Central to the ideal democracy is the informed citizen. The informed citizen is one who engages in politics based on educated and rational knowledge of this area. However, from the beginning it has been unrealistic to think that the government and American citizens could communicate without some sort of mediation. In her book, Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective, Jan Leighley expresses the claim that media serves as that linkage institution between the government and the people. This view asserts that media is the conduit of communication for information between politicians and their constituents. Yet, how the media fulfill this role is not cut and dry.

There are six different models for the role that media plays. Five are asserted and defined in Leighley’s book, while Professor Stephen Pimpare asserts the sixth. The first model is the reporter of objective fact. In this most literal model, the media serve purely as a channel between government and the people. The media are not active in the process; they merely relay information between the two relevant parties. In this model, journalists are committed to pure fact alone. Individual biases are irrelevant and ignored in the quest to present objective truths. The news then consists of pure reflections of the world. Thus, everything that travels through the channel warrants being believed as wholly true.
The second model, the neutral adversary model differs in that the media play more of an active role as a linkage institution. In this situation, the media’s job is to keep an eye on the government and politicians. The role of journalists is to serve as watchdogs; to monitor politicians and make sure that all that the politicians do is within the journalists’ view. The journalists expose the truth and work or lack thereof of officials, and the assumption is that the people will act accordingly. Politicians are viewed as individuals with only their own interests in mind. In this model the news serves as a check on government. The truth, about what the politicians are thinking and doing, is served to the people based on journalists’ investigations. An example of this type of reporting, of historical note, is the Watergate scandal. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward exposed the scandal and did all the investigative reporting based on a "third rate burglary."
The third model is that of public advocate. This model proscribes a highly active role for media as a linkage institution. As a public advocate, the media is much like a teacher, attempting to gain the participation of all of the students. The goal of journalists is to spark debate between an informed public and politicians. The media attempt to act on the behalf of the public and spur people into being interested and active in politics. Additionally, the media perform “behind the scenes” work, such as monitoring government, much like the neutral adversary model. Key to this model is that the journalists are beholden to no one and are thus free of any influence. In this model, the news serves to educate the people, who are the media’s main concern, about current events in the hope of sparking debate and involvement in politics.
The fourth model is the profit-seeker model. In this model, the media are viewed as businesses interested in making money for their respective shareholders. Everything the media do should thus be viewed as in the hopes of securing a profit. Journalists do not see their role as a conduit of truth, a protector of rights, or an educator, as mentioned in the above models in varying degrees. They are instead, part of a corporation that produces a product to be purchased. In this model, news is packaged in order to attract viewers and thus boost ratings. News content does not have any utilitarian or altruistic purpose; it is merchandise to be sold.
The last model mentioned by Leighley is the propagandist model. In this situation the media serve as an advocate for the powerful. The idea is that the media is used by those with power, to influence all citizens. In some cases it is the government who are using the media as a tool for securing and maintaining power. It can also be the corporate owned media owners attempting to legitimize the current standards of the business class. Citizens are unaware of this manipulation. The news content in this model is packaged with the goal of affirming the status quo. Frequently, when we think of propaganda systems, that of Hitler's Germany comes to mind. The propaganda program, run by Goebbels is, to this day, recognized as one of the most successfully destructive propaganda campaigns.
The last model, asserted by Professor Pimpare , is the de Tocqueville model. Based on Alexis de Tocqueveville’s work Democracy in America, particularly the section, "On Relation Between Public Associations and the Newspapers," Professor Pimpare asserts that media maintain society. In de Tocqueville’s article, he asserts that what will keep America together and unfractured by too many factions, is newspapers. Newspapers create binding ties that unite all its’ readers. Professor Pimpare suggests that media be substituted with newspapers. In this model media has the responsibility of relaying what is going on in the government. This knowledge is required to create effective citizens. New content is information that is useful to being an informed citizen. Crucial to this model is the element that people should be able to be informed without going out of their own way. Like a newspaper is dropped at one’s doorstep, media should supply citizens with the proper information, pre-packaged, to make the person informed on all that is needed to be knowledgeable on current politics.
It seems that the media could potentially assume any one the five other abovementioned roles. While each model has its own flaws, personally I believe the model that most fulfills the role of linkage institution is that of media as a public advocate. I find the other models to be too limited. I think that the media are supposed to be more than just reporters of objective facts. Information requires contextualization and sometimes, even interpretation. In the reporters of objective fact model the media serve purely as a conduit between government and the people, and I think that they should do more. The neutral adversary model, similarly, does not persuade me; it, too, seems too limited. I think the media should be more than a check on government; they should serve as an educating body. As mentioned above, and confirmed by Leighley, the profit-seeker model is too uninterested in its civic duty and fails in its responsibility to the people. The propagandist model is flawed for any democracy. As Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy describes in his book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction, a key feature of propaganda is manipulation, which is antithetical to democracy and the ideal of the citizen as informed and rational thinkers. The last “other” model is the de Tocqueville model. While, this one comes closest to that of the media as a public advocate, it too is just too limited. I see the journalist as more than a relayer of information. While news should be accessible, one should also be encouraged to participate in the process. Certainly media is a uniting factor, but it is more than that as well.
In my view the public advocate role of media should be the standard. The media should make us think and give us opportunity to act. I think that the public-advocate model has all the best qualities of the different models rolled into one. It is a provider of factual information, but contextualized. It checks on government, but it also spurs conversation. And, it unites people by creating opportunities for action. While some might say that it is too overreaching, I think this model is just what our country needs. Alexis de Tocqueville was correct when he worried about the growing population of this country and the inability for everyone to interact with government or each other, face-to-face. With the public advocate model, people are encouraged, by journalists with a strong sense of social and civic responsibility, to get active and make their voices heard.
In her book, Leighley asserts that it is the profit-seeker model, which is most dominant today. From the beginning, commerce has always driven media. Yet, even so, today we find ourselves in a world where all mainstream media is under corporate ownership. With just the click of a button, one can easily see all the diversified media holdings of all these corporations. In this system, where the same corporation sells refrigerators and television programs, it is easy to see how television viewers and product purchasers can be treated the same. As we mentioned in class, it is difficult to separate the NBC news product out from its owner, General Electric. Can the news on the current Iraq War be viewed as objective, when it is known that GE benefits monetarily from the war?
As a result of corporate ownership, the television product has changed. In Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book, Institutions of American Democracy: The Press, in James Hamilton’s article, “The Market and the Media,” he writes that the news product has changed as a result of the present state of media. He claims that there has been a decrease in hard news, with an accompanying increase in soft news, an increase in negative tone as well as horse-race coverage in politics, a decrease in watchdog stories, an increasing mix between opinion and interpretation within news itself, a decrease in international coverage, and a decrease in coverage of congressional voting. In my opinion, which finds company in the opinions of many others, with this model, in which the media is profit-driven, the media miserably fails its goal as a linkage institution between the government and the American people.
Within this model there is little or no room for public advocacy. Corporate owners have two main concerns: profit and maintenance of the status quo. Prior to the 1970’s and the remaking of the news department, news divisions were unconcerned with profit. They were not expected to compete with other programming or to be significant money earners. Yet, with the reformatting of the division, the news bureaus were now expected to be money earners like the rest of the television departments. In this environment news divisions do not have the freedom to have altruistic goals such as educating or mobilizing the people. The goal is high ratings. Corporate owners also seek to maintain the status quo. Throughout all television programming, news included, ideals are put forward to maintain business interests’ wishes for the status quo. Part of maintaining the status quo entails an involvement and support of government. It is thus difficult to trust the news reports on government action when the corporations look to the government for their continued success through further corporate success. The NAB lobby, the lobby group for the National Association of Broadcasters is the single largest lobbying group. This group, through their lobbyists, work to secure the optimum legislation for the media industry. In return the media corporations donate enormous amounts of money to politicians. In this system deregulation of the media results. This leads to a world where little concern is expressed for the television viewers while the corporate owners receive all the relevant governmental attention. Journalistic public advocacy finds no place in this environment.
In the world of New Media we find a drastically different picture. As Dan Gilmor presents in his book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People, the Internet has the power to educate people, mobilize them, and maintain their activism. The Internet brings with it the capability of communicating not only one to many, but also many to many, a truly novel concept. This promotes an environment of community and collectivity, much like a discussion. In this environment people with similar thoughts and interests can easily find one another.
