Does the media have too much power in modern democraticsocieties?In modern day, there have grown to be manysources of power but one that can be found in nearly every state in this worldis the power of media. In the last century, humankind has witnessed arevolution in society’s means of communication and the birth of electronicmedia has changed the game of politics, in more ways than one. “The way people act is conditioned by what theythink and feel, and that what is thought and felt is affected by the picture ofthe world conveyed by the mass media,” (Street, 2017) Manuel Castells (2009)shared his working hypothesis, stating that ‘the most fundamental form of powerlies in the ability to shape a human mind’ and although this power may not betranslated directly, we have yet seen anything influence thought the way mediadoes.Although one might question, is the power ofmedia coming to a decline?It is said that with the establishment ofdemocracy comes the decline of the media. As of today, media distrust is atit’s all time high, credibility has been reaped and reputation tarnishing. Theglobal audience is no longer as impressionable as they might have been in thepast.This essay will argue that the media does carrya lot of power within modern democratic societies but not to the point it isharmful to the public, as of current day, people are more aware and welleducated, not quick to believe what is said by the media and are more cautiousinto not allowing themselves into being manipulated. The media is often regarded as the fourth branch in the government and that without it, the government or any political party would not be able to act effectively. It was built with the original purpose to inform the public on current events and global affairs and ultimately, the media has the power of information. Retrospectively they get to decide what we see, what we hear and what we know and often times the information released to the public may be distorted or manipulated. The most evident time to witness when and howpower is exercised over a democracy is during the elections, the media’sbusiest season. During elections, the government and political parties woulduse multiple media sources to introduce their candidates and persuade potentialvoters, who happen to be the most principal group the media seeks to influence.Democratic elections are impossible to conduct without the media, to have afair election is furthermore than just having the freedom to vote but alsoabout guaranteeing the people’s fundamental freedom of information, the crucialprocess where voters receive adequate information about the parties, policies,candidates and engage in public debate in order to make well-informedchoices.“This large-scale individualized collective action is oftencoordinated through digital media technologies, sometimes with politicalorganizations playing an enabling role, and sometimes with crowds using layersof social media to coordinate action,” (Bennett, 2012) once upon a time thetraditional role of the media during the elections was that of a watchdog, toprotect the public against the deceitful, corrupt and incompetent but today,their role is conflicted with meeting the new demands of having to act as themiddle man who brings candidates and voters together. The media is no longer only asked to keep an eye out forwrongdoings, today they are expected to guide the voters’ decisions byscreening the potential nominees for presidency and deciding which campaignsare worthy of attention (Graber, 2011). But the question arises, why does thegovernment care so much about what the people think if they’re in controlanyways? It is simply because a democracy is by definition, a government by,for and of the people. Within a democracy, people are the main political force,examining their power through their ability to vote officials in and out ofoffices, policies and engage in debates about relevant issues. So in having thepower to influence the thought of the people would actually mean the media hasthe power to affect or even decide the results of an election. The media tells people what’s important, themore significant the information the more media coverage is placed and namelyin a news story there are many angles that can be found within the story, whichangle the media chooses to frame the story in is important. It then decides howthe story is told, how it is painted and how significant the story will be tothe public. The media possesses the ability to provokepeople or interest groups into mobilizing just by highlighting a specificissue. It could direct potential voters to turn against an electoral candidate justby releasing sensitive information that defames the candidate. McCombs and Shaw (1972) recognised that the massmedia carried a significant influence over what voters considered to be themajor issues of a campaign. They were the first to suggest that the media setsthe public agenda, in a manner where they aren’t out rightly telling you whatto think but they may tell you what to think about. This is better referred to as agenda-setting,the ability of the mass media to bring information to the attention of thepublic. The more attention the media places on an issue, the more the publicwill perceive the issue as important. The first level of agenda-setting is the mediatelling us “what to think about” but the second level of agenda-setting is themedia telling us “how to think about it”, this is done through framing. How astory is presented, or “framed” to the public greatly affects the way thepublic feels about it. The September 11 attacks to some were an act ofcrime and to others an act of war, and in a paper by Edy and Meirick (2007),the effects of framing a news story was measured.Whether news sources used a ‘crime frame’ versus a ‘war frame’ to address theattack, influenced how the public identified the act and what they believed wasthe appropriate solution. It seemed that the consistent adoption of a war framewould be closely associated with support for military action in Afghanistan. This is more or less, what the public wouldlabel as propaganda. The actual definition of propaganda is still up for debatebut to cite the Cambridge dictionary, it is defined as, “information,ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that arebroadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention ofinfluencing people’s opinions.”This often comes in to play when covering upconflict, negative advertising in elections or selling a story during wartimecoverage. Propaganda is not always false, if it serves their purpose apropagandists would happily tell you the truth but what truly matters to themis to promote the message they are trying to sell. It is a powerful tool torally people behind a cause but it comes with the costs of exaggeration andmanipulation. In electoral campaigns, propaganda can be foundwhen the media tells you only the good in a candidate, leaving out otherwiseimportant information, which would cause the public to believe that the candidatecan only do good things and during an election, acandidate’s ability to frame a story more successfully than his competitor iswhat would almost guarantee to put him in the lead, doing so by working toframe the story for their own gain or to minimise their own damages. War and propaganda are inseparable, to garnerthe support of their people, statesmen will reinforce the negative image of the“enemy” and persuade their nation that the act they aim to do is for thegreater interest of everyone. Often this means demonising the country beingattacked and praising their own to convince themselves that the war is just,framing it to be just another story of “good guy” versus “bad guy.” The media has shown how capable they are ofexercising power over a democracy but in present day, it seems that the media’saudience is no longer responding the way they used to. Back in the 1970’s, itwas noted that not only were the media favorably perceived but the level ofpublic confidence was quite possibly higher than that of any other politicalinstitutions at the time. The people were satisfied with the overallperformance of the news outlets and public criticism of the news media remainedfairly limited but in the 1990’s, the media were no longer so favourablyviewed. By examining the yearly General Social Survey (GSS), out of all institutions,the press had suffered the steepest decline (Gronke and Cook, 2007). The decline came accompanied with criticism ofgovernmental intervention, favouritism and political bias within the media. The public started recognising the media wasnot reflecting reality but rather reproducing the views from their primarysources, and these tend to be high government officials. In order for the mediato fully fulfill their roles, they would have to offer a great variety ofopinions and viewpoints, encouraging citizens to choose among them but inallowing politicians to set the agenda they have narrowed the public discussionand ultimately diminishing democracy (Schudson, 2008).Last year it was reported that, with the aim tohelp Donald Trump win the presidency, fabricated stories were spread online. Theresearch and data company, Kantar, conducted a survey in the United States,Brazil, Britain and France and out of those 8,000 people surveyed, 58% saidthat as a result of becoming aware of fake news they had less trust in socialmedia news stories about politics or elections and for mainstream media, thefigure was 24% (Shirbon and King, 2018). Fake news was damaging the credibility of thepress and what the media is to fear is not that the public will believe thoselies but rather when the public stops believing in anything at all the mediasays.  Transparencyand trust were no longer associated with the media, as it is no longer seen asa neutral party whose purpose is to inform and edify – it is seen as acontrolled weapon. Although the power of the media may not be very well respected,there seems little threat to the continuation of that power. The audience isdefinitely not as impressionable as it once was but it will be a long time tillthe people stop listening. Toconcatenate my thoughts, the media does exercise a lot of power over ademocratic society but not to the extent that it is harmful or damaging to thefreedom of the people. The media carries the power of information, as they are the number one source for current news and global affairs for the people and in today’s modern democracy, the media also has to play the role of the middleman who brings the government and it’s citizens together. The media also has the power to mobilize interest groups and provoke people, having the capabilities to incite negative reactions by releasing the kind of information needed to do so. One of the most powerful tools in media is setting the agenda, aimed to tell the people what to think about by putting more attention and emphasis on a specific issue, doing so will make the issue seem important and significant. Second to that, is the media’s ability to frame a story, deciding how a story should be perceived and received would ultimately influence how the people would feel about it. Sincethe 1970’s, the media has lost a lot of respect and credibility yet theaudience still remains. The public has grown to be more aware and educated now,in comparison to nearly five decades ago, so the media does have the power toinform but they do not have the overt power to decide what the people thinkanymore instead the public takes in what the media says and decides forthemselves what they think and how they feel about it. Bibliography:Castells, M. (2009). Communication power.Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press.STREET, J. (2017). MASS MEDIA, POLITICS ANDDEMOCRACY. [S.l.]: PALGRAVE.Meyer, T. and Hinchman, L. (2010). Mediademocracy. Cambridge: Polity.Bennett, W. (2012). The Personalization ofPolitics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,644(1), pp.20-39.Graber, D. (2011). Media power in politics.Washington, DC: CQ Press.McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the agenda.Cambridge: Polity.Edy, J. and Meirick, P. (2007). Wanted, Dead orAlive: Media Frames, Frame Adoption, and Support for the War in Afghanistan.Journal of Communication, 57(1), pp.119-141.C Gronke, P. and Cook, T. (2007). Disdainingthe Media: The American Public’s Changing Attitudes Toward the News. PoliticalCommunication, 24(3), pp.259-281.Schudson, M. (2008). Why democracies need anunlovable press. Cambridge: Polity Press.Shirbon, E. and King, L. (2018). Fake newshurts trust in media, mainstream outlets fare better – poll. [online] U.K.Available at: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-media-fakenews/fake-news-hurts-trust-in-media-mainstream-outlets-fare-better-poll-idUKKBN1D002O[Accessed 24 Feb. 2018].Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more