Blog Archives
Mass Media Influencing in US Foreign Policy
INTRODUCTION
The mass media and communication process have become very significant elements in the politics of US foreign policy. More importanly mass media has become the forth pillar in the US democracy. Besides, US mass media has high relative freedom other than its democracy partners. Two accounts for this: (1) people have greater need for information about national and international affaris and (2) communications revolution makes it possible to rapidly communicate events and information instantly anywher. General importance of mass media is people will always rely on the sources of events and informations from radio television, internet of newspaper before they eventually shape and voice their opinion publicly. The american public, both mass and elite publics have become dependent on the news media for information and uneestanding of national and international affairs. In many ways, media coverage today is better than ever before. However, regardless the rapid development of mass media throughout US, Americans have less attention on international affairs in which they are more interested with issues concerning domestic issues about their own government. But above sentence does not close the possibilities of American on thinking and shaping their opinion in international affairs. Then, this makes the US media’s concern on international affairs is partially pays greater attention to the countries which are economically affluent, politically powerful and culturally similar to the United States. As an exact example, there is one foreign affair devoted cable television spesifically raises discussion about foreign affair on nation-state issues, it’s CNN—Cable News Network that has already had covered on more thatn 120 countries in the world. The influence of mass media can be vary according to the aspects or issues where lots of audiences or viewers are interested to hear, listen nor read. Those can be concerning about health, social security, financial and others, but we are going to focus our discussion on how mass media will help to give affect on foreign policy decision making.
Foreign policy decision making can be influenced by the action takes based on what is delivered by the mass media.
Most of american media focus on the local and national news with little attention given to international news. There is indirect approach as media seeks to influence foreign policy that is using pblication and broadcastst to try and change the beliefs and policy preferences of mass and or elite audiences. There are two historical examples in which mass media can lead to influencing foreign policy.
First, Foreign policy decision making is also influenced by the actions the public takes based on what is represented by the media, or just the simple influence the media itself has on the government. An example of this is the “CNN effect”, a phenomenon where the broadcasts of cable news organizations spur the action of the U.S. government and foreign policy officials. The term was coined in response to the footage of starving children in Somalia, which weighed highly on officials and prompted them to send military aid there. Then the footage of Somalis dragging the dead body of an American soldier though the streets was aired, and this represented a case that led to withdrawal. Here it is admitted that foreign policy officials often learn of trouble spots abroad from cable channel coverage. With this at hand, one can assume that, if it is in the media’s interest, it can be used in various forms, such as convincing propaganda, to directly influence foreign policy. The media, whether by choice or by accident, influences the public, and in the U.S., the public plays a large part in the election of foreign officials, although it is indirect. After the initial success of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with a quick defeat of the Iraqi military and the capture of Saddam Hussein, the public was bombarded with images of fallen soldiers. A gradual shift of public support of the ensued as the media relayed the “facts” about the conflict. When the notion that the war was not proving successful spread, a public effort against the war began. Protests rang out in Washington, and some officials were forced to speak against the war in order to keep their popularity. A resistance to the war in Iraq erupted, and the foreign policy decision making was strongly influenced. The original reason for entering the war, the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, transitioned to the claim that terrorist groups that threatened national security were operational within Iraq. They also made a hard case for the freedom of the Iraqi people, stating that if the U.S. was to withdraw its forces, Iraq would once again fall into the hands of a regime ruled by another dictator. As exemplified here, the government was forced to change its foreign relations with Iraq to counter opposition to the Iraq War, as a result of the public reaction from what was disclosed by the media. (2) it will be talking about the lack of exact information provided by mass media could lead to the failure of foreign policy needed to solve the international problems in the extent of international relations in making a more peaceful world. The example is the failure of the media to fully report on the genocide that claimed esetimated 800,000 lives in Rwanda during 100-day periond in 1994, made it easy for Western governments to ignore the ciris that they preferred not to acknowledge untill long after it ended.[1]
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we can assume that mass media has played critical role in shaping public opinion and then become a political actors in which they cover area to influence foreign policy. Due to Americans are deendent on the media as source of information—national and internationl affairs, news media have a major impact on public knowledge in the politics of US foreign policy. Therefore, mass media has become the desireable access form competing groups of interests in influencing and controlling nor shaping public opinion as well as to arrange foreign policy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
newsflavor.com
Carrauthers, Susan. 2000. The Media at War. New York: St. Martin’s Press
[1] Carruthers, Susan. 2000. Media at War published by St. Martin’s Press
Interest Group: Influencing in Foreign Policy
INTEREST GROUP: INFLUENCING IN FOREIGN POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The definition of interest group in US history narates as the organizationas that seek to influence the public policy in which many variety of organizations can be assumed as interest groups. Interest groups then defined as groups range from large, mass-membership organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), to labor unios, such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), to large corporations such as Exxon Mobile. Interest group activity is something in which they they engage in order to protect their primary activities, such as making and selling a product or service. Another distinction that can be made between interest groups that exist to promote a particular cause such as the National Rifle Association in which exists primarily to oppose gun control and interest groups such as corporations that may become involved in a wide range of pulic policies such as taxation, environmental protection, and trade policy that affects their interests.
