English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

One of the distinguishing features of British politics is the presence of a highly partisan press. As a result it is often argued that rather than simply engaging in agenda setting or issue framing, newspapers in Britain can influence both how individuals vote and the aggregate outcome of elections.

The Sun's boast "It was the Sun wot won it" does ring true; they supported the Tories in the 1992 elections and switched sides in the 1997 elections, helping New Labour to victory.

2007-01-15 22:11:56 · answer #1 · answered by Never say Never 5 · 1 0

It is not just what they do that can have an effect, but what they don't do.
TV and Papers have been mentioned but Radio is a very powerful tool as well. At the last General election the local BBC radio in Hull decided not to have any hustings in John Prescotts constituency. This allowed him to go around the country without fear that debate was going on that he might have to attend instead of helping to elect other party members.
As a result unless people read the Hull Daily Mail they did not know there were nine candidates including Mr. Prescott. The turnout was 46%. Mr. Prescotts winning margin was about 12, 000 votes.
Impossible to know if this lack of coverage influenced the actual result, but I think reasonable to surmise that it did affect the awareness of the issues both local and national that were being debated. Such as school and hospital closures.
It denied other parties the chance to reach a wider audience with their alternative plans(if they had any.)
My own personal opinion is that a public broadcaster,which has a duty to inform, should be required to arrange, cover and broadcast on local radio and TV hustings in all consituencies.
It should be upto the candidates to get there or send a party representative(or not) as case may be.
The BBC did the people of Hull East a major disservice in May 2005. Perhaps many other constituencies as well. The excuse they used to me was that they were not allowed to give minor parties coverage above a certain level, as in 'disproportionate to their size and candidates.'

I believe this to be an internal decision (ie management as opposed to part of the charter) but as the management has a political bias(at present Labour, previously Tory) then they have no interest in informing the general public what is out there.

If you want to know how many political parties are out there the Electoral Commission is the place to go for the UK. When I last looked I seem to recall about 137 officially registered parties.

2007-01-19 08:51:04 · answer #2 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0 0

Well, I think the first thing to say, is that, the TV media is far and away the most powerful medium for influencing public opinion. Nothing else comes close. Now, as a public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to be independant, but unfortunately, as it has admitted, it is left wing, and so are the other four terrestrial channels. ITV, being a little less so. I think that we can leave newspapers out of this, because, for the masses, they are much less influential, and most people know, or should know, their respective political leanings.

The bias I have referred to above, presents itself, in the main, to an unsuspecting public in a variety of different ways. Political and PC related dogma is played out through, for example, the soaps and other dramas. Discussion programmes, like question time, often loads the panel in favour of liberal/left wingers, not to mention the composition of the audience. News bulletins, can avoid mentioning certain items of news, or give them a particular spin, often in very subtle and subliminal ways. Opinion about news events is often presented as though it were fact. There is a clear bias against America and Israel. There is also a very powerful feminist agenda feeding through the TV media in all areas of broadcasting. So on and so forth.

Younger people, and those who are not politically savvy, will miss much of this manipulation/indoctrination. It also feeds through on this site, when it seems that they are parroting/echoing, what they have heard without questioning it for themselves.

If you add to the bias existing in the TV media, that which also exists in many pressure groups (incidentally the TV media usually invite these people into the studio to parrot the views that they want us to hear), Education, Town halls, much of the public sector and the government, then it is hardly surprising that people become brainwashed into left wing thinking.

So, the effects are very powerful, and do influence the way people vote.

2007-01-16 00:41:19 · answer #3 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

The media have something that no-one else has; that is a huge platform; they say what they like and no-one else can. The greatest part is the Press, they have clear political links . . for example The Mail and The Express, who hate one another, are so blatantly Conservative, whereas The Daily Mirror is very much Labour. Whatever rubbish they write and which is read by the masses, cannot be disputed because any individual who wants to challenge it will not be able to get it printed. The only way you can get a letter printed is to start off by praising the 'Papers' journalists.
The large majority of people who read the newspapers actually believe what they say so the "media" do actually have a strong influence over the vote.
That's what we call democracy!

2007-01-15 22:20:04 · answer #4 · answered by greatbrickhill 3 · 0 0

Most party leaders seem to court Rupert Murdoch in their bid to get The Sun Newspaper behind them. Mrs Thatcher apparently didn't but both Blair and Brown hassle Murdoch when he's in London and also Cameron. Murdoch hasn't decided who to back out of Brown and Cameron - whoever gets invited over to some big 'do' Murdoch throws is seen as 'the chosen one' so I would say the Murdoch media empire plays a pretty huge role in determining election results!

2007-01-15 22:51:12 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0 0

Without the information that the media pump out 24/7 the vast majority of this country's voters would not know that an election was taking place. In between reality TV shows at least a tiny fraction of the population may hear, by chance, that one poitician or another has policies that another politician may or may not agree with. The sad thing is that all the blah blah blah that an election provokes in the papers and on the box does not seem to influence people to go out and vote. The ONLY way that YOU can affect any changes in British society is to get out and VOTE.

2007-01-15 22:07:14 · answer #6 · answered by BARROWMAN 6 · 0 1

an interesting question.. i am a political journalist.

i think that the media is an important tool for citizens to inform themselves about political options. however, because of time and budget constraints, as well as commercial realities voters won't get the whole story. the mainstream media generally has to limit itself to major parties, and the 'big story'.

Also, because of the reality of how the news system works today, the mainstream media is forced to cover 'manufactured' news- news conferences; press releases; and reactionary coverage. Less and less time and money is being devoted to investigational journalism.

Sometimes, the media are too quick to rely on polls, which can also have an influence on voters decison-making process. That is why here in Canada, there are rules about when polls can be done, and on when the results of the election can be released in each time zone. The types of questions that are asked can also provide skewed results.

Some media also provide editorial recommendations on which party they suggest... which is acceptable, as long as it is clearly an editorial and not included in news stories.

Smaller, local media outlets can sometimes be more helpful in informing you about local issues. Alternative media also provide different angles.

But, ultimately, citizens have a responsibility to inform themselves in as many ways as possible... including getting involved on their own. As I said media is just a tool... not the answer.

cheers.

2007-01-16 11:47:50 · answer #7 · answered by silverblueish 2 · 0 0

Showing the existence by performing fast is also become a system and latest trend to few party, adopted the system by performing in public place,/ more power full yielding for coming election they might have felt. I think at the time of Anna"s agitation all parliamentarian merged in one Group due to the unavoidable circumstances occurred and developed the feeling es of opposition out side the parliamentary fresher and support unexpectedly become a strong opposition. Any step of action against the public will take an birth of opposition every day I think to any party may from state or central.

2016-05-24 22:04:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

media doesnt play a big role here coz itf they do behind the scenes tie-up with party people,they are sure of getting criticism from viewers when they favour a certain party.
the media needs to have a balanced look to all parties that take part in elections.

2007-01-15 22:06:54 · answer #9 · answered by krishna 4 · 0 2

it seems to be quite a big one through subliminal messaging
no country would elect tony blair 3 times without it

2007-01-16 04:38:18 · answer #10 · answered by liam0_m 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers