In modern societies, media has developed into the fourth pillar of democracy. Its influence on the public and the government is undeniable. Modern-day politicians reckon with the influence of the media and the people. During elections, media can be a game changer and governments should react to public opinions (Robinson 2008: 139). An example of the power of media might be the US-Presidential Elections in 2016. But, with some other events in the past, the question arises to what extent an elite circle has influenced – or is influencing – US foreign policy.
This essay should be an approach to analyse the two basic models of media analysis in the US. First, I will discuss the liberal Pluralist Model and point out its key characteristics as well as its major disadvantages. Second, I will examine the elite approaches of the Realists as an answer to the pluralist model. This essay will conclude with some questions about the influence of the public and elite groups on the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
Before analysing the influence of media on US Foreign Policy, you need to define the term media. Many scholars refer the term to the established or mainstream media outlets such as TV news channels, newspapers, and cable networks (Robinson 2018) because there is no significant state broadcaster in the US, although it exists. But there are slight differences between these media outlets. There are partisan media, like Fox News or MSNBC, but also more objective media outlets, like ABC or NBC. The task of media outlets is to provide the public with a wide range of information and viewpoints. But what does that mean for the public opinion and the influence on foreign policy? When following these academic definitions, it seems clear that the public and media can influence foreign policy through domestic pressure.
The number of private media outlets clearly supports the idea of the American Exceptionalism.
According to Daniel Deudney and Jeffrey W. Meiser, American Exceptionalism is strongly linked to Liberalism (2018).
Therefore, some scholars came up with the idea of the pluralist media model, which supports these liberal and democratic ideas. Fundamentally, the model claims that power is adequately dispersed throughout the society. None of the powers, like government, media, or the public, is able to abuse its position.
Outcomes of political processes are achieved by debates and negotiations of different positions. This position is clearly supported by the number of media outlets in the US, as well as by the different kinds of media.
Another claim made by advocates of the pluralist model is the assumption that the public is capable of rationally processing all the offered information in order to form and articulate their own independent position following the motto "There is no real truth out there". Related to this assertion is the independence of the media from political power to present a diverse range of political views.
With regard to the different options and positions, Scott Althaus coined the two levels of media influence and criticism on foreign policy (2003: 383). On the one hand, there is the procedural level, where most of the criticism takes place. It is the debate over the implementation of foreign policy. Whereas on the other hand, criticism and influence on the substantive level relate to the justification of a certain policy.
As a consequence of all three core assumptions, public opinion and political decisions are influenced by the media, as well as vice-versa. An example of this nexus would be the humanitarian aid in 1991. The public saw the pictures of starving and suffering people and demanded aid from the government. As a result, the Bush Administration was influenced by the media and the public opinion and sent the requested aid.
But there are some problems with the pluralist model. Advocates of this model ignore the existing influence of the US government and focus only on some events in the past rather than on the regular practice. In addition to the US government, small groups can influence the public in their favour. In other words, they use the media to convey their opinions and neglect alternative viewpoints. With regard to the pluralist model, this viewpoint disregards the independence of media from political power. Actually, partisan media, which are linked to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, support the view of a depended media.
Consequently, opponents of the pluralist idea developed a new model. Their elite model suggests that small groups influence media, and therefore public opinion and policymaking. The general public is incapable of deciding right. Walter Lippmann even described the public as "a master of indecision" (Lippmann 1955). The political process is the outcome of elite interests and agendas of certain lobby groups. Even media and public debates are dominated by it. Following the theory of the elite model, every elite opinion has "its own" newspaper which stands out as an organ of this elite opinion (Cohen 1963: 136). In other words, the media is not only used to influence what people see and hear, but it is also used to direct them into certain directions.
Keeping that in mind, media is more convincing the public rather than informing it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most famous philosophers and all-round genius, formulated his propaganda model on the basis of the elite model.
He describes the US mainstream media as a tool to inform and inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society (Herman and Chomsky 1988). Chomsky defined five filters in his model.
The first filter, named “ownershipâ€, notes that the mainstream media is owned by several interest groups. This filter is obviously supported by existing lobby groups and the dependence of media outlets.
According to the second filter, called “Advertisingâ€, media outlets, like newspapers, need to attract readers to cover costs. As a consequence, media is attracted to a wealthy audience, which is educated and informed., so news is just filling the blank spaces between the advertisements.
The third filter, “Sourcingâ€, puts the government into the position of an information outlet to reduce the costs for reporters around the world.
The fourth filter is called “Flakâ€. It simply is the term for pressure groups which try to discredit alternative opinions or individuals that disagree with the prevailing ideas.
His last filter is just called “Fearâ€. Elite groups use strong imagery to discredit their opponents. During the Cold War, this filter was called Anti-Communism, whereas it is nowadays called Islamophobia (Allan 2010: 22).
In a nutshell, media is not free and autonomous according to Chomsky. It is interested in making revenue, rather than in informing the public with high-quality news.
Although the elite model solves the major problems of the pluralist model, there are still unanswered questions.
Critics of the elite model often state out that journalists and the US public are too limited because the model overemphasises the political and economic interests of certain groups. Another counterargument would be the empirical evidence that the public is able to oppose to mainstream messages. There are, indeed, different kinds of media, like the ones mentioned at the beginning. Closely linked to this argument is the view that media is one entity which collides with the description of the media environment in the US.
As you can see, it is difficult to analyse foreign policy and media just by using only one model. While the pluralist model contributes to the American exceptionalism, it neglects the financial and material influence of other groups than the public. The use of two main categories to discuss foreign policy leads to a narrowing of the view towards a simplification. On the other hand, the elite model tends to ignore the influence of the public in certain historical cases.
Speaking of historical cases, one might think of the Vietnam War. Several questions might now come to mind. Most importantly, which model is more applicable to the Vietnam War. Other questions might be: What traces of elite influence can be found? Is there any evidence for Chomsky’s propaganda model? Are both, the pluralist model and elite model, useful to describe the public influence during the war?
As already said, I will try to answer some of these questions in my second coursework, but the main focus will be on the search for the most suitable model.