs. Personalization in the News,” European Journal of Communication, vol. 28, no. 2: 105-121.

Klein, Paula. 2017. “The 2017 Digital Divide,” MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, September 1. https://medium.com/mit-initiative-on-the-digital-economy/the-2017-digital-divide-2c6e8833c57d

McChesney, Robert. 2015. Rich Media, Poor Democracy, 2nd Edition. New York: The New Press.

Messing, Solomon, and Rachel Weisel. 2017. Partisan Conflict and Congressional Outreach. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. file:///C:/Users/owend/Downloads/ LabsReport_FINALreport.pdf

Mitchell, Amy, and Jesse Holcomb. 2016. State of the News Media. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/06/30143308/state-of-the-news-media-report-2016-final.pdf

Moy, Patricia, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess. 2009. “Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment,” Mass Communication and Society, vol. 8, no. 2: 111-131.

Ordway, Denise-Marie. 2017. “Fake News and the Spread of Misinformation,” Journalist Resource. Boston, MA: The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/internet/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research

Oremus, Will. 2016. “Stop Calling Everything “Fake News”,” Slate, December 6. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/12/stop_calling_everything_fake_news.html

Owen, Diana. 2017. The State of Technology in Global Newsrooms. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Journalists. http://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/ICFJTechSurveyFINAL.pdf

Pariser, Eli. 2011. Filter Bubble. New York: The Penguin Press.

Pew Research Center. 2017. The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. file:///C:/Users/owend/Downloads/10-05-2017 Political-landscape-release.pdf

Rogers, Katie, and Jonah Engel Bromwich. 2016. “The Hoaxes, Fake News and Misinformation We Saw on Election Day,” The New York Times, November 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/debunk-fake-news-election-day.html

Shafer, Jack. 2015. “Let the Big Lies Begin,” Politico Magazine, November 24. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-lies-2016-candidates-213391

Shane, Scott. 2017. “The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election,” The New York Times, September 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

Shao, Chengcheng, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Onur Varol, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2017. “The Spread of Fake News by Social Bots.” Technical Report 1707.07592, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07592.pdf

Shepard, Alicia. 2012. “The Journalism Watergate Inspired Is Endangered Now,” The New York Times, June 13. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/13/did-any-good-come-ofwatergate/the-journalism-watergate-inspired-isendangered-now

Shepard, Alicia. 1997. “The Revolving Door,” AJR, July/August. http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=745

Silver, Nate. 2017. “There Really Was a Liberal Media Bubble,” FiveThirtyEight, March 10. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/

Silverman, Craig. 2016. “This Analysis Shows How Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook,” BuzzFeed News, December 6.

Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, Eileen. 2017. “Trump Attacks Corker Ahead of Policy Lunch With Senators,” The New York Times, October 24. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/trump-corker-feud-dogcatcher.html

Tatum, Sophie. 2017. “Trump on His Tweets: ‘You Have to Keep People Interested,” CNN, October 21. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/20/politics/donaldtrump-fox-business-interview-twitter/index.html

Vernon, Pete. 2017. “The Media Today: Social Media and the Storm,” Columbia Journalism Review, August 29. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/hurricane-harvey-social-media.php

Wallsten, Kevin. 2010. ““Yes We Can”: How Online Viewership, Blog Discussion, Campaign Statements, and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video Phenomenon.” Journal of Information Technology&Politics, vol. 7, no. 2-3: 163-181.

Williams, Bruce A., and Michael X. Delli Carpini. 2011. After Broadcast News. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 9, no. 1: 25-43.

Willis, Jim. 1987. “Editors, Readers and News Judgement,” Editor and Publisher, v. 120, no. 6: 14-15.

Wired Staff. 2017. “Old-School Media Is Pulling Way More Viewers Than You Think,” Wired, February 2. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/daily-audiencenumbers-for-big-media-outlets/

Related publications

• The Impact of Digital Activism on Post-Cold War Politics
• The Rise and Rise of Populism?
• First the Media, Then Us: How the Internet Changed the Fundamental Nature of the Communication and Its Relationship with the Audience

Download Kindle

Download epub, download pdf, more publications related to this article, more about humanities, communications, comments on this publication.

Morbi facilisis elit non mi lacinia lacinia. Nunc eleifend aliquet ipsum, nec blandit augue tincidunt nec. Donec scelerisque feugiat lectus nec congue. Quisque tristique tortor vitae turpis euismod, vitae aliquam dolor pretium. Donec luctus posuere ex sit amet scelerisque. Etiam sed neque magna. Mauris non scelerisque lectus. Ut rutrum ex porta, tristique mi vitae, volutpat urna.

Sed in semper tellus, eu efficitur ante. Quisque felis orci, fermentum quis arcu nec, elementum malesuada magna. Nulla vitae finibus ipsum. Aenean vel sapien a magna faucibus tristique ac et ligula. Sed auctor orci metus, vitae egestas libero lacinia quis. Nulla lacus sapien, efficitur mollis nisi tempor, gravida tincidunt sapien. In massa dui, varius vitae iaculis a, dignissim non felis. Ut sagittis pulvinar nisi, at tincidunt metus venenatis a. Ut aliquam scelerisque interdum. Mauris iaculis purus in nulla consequat, sed fermentum sapien condimentum. Aliquam rutrum erat lectus, nec placerat nisl mollis id. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Nam nisl nisi, efficitur et sem in, molestie vulputate libero. Quisque quis mattis lorem. Nunc quis convallis diam, id tincidunt risus. Donec nisl odio, convallis vel porttitor sit amet, lobortis a ante. Cras dapibus porta nulla, at laoreet quam euismod vitae. Fusce sollicitudin massa magna, eu dignissim magna cursus id. Quisque vel nisl tempus, lobortis nisl a, ornare lacus. Donec ac interdum massa. Curabitur id diam luctus, mollis augue vel, interdum risus. Nam vitae tortor erat. Proin quis tincidunt lorem.

Discontent in Politics

Do you want to stay up to date with our new publications.

Receive the OpenMind newsletter with all the latest contents published on our website

OpenMind Books

• The Search for Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
• View all books

About OpenMind

Connect with us.

