New Media: How Voters Respond

New media—the “modern press” (Medvic, 2010)—such terms represent sources which allow individuals to have the very latest news and information available to them at all times.  However, what is most meaningful here is that these terms also represent apparatuses which have a major influence on how individuals perceive the political environment such as various issues as well as the candidates running in democratic elections.  Sources such as the internet and the plethora of politically related and social websites is a primary example of new media being used to illustrate different parts of the picture of politics today.  The television is another example.  Cable television consists of news networks that provide the latest news 24 hours a day.  Moreover, not only are these media sources and their affects cotemporary, these sources have revolutionized political communication, ultimately manipulating the behavior of voters.   Because of these sources of new media, candidates and their campaign organizations can be perceived by voters in certain ways just because of the nature in which media sources may illustrate them as they report—which in turn, has the compelling effect of manipulating the decisions of voters at the ballot box. 

Media sources of the “modern press” (Medvic, 2010), particularly the internet and its many related websites, as well as television channels, have been utilized by candidates, since the late twentieth century.  According to Medvic, the late 1980s was a period that marked the beginning of news networks providing news around the clock via the avenue of cable television.  The 1990s, of course, was the period that birthed the amazing convenience of the internet.  Additionally, television news networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have reporters covering developing situations almost every minute of the day—from the White House to the battlefields of the Middle East—ready to give their account at a moment’s notice.     Interestingly, in reporting about the same issues, each of these news networks, very frequently present there report from different perspectives—especially regarding politics.

It is worth noting, as a prerequisite point, that people are not only primarily informed about politics by television news networks and internet websites, but also have developed dependencies on information provided these sources, as it is exceedingly convenient to simply click a couple of buttons on a television remote or keypad, watch, listen or read the latest updates.  Through media effects such as framing, agenda-setting, priming, and learning, the media communicates with the public about candidates and their campaign agendas in the most subliminal and crafty ways.  For example, in setting the public’s agenda—although it is said by Medvic to be “unintentional” (2010)—certain issues are given precedence, as others are completely disregarded.  In this way, the media is able, in a sense, to control voters’ perception of which issues are important and which issues are not.  Priming, another unintentional media effect—according to Medvic—is a result of information provided by the media that “influence[s] the factors voters use to evaluate candidates” (2010).  Framing, on the other hand, in which there are two forms—episodic and thematic—seems to be a bit more intentional, in that candidates “routinely frame issues in ways that will work to their electoral advantage” (Medvic, 2010).  These media effects, obviously, have potently changed the overall nature of political communication, and must be considered as extremely meaningful variables of the campaign process.

In a broader sense, even when it comes to more traditional sources such as newspapers and magazines, members of the media have a job in which ultimately requires them to operate in ways that attract the attention of the public.  Thus, their fundamental agenda is to present information that is interesting.  This usually involves using catchy headlines and sometimes exaggerated content, often creating a drama-like perception in the minds of very attentive voters.  This simply makes the statement that new sources of media have become like an arm of a sort of political communication body.  Yes, candidates and their campaign organizations will have their platforms, themes, and overall direction as they attempt to win votes, but because of the media and their desire to present the most attractively interesting narratives, candidates and their organizations need only to set the initial tone. 

Furthermore, because “urban residents and those with high education are significantly very often exposed to television discussion programs on politics…” (Gibson & Rommele, 2007), to assert that a large number of voters make their voting decisions based on information received from the media, is not far-fetched at all.  Voters that primarily follow political broadcasts aired on the Fox news network, will be more in tune with more of a conservative or Republican perspective, and if they agree with things they see and hear, they will likely vote for Republican candidates.   The same goes for voters mainly following political broadcasts aired on MSNBC, except those voters will be more in tune with a more liberal or Democratic perspective and are more inclined to vote for Democratic candidates.  In speculation, followers of CNN broadcasts may be more interested in staying in tune with objectively reasonable facts that present the pros and cons of both major parties, allowing them to make the conscious decision to intelligently vote in the most logical manner.  It can safely be included here that these new sources of media essentially controls the minds of average voters today. 

References

Elmelund-Præstekær, C., & Hopmann, D. (2012). Does Television Personalise Voting Behaviour? Studying the Effects of Media Exposure on Voting for Candidates or Parties. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(2), 117-140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00284.x

Medvic, Stephen K., (2010) Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 & international.cengage.com/region

Rachel K. Gibson and Andrea Römmele in: Daniele Caramani (ed): Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007