Currently, every news outlet, clothing store, company, and charity, to name a few, has a website. Thus the Internet is a huge and constant supplier of information about the political world, and everything else under the sun. But, beyond being just a supplier of information, the Internet is also a place of activity and communication. Almost every website has a "Contact Us" function, usually at the bottom of the page, where any relevant query can be sent. Websites have message boards, whether it is one discussing a product on the market or reactions to ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif recently aired television program.
With the public advocacy model as my optimal standard standard, the Internet is a lot more successful in fulfilling the role of linkage institution than mainstream media. On thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife Internet, news can be obtained from a plethora of sources giving one the full gamut of political opinion. Local, national, and international news are accessible at the click of a mouse. Mainstream news outlets have websites, as well as run by journalist and non-journalist alike. But beyond just the access to information, the Internet also provides the tools for action as well. One of the key political examples discussed by Gilmor is how Howard Dean utilized the Internet in a way never done before, during this past Presidential election. Dean used the Internet to establish his initial campaign. Through blogs he rallied support and spread his name and his accomplishments. Bloggers used the Internet to arrange meetings for fellow Dean-supporters. Furthermore, Dean mobilized a successful fundraising effort via the Internet, which has been imitated by many candidates subsequently. Blogging, and the world of citizen journalism is the public advocate model at its finest. Citizens are keeping abreast of what is going on in the world and acting with the tools that the Internet provides.
Anyone with Internet access has the power to be informed. Another technology that Gilmor discusses in his book is that of the RSS feed. The ability for news feeds to be sent to the individual is much like a newspaper being dropped on the doorstep. But in this case with the click of the mouse on a link or elsewhere, the knowledge can lead to action. Thus the Internet provides a medium where the media successfully performs the role of the public advocate.
Yet, this is in danger. Every freedom that the Internet represents is perilously in a precarious position. Like with all the other forms of media, the corporations are beginning to rear their ugly heads as they search for more profit. As Jeff Chester writes in his article, “The End of the Internet,” the telephone and cable companies are currently in the midst of planning different strategies to turn the Internet into a profit-making machine. Under their plan Internet access will now be tiered, based on cost. The speed of one’s Internet will now depend on how much one pays, and there will be different options and plans. The more you pay, the faster your Internet. This privatization of the Internet will be a blow to the free medium it represents today. In the current system a website that is run by a lone individual about a small issue has the same power as a huge website that is run by a multi-million dollar organization. But with this new plan, the latter would be more accessible to viewers because of the companies’ ability to pay the service provider. In this new world where money talks, not all issues will have equal representation on the Internet. The more money, the more exposure and the faster the service.
Part of what makes the current state of the Internet so public advocate-friendly is the equal opportunity for any website out there. This creates an equality of issues and opinions. Yet, within the new system, the public-advocate model of media is severely stifled. No longer are small alternative news sources on an equal plane as the multi-million dollar news outlet. In a world where one candidate can pay more to have his or her image eclipse, in size, the other candidate’s, there is not equality among the diversity of opinion.
As Bill Moyers states in the film, “Net At Risk,” with the FCC declaration last year that net neutrality rules were extinct, the potential for the most democratic mass medium in existence became truly at risk. Lobbyists are currently fighting to achieve a series of measures including the abovementioned one, in order to achieve a profit from Internet usage. The continuance of the media as an institution that is the lone medium where the public advocate role of the media is being fulfilled, hangs in limbo, ready for its death knell, or if enough support can be gathered, its establishment as a place of free thought.

As I followed the news today, I found myself being attracted to a (surprise surprise) non-news story. My journey started on CNN.com as I read, “Cheney Daughter’s Pregnancy Dismays Some.” Apparently, Mary Cheney and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe have decided to have a child, and for Mary to carry the child (Mazel Tov!). As I navigated to the U.S. Politics page on the site, I began to wonder how this story would be spun in order to appeal to the diverse American public. I thought to myself that I would probably have to check out the websites of a few different news outlets in order to see the full picture.