Interest groups have been long thought to be central to American politics. The writers of Federalist Papers especially in Numbers 10 and 51 cast their arguments in favor of the Constitution in large part on how it would both facilitate and restrain interest-group activity. In the thought of American History, different types of interest groups have been brought to prominent as the products of socioeconomic changer, social movements, and government policies. For instance, the recurring economic crises of American agriculture from the alte nieteenth century onward prompted the creation of a succession of agricultural interest group: the Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmer’s Union. The major social movements of the late twentieth century also left an impac in which civil rights groups came to prominence in the 1960’s, folowed by groups representing women (especially the National Organization for Women—NOW). Business interest groups, seeking to counter the influence of unions and public-interest groups, set the pace in terms of fund-raising and organization in the 1980’s and 1990s. While some of these interest groups have since seen their influence decline, all retain an important presence in American politics today. The interest-group landscape thus reflects a complex geology in which, different interest groups are created by a variety forces.
Interest groups have used a wide array of tactics over the yearrs, ranging from campaigning in elections to bribery. The most obvious tactics used today are lobbying and making campaign contribution. All major interest group such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Business Roundtable, and individual companies such as Exxon Mobile or DuPont employ professionals whose job is to persuade legislators and executive-branch officials of the wisdom and justice of the group’s case. Most studies of lobbyist have condluded that the most effective lobbyist are those who have established with whom they deal[1].
In spite of the the ubiquity, a debate has raged throughout American history about whether interest groups are an aird or a barrier to the practice of democracy. Defenders of interest groups aregued that they are both a central aspect of democratic politics and an aid to good government. The Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to petition theri government and interest groups exists to do just that. The clash of interest between interest groups aids policymakers by prviding more and better information for making policy decisions. However, interest groups also have dominates a policy area to the disadvantage of the public as a whole. Second, it is feared that the interest group system distorts democary because the resources required to be effective attract members and money; the large corporations that they confront can easily command the resources they need to staf a Washington office for their lobbyist, to creat a PAC, or to make soft money contribution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Most lobbyists feel that they are more likely to gain a hearing for their arguments if their interest group makes campaign contributions to the politicians with whom they deal. Since 1974, campaign contributions made directly to candidates (known as hard money) must be made through Political Action Committee (PACs) that are linked to the interest group but legally separated from its general funds. Contributions are limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each election (primary and general) and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC.) It was hoped that the combination of limiting contributions considerably and publicizing them would prevent abuses. In the late twentieth century, however, interest groups were allowed to make unlimited contributions through parties to candidates. This “soft money” could come directly from the interest group’s general funds and need not have been raised explicitly for political purposes.
Essay menjelang UTS
AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM: THE FRAMEWORK OF AMERICAN PARTY POLITIC
American Political Process examines both the formal institutions of government and organisations such as political parties and pressure groups. It analyses how these bodies interact in the making of public policy in the United States in order to provide an understanding of contemporary American politics.
Political scientists have frequently emphasised that democratic government in a modern industrial society would not be possible without political parties. Parties are not simply appendages of representative government; they are central to its effectiveness and play a positive role in it. They are organised attempts to select candidates for official positions, promote certain goals and objectives, and gain government power. The Constitution of the United States does not mention these informal institutions and George Washington warned against the ‘baneful effects of the spirit of party’. Since that time an American political culture has developed which has traditionally been suspicious of strong parties and concentrations of authority, but political parties have been an integral and essential part of the American political system since its early days. In examining the workings of the three branches of the federal government, we have already seen the importance of
party for an understanding of American politics. American political parties have to operate within a very diverse society and a federal system of government; they have therefore tended to be broadly based coalitions of interests organised in a decentralised way rather than tightly disciplined hierarchical structures. American parties have traditionally been rather weak organisations compared to their counterparts in European democracies. American political scientists have often been concerned that this weakness has adversely affected the ability of parties to perform some of the key functions that they normally fulfil and, what is more, they have been organisations in decline, making them even less relevant to the American political system in recent decades. In this chapter we shall examine some of the characteristics of American parties and the party system, and investigate how far these concerns are justified.