• Keep up to date with our newsletter

Quote this content

2024 Theses Doctoral

Essays on Media and Public Opinion in State and Local Politics

Auslen, Michael Edward

This dissertation explores the roles that the news media and public opinion play in shaping policymaking in American state and local governments, drawing on extensive archives of local newspaper transcripts, media market and circulation data, outputs of the policymaking process in states and municipalities, and measures of public opinion. In the first paper, I show that media coverage is associated with greater policy responsiveness in state legislatures. When legislators are more likely to be covered by local newspapers and television news broadcasts in their districts, they are better at reflecting constituent preferences in roll-call voting. Defying the seminal theories of electoral accountability, however, I find no evidence that the media affects what the public knows about state politics or how they behave in state legislative elections. Rather, I conjecture that local news affects representation via a more direct, elite-focused “watchdog” mechanism—by informing legislators about public opinion or increasing the perceived costs that politicians face when deciding to cast an unpopular vote. The second paper examines the implications of news organizations’ decisions as to which local governments to invest in covering routinely. Newspapers are more likely to cover politics in larger cities and those with more white and wealthy residents. In cities and towns that the press covers more frequently, I find that local governments spend more per-capita on providing public goods, particularly policing, parks, housing, and public transportation. This suggests that increasing financial pressures on already resource-constrained news outlets may have negative implications for local public goods provision that could exacerbate existing inequalities in American democracy. Finally, in the third paper, I offer a methodological contribution to the measurement of public opinion at subnational geographies. Although the development of Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) has allowed scholars to more accurately estimate subnational public opinion using national polls, its usefulness has been limited in certain contexts because it generally recovers less accurate estimates from cluster-sampled surveys. I propose two approaches to improve estimation from MRP with cluster-sampled polls. The first is pooling data from multiple surveys to produce a larger sample of clusters. The second is Clustered MRP (CMRP), which extends MRP by modeling opinion using the geographic information included in a survey’s cluster-sampling procedure.

Geographic Areas

• United States
• Political science
• Public opinion
• Government policy
• Local government--Political aspects
• U.S. states--Politics and government

This item is currently under embargo. It will be available starting 2026-04-24.

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Essay on Media And Politics

Students are often asked to write an essay on Media And Politics in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Media And Politics

Introduction to media and politics.

Media plays a big role in politics. It is like a bridge that connects the government and the people. Through newspapers, TV, and the internet, people learn about what the government is doing. Politicians also use media to talk to citizens and tell them about their plans.

The Power of Media in Elections

Media as a watchdog.

Media acts as a watchdog. This means it keeps an eye on what politicians do and tells the public. If a politician does something wrong, the media reports it. This helps keep politicians honest and working for the people.

Challenges with Media and Politics

Sometimes, media can be biased. This means it might favor one side. Some news channels might only show good things about one political party. This can make it hard for people to get the true story.

250 Words Essay on Media And Politics

The connection between media and politics.

Media and politics are like two sides of the same coin. They work together to shape what people think about the world around them. The media includes things like TV, newspapers, and the internet. Politicians use these platforms to tell people what they are doing and what they plan to do if they are elected.

Media’s Role in Elections

During election time, the media is very busy. They show debates, interviews, and reports about what each politician stands for. This helps people decide who to vote for. It’s like the media gives a microphone to politicians so their voices can be heard far and wide.

News and Political Opinions

News programs and articles often share opinions about politics. Sometimes, they can influence people to think in a certain way. It’s important for people, especially young students, to understand that not all news is completely true. Some stories might be more like opinions than facts.

Politics on Social Media

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become important in politics. Politicians can talk directly to people without needing TV or newspapers. But, it’s also easy for wrong information to spread on these sites. That’s why it’s important to check if something is true before believing it.

In conclusion, media and politics are closely linked and affect each other a lot. Media can help people understand politics, but it can also confuse them. It’s up to everyone, including students, to be smart about what they read and hear in the media.

500 Words Essay on Media And Politics

Media’s role in informing people.

Imagine you’re at school and you want to know what’s happening in your town’s council or even in the country’s government. Media is your best friend here. It tells you what new laws are being made, what the leaders are doing, and how it all affects you. Media helps you understand politics by breaking down complex subjects into simpler stories that you can grasp.

Just like your school has monitors, the media acts as a monitor for the government. It keeps an eye on politicians to make sure they are doing their jobs right. When a politician makes a mistake or does something great, the media reports it. This way, it helps people make informed choices about whom to vote for.

The Influence of Media on Public Opinion

Politics using media, challenges in media and politics.

Not everything is perfect in the world of media and politics. Sometimes, media can be biased, which means it favors one side over another. This can confuse people and not give a clear picture of what’s really happening. Also, with the rise of social media, there’s a lot of false information that spreads quickly. It’s important for you to learn how to tell the difference between true and false news.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

8 The Media and Politics

• Published: April 2000
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter examines the role of the media in relation to democratic politics. It focuses on debates over the public sphere and the normative entailments of different uses of the distinction between public and private. The debates about the media and politics are at heart normative debates about the nature of politics. Going back to the central Kantian problem of ‘unsocial sociability’ and the centrality of the exercise of public reason to Kant's conceptions of truth, justice and the morally right, following Benhabib and against the communitarians and many advocates of identity politics, for the necessary generalization, under the conditions of modernity and the potential for generalized reflexivity that accompanies it, of a discourse ethic as the necessary normative foundation for democracy. The crucial point is that all these public spheres are dependent in one way or another on media, but the nature of that relationship, the specific media form it takes, and its adequacy from a discourse ethic perspective will differ.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

MEDIA AND POLITICS: POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

•   OpenBU
• Theses & Dissertations
• Boston University Theses & Dissertations

Essays on media, politics and firm innovation

Date Issued

Export Citation

Permanent link, collections.

• Boston University Theses & Dissertations [9384]

Show Statistical Information

Deposit Materials

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The Political Environment on Social Media

Some users enjoy the opportunities for political debate and engagement that social media facilitates, but many more express resignation, frustration over the tone and content of social platforms

Table of contents.

• 1. Political content on social media
• 2. The tone of social media discussions around politics
• 3. Social media and political engagement
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

In a political environment defined by widespread polarization and partisan animosity , even simple conversations can go awry when the subject turns to politics. In their in-person interactions, Americans can (and often do ) attempt to steer clear of those with whom they strongly disagree.

But online social media environments present new challenges. In these spaces, users can encounter statements they might consider highly contentious or extremely offensive – even when they make no effort to actively seek out this material. Similarly, political arguments can encroach into users’ lives when comment streams on otherwise unrelated topics devolve into flame wars or partisan bickering. Navigating these interactions can be particularly fraught in light of the complex mix of close friends, family members, distant acquaintances, professional connections and public figures that make up many users’ online networks.

