To what extent do the media in Britain determine political attitudes and opinions Essay Example

themselves to cater to particular markets, reflecting rather than creating audience views. As Budge states "it is difficult to know whether the chicken or the egg comes first" (Budge et al 2004 pp).

38). Various theories have been developed to analyze the effect of media on politics. One such theory is the "reinforcement theory," created by Joseph Klapper in the 1960s, which suggests that media does not shape opinions regarding politics. Instead, it reinforces the existing beliefs and opinions of individuals that are determined by social influences like family and social class. Audiences tend to ignore messages that contradict their beliefs. However, Klapper argued that introducing a new subject through media has a greater impact in the short term until the issue is influenced by social factors. Another theory, "Agenda setting theory," was introduced by McCombs and Shaw in 1972 during their study of the role of media in the US presidential campaign of 1968.

According to the theory, although the media doesn't control our thoughts, it has a significant impact on what we think about. As cited in McCombs and Shaw (1972 pp.77), Cohen (1963) suggests that the media plays a role in shaping the public agenda. The amount of attention given by the media to a topic determines its perceived importance among the public. Therefore, acting as a "gatekeeper," the media controls access to news. When political situations arise, media outlets must select crucial issues based on public interest, which greatly affects people's perception of politics (Budge 2001).During the 1997 General Election Campaign, the media heavily focused on the sleaze associated with the Conservative government. This resulted in numerous Ministers being shamed and publicly

scrutinized, ultimately leading to decreased public confidence in the party. It is possible that this impacted the election outcome, highlighting the media's ability to influence political opinion by increasing awareness of important political issues. Scholars claim that the "Framing Theory," first introduced by Erving Goffman in 1975, explains how media outlets present politics, ultimately influencing public perception. By highlighting a party or candidate's strengths or weaknesses, the media can help or hinder their campaigns through news reports.The media possesses the ability to affect public opinions and viewpoints on political events. For instance, during the British anti-war protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, the media has a choice to portray them as either a violent, anti-US minority group or a peaceful one that opposes invading one of the world's poorest countries because not all Afghanis are terrorists. This demonstrates how the media can shape views and opinions. Furthermore, research conducted by Glasgow University Media Group (1976) revealed that when negative news like war, scandals, and violence is emphasized by the media it could result in "videomalaise". Such negativity could prompt skepticism towards politicians and political systems ultimately leading to apathy towards politics in general (Budge et al 2001). In light of these factors, one could argue that influencing attitudes through framing public understanding of current political situations is an important role played by the media.

Budge et al (2001) propose the "Direct effects theory" as the latest school of thought which asserts that the mass media has a direct impact on political attitudes and voting behavior. This challenges the "Reinforcement Theory," suggesting that readers may not be aligned with their newspapers' political stance, and media influence

can substantially affect voting behavior despite other factors. Consequently, if this is accurate, reinforcement theorists may underestimate the power of media. Since World War II, there has been significant evolution in Britain's relationship between media and politics.

The way politicians communicate with the public has changed drastically since 1945. Previously, they relied on public meetings and newspapers as there was no television or opinion polls available at the time. However, in recent years, new media channels have emerged and become widespread, transforming politics in both beneficial and challenging ways for politicians. Nowadays, everything a politician does or says is subject to intense scrutiny from society and requires careful consideration of their media image and campaign strategies. This has led to the rise of influential political figures such as "spin doctors" like Peter Mandelson who provide media advice for parties. Political parties now spend millions on advertising during election campaigns to shape news agendas by leveraging policy initiatives and budgetary decisions which gives them an edge over their competition.

It is challenging to determine the impact of different types of media on different groups of people, as each medium functions differently. In the UK, it is important to differentiate between impartial electronic media and politically biased newspapers. Users of various media differ in characteristics such as education level, read time, trust in news sources, and political knowledge. For example, broadsheet readers tend to be better educated and trust their newspaper more than TV news as a source of information. Conversely, tabloid readers spend less time with their newspaper and rely more on TV for news (Budge 2001). In terms of electronic media in the UK, BBC and ITV

are viewed as being neutral by the majority of the public, with only a small percentage believing there is bias towards the Conservative or Labour parties (Budge et al.).

Television has had a greater impact on politics as it is considered a more trustworthy source. As a result, politicians must strategize how they want to present themselves since appearance may be prioritized over substance (Kavanagh 1996). A brief appearance on prime-time television can reach a larger audience than a press release. However, if the appearance is unsuccessful, the damage is greater (Jones et al. 2001).

One of the defining qualities of British politics is the existence of a highly partisan press, with print media being more biased than television. This may be linked to class behaviors as the highly educated middle and upper classes tend to read more papers, leading to a higher number of conservative-supporting publications and prompting inquiry into how this affects non-conservatives and whether it has a stronger impact on conservatives or labor supporters. Budge (2001) cites three possible explanations for media bias claims: Firstly, the press is primarily controlled by multimillionaires and multinational companies who often have strong economic and political beliefs, such as News Corporation which owns newspapers like The Sun and News of the World as well as satellite and cable channels like SKY. Secondly, leaders of these media companies often promote particular political views, such as Rupert Murdoch - CEO of News Corporation - who had a close relationship with Mrs. Thatcher (BBC 14 December 2004). Thirdly, newspapers rely on advertising revenue, so they must cater to the interests of their investors.

The impact of press support for

the Conservative Party has aroused concerns about its potential influence on voting behavior. The Sun newspaper famously declared "It's the Sun wot won it" after throwing its weight behind the Conservatives in the 1992 election, publishing headlines like "If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" (Kavanagh 1996). Some, particularly The Sun, believe that this boosted the Tories' chances and contributed to their victory, a view accepted by Tony Blair who made a concerted effort to secure The Sun's endorsement in the 1997 election. The impact of British newspapers on voting behavior may be most apparent when they switch allegiance, as occurred in 1997 when The Sun and News of The World switched their support to Blair and New Labour, indicating a direct link between the media and politics (BBC 14 December 2004).

According to Dearlove and Saunders (2000 pp. 94), there is insufficient proof to indicate that these factors had a significant impact on the final outcome...

According to Curtice (1999), despite sections of the Murdoch-owned press endorsing Labour, most voters had already made their decision prior to the campaign and support for Labour actually decreased slightly in the polls. This suggests limited influence by the media and reinforces the Reinforcement theory. The emergence of new media, which saw 40% of the British population accessing news online in 2006 (UK Statistics Authority), has introduced a new method for political interaction. It allows for greater public engagement and discussion, which was previously limited in traditional media. This has also provided politicians with a more personal approach to connect with the public, such as David Cameron's blogging, which bypasses filters

of journalists (Fisher, Denver and Benyon 2003).

New media has made political news available globally, with faster spread and higher demands on politicians. The media serves as guardians of the public's right to know, providing the majority of our information and understanding about the modern world. However, media is only one influence on political opinion and attitudes. The limited effect of media on political behavior can be attributed to people's tendency to read what reinforces their party affiliations, as suggested by the reinforcement theory.

The media's coverage and presentation of topics in the public sphere can impact people's perceptions. Additionally, media owners and politicians hold indirect influence over what is published. Therefore, media is a significant factor in shaping political attitudes and behaviors.