Mediaboss Marketing

Victorians go to the polls in a little under two months and between now and then media focus on political news will intensify. The spotlight will be trained on political parties, their policies and commitments and on members of parliament and candidates. The part traditional media plays in reporting political matters will also come under the microscope, along with that of social media.

Given the importance of the decision voters have to make on 29 November, now is an opportune time to reflect on the relationship between the media and MPs, the role the media plays in a democratic society and the responsibilities that are attached to its position.

Our elected representatives and traditional media have a symbiotic relationship in which the role of the "used" and "user" changes. Both sides trade and negotiate the sharing of information with the ultimate aim of controlling the political news agenda.

Because journalists' lifeline is information, politicians can, at times, control that agenda. Tactics at their disposal include deciding when to release information. They also leak stories to favoured journalists and/or brief them about complicated or controversial policies. This is done in the hope of achieving favourable or not so critical coverage. In extreme circumstances politicians can stop the information flow. Former Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen did this to a current affairs program by not allowing any minister to be interviewed. As a result the anchor person could not continue as presenter.

Advertisement

Despite the dominant influence politicians sometimes exercise in the symbiotic relationship, it is the media that overwhelmingly operates the levers of control. It decides from the multitude of potential stories that arise on a daily basis, which ones will feature. It also determines the tone and content surrounding the reporting of a political event, how long a story will run and its key message.

It is the media that forms and poses the questions. In terms of the electronic media, journalists foreground interviews, can choose to ignore any question a politician asks of them and is able to move the discussion to another topic at a time of their choosing. In terms of the print media and pre-recorded radio and television interviews, the media controls the all-important editing process.

Having the capacity to exercise the control levers does not mean the media is omnipotent; it is not. Also, when some sections of the media appear blatantly biased, it can reverse the intended outcome, with voters turning against the particular news outlet rather than the subject of the biased coverage. But given the privileged role the media occupies in democratic societies, should there be biased coverage in the first place?

There is more than one form of democracy but common to all is freedom of the press. It is unquestionably an essential element of any model. In a democratic context, the media is often referred to as "The Fourth Estate".

Very loosely defined, the "modern" concept of the Fourth Estate relates to the media's watchdog role as one of the key protectors of the public interest. The freedom it is afforded allows the media to scrutinise the actions of the powerful, thereby fostering greater levels of accountability and transparency. Theoretically at least, a free media enables members of society to make informed choices about political matters. The ability to do so assumes, of course, that the media will report all sides of an argument in a fair and balanced manner. To do otherwise is to negate its Fourth Estate role.

Originally posted here:
Can we trust media reporting on politics any more?