A new Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults finds that political debate and discussion is indeed a regular fact of digital life for many social media users, and some politically active users enjoy the heated discussions and opportunities for engagement that this mix of social media and politics facilitates. But a larger share expresses annoyance and aggravation at the tone and content of the political interactions they witness on these platforms. Among the key findings of this survey:

More than one-third of social media users are worn out by the amount of political content they encounter, and more than half describe their online interactions with those they disagree with politically as stressful and frustrating

The roughly two-thirds of American adults who use social media sites express a relatively wide range of opinions on the political interactions they witness and take part in on these platforms. Many feel overloaded by political content and view their social media interactions with those they disagree with as a source of frustration and annoyance. At the same time, a substantial minority of users enjoy the ability to consume political content and engage in discussions with people on the other side of issues:

• Nearly twice as many social media users say they are “worn out” by the amount of political content they see in their feeds (37%) as say they like seeing lots of political information (20%). Still, about four-in-ten (41%) indicate that they don’t feel particularly strongly one way or the other about the amount of political content they encounter on social media.
• 59% say their social media interactions with those with opposing political views are stressful and frustrating – although 35% find them interesting and informative.
• 64% say their online encounters with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum leave them feeling as if they have even less in common than they thought – although 29% say they end these discussions feeling that they have more in common than they might have anticipated.

Many users view the tone of political discussions on social media as uniquely angry and disrespectful – although a sizeable share feels that these discussions simply reflect the broader political climate

When asked how they view the tone of the political discussions they see on social media, a substantial share of social media users feel these platforms are uniquely angry and disrespectful venues for engaging in political debate. Some 40% of users agree strongly with the notion that social media are places where people say things while discussing politics that they would never say in person (an additional 44% feel that this statement describes social media somewhat well).

Meanwhile, roughly half of users feel the political conversations they see on social media are angrier (49%), less respectful (53%) and less civil (49%) than those in other areas of life. At the same time, a notable minority feels that the political discussions they see on social media are largely reflective of the political discussions they witness in other areas of their lives: For instance, 39% of users feel that these interactions are no more less respectful than other political interactions they encounter. And a small share finds political debates on social media to be more civil (7%), more informative (14%) and more focused on important policy issues (10%) than those they see elsewhere.

Most users try to ignore political arguments on social media as best they can; when that fails, they take steps to curate their feeds and avoid the most offensive types of content

For the most part, social media users try to refrain from engaging with the political arguments that enter their feeds: 83% of them say that when their friends post something about politics that they disagree with they usually just try to ignore it, while 15% usually respond to these posts with a post or comment of their own.

When ignoring problematic content fails, social media users tend to utilize technological tools to remove troublesome users from their feeds entirely. Nearly one-third of social media users (31%) say they have changed their settings in order to see fewer posts from someone in their feed because of something related to politics, while 27% have blocked or unfriended someone for that reason. Taken together, this amounts to 39% of social media users – and 60% of them indicate that they took this step because someone was posting political content that they found offensive.

Despite these annoyances, some users – especially those with high levels of political engagement – enjoy talking, debating and posting about political issues on social media

Yet for all of the tensions and annoyances that accompany political debates on social media, some users do see a good side to these interactions. This is especially true of those Americans who indicate a high level of interest and involvement in the political process more broadly.

These highly engaged social media users express many of the same frustrations about the tone and tenor of political discussions on social media – but many of them simultaneously view social media platforms as valuable tools for political action and discussion. Roughly one-in-five politically engaged users (19%) indicate that they often comment, discuss or post about political issues with others on social media (just 6% of less politically engaged users post with this level of frequency). And nearly one-third of these politically engaged users feel that social media sites do “very well” at bringing new voices into the political discussion (31%) or helping people get involved with issues that matter to them (30%).

Frustration over politically oriented social media discussions is a bipartisan phenomenon

Even as their overall political attitudes differ dramatically, Democrats and Republicans (including independents and other nonpartisans who “lean” toward either party) tend to view and utilize social media in largely comparable ways. For instance, they are equally likely to say that they comment, post about or engage in political discussions on social media (10% of Republican users and 8% of Democrats do so often). And a nearly identical share from each party feels worn out by the amount of political material they encounter on social media (38% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans who use social media report this) or feel that the conversations they see on social media are angrier and less civil than in other venues where these conversations occur. However, Democrats who use social media are somewhat more likely to view these sites as useful vehicles for bringing new voices into the political arena.

Political content is as prevalent on Facebook (where users mostly follow people they know personally) as it is on Twitter (where users tend to follow a wider mix of connections)

The concerns and frustrations outlined above are occurring in a broader context: namely, one in which political discussions are encroaching into a range of different social spaces. Two of the more common social media platforms – Facebook and Twitter – are illustrative in this regard. Facebook users tend to be friends primarily with people they know personally (66% of Facebook users say they mostly follow people they already know), while Twitter users are much more likely to follow people they do not know personally (48% of Twitter users indicate that most of the people they follow are in this category). And a large share of Facebook and Twitter users report that they follow a relatively broad mix of people with differing political views and opinions (indeed, just 23% of Facebook users and 17% of Twitter users say that they mostly follow people with political views that are similar to theirs). But despite these differences in the social and political composition of their networks, an identical share of Facebook users and Twitter users report that they frequently encounter political posts and engage in political discussions among the people in their networks.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

Report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 19

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review

• September 2021
• Annals of the International Communication Association 45(7):1-19
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

• RPTU Kaiserslautern Landau

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Iury M. Pereira
• Juan Pablo A. Avelar
• Cláudio B. Silva
• Daniel M. Barbosa
• Sukijan Athoillah
• Muhammad Khakim Ashari
• Muhammad Badat

• Veriano Terto
• Richard Parker

• Filip Trbojević
• Zrinjka Peruško
• Azahara Ortiz González

• NEW MEDIA SOC
• Shelley Boulianne

• INT J PRESS/POLIT

• Julianna Hauri

• Eli J. Finkel
• Christopher A. Bail

• Yonghwan Kim
• Markus Wagner

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Social Media and Politics in India

• 20 Jul 2022
• GS Paper - 2
• E-Governance
• Transparency & Accountability
• GS Paper - 3
• Social Media
• IT & Computers

This editorial is based on “How Twitter became the New Medium for Diplomacy” which was published in The Indian Express on 20/07/2022. It talks about the role of social media in polity and governance in India.

For Prelims: Social Media, Covid Pandemic, Political Polarisation, Google Transparency Report, Election Commission of India, Model Code of Conduct

For Mains: Impact of Politicisation of Social Media, Recent Social media Regulations by EC of India

Human history from the Stone Age to Metal Age is now in the Digital age with the most promising tool- social media. It mirrors the real world.

Public opinion is the currency of democracy. Social media platforms are increasingly becoming the primary ground for public discourse and mobilisation of public opinion , a tool where people are able to talk about the issues of day to day life and also of national importance.

Social media today is no longer just an innocent space to connect with friends and family. Instead, it has metamorphosed into becoming an influential space for political activity and creating a new political dialogue.

