M. Krauze
Omsk
The mass media and the communication process have
become very significant elements in the politics of U.S. foreign policy. Two factors
account for this. First, as society and the global environment have grown in complexity
and in importance in affecting lives of Americans, people have developed a greater need
for information about national and international affairs. Second, throughout the twentieth
century a communications revolution has occurred which makes it possible for the mass
media to rapidly communicate information anywhere on the planet.
The net result is that much of the information, knowledge and images,
that individuals have of the world come from the mass media. Therefore, the news media
occupy an important role in American politics and affects the "political
agenda". Moreover, news media coverage often creates the "climate of
opinion". In other words, the mass media not only determine, what issues Americans
consider important, but also how they think about those issues. Finally, because of the
mass media’s dominant role in the communications process, government officials,
national leaders, challenging groups and social movements compete for media attention and
access in order to get their issues on the agenda and promote a favorable climate of
opinion for their interests.
The American public, both the mass and elite publics, have become
dependent on the news media for information and understanding of national and
international affairs. Clearly, a variety of different sources of information is
accessible. However, most Americans get their information from the mainstream media: the
major newspapers, radio stations, and television stations are available in their
communities.
In many ways, overall news media coverage today is better than ever
before. The mass media has become more informative regarding national and international
affairs. The quality of journalism has improved and become more professional. Quality of
newspapers, such as New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, are available in urban
areas throughout the country. In sum, people who rely on mainstream media can gain
considerable information about national and international affairs if they are interested,
especially, if they already possess a good base of information.
But at the same time, the mainstream media do not provide a
comprehensive and complete picture of reality. The news media are highly selective with
the respect to which events are reported and how they are presented. Television news
coverage is usually brief and very simplistic and the public typically shows little
interest in becoming truly informed.
Most of the American media focus on the local and national news, with
little attention given to international news. Most studies examining media coverage found
that the percentage of news stories devoted to international affairs by major mainstream
media organizations range from 10 to 40 percent, representing anywhere from 5 to 15
international news stories daily.
According to the research of CBS and NBC, the following international
topics tend to receive the most attention:
Some of the scientists consider that the American
press "pays far greater attention to the countries which are economically affluent,
politically powerful and culturally similar to the United States". News coverage of
events abroad by the U.S. media, in other words, tends to be American- and Western-centric
(as opposed to being globally oriented), focuses on governmental officials (as opposed to
nongovernmental groups), highlights political and national security issues (as opposed to
economic and environmental issues), and emphasizes "negative" events such as
conflict (as opposed to "positive" stories emphasizing cooperation). Therefore,
the news media not only provide selective coverage, but they emphasize a particular
picture of reality.
Another general explanation that accounts for the selectivity and
content of news media coverage is the impact of the political environment on the
communication process. News coverage by the national media is heavily affected by the
political environment in two fundamental ways. First, journalistic perceptions of the
world are shaped by the dominant political ideology and culture of the American society.
Second, the media is perceived as so important in affecting American politics that
individual groups in and out of the government actively attempt to influence and
manipulate news media coverage. So, mass media in the USA tends to draw a homogenized and
centrist picture of national and international news consistent with mainstream American
political ideology and culture. No matter how hard American journalists try to be
objective, they are influenced by the values of democracy and capitalism. The political
consequences, as it is mentioned in the researches, are that "the media usually
support the political system and rarely question its fundamental tenets. They limit their
criticism to what they perceive as perversions of fundamental social and political
values".
The cultural and ideological bases of American journalism are
particularly noticeable during periods of crisis. At such times American journalists
become extremely patriotic and nationalistic. They are promoting president’s views
and policies and, thus, contribute to the phenomena of "rallying around the
flag". This was clearly evident, for example, in early coverage of the Iraqi invasion
of Kuwait and the U.S. government’s response under President Bush, and it occurred
following the start of the Persian Gulf War.
Within the centrist ideological orientation, news media coverage
sometimes may be more liberal and at other times may be more conservative - it depends on
the issue, the times, and the political environment. The content of national media
coverage tends to reflect the beliefs of the elite, that prevails in American politics at
a certain time. The communication of the news reflecting such beliefs affect the politics
of U.S. foreign policy.
The interplay of leaders and the public is of pivotal importance
because a successful foreign policy must combine a response to the challenges and
opportunities of the international system with public support. Achieving public support is
not always easily realized, and many questions round how the public voice should be
injected in making foreign policy decisions. Should it come through the active
participation of the public in making foreign policy? If so, how should the public voice
be expressed? Or should the public be largely passive, allowing policy makers a great deal
of freedom of action in formulating foreign policy initiatives? Are there any tools the
public could use to approve or disapprove of this or that foreign policy?
It is only recently that television has emerged from the shadows of the
print media to become a major force in the foreign policy process. Today CNN broadcasts in
over 120 countries. One of the most hotly debated aspects of television’s coverage of
foreign policy is the role it plays in shaping public opinion. Is it a window that policy
makers can use to judge the temper of public opinion on a policy issue, an instrument that
the politically active can use to pressure policy makers? To some extent, yes. So, to cope
with the ability of media to place administration foreign policy decisions under a
telescope, it has become necessary for presidents to develop a television policy to
accompany their foreign policy.
Many in the media, responding to administration complaints that they
are not fairly portraying American foreign policy, make two points. First, very often
administrations have developed television policies and not foreign policies. They are only
showing the American public what is happening. If that does not correspond to declaratory
statements of American foreign policy, it’s not the media’s fault. Second, the
media’s foreign policy influence is directly tied to the absence of a clear policy
and the absence of the contextual information to evaluate what they are seeing or reading
about. The influence of the media extends beyond that of serving as a catalyst and
accelerator of the decision-making process in Washington. It also affects the diplomatic
dialogue between states.
