The influence of the media on the american political process.
It is because i agree with Allen Ginsberg, I affirm the resolution, “RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process. ” The value i will be upholding in this debate is Process. This being the most appropriate value as process is of course necessary for our political process to unfold and achieve it’s goal. Democracy is of course nothing without the process of the people’s involvement. The resolution implies this value as the question is whether the “influence of the media” is good or bad for our political process, which is a Democracy.
Any ill effect is an indication of the truth of the resolution. It would be like saying the measles is detrimental to the human body. Not everyone experiences the measles. But those who do experience measles know the detrimental effects the measles have on the body. This is the same with the media and the political process. Not every example of the political process is harmed by the media, but those instances where it is harmed are noteworthy. The criterion to achieve process is upholding the involvement of the majority.
As our democracy can only work to it’s full extent with the involvement of all the people this criteria is logical for today’s resolution. To quote Christine Pelosi “Voting is a civic sacrament – the highest responsibility we have as Americans. “ I offer the following definitions. Influence: an effect of one person or thing on another Source: Collins English Dictionary Media: organizations that provide news and information. Source: Vocabulary. com Democracy a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting merriam-webster Contention 1.
The media is to blame in the loss of focus in elections. Campaigning has become such an extreme focal point that it’s bringing attention away from the people in the process. A huge example I can provide is the standstill that the federal government has been going through as of the last decade, as partisan plotics focus on which party wins and forgets their actions on the american people. This can be blamed on a media which charges more and more for political advertising. Only those individuals who can raise large amounts of money can hope to win a local, state, or national office.
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, despite its beginnings would not have had to be necessary if political campaigning was not so expensive. But there is no law that controls what can be charged for advertising. One can blame inflation or whatever else you want, but the bottom line is that the largest expense for politicians is simply the advertising they do on television, radio, print, internet, and other media sources. This in turn produces a body politic that is beholden not to the people but to the financial backers whose money pays for the political advertising.
This removal of the American people from the financial equation has produced as already noted a generation of politicians who have to campaign continuously and so must adhere to party lines in order to secure funding from the party. They must also adhere to the desires of the large contributors in order to secure funding from them. In this whole process the American citizen is left out. If the american citizen is left out, how could this uphold democracy the american political process? How can this uphold a political process? C2.
The media in the end is a business, and it’s been expressed that decisions in the media come with a money first policy, with informing the public as the later. To more fully understand the political decision-making process in this country it is necessary to understand the media’s role in the performance of political officials and institutions. The significance of the media’s influence was expressed by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn: “The Press has become the greatest power within Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
One would then like to ask: By what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? ” The industry of mass media is big business, Ownership of the primary mass media in this country is generally in the hands of giant corporate congolomerates that are engaged in various media and noncommunication business ventures. The majority of national news coverage comes from only a few sources, known as the “Big Media,” (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, Washington post) According to “mass media and the transmissions of american politics” by KA Oswald of Marquette uni.
Most local newspapers receive national stories from the AP and UPI wire services. Since the Big Media are widely considered to be the determining factor in what is given national attention, many stories are ignored by editors until they are covered by a member of the Big Media. Ultimately according by KA Oswald, and to quote “This in turn forces editiorial decisions to be ultimately based upon making a profit, rather than informing the public. ” The media serves as the eyes, the ears, and the conscience of the public, and if they’re not having the public in the best interest.
They’re not fulfilling it’s duties and the spread of truthful and complete purpose in media is just skewered. The majority has no involvement just as shown with who controls the media. Big business, with local media getting news from big business. This means the few of these big wigs are controlling what the people hear. Objecting my criteria which disrupts the process of people involvement. This is just another example of a negative aspect. Thus proving the resolution in the aff side. C3.
The influence of the media alone is making our elected leaders lose site of importance. The media is a strong and important force and nobody is in fact denying this, but many people would see that the strength of the media alone is enough to mess with the process. In the case of my first and second contention I go over how the media’s process has changed our process in a negative fashion, but here i’ll show you how the strength of the media now is just enough to create a loss of focus. C-SPAN provides an example of how the media can influence the political process.
C-SPAN began as a public service by the cable television industry to provide coverage of the House of Representatives floor sessions. When C-SPAN is not covering House sessions, it broadcasts committee hearings, important political events, call-in shows with government officials, newspaper and magazine editorial board meetings,and meetings of political organizations and interest groups. ‘C-SPAN coverage has had an obvious effect on Congress. Since the implementation of C-SPAN coverage, members of Congress have offered more amendments in meetings and made more speeches.
One critic, Dean Rusk, believes that television coverage of Congress has had negative impact on the quality of the dialogue between government officials. “When the television cameras are there half of the senators had pancake makeup on, all ready for the show. And that kind of a scene is not a real exchange… They’re talking over each others heads to a wider audience. ” Again another example of media proving to be harmful to our process. Disrupting it and clouding it’s original purpose. With these disruptions it’s easy to see how this could prove to be a detriment to our process.