The structure of American parties
A number of diffuse elements make up what is usually known as the American party ‘organisation’. Discussion of political parties can be complicated by the fact that they generally do not have fee-paying or card-carrying members. We therefore have to distinguishbetween the vast array of people with different sorts of connection and relationship tothe Democratic or Republican parties. Parties comprise the following groups:
1 The party’s voting support. Every election there are millions of Americans who vote regularly or sporadically for one of the parties’ candidates. These people, therefore, include both hard-core supporters and ‘independents’ who have decided to vote for the party in that specific year.
2 Registered party supporters. In identifying on a regular basis with one of the major parties, millions of voters are prepared to register themselves on the electoral list as ‘Democrats’ or ‘Republicans’ where state laws allow them to do so. Although they pay no subscription to the party, these registered supporters are the closest to being party ‘members’. In return for this public expression of support, they usually receive the right to participate in the selection of party candidates in primary elections.
3 Party activists. A much smaller number of Americans regularly play an active role in party politics. These people provide the voluntary labour at elections to mobilise voters, contribute money to campaigns, and may hold local committee positions. Party activists may also attend party conventions as delegates.
4 Party leaders outside government. In both parties there are leadership positions at local and state level as well as within the national organisation which are sought by the most dedicated activists. These leaders are often referred to as the party ‘professionals’ and they often exert considerable influence over the party’s administration and finance.
5 Party leaders holding government positions. For many Americans political parties are, in practice, the government office-holders who carry the party label at elections. The President is, of course, the national leader of one of the parties and the parties have their own leaders in each congressional chamber but there are also many important Governors and Congressmen who are seen as the party leaders within their own states and who can exercise control over the running of state and local parties. What is more, the voters’ image of the parties is, to a large extent, shaped by the personalities of its best-known political and governmental leaders. Political parties are often subject to very detailed regulation of their affairs by state laws, mostly originating from the Progressive era at the beginning of the twentieth century when there was considerable concern about political corruption.
CONCLUSION
To understand the working of any political system it is important to gain an appreciation of a nation’s political culture – that is, the citizens’ collection of beliefs and attitudes towards government and their feelings about their own place within the system. The political culture of the United States has a number of distinctive features which have evolved as a result of its particular historical development. The term ‘American exceptionalism’ has been coined to emphasise the peculiar and unique characteristics of the nation’s culture and society that set it apart from other liberal democracies. The introductory survey in this chapter has pointed out the importance of the belief in the freedom of the individual and the suspicion and distrust of government control. Together these may be said to have given rise to an anti-authority political culture that has underpinned such movements as those opposing gun control and expressing hostility to taxation on the basis that it will be used wastefully by inefficient government bureaucracy. There has been a marked decline in trust in the federal government since the 1960s. Some of this may be accounted for by the upheavals and discontent following the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal and the more adversarial role taken by the media since that time. However, the failure of government to deal effectively with major social problems and to meet public expectations have also played their part. Many surveys have demonstrated this trend. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in August 1997, for example, found that three-quarters of Americans distrusted the federal government despite the nation enjoying a prosperous economy at the time. The crisis following the 11 September attacks led, at least temporarily, to more people expressing confidence in the national government and backing measures to give it more power to protect the nation from further terrorist assaults. Americans have usually had a sense of optimism and confidence in the nation’s future which has been accompanied by a belief that individuals can succeed in America by their own efforts. A lack of deference and a relatively high degree of social equality have been associated with social and geographical mobility. A strong belief in equality of opportunity has coexisted with a substantial degree of economic inequality and lack of support for a socialist movement. A firm commitment to democracy and representative government has been counterbalanced by restraints on majoritarianism and a powerful appointed judiciary that can override the decisions of the elected branches. Finally, the esteem in which the Constitution and the rule of law are held has led to a society in which recourse to the courts to settle disputes and protect rights is commonplace.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
——-. 2005. US Political and Government.
