AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP

Abstract

This article analyzed the relationship between the media and government. Understanding the dynamics of this relationship is essential as it has implications on the information public gets and strong democracy. For this purpose, different media systems, theories and approaches (cascade model, indexing approach, propaganda theory and hegemonic perspective) were discussed in terms of the media-government relationship. It is clear that the degree of commercialization, political parallelism, and norms of journalistic professionalism in different media systems influence the degree and nature of this relationship. By taking into account these factors, scholars have suggested different theories and models to explain this relationship. Although each theory or model constitutes a unique map for making sense some of the important factors in this relationship, cascade model provides a more comprehensive picture. As suggested in this model, political actors, the media and the public mutually influence and interact with each other at different levels and under certain conditions. Specifically, the interaction of four different variables (cultural congruence, power, strategy, and motivation) influences the government’s capacity of setting agenda, the circulation of the preferred frames and attention and support of the public. All these variables and how they are used in news management and political rhetoric were discussed and exemplified in this article

Keywords

• Media Systems
• News Management
• Political Rhetoric
• Hegemony
• Propaganda

MEDYA VE HÜKÜMET İLİŞKİLERİNE YÖNELİK BİR ANALİZ

Abstract

Bu makalede medya-hükümet ilişkileri analiz edilmiştir. Bu ilişkinin dinamiklerini anlamak, kamunun alacağı bilgi ve güçlü demokrasi üzerindeki sonuçları bağlamında önemlidir. Bu
amaçla, bu makalede farklı medya sistemleri, farklı medya teori ve modelleri (hegemonya, propoganda teorisi, endeksleme yaklaşımı, çerçeveleme, basamak modeli) medya ve hükümet
ilişkileri bağlamında tartışılmıştır. Farklı medya sistemlerindeki ticarileşme oranı, politik paralellik ve gazetecilik mesleğinin kurallarının bu ilişkinin doğası ve derecesini etkilediği açıktır. Bu faktörleri de dikkate alarak, akademisyenler bu ilişkiyi açıklayan farklı teori ve modeller ortaya koymuşlardır. Her bir teori veya modelin bu ilişkideki önemli faktörlerin anlaşılması noktasında özgün bir katkısı olmakla birlikte, basamak modeli daha geniş bir resim sunmaktadır. Bu modelde belirtildiği üzere, politik aktörler, medya ve kamu birbirini karşılıklı olarak farklı seviyelerde ve farklı şekillerde etkilemektedir. Özellikle, model içerisindeki dört farklı değişkenin etkileşimi (kültürel benzerlik, güç, strateji, motivasyon) hükümetlerin gündem belirleme kapasitesi,
tercih ettikleri haber sunumlarının (frames) yayınlanması ve kamunun destek ve dikkatini etkilemektedir. Tüm bu değişkenler ve haber yönetimi ve politik retorik bağlamında kullanımı bu
makalede tartışılmış ve örneklendirilmiştir.  

Keywords

• Medya Sistemleri
• Haber Yönetimi
• Politik Retorik
• Hegemonya
• Propoganda Teorisi
• Endeksleme Yaklaşımı
• Çerçeveleme
• Basamak Modeli

References

1. Barber B R (2003) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, University of California Media, Berkeley.
2. Barrett O B (2004) Judith Miller, the New York Times and the Propaganda Model, Journalism Studies, 5, 435-449.
3. Bateson G (1972) Steps to Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, Balllantine, New York.
4. Bennett W L (1990) Toward a Theory of Media-State Relations in the United States, Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125.
5. Carey J W (2002) American Journalism On, Before, and After September 11, Z Barbie and A Stuart (eds), Journalism After September 11, Rutledge, New York, pp 71-91.
6. Chadwick A (2006) Parties, Candidates, and Elections: E-campaigning, Oxford University Media, Oxford.
7. Cobb R W and Elder C D (1971) The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory, The Journal of Politics, 33, 892-915.
8. Cook T (1989) Making Laws and Making News, The Brooking Institution, Washington D. C.