How does Social Media Benefit Indian Politics?

• As an example, social media was highly effective in promoting precautionary awareness and mobilising leads for medicines during the Covid pandemic.
• The communication barriers that did not allow people to interact with the leaders have reduced significantly because of social media.
• They are making sure to keep the public in the loop through their engagements and posts on social media.
• It has increased the ability for ordinary citizens to take part in the political process.
• Besides this, social media has been actively used for influencing diplomatic relations between India and its friendly countries.
• Reducing Barriers: These platforms present a cheap and low-barrier channel of people-politician communication, by potentially intensifying political democracy by allowing many to enter into political races.
• Data analytics has evolved itself to become the brain of every election campaign. It helps the election campaign committee understand the voters better and align their policies to their needs.

What are the Negative Impact of Politicisation of Social Media?

• The campaigns sometimes spark religious and social tensions in different parts of the country.
• Social media has enabled a style of populist politics, which on the negative side allows hate speech and extreme speech to thrive in digital spaces that are unregulated, particularly in regional languages.
• Micro-targeting can enable dishonest campaigns to spread toxic discourse without much consequence.
• This is because it is believed that social media platforms tend to represent every walk of life, but not everyone’s voice is heard equally.
• Social media has made people better informed but also easier to manipulate.

Misinformation v/s Disinformation v/s Mal-information:

• Most of the time Fake news conflates three different notions: misinformation, disinformation, and mal -information.
• Misinformations are false information, but when a person conveys it, believes that it is true and shares.
• Disinformation is those which are shared intentionally by a person after knowing that it is not true; false information which is intended to mislead.
• Information that is based on reality but imposes harm on a person, organisation, or country is termed as mal-information.

What Should be the Approach Moving Forward?

• Transparency and Regulations need to be brought to bring governance of speech within the ambit of the democratic process and to control the weaponization of social media.
• It should also include safeguards for user privacy since platforms are a repository of the private information of citizens.
• Therefore, platform accountability should be linked to their distribution model.
• Furthermore, Platforms can make it possible for the users to make an informed choice regarding which feed to subscribe or opt-out of.
• Checks on Use of Personal data: Regulations should be maintained to ensure checks on use of personal data in the context of electoral campaigns complies with national laws.
• Strict norms for use of social media for political purposes is the need of the hour so that minority political campaigns are given equal attention.
• The Election Commission of India and its Model Code of Conduct go to great lengths to make sure that one party doesn’t have an undue advantage over another just because it is in power.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

What We Know About the Weaponization of Sexual Violence on October 7th

Rape is a shocking and sadly predictable feature of war. But the nature of the crime makes it difficult to document and, consequently, to prosecute.

In early March, Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, a well-known Palestinian Israeli academic, appeared on “Makdisi Street,” a podcast hosted by Karim, Saree, and Ussama Makdisi, three Palestinian American academics who are also brothers. They had been speaking for more than an hour when Karim asked what he said would be the last question. He wanted Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s opinion of a report, recently published by the United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, which concluded that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, had been part of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.

Few were more qualified to answer that question than Shalhoub-Kevorkian, a criminologist and a feminist scholar who has written several books on related topics, including one on wartime violence against women. Shalhoub-Kevorkian spoke with confidence and care. She put the sexual violence on October 7th in historical context. “Rapes, abuses, sexual abuses, gang rapes—it always happened in wartimes,” she said. “It always happened.” She had written about this wider history, she said, and she had written about the history of Jewish Israeli soldiers, back in 1948, using sexual violence against Palestinians. “Abuses and sexual abuses happen,” she said. “And they shouldn’t happen. And I will never approve [of] it, not to Israelis, not to Palestinians, not in my name.”

She was speaking as a Palestinian. Next, she spoke as a feminist: “I don’t go and interrogate the rape victims. If a woman said she was raped, I will believe her. I do not need evidence, and I don’t want to go check facts, to be honest. This is my opinion.”

But most of the women who had been subjected to sexual violence on October 7th were dead. They weren’t coming forward with evidence. It was the Israeli government that was amplifying stories of rape, which it claimed had been widespread, systematic, and particularly brutal on October 7th. “Women’s bodies are being used as political weapons,” Shalhoub-Kevorkian said. “If it happened, not in my name. If it didn’t happen, it’s shame on the state to use women’s bodies and sexuality to promote political agendas, to promote further disposession of land, to promote further killings, to promote abuse and rape.” Israel, she reminded listeners, was “a very dishonest state.” As though the real atrocities of October 7th—when almost twelve hundred people were killed—were not enough, Israeli propagandists had promoted terrifying fictions, like the claim that Hamas fighters had beheaded Israeli babies. Now they were promoting stories of sexual violence—horrific, crazed, grotesque sexual violence. And still, Shalhoub-Kevorkian reiterated, “If things like that happened, not in my name. I will never approve it.” (Hamas has denied that its fighters committed sexual violence.)

As a Palestinian and an outspoken opponent of Israel’s campaign in Gaza , Shalhoub-Kevorkian knew she was at risk: in the wake of October 7th, Palestinian citizens of Israel have been subjected to extreme scrutiny. Many of those who have spoken out about the carnage in Gaza have been fired or suspended from their jobs; some have been arrested. Shalhoub-Kevorkian is a tenured professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel’s most prestigious institution of higher learning. Her work has won international awards. But she had been shunned by colleagues for using the word “genocide” to describe the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. On the podcast, she had bracketed her statement with disavowals of the assaults—“if it happened, not in my name”—but what seemed to come across to an Israeli audience was the “if.” Shalhoub-Kevorkian could be heard as doubting the reports. In Israel today, that is tantamount to treason. The podcast was released on a Saturday; the following Tuesday, the university suspended her.

Some faculty members at Hebrew University, including from the law department, where Shalhoub-Kevorkian teaches, spoke out against the suspension. Two days later, it was lifted. After two and a half weeks, Shalhoub-Kevorkian was summoned to a conversation with the university rector. She reiterated that she did not doubt that sexual violence had occurred as part of the Hamas attack on October 7th. Less than a month later, police arrived at Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s house in the Old City of Jerusalem, handcuffed her, and took her to jail. “Hebrew U. prof arrested after doubting Hamas rapes,” a Times of Israel headline read, in part. Shalhoub-Kevorkian was held overnight in a cold cell. For part of that time, she was denied access to medication that she takes for blood pressure. Police officers shouted offensive epithets at her.