Silly me! As I scanned the Politics page, I saw a new headline for the same article. This time the headline read, “Vice President’s Lesbian Daughter Pregnant.” A totally different quote with a totally different message. The first headline mentioned seems to convey a neutral, but potentially negative undercurrent. Apparently some are dismayed or disappointed at the news that this woman is with child. Yet, the second headline seems nowhere near as neutral. Though it seems plainer and simpler, it packs a punch, the “L-word.” The characterization of this woman as a lesbian is the attempt to appeal to a certain type of reader. This headline is intended to shock and anger its readers into reading more.
If one thinks that this is the end of the headlines, one is sorely mistaken. There is yet one more- the headline that runs above the article itself. It reads, “Mixed Reaction to Cheney’s Daughter’s Pregnancy.” I would qualify this headline as neutral-positive. Like the first quote mentioned, it comes off as stating fact, yet, it does so in a way that also connotes and underlying feeling. Mixed reaction, in this situation, is a positive. People are not all out looking for this woman who is breaking down the moral fabric of society nor are all people out praising Cheney and Poe for taking a step in their relationship and deciding to have a child, in a way that many committed couples do.
To travel back to September, I find myself here having another set of proofs for support of the media as Profit-seeker in the potential media models. As evidenced here, news outlets are so eager to attract consumers of any belief or political persuasion. In order to do so, the same article will be dressed in different costumes (headlines) in order to draw the shoppers in.
Interestingly, the article itself contained aspects of each headline, though it ended on a note of affirmation, quoting a person commending the couple’s decision.

While reading Diana C. Mutz and Byron Reeves’ article, “The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust,” an article about the adverse relationship between the incivility of politicians towards one another on television and television consumers’ trust in the political system, I could not help but think of our previous class discussions about the effect of negative campaign advertisements on voters. As discussed in class, contemporary political scientists assert that negative campaigns, though they may be good sources of information about the candidates, have the ability to depress voter turnout, due to their negativity. It is interesting to connect Mutz and Reeves’ assertion that politicians on television are held to the same human decency standards as face-to-face interactions between people, to this theory of campaign ads. They suggest that as a result of the impolite treatment of one another politicians are viewed by television-viewers unfavorably and as a result, the institutions they represent (Congress, the Government in general, etc) are viewed unfavorably as well. Maybe it is for this reason that people become disillusioned by negative campaigning and are disinterested in voting. Based on this article I would like to assert that the feeling behind the disinterest in voting as a result of negative advertisements used in political campaigns is a result of television viewers’ distress over the incivility displayed by the candidates. This distress and disappointment over the lack of politeness expressed during elections, then manifests itself in the desire to want nothing to do with the election process.
When I think of negative campaigning of late, it is hard for me to forget the Midterm election battle that occurred in my home state of Pennsylvania between the incumbent Senator Rick Santorum and the newly elected future Senator Robert Casey. As the elections got closer and the polls tightened with Casey taking a bit of a lead, Santorum deployed a series of negative ads.

Along with ads bashing Casey, Senator Santorum also aired ads that lied about himself, as we discussed in class.

Though no significant research has been done to test the effect of Santorum's negative ad campaign, the people of Pennsylvania spoke, and as Americans rarely do they voted against the incumbent.
Maybe the people of Pennsylvania thought Senator Santorum was being impolite?

In the early chapters of Gilmor’s We the Media, he lays the groundwork for asserting that news organizations, and companies in general, should encourage feedback on their respective industries from customers and the like. One of his suggested examples is in the airport industry. Travelers, who usually know airports the best, and notice changes, should be encouraged to engage in discussion with the airline officials to make airports safer. People should be encouraged, Gilmor claims, to suggest changes and to point out failures and potential loopholes in order to protect the flying public.
I found it bizarrely coincidental that as I was browsing the CNN United States homepage I found an article relating specifically to this point. The article “FBI Investigates Student Over Website,” tells of a college student who did just what Gilmor suggested. For his dissertation, Christopher Soghoian, a student at Indiana University created a Web site exposing airport loopholes.
But, what was the reaction?