9. Deetz S A (1994) Future of Discipline: The Challenges, the Research, and the Social Contribution, A D Stanley (ed), Communication yearbook, Sage, California, pp 565-600.
10. Donsbach W and Patterson T E (2004) Political News Journalists. Partisanship, Professionalism, and Political Roles in Five Countries. F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 251-271.
11. Downie L and Kaiser R G (2003) The News about The News: American Journalism in Peril, Vintage Books, New York.
12. Entman R M (1991) Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents, Journal of Communication, 41, 6-27.
13. Entman R M (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
14. Entman R M (2003) Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11, Political Communication, 20, 415-432.
15. Entman R M (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, University of Chicago Media, Chicago.
16. Entman R M (2007) Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution Power, Journal of Communication, 57, 163-173.
17. Esser F and Pfetsch B (2004). Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases and Challenges, Cambridge University Media, Cambridge.
18. Gamson W A (1989) News as Framing: Comments on Graber, American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 157-161.
19. Gitlin T (1979) News as Ideology and Contested Area: Toward a Theory of Hegemony, Crisis, and Opposition, Socialist review, 9, 11-54.
20. Gruvitch M and Blumler J G (2004) State of the Art of Comparative Political Communication Research: Poised for Maturity?, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 325-344.
21. Hacker K L (2000) Introduction. Presidential Candidate Images. Littlefield Publishers, New York.
22. Hall S (1982) The Rediscovery of Ideology: Return of the Remedied in Media Studies, M Gurevitch, T Bennett and J Woollcott (eds), Culture, Society, and the Media, Methuen, London, pp 56-90.
23. Hallin D C (1988). The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam, University of California Media, Berkeley.
24. Hallin D C and Mancini P (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Media, Cambridge.
25. Herman E S and Chomsky N (1988) Manufacturing Consent: A Propaganda Model, Pantheon Books, New York.
26. Holtz-Bacha C (2004) Political Campaign Communication. Conditional Convergence of Modern Media Elections, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, And Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 213-231.
27. Jamieson K H and Waldman P (2003) The Media Effect, Oxford University Media, Oxford.
28. Kern M Just M and Norris P (2003) Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, Rutledge, New York.
29. Kriesi H (2004) Transnational Trends in Political Communication: Conventional Views and New Realities, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45-64.
30. Kohut A (2008) But What Do the Polls Show? Graber D A and Norris P (eds), The Politics of News: The News of Politics, CQ Media, Washington D.C, pp. 190-207.
31. Lakoff G (2004) Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont.
32. Lippmann W (1922) Public opinion, Macmillan, New York.
33. McChesney R W (1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Chicago Media, Chicago.
34. McCombs M E (2004) Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion, Polity Media, Cambridge.
35. McQuail D (2006) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (5th ed.), Sage, CA. Neuendorf K A (2001) The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, London.
36. Norris P (2004) Global Political Communication: Good Governance, Human Development, and Mass Communication, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 115-151.
37. Patrick B A and Thrall T A (2007) Beyond Hegemony: Classical Propaganda Theory and Presidential Communication Strategy after the Invasion of Iraq, Mass Communication and Society, 10, 95-118.
38. Pfetsch B (2004) From political culture to political communications culture: A theoretical approach to comparative analysis, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 325-344.
39. Reese S D Gandy O H and Grant A E (eds) (2001) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
40. Reese S (2004) Militarized Journalism: Framing Dissent in the Persian Gulf Wars, Z Barbie and A Stuart (eds), Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime, Rutledge, New York, pp 247-265.
41. Robertson J W (2004) People’s Watchdog or Government Poodles?, European Journal of Communication, 19, 457- 482.
42. Schiller H I (1989) Culture, Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expedition, Oxford University Media, New York.
43. Schmitt-Beck R (2004) Political Communication Effects: The Impact of Mass Media and Personal Conversations on Voting, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 271-293.
44. Swanson D L (2004) Transnational Trends in Political Communication: Conventional Views and New Realities, F Esser and B Pfetsch (eds), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45-64.
45. Tunstall J (2008) The Media Were American: U.S. Media in Decline, Oxford University Media, Oxford.
46. Van Gorp B (2005) Where is the Frame?, European Journal of Communication, 20, 484- 507.
47. Waisbord S (2002) Journalism, Risk and Patriotism, Z Barbie and A Stuart (eds), Journalism after September 11, Rutledge, New York, pp 201-220.
48. West D M (2005) Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952- 2004, Congressional Quarterly Media, Washington D. C.
49. Yang J (2003) Framing the NATO Air Strike on Kosovo across Countries: Comparison of Chinese and US Newspaper Coverage, International Journal for Communication Studies, 65, 231-249.