The following day, two Jerusalem judges denied a police request to keep Shalhoub-Kevorkian in custody. Still, two more gruelling interrogations followed. Two months after the arrest, no charges have officially been filed, but Shalhoub-Kevorkian is a marked person. Her face is all over the media, and another statement that she made on the podcast—“It’s time to abolish Zionism”—has been pasted on billboards in different parts of the country, a tactic the Israeli right has used to intimidate enemies. Although she was technically reinstated at Hebrew University, she has set foot on the campus only once since her arrest, because many of the students are carrying guns. To people concerned about the state of academic freedom—and freedom in general—in Israel, Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s case is perhaps the most extreme example of an ongoing crackdown on dissent. To many Israelis, expressions of support that she has received from abroad are examples of something else entirely: the world’s failure to acknowledge the horrors of October 7th, particularly the rapes. One slogan, which has shown up on protest placards, in press materials, and on the Web sites of Jewish organizations, sums up the sentiment: “#MeToo unless you are a Jew.”

For victims of war or terror, and for their families and loved ones, the violence of such conflicts is unlike anything they have ever experienced or imagined. But for many of those charged with documenting war—foreign correspondents, international human-rights organizations, agencies of the United Nations—conflicts, and the coverage and documentation of conflicts, follow familiar patterns. When it comes to sexual violence, the pattern that often emerges is this: shocking initial reports are followed by pushback that tends to be stronger and more impassioned than pushback against claims of almost any other war crime. A period of confusion, of murky awareness, usually follows. It stems from the nature of the crime, which makes it particularly difficult to document and, consequently, to prosecute.

The past several months have seen three major attempts to document sexual violence that occurred on October 7th. The first, compiled by the Association of Rape Crisis Centers of Israel and released in February, has been widely distributed by the Israeli government. The report states that acts of sexual violence against women, girls, and men were “systematic,” carried out in a similar manner in many different locations. “Hamas terrorists employed sadistic practices aimed at intensifying the degree of humiliation and terror inherent in sexual violence,” the report states. “Many of the bodies of sexual crime victims were found bound and shackled. The genitals of both women and men were brutally mutilated, and in some cases weapons were inserted into them. The terrorists did not stop at shooting; they also cut and mutilated sexual organs and other body parts with knives.”

The report relied on media articles, television stories, and confidential information that had come through member organizations of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers. Its strength was in systematizing, comparing, and mapping the assaults—methods of analysis that allowed the authors to identify patterns. Its weakness was that much of the evidence was third- and fourth-hand, as in the case of media accounts that quoted other media accounts that quoted people who said they had witnessed attacks. Hila Tov, a prominent multimedia journalist and activist, did the research for the report (though she did not write it). She told me that most of the evidence, in the end, came from dead bodies, or, rather, from the recollections and interpretations of volunteers who had gathered the bodies, and from doctors who interviewed survivors.

In early March, Pramila Patten, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, released a twenty-three-page report based on a fact-finding mission to Israel. Patten’s group interviewed dozens of people and reviewed more than five thousand photographs and upward of fifty hours of video footage. Still, the authors of the report acknowledged that they had faced a number of challenges, some of which were typical for any attempt to document sexual violence: survivors and eyewitnesses were reticent. But others were specific to the events of October 7th: most of the victims were dead; their bodies were collected by volunteers untrained in forensics, who prioritized a proper and speedy burial (the Jewish tradition calls for interring the dead within twenty-four hours) over the collection of evidence; and many of the bodies were burned. The report concluded, nonetheless, that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations. Across the various locations of the 7 October attacks, the mission team found that several fully naked or partially naked bodies from the waist down were recovered—mostly women—with hands tied and shot multiple times, often in the head. Although circumstantial, such a pattern of undressing and restraining of victims may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence.”

In April, Haaretz , a left-wing Israeli newspaper, which has been doing unparalleled reporting on the war, published an article that attempted to compile all available evidence of sexual violence that occurred on October 7th. The paper’s analysis contradicted some of the conclusions of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers report—namely, that the rapes occurred everywhere Hamas fighters were present and that the rapes were intended for an audience. Haaretz noted that there is little evidence of rapes occurring outside the Nova music festival. Attackers seemed to perpetrate sexual violence where they could not be seen, Haaretz found. It appears that none of the copious video recordings of the attacks, including from body cams worn by Hamas fighters, contains footage of rape. About a dozen survivors who were hiding from attackers, however, said that they saw sexual violence, and several more said that they had overheard but could not see it from their hiding places.

The Haaretz report threw doubt on the assertions of genital mutilation. Police, volunteers, and a small team of forensic specialists had examined hundreds of remains—and the forensic specialists paid particular attention to the bodies of people who were found undressed or half-undressed and may have therefore been subjected to sexual violence—and found no evidence of genital mutilation. Still, hundreds of victims were likely interred without a forensic examination. The Haaretz report also debunked two stories that had spread widely. Both involved dead bodies that those who first saw them thought had been subjected to sexual violence.

Long before any of the three reports came out, the Israeli government claimed that the sexual violence had been systematic. In a controversial report published in the Times last December, unnamed officials said that “everywhere Hamas terrorists struck—the rave, the military bases along the Gaza border and the kibbutzim—they brutalized women.” (Full disclosure: I am now a columnist for the Times Opinion section.) Elsewhere, officials asserted that Hamas fighters were not going rogue: they were, on the orders of their commanders, using rape as a weapon of war. This sweeping claim raised the bar for any researcher who tried to document the crimes, changing the question from “Did it happen?” to “Was it systematic?” As a result, although every subsequent report has been better researched and more comprehensive—more harrowing in the inescapable certainty of the violence—it has also been met with disappointment by those who were expecting evidence of systematic crimes.

In March, after the United Nations released its findings, the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, lashed out, criticizing the agency for what he contended was an attempt to silence claims of sexual violence. Orit Sulitzeanu, the C.E.O. of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers, told me that she was unhappy that the U.N.’s report said that its mission could not confirm that all sexual violence was committed by Hamas fighters rather than other men who poured in once the border was breached. “I understood it was almost impossible for her to get information,” Sulitzeanu said. But, she added, “if the Holocaust was today, they would ask for proof—and there was no way to prove what happened.” A hand-painted “#MeToo unless you are Jew” placard stood in the corner of her office in Tel Aviv.

Israeli authorities have strategic reasons for claiming that the sexual violence was systematic. They plan to prosecute Hamas fighters and commanders in the Israeli court system. They also hope to see Hamas leaders tried in the International Criminal Court. In May, the I.C.C. prosecutor, Karim A. A. Khan, requested arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders—Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh—alleging that they are responsible for a number of crimes against humanity, including “rape and other acts of sexual violence.” Khan also filed arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, both of whom he accuses of a number of war crimes, including inflicting starvation on civilians in Gaza. But Khan has not accused the Israelis of rape, perhaps creating even more motivation for them to amplify the accusations against Hamas: however inhumane the Israeli ways of waging war are, the message is, Hamas’s are even worse. This campaign of demonization has called forth an equal and opposite campaign of denialism: Palestinian activists and pro-Palestinian media, including several U.S.-based outlets, have endeavored to debunk claims that sexual violence occurred on October 7th.