He became a suspect to the FBI. Government officials were concerned that Soghoian was conspiring with others, with the bad intentions of doing harm by making the airport security loopholes known.
Today, on his blog, Chris announced that the FBI has dropped its case and found him innocent. He explained the purpose of this website as purely to help improve the security situation at airports. Apparently, he was trying to follow Gilmor’s advice, to the t!
However, it seems that at this point in time, it’s the government who are unwilling to consider Gilmor’s and promote civic participation in matters of national security.

In the heat of the Senator Foley scandal I noticed a seemingly odd occurrence. On the cover of Time Magazine, smack in the middle, was the rear view of an elephant. The headline was something to the extent of “The End of the Republican Party.” While the picture was powerful in its starkness of a single elephant on a white background, it was the cover of the New York Times Magazine, a few days later that struck me. On the cover, there was yet another elephant. But this time the image represented an article dealing with the phenomena of endangered elephants. I found it interesting that even though the content was wholly unrelated, the images used were identical.
Upon showing this to my parents, my mother replied, “its zeitgeist.”
Zeitgeist is defined as “a phenomenon based on fate where something simultaneously happens everywhere at a certain time.” My mother informed me, that this is also a concept in media. Frequently, when one issue or image is used, it is used everywhere. When I logged onto CNN this evening, I found myself in another zeitgeist moment.
For the past day and a half, one of the news stories that was inescapable was the story of Sean Bell, a black man who was shot and killed outside a strip bar on the day his honeymoon was supposed to begin. The issue is meriting so much attention because as of yet, it is unclear why he and the other men he was with were shot, resulting in the one fatality. Every news circuit has been carrying this story all day. The grieving mother of his children visited the scene. A vigil was held where the participants counted to the number 50- the supposed number of how many shots the police fired at the men. Reverend Al Sharpton has gotten involved to express his anger. And, even Mayor Bloomberg has expressed the fact that he has found this matter to be “unacceptable.”
My moment of zeitgeist arrived at 9:30 p.m., after my last class, as the CNN homepage appeared on my computer screen. “Stories Differ in Police Killing, Chief Says,” read the headline. At quick glance I assumed this article was about the abovementioned shooting. But no! Unlike the first shooting, which occurred in Queens, New York, this shooting took place in Atlanta, Georgia. Last week, yes, last week, Kathryn Johnston, an 88-year old black woman, was shot and killed by police in a drug raid on her home. On Tuesday the police came to her home. They claim that she opened fire on them and they returned fire, mortally wounding her. Her family claims that this “little old woman” had nothing to do with drugs, nor did she allow other to use her home to sell drugs. Thus an investigation is underway.
I find myself wondering, what brought about the uncovering of this case that occurred earlier last week? Why did the Atlanta police chief announce that an investigation would commence today? In the Sean Bell case, the shooting occurred at 4 a.m. and within a few hours of publicity an investigation was underway!
Is there a relationship between the publicity of the Queens shooting and the surfacing of the Atlanta shooting, which is almost a week old?
Is it zeitgeist?
With this current example in mind, it is interesting to consider what causes zeitgeist. What we know is that the Sean Bell story was a popular story today. People were mobilized to hold a vigil, all the developments on this case were noted on websites, and this story was a top new story on news outlets. As depressing and horrible as it is to imagine, I see no other explanation than going back to our good old profit-seeker model.
Here we had a human-interest story that had all the elements of good news. We had police brutality, death, and a grieving widow. With all the interest it seems that the news wanted to capitalize on this attention, and what better way to do it that by digging up a similar story.
Sad, how two deaths, of which we know little to nothing about, become attempts of news outlets to attract viewers.

While I cannot deny that some of Gilmor’s technological jargon evaded my understanding, I must admit that I found myself seeing my own computer life in the journey to new media that Gilmor described in chapters one and two. In these chapters Gilmor details the development of the computer and the Internet and its interplay with media. As Gilmor went through each of the different stages I saw my family and myself in each stage and our growing familiarity with the Internet.
