Critic says politics, press unavoidably intertwined

Wednesday, October 30, 1996

MEDIA:

Journalists knowingly influence

voters, Times expert saysBy John Digrado

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

In his field, few are more qualified to criticize the press and
its role in politics than David Shaw.

The media knowingly influence the voter, changing the course of
American politics and causing the public’s well-publicized apathy
toward their elected officials, observed the Pulitzer Prize-winning
Los Angeles Times media critic.

"Most people have lost interest in the campaign largely because
of the media," he said. "Because the media is cynical and negative,
voters have lost confidence in the process and in their own votes"
to cause any real change in Washington and beyond.

A special program Tuesday, presented by the UCLA Film and
Television Archive, focused on the media’s role and influence on
the upcoming election, pitting a panel of four well-known experts
in their respective fields against each other in a spirited
discussion.

"When the public views its leaders with … mistrust, the entire
system breaks down," Shaw said, adding that while journalists are
by their nature skeptical, that skepticism often rubs off on
voters, influencing their decision.

Polls of all sorts take much of the responsibility for
influencing voters, Shaw said, by becoming "self-fulfilling
prophecies." Candidates who are ahead early in the campaign are
more likely to garner larger campaign contributions from various
donors.

Those funds, in turn, allow a candidate to campaign harder and
get their message before the voters more than their competitors,
garnering more support and more votes ­ a cycle effect that is
difficult for other candidates to break, Shaw said.

But while the numbers appear to support those kinds of
statements, there are far more pressing issues on voters’ minds
when they vote than polls and the media, said panelist John Zaller,
a UCLA professor of political science.

Handing out statistics that show direct correlations between the
economic performance of the country and the candidate who wins the
election, Zaller explained that it is often "the economy, stupid,"
as the handout claimed, that pushes a presidential candidate into
office.

Election outcomes can often be predicted well before the
campaign actually begins, Zaller said. "The better the economy is
doing (on Election Day), the better the incumbent does."

President Clinton, while maintaining a commanding lead over
former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, is further buoyed by the
performance of the American economy during his tenure as president,
Zaller said.

For whatever reason ­ Clinton’s economic policy, changes in
the economic climate or just sheer luck ­ the president has
the economy in his favor heading into the home stretch of the
campaign.

"Despite all of the money and hoopla, peace, prosperity and
moderation are probably the most important determinants in election
outcomes," Zaller said.

This separation and trivialization of the media’s effect on the
election process cannot be made, however, since the media and
politics are inextricably intertwined with each other, said
panelist Peter Wollen, chair of the critical studies program at
UCLA’s Department of Film and Television.

"It’s a mistake to see the political process and the media as
two separate systems," Wollen said. "We’re actually seeing two
dimensions of the same (phenomenon)."

Since the advent of television as a medium of disseminating
information to the masses during the 1960s, politicians have
manipulated the media to their own ends. "The media is a player in
the game, not just an outsider," Wollen said.

So involved is politics in the media that politicians actively
seek funding from commercial sources, deeply imbedding the
political process in commercialism and advertising, he said.

"Politics becomes like everything else," Wollen said. "The press
and television are funded by advertising ­ politics, too,
becomes an exercise in marketing."