Sexual violence is a category of crime that stands apart in peace and in war. It is shocking—–more shocking than killing, which is, after all, normal and often legal in war. At the same time, it is expected: it surprises no one that men high on adrenaline, men who are armed, men who are all but guaranteed impunity, will rape defenseless people. In a 1993 piece for The New York Review of Books on the weaponization of sexual violence during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Jeri Laber, one of the founders of Helsinki Watch, which is now known as Human Rights Watch, wrote , “When Bosnia proclaimed its independence in 1992, it was open, vulnerable, and unarmed, susceptible to attack from its warring and heavily armed neighbors.” In the Bosnian context, too, rape appeared to be part of a genocidal project: Serbian men allegedly set out to make Bosnian women have their babies, who would not, in their eyes, be Bosnian.

The stories of sexual violence on October 7th are unique to Israel. But the difficulties of documenting such crimes exist in every war. Some researchers have argued—or have viscerally understood—that any body found disrobed, or naked from the waist down, was the body of a victim of some sort of sexual violence. But sometimes such conclusions can’t be substantiated. Sulitzeanu told me of one such case: the bodies of a young woman and her mother were found in separate rooms of their house, and the daughter’s trousers were lowered. A volunteer for ZAKA, a religious organization that collects bodies and prepares them for funeral, reported the scene as one where a rape had clearly occurred. It later emerged that members of the Israel Defense Forces had suspected that the younger woman’s body was mined and had moved it to a separate room for examination.

ZAKA volunteers have become unwitting characters in the stories of sexual violence of October 7th. They were perhaps the first to report what they saw as evidence of sexual violence, but, in the months since, they have been blamed for misinterpreting, misreporting, and even unintentionally tampering with evidence. In some cases, it appears, they covered up bodies or dressed them before taking photographs. At times, they were so shocked by what they saw that their interpretations gave rise to horrific rumors. One volunteer saw the body of a woman that appeared to have been eviscerated, and assumed that the victim had been pregnant and attackers had cut out the fetus. Later, a video shot in a different country in a different era spread widely. (I was sent a link before taking a reporting trip to Israel in the spring.) It appeared to show a pregnant woman’s stomach being opened up. ZAKA’s leaders later disavowed both the video and the original report. But, by then, the false story had been repeated by government officials and by human-rights activists such as Cochav Elkayam-Levy, a law professor at Hebrew University and a women’s-rights advocate who, this year, received the Israel Prize—the country’s highest civilian honor—for her role in spreading awareness about the sexual violence of October 7th. (Elkayam-Levy said that as soon as she learned that ZAKA refuted the video, she did as well.)

Back in 1993, Jeri Laber wrote that her fact-finding mission to Bosnia was complicated by the presence “of local and international women’s and human rights groups, as well as journalists and television crews—all looking for rape victims to interview.” Most victims didn’t want to talk; the ones who did were in extreme demand. On a later mission to Kosovo, Laber was put in a room with a young woman who, her friends and family said, had something to tell the human-rights researcher. Except the woman didn’t tell Laber anything. She talked about her latest manicure and then clammed up. Laber tried all the interviewing techniques she knew, to no avail. “I had a lot of experience interviewing victims of torture,” she told me, but she was often stumped interviewing victims of sexual violence. “There is so much baggage, so many reasons why someone wouldn’t tell the story of sexual violence straight out, or even remember it straight out.” In comparison, accounts of torture of a nonsexual nature were relatively easy to collect.

For every five or ten or twenty people who were unwilling or unable to tell their story, there was probably one victim of sexual violence who would talk. This person might become a celebrity of sorts; journalists would get in line for interviews. Their story, told again and again, would change over time, accruing more dramatic detail. Laber told me that she developed a gut instinct for embellishments. In Bosnia, for example, she kept hearing one story over and over: a male prisoner had been forced to bite off another male prisoner’s testicles. As it turned out, no one had actually witnessed, much less participated in, such an episode; everyone, however, seemed to have heard about it. Similarly, some of the most horrific stories of October 7th have not been corroborated: the eviscerated pregnant woman; the woman who supposedly had a number of nails driven into her vagina; the claims that eyewitnesses saw Hamas fighters cut off women’s breasts while raping them. I asked Laber why, in her opinion, people in war often seem prone to exaggerations, especially when it comes to sexual violence. She wasn’t sure; perhaps repeating their stories to reporters had compelled victims to supplement them with more detail. Perhaps the explanation is even simpler: rape is common in war and in peace; to convey the trauma of sexual violence, victims and witnesses may feel the need to embellish.

The war in Bosnia was possibly the first instance in which stories of sexual violence used as a weapon of war were told, preserved, and ultimately used to prosecute some of the perpetrators. The process began with some striking claims made to and by foreign reporters, particularly Roy Gutman, who was then writing for Newsday . Gutman reported on the systematic, arguably genocidal use of sexual violence. Soon Bosnian leaders were wielding statistics about women they claimed had been raped. Shortly after that, adversaries and critics cast doubt on these figures. Did the victims number in the tens of thousands or merely in the thousands? Laber decided that this didn’t matter—and that, even if it mattered, it was unknowable—and left the issue of numbers out of her report. What mattered was that the violence had happened.

Israel is a small country. Among Israeli Jews, it’s not uncommon to know someone who knows someone who was the victim of sexual violence on October 7th—a doctor who treated victims or tended to bodies, a therapist who has worked with eyewitnesses, a family member of someone who was raped or witnessed a rape. Publicly, some of these same family members may deny that the rape occurred. They don’t want their loved one to be remembered as the victim of a heinous crime. Also, as Sulitzeanu told me, for many people “in Israeli culture, to be raped by an Arab means you are contaminated.” But privately, within the interlocking circles of family and community, everyone knows.

This sense of shared knowledge may be why Israeli Jews are particularly sensitive to any statement that seems to question the fact that sexual violence occurred. When I was in Israel this spring, several left-wing activists and academics talked to me about recent comments made by the philosopher Judith Butler , who, during a talk in Paris, had said that documentation of sexual violence should be made public, and that “if there is documentation, then we deplore that, we absolutely deplore that, there is no question.” To them, it sounded like Butler was casting doubt on something they knew for certain. “It plays into the Israeli perception that the whole world is against us,” Michael Sfard, a human-rights attorney who defends Palestinians and Jewish dissidents, told me. “I hear Judith Butler and I think about what it will do to the Israeli left.” When it comes to the fact that there was extensive sexual violence on October 7th, Israel’s left seems aligned with the right, against everyone else.