I was born into a family that already had a computer. My mother, when pregnant with my older brother decided that she should take a class to learn DOS. Then she bought our first Apple, the first of many Macs! From a young age Prodigy was a regular term in my home, though only my mother was the expert. I remember playing all the Broderbund Games (I think that is what they were called); we must have had every Learning Center game they produced! For several years the computer was purely a game pod for me. Eventually, it became a word processor also, as I started needing to type my papers. Yet, I was still scared of this so-called “Internet,” of which only my mother “knew the code.”
When America Online came out, we quickly switched, and interestingly, at the same time, the computer was moved from the basement office onto the second floor, near all the bedrooms. Coincidence, I think not! Finally, I decided to take the jump. All of my friends talked to each other on Instant Messenger, after school, so I too, needed to join. I remember the drama that accompanied choosing a screen name and email as well as a password.
My first experiences with Internet were email, IM, and chat rooms, though to this day I do not understand what my friends and I found entertaining about going into chat rooms and talking to each other, pretending to be total strangers.
As my family experienced different events, we became savvy in the different aspects of this new world of Internet. When my brother had his Bar Mitzvah my parents started a mail list with many relatives. This continued after the bar mitzvah, as family members shared their personal news with one another.
I distinctly remember the first time I used a search engine. My sister had been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I remember sneaking into the computer lab in my elementary school during lunch and typing in “ganglioglioma.”
High school brought a whole new wave of familiarity with the Internet. The idea that the Internet contained research information had been totally unknown by me. I remember thinking how many of my middle school papers would have been easier if only I would have made that realization.
Similar to what Gilmor said, my use of the Internet as a news provider did not really exist until September 11th. Only then did I become an avid browser of the various news outlet websites.
My most advanced Internet experiences have really been my more recent experience in the world of blogging. I recall, about a year or so ago, my cousin sent me a link to his blog, and I honestly had no clue what I was looking at. Yet now, just like with all my other Internet learning, I am once again unfazed.
Though still, every so often there are the new Internet experiences to be had. For instance, I watched my first full-length television show online, just last week!
What Gilmor’s first two chapters have left me with is a similar idea to what I learned from reading the book The World is Flat, that key to being successful in this day and age and understanding and properly using all the technology out there is the ability to be flexible. Everything can change in the drop of a hat and we must be open to new technologies and new technological experiences to live in this world and make sense of it. A prime example of this being my father, who, just a few years ago, at the age of 64 finally realized that he too, must embrace this world, and was the last member of my family to “sign on.”

Fascinatingly enough, after devoting a half hour to the quest for negative criticism, I am empty handed in my search for an unfavorable critique of Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs. However, it seems quite appropriate that once published, this book would merit little attention from the media, or anyone else. If purposely ignored, this seems all too similar to Boehlert’s discussion of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, whose protests were totally ignored by the press, in an attempt to make it seem that they did not exist. It only seems right that Boehlert would get the same treatment- no publicity for something never mentioned!
My reading of selections of Boehlert’s book was much like preaching to the choir. Once again my preconceived views of the post 9/11 press, particularly the White House Press Corps, as puppets to the Bush administration, has been confirmed.
Boehlert’s central claim in the book is that the press were more antagonistic towards former President Clinton than they currently are towards President Bush. In an article from the American Journalism Review, Rachel Smolkin writes that this is true mostly due to the appeal of scandal. She writes that the personal scandal that enveloped President Clinton’s presidency was far more entertaining to critique and expose than President Bush’s wartime maneuvers.
Eric Alterman’s article in the Nation, “Lies About Blowjobs. Bad Wars? Not so Much,” highlights this idea. Alterman notes that when President Clinton attempted to hide some sexual indiscretions, which had NOTHING to do with the running of a country, many of the press claimed that he merited impeachment. However, the fact that President Bush may have lied to the American people about A WAR seems to be okay.
Similarly, in a blog, under the heading “Press as biased against Clinton as it is pro Bush,” the author details how the press hounded President Clinton from the beginning of the election campaign, straight on till today. The Whitewater scandal, as well as the several harassment and sex scandals were never brushed under the rug. Yet, we never have heard the extensive juicy details of President Bush’s cocaine use or his bout with alcoholism.
It thus seems that Eric Boehlert’s claim is correct. For a plethora of reasons, the press have been much more antagonistic to President Clinton than they have been to President Bush.