American media does not care equally about all areas of types of
international relations problems. Coverage decisions are based on three factors:
"sizzle", regional self-interest, and cost. Sizzle refers to a story’s
ability to stir emotions. It directs the media’s attention to short-run, highly
visual events and away from long-term stories. Civil war, demonstrations, and earthquakes
are more likely to hold the audience’s attention than the stories about grain
production or rural development projects.
Regional self-interest deals with the perceived American stale in an
issue. Typically, this is seen as involving areas where the United States has historically
had close economic or cultural ties (Latin America, Israel, Western Europe) or where
American troops are stationed. It is usually defined by the White House.
Cost considerations have always played a prominent role in decision
about international news coverage. One of the first challenges facing Ted Turner in
setting up CNN was making it cost-effective. To hold down costs, CNN developed exchange
agreements with other states that would be conducted by satellites.
In the area of foreign policy, the national media rely overwhelmingly
on prominent government and ex-government officials as sources of information. The news
media tend to practice source journalism as opposed to "investigative
journalism". Very few newspaper stories are the result of reporters digging through
files, the majority of them are based on official sources - on information provided by
members of Congress and presidential aides.
Coming back to the problem of competing for the access to the mass
media, it is essential to point out that the most successful in influencing the coverage
of the news is, in general, the government and, in particular, the president. With the
president considered the center of foreign policy activity, the national media have become
heavily dependent on the government and especially the executive branch.
The president has a unique advantage in gaining the access to the news
media because whatever and whenever the president speaks or acts is newsworthy by
definition. Presidents have increasingly institutionalized and expanded their White House
press and communications operations, beginning with Richard Nixon. This system allows them
to maximize the number of tools at their disposal to influence media coverage of national
and, in particular, international affairs. This would include taking advantage of the
presidency’s newsworthiness, credibility as a source of information and contacts
throughout the media.
Another important advantage is that the government is the source of
information. The journalists may rely on it because it is provided by the White House, the
State Department and the Pentagon. Obviously, executive branch officials attempt to
influence the political agenda and the climate of opinion by providing selective
information to the news media.
But the government and the president have become dependent on the media
as well. The news releases provide the opinion that spreads in the society and the
comments on this or that topic, on this or that event may both positive and negative, so
many political figures are trying their best to save favorable attitude of the journalists
and to keep with them good relationships.
To be objective, it is significant to mention that today’s news
media retain some legacy of the Vietnam and Watergate experience: the president no longer
can monopolize media coverage as he could do during World War II and the cold war. With
the collapse of the anticommunist consensus, the media are more likely to represent a
greater diversity of foreign policy thought, rely on more sources of information
throughout society and in the policymaking process.
Because Americans are dependent on the media as their fundamental
source of information concerning national and international affairs, the news media have a
major impact on public knowledge and democratic citizenship in the politics of U.S.
foreign policy.
One of the most important sources of U.S. foreign policy information is
the specialized foreign policy media. Various foreign policy journals are published
containing articles that revolve around contemporary issues and policy recommendations
written and read by government officials, journalists, and academics. The foreign policy
specialized media have expended and become more diverse over time.
During the cold war years, there were only two foreign policy journals
to speak of: Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations,
and Orbis. These journals were influential, especially the first one, because they
were read by individuals in and out of government who were involved in policymaking
process. They were important because the contents of the articles reflected and promoted
the thinking of the foreign policy establishment and realpolitic/anticommunist consensus
dominating American government and society.
After the Vietnam War new journals appeared, they reflected greater
ideological diversity of foreign policy thought. In 1970s, when Foreign Affairs
criticized the U.S. government’s Vietnam policy, a group of regular contributors
created a new, and more liberal journal, Foreign Policy.
The role of the entertainment media must be also considered. The mass
media’s basic orientation is to entertain people: more Americans are much more
interested in being entertained than in being informed about foreign affairs. But the
entertainment media had an indirect effect on American political beliefs and behavior, it
appears to reinforce the consequences of the news media on U.S. foreign policy.
This kind of media provides a special pattern of influencing the
people. For example, watching entertainment shows (with occasional newsbreaks) on the
television on a daily basis contributes to a public that is uninterested and uninformed
concerning national and international affairs. It has a great effect on the image that
Americans acquire of the rest of the world.
Besides, the content of the entertainment media reflects the political
environment of the times. For example, during World War II Hollywood movies were
overwhelmingly patriotic in nature, in war movies Americans were portrayed as innocent
victims of aggression.
One other way that has made it possible for people to access a
multitude of mainstream and alternative sources is through Internet. The popularity,
affordability and increasing technological capabilities of the personal computer has been
revolutionary in the last two decades, especially for the world of communications. Through
the Internet people can be in direct contact with an amazing number and assessment of
information sources and views. What will be the impact of this new medium on the American
policymaking process remains a speculative but fascinating question as the world has
entered the new millenium.
In a democratic society it is through media and the communication
process that the political competition over ideas is played out to a great extent. The
media affects the political agenda and the atmosphere around the policymaking process for
they act as the eyes, through which people see and define the world. This explains why the
media and the communications process have become the battleground for access and influence
between competing groups and interests within government and throughout society. Together,
the mainstream and other sources of information occupy a critical role in the
communication of information and ideas to mass and elite publics affecting the continuity
and change, the president’s ability to govern, and the tension between national
security and democracy in the politics of U.S. foreign policy. It is of no doubt that the
role of information will grow in importance in domestic and world politics as we have
entered the twenty-first century.