If rape, in the context of war, is interpreted as a humiliation of a nation rather than an attack on an individual’s body, then those who are seen as doubting claims of rape are easy to cast as enemies of the people. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, in her 2009 book, “Militarization and Violence Against Women in Conflict Zones in the Middle East: A Palestinian Case-Study,” called this the “mystic unity of women and the country identified through her body.” In this particular passage, Shalhoub-Kevorkian was discussing the example of the former Yugoslavia. “The consequence of equating the raped woman with the ‘dishonoured’ country,” she wrote, “is that all members of the ‘enemy’ army are viewed as rapists—not just those who started the war, the politicians, the generals, and the exponents of systematic rape in aid of ‘ethnic cleansing.’ ” Conversely, all members of the dishonored nation are cast as victims. And, just as in an attack of one human by another, where only one can be the rapist while the other is raped, so, too, can a nation be either the raped or the rapist. To counter Bosnian claims in the nineteen-nineties, Serbs presented the international media with their own victims: Serbian women who had been raped by Bosnian or Croatian soldiers. In the current conflict, both sides maintain that their own fighters do not rape. In Israel, this is one of the few beliefs that seem to be firmly held across the political spectrum.

Sulitzeanu, the head of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers, used to run the public-relations office of Hebrew University. While serving in this capacity a decade ago, she helped publicize a student’s thesis that claimed that rapes of Palestinian women by I.D.F. soldiers are rare because of racism—because the soldiers would consider it somehow beneath them to rape an Arab woman. The argument appears to run counter to the world’s experience of war and rape, but the idea got traction. Sulitzeanu said that she was still overwhelmed by the “deep impact the thesis had on Israeli culture.”

The belief that Israeli soldiers do not engage in sexual violence has persisted even as I.D.F. soldiers have filmed themselves playing with women’s lingerie found in homes in Gaza, and even as evidence of sexual torture of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli facilities has mounted. Josh Paul , a State Department official who resigned last year in protest over U.S. military aid to Israel’s campaign in Gaza, has said that his office had verified allegations that a thirteen-year-old Palestinian boy was raped in an Israeli prison. A recent Times report on the Israeli military base where Palestinian detainees are held included testimony of what appears to be repeated sexual torture.

Still, even well-informed, lefty Israeli Jews hold to the idea that Israeli soldiers do not perpetuate a policy of sexual violence. “They are our children,” one person explained to me. “They are us.” This was a journalist who had worked on reports of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas. Like most middle-aged Israeli Jews, she had children who were either in the I.D.F. or about to be drafted. That they may be implicated in sexual violence was unthinkable. “It’s an impossible situation,” a Jewish-Israeli opponent of the occupation told me. People from both sides of the conflict have been writing to her on social media. “I got rape testimony in my D.M.s, from a follower who was at the Nova party,” she said. “At the same time, Palestinian friends are D.M.’ing me that there were no rapes.”

It took several years for the claims of sexual violence in Bosnia to reach the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (to which the International Criminal Court, which may take up the issue of sexual violence on October 7th, is a successor). Survivors and witnesses, including many who had been reluctant to talk in the immediate aftermath of the crimes, testified to what they had experienced or seen: systematic rape, public rape, gang rape, and camps established for the purpose of raping women. Several dozen people were convicted. The former leader of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, died in custody in The Hague in 2006, before a verdict was issued in his case. Behind the scenes, prosecutors had worried that there may not have been sufficient evidence to connect him to some of the worst atrocities committed by his forces, including sexual violence. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

The hottest restaurant in France is an all-you-can-eat buffet .

How to die in good health .

Was Machiavelli misunderstood ?

A heat shield for the most important ice on Earth .

A major Black novelist made a remarkable début. Why did he disappear ?

Andy Warhol obsessively documented his life, but he also lied constantly, almost recreationally .

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Large language models don’t behave like people, even though we may expect them to

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

One thing that makes large language models (LLMs) so powerful is the diversity of tasks to which they can be applied. The same machine-learning model that can help a graduate student draft an email could also aid a clinician in diagnosing cancer.

However, the wide applicability of these models also makes them challenging to evaluate in a systematic way. It would be impossible to create a benchmark dataset to test a model on every type of question it can be asked.

In a new paper , MIT researchers took a different approach. They argue that, because humans decide when to deploy large language models, evaluating a model requires an understanding of how people form beliefs about its capabilities.

For example, the graduate student must decide whether the model could be helpful in drafting a particular email, and the clinician must determine which cases would be best to consult the model on.

Building off this idea, the researchers created a framework to evaluate an LLM based on its alignment with a human’s beliefs about how it will perform on a certain task.

They introduce a human generalization function — a model of how people update their beliefs about an LLM’s capabilities after interacting with it. Then, they evaluate how aligned LLMs are with this human generalization function.

Their results indicate that when models are misaligned with the human generalization function, a user could be overconfident or underconfident about where to deploy it, which might cause the model to fail unexpectedly. Furthermore, due to this misalignment, more capable models tend to perform worse than smaller models in high-stakes situations.

“These tools are exciting because they are general-purpose, but because they are general-purpose, they will be collaborating with people, so we have to take the human in the loop into account,” says study co-author Ashesh Rambachan, assistant professor of economics and a principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).

Rambachan is joined on the paper by lead author Keyon Vafa, a postdoc at Harvard University; and Sendhil Mullainathan, an MIT professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and of Economics, and a member of LIDS. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning.

Human generalization

As we interact with other people, we form beliefs about what we think they do and do not know. For instance, if your friend is finicky about correcting people’s grammar, you might generalize and think they would also excel at sentence construction, even though you’ve never asked them questions about sentence construction.

“Language models often seem so human. We wanted to illustrate that this force of human generalization is also present in how people form beliefs about language models,” Rambachan says.

As a starting point, the researchers formally defined the human generalization function, which involves asking questions, observing how a person or LLM responds, and then making inferences about how that person or model would respond to related questions.

If someone sees that an LLM can correctly answer questions about matrix inversion, they might also assume it can ace questions about simple arithmetic. A model that is misaligned with this function — one that doesn’t perform well on questions a human expects it to answer correctly — could fail when deployed.

With that formal definition in hand, the researchers designed a survey to measure how people generalize when they interact with LLMs and other people.

They showed survey participants questions that a person or LLM got right or wrong and then asked if they thought that person or LLM would answer a related question correctly. Through the survey, they generated a dataset of nearly 19,000 examples of how humans generalize about LLM performance across 79 diverse tasks.

