For the past few weeks, I have reported and commented on current political trends influencing the upcoming presidential elections. As a student majoring in political science, the politics behind campaigns are both interesting and important to me. Yet, as an American citizen, I am also aware that I am among a minority –in my generation especially– that pays attention to and reads about the future of government. That is why this week I have chosen to once again explore the blogosphere in an attempt to understand what (if anything) can be attributed to the seemingly growing political apathy of today. The first blog I found, titled “What a Shock – Liberal Bias in the Media,” is written by Captain’s Quarters’ Edward Morrissey. His blog discusses a joint study, published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, which reports that the majority of presidential campaign coverage favors the Democratic Party (see chart to the right for more analysis). The second, written by Joel S. Hirschhorn on Populist America, offers an analysis of the media, its relationship with today’s U.S. government, and its negative impact on democracy. While each blog addresses the image of the American political system as a growing problem for the electorate (exemplified in the controversial propaganda shown below), their differing analyses have further persuaded me that a number of reasons exist as to why democracy has taken a back seat in the minds of so many. Like before, I offer my thoughts on their posts below, as well as directly on the authors’ respective blogs. Yet, in my quest for answers, I am instead more perplexed: the future of American democracy is still a daunting mystery.“What A Shock -- Liberal Bias In The Media”
Comment:
Your blog, as well as the comments it has inspired below, provides an interesting analysis of the biased nature of today’s media coverage. I agree the report’s claim that the media’s inability to represent the
Republican and Democratic parties equally “seems very strange.” The interesting point, in which you address, is that “of the two primary races, the GOP’s has the most interesting story lines;” while Hillary Clinton has established herself a clear front-runner for the Democratic Party, there is much mystery surrounding the GOP race. It seems unlikely that with so many questions left unanswered for the GOP, the media would focus more on the Democratic candidates. Further, the report’s statement that when Republican’s are portrayed, they are discussed more negatively than not, seems proof the media agrees that the GOP has more interesting “hooks” to offer (Giuliani’s divorces and Thompson’s questionable donors are just two examples). Yet, I would argue that the Democrats have an equal amount of “hooks” to be analyzed as well. Hillary Clinton’s marital scandal, as well as Obama’s inability to maintain a significant lead in terms of money and public opinion, have both been overanalyzed and critiqued on a daily basis. The fact that the media is biased is nothing new; the report discusses what many, including several bloggers who have written before me, already believe. Instead of highlighting the obvious, the media –and those who choose to critique it– should seek to improve it. Rather than focusing on personal history, or even a candidate’s ability to raise finances, the media should look at what each candidate has to offer in terms of political leadership. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, illustrates this need when he questions whether the public is interested in the media’s focus on tactics and “insider stories that don't affect readers, viewers and listeners.” Record low voter turnout illustrates that many are discouraged from participating in politics and the media’s manipulation of campaign news only further persuades this apathetic mindset. The Harvard report acts as another media production in solidifying an already known belief.“Voting As Political Narcotic”
Comment:
Thank you for commenting on a relevant problem facing democracy; your belief that the American political system is no longer democratic, but instead “rotten to the core,” illustrates that the election process is in desperate need of reform. I am particularly interested, however, in your thoughts on the voting process. Your belief that “most voters enable [America’s political system] without benefiting from it” offers significant truth, but perhaps a different solution is needed than the “boycott of voting” in which you propose. While there are a number of factors that effect voter turnout, many of which you discuss (i.e. the dishonesty of those in power and the inability of the people to influence change), I only partially agree that voting sustains a “fake democracy more than any other citizen action.” Rather, I think the real problem is the method in which voting is approached by society. Voters are either completely uninformed about their candidates’ real values or are unconsciously influenced by the media. Opinions of candidates are often based on “superficial differences” rather than relevant points of disparity. Improvement in campaign coverage may lead to more meaningful voting behavior; if the American people demand accurate political news by drawing attention to the networks that deny this, change is possible. Second, many voters that do pay attention to campaigns are convinced their vote has no sway in creating reform. Instead of participating in elections, they choose to steer clear of politics altogether, feeling disgusted or (more dangerously) apathetic towards government. However, the lack of faith in the American political system and the power of the vote identify a need for change greater than a call for a mass of “nonvoters;” today’s consistently low voter turnout proves that inaction as a means of defiance is not challenging the current form of government. Instead, voters should utilize the participatory rights guaranteed under the law and take responsibility in seeking political truth. By actively challenging the status quo and highlighting the need for change, voters can encourage reform literally by voting. Starting from within the smaller community and working outward, pushing the public to be more active in demanding election reform will wake up those currently in power and teach the government (as well as the people!) that voting is not a political narcotic.