Measuring misalignment

They found that participants did quite well when asked whether a human who got one question right would answer a related question right, but they were much worse at generalizing about the performance of LLMs.

“Human generalization gets applied to language models, but that breaks down because these language models don’t actually show patterns of expertise like people would,” Rambachan says.

People were also more likely to update their beliefs about an LLM when it answered questions incorrectly than when it got questions right. They also tended to believe that LLM performance on simple questions would have little bearing on its performance on more complex questions.

In situations where people put more weight on incorrect responses, simpler models outperformed very large models like GPT-4.

“Language models that get better can almost trick people into thinking they will perform well on related questions when, in actuality, they don’t,” he says.

One possible explanation for why humans are worse at generalizing for LLMs could come from their novelty — people have far less experience interacting with LLMs than with other people.

“Moving forward, it is possible that we may get better just by virtue of interacting with language models more,” he says.

To this end, the researchers want to conduct additional studies of how people’s beliefs about LLMs evolve over time as they interact with a model. They also want to explore how human generalization could be incorporated into the development of LLMs.

“When we are training these algorithms in the first place, or trying to update them with human feedback, we need to account for the human generalization function in how we think about measuring performance,” he says.

In the meanwhile, the researchers hope their dataset could be used a benchmark to compare how LLMs perform related to the human generalization function, which could help improve the performance of models deployed in real-world situations.

“To me, the contribution of the paper is twofold. The first is practical: The paper uncovers a critical issue with deploying LLMs for general consumer use. If people don’t have the right understanding of when LLMs will be accurate and when they will fail, then they will be more likely to see mistakes and perhaps be discouraged from further use. This highlights the issue of aligning the models with people's understanding of generalization,” says Alex Imas, professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, who was not involved with this work. “The second contribution is more fundamental: The lack of generalization to expected problems and domains helps in getting a better picture of what the models are doing when they get a problem ‘correct.’ It provides a test of whether LLMs ‘understand’ the problem they are solving.”

This research was funded, in part, by the Harvard Data Science Initiative and the Center for Applied AI at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Ashesh Rambachan
• Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems
• Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• Computer science and technology
• Artificial intelligence
• Human-computer interaction
• Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS)
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

Reasoning skills of large language models are often overestimated

Technique improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models

Natural language boosts LLM performance in coding, planning, and robotics

Multi-AI collaboration helps reasoning and factual accuracy in large language models

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

A bright and airy hub for climate at MIT

Read full story →

School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences welcomes nine new faculty

From large labs to small teams, mentorship thrives

Physicists report new insights into exotic particles key to magnetism

The study and practice of being human

Testing spooky action at a distance

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

How Kamala Harris fares against Trump in the 2024 polls

With President Joe Biden exiting the 2024 presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris now becomes the overwhelming front-runner to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Harris’ biggest challenge lies further ahead, though: She   has been polling   the same as Biden — or just slightly better — against Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to multiple surveys taken before Biden withdrew from the 2024 contest.

And Biden was running behind Trump in many national and battleground-state polls — which precipitated the president’s withdrawal.

In  NBC News’ latest national poll , conducted more than a week after Biden’s dismal debate performance but before the assassination attempt on Trump, both the president and Harris trailed Trump by 2-point margins among registered voters, though the actual percentages for each candidate were slightly different. Trump led Biden 45%-43%, while he took 47% to Harris’ 45% in their matchup. Both ballot tests fell within the poll’s margin of error.

Similarly, a post-debate  national Fox News poll  found Trump ahead by 1 point against both Biden (Trump 49%, Biden 48%) and Harris (Trump 49%, Harris 48%) among registered voters.

But other polls have shown Harris slightly outperforming Biden by 1 or 2 points — though, critically, still trailing Trump at this point in some key matchups.

A  national CBS News/YouGov poll  of likely voters conducted after the assassination attempt found Trump leading Biden by 5 points among likely voters, 52% to 47%, while it showed Harris trailing by 3 points, 51% to 48%.

And in  New York Times/Siena College battleground polls  of Pennsylvania and Virginia, Harris performed 2 points better than Biden did among likely voters in these two states.

Importantly, all of these results are within each poll’s margin of error — and so is the difference between Biden’s and Harris’ numbers. Also important: It’s possible these numbers could change after the news of Biden’s exit from the 2024 race. But for the moment, Biden’s numbers and Harris’ numbers look quite similar.

Where Harris runs stronger — and weaker — than Biden

While the recent NBC News poll found Biden and Harris running 2 points behind Trump nationally, the survey found some  important differences among demographic groups .

For one thing, Harris slightly outperformed Biden among Black voters, leading Trump among this demographic by 64 points (78% to 14%). That compares with Biden’s 57-point lead among Black voters (69%-12%).

 On the other hand, the NBC News poll showed Trump doing slightly better among white voters when matched up with Harris instead of Biden, leading her by 16 points among these voters, compared with his 14-point advantage here against Biden.

Among other demographics — by age, by gender, among Latino voters — there was almost no difference between Biden or Harris.

Indeed, the biggest differences between Biden and Harris in the poll went well beyond demographics.

Among the roughly one-quarter of Republican registered voters in the poll who said they were unsatisfied with Trump as the GOP’s nominee, Trump ran ahead of Biden by 46 points, 63%-17%. But when Trump’s opponent was Harris, more of these dissatisfied GOP voters flocked to Trump. The Republican’s lead with that group grew to 57 points, 73%-16%.

Meanwhile, the voters who preferred a third-party candidate in the poll’s multicandidate ballot test seemed more open to Harris coming in as a fresh face in the 2024 race.

Trump and Biden were virtually tied with these third-party-interested   voters in a head-to-head matchup. Trump took   32% and   Biden took   31%, with a plurality declining to make a two-way choice, saying they were undecided, would pick another candidate, or something else.

But when Harris was the choice against Trump, more of those respondents made a pick in the two-way ballot test. The vice president went ahead of Trump among these “other” voters, 46% to 39%, suggesting a higher upside with voters currently   considering a third-party candidate.

Biden, Harris and Trump have almost equal positive-negative scores

The NBC News poll also  showed  Biden, Harris and Trump with almost equal positive-negative scores with the electorate.

• Trump: 38% positive, 53% negative (-15 net rating)
• Biden: 36% positive, 53% negative (-17 net rating)
• Harris: 32% positive, 50% negative (-18 net rating)

That said, while Harris had a slightly lower positive score in the poll, 15% of voters said they’re “neutral” about her, compared with just 11% who are neutral on Biden.

That suggests an opportunity for Harris to grow — or fall — with this sliver of voters in the middle.

Mark Murray is a senior political editor at NBC News.