Arguably, since the beginning of 21st century political system and its outcome has entered a new era of high-tech politics. The behavior of policymakers, politicians, and citizen is tremendously shaped by modern communication technology. As a matter of fact, modern day campaigns, elections, and outcomes are dictated by modern mass communication. In this perspective, modern mass media communication technologies include television, fm radio, magazines, as well as newspapers. Modern mass media reach wide number of people of which it influences both the elite in the society and the masses. Historically, modern communication technology has developed tremendously; especially in relation to news coverage on politics and government. Basically, the outcome of elections in the political arena is by a higher percentage determined by modern communication technology.
Undeniably, the success of modern politics depends on how mass media is controlled. The image making of politicians does not end up during campaigns, but it is also critical as it continues to govern politicians on daily activities, influencing the next elections. Therefore, modern communication technology is the master and a watchdog of the public (Campus 220). The image of politicians in the mass media is seen as the best indicator of their wallop. Politicians in the past have tried to curtail media freedom but have not succeeded; in fact, they have learned that the best way to guide media is to limit their reports (American Political Science Association). In this case, the public have confidence on the modern communication technology, of which any political contestant trying to oppress the mass media is headed to political failure.
The power of mass media in setting political agendas, focusing on public issues, and analyzing political contestants is well-documented and immense influence. Modern communication technology has educated the public on political issues, of which they acquire accurate information on public issues (Bennett and Iyengar, 707). Generally, modern communication technology influences the decisions of the voters, either by focusing on the political manifestos or by analyzing behavior of political contenders. Hence, during elections voters from all parts of the nation get to make decisions based on facts rather than political propaganda.
During elections, modern communication technology influence votes by contributing on various political principles of democratic accountability and openness, of which is well known as transparency. The outcome of elections depends on the news from the mass media; this is because the public base their decisions on how media presents politicians. As a matter of fact, modern communication appeal on a politician is more vital than politicians’ personal skills and character (Campus 225). Media personalities and actors understand the impact of modern communication on politics that are why many of them decide to go into politics.
Public demand a lot of information currently as compared to the past, modern communication technology plays a fundamental role in informing the society about elections, campaigns and politics. Modern communication technology affects the decisions of voters through negative campaign coverage, as well as distinguished media coverage (Esser 2). For example, media biasness can affect the way in which election contenders are publicized. Hence, when the media coverage is positive, it has a positive impact on the election outcome. Furthermore, mass media dictate elections outcome by educating the public on the issue to focus during the election, as well as the criteria to use in choosing the right candidate for the post (American Political Science Association).
Conversably, newspapers play a tremendous role in the outcome of political elections. As a matter of fact, newspapers are many in every nation; some are privately owned, while others are owned by the government. These newspapers focus on candidates and more importantly in influencing the voters. The public in most countries has discovered that newspapers are credible and reliable resource on election news (Bennett & Iyengar 710). Statistics shows that newspapers have numerous effects ranging from party vote share, political participation, as well as electoral competitiveness. Newspapers dictate election outcome by either reminding or informing electorates of the verity that election is or will take place.
Additionally, newspapers affect politics though provision of information on candidates and contemporary political issues that are stake, as well as publicizing on platforms and characteristics of the candidates. Theories of voting assert that people in society will vote if they are clearly informed on issues surrounding the election. In modern communication technologies, parties have come up with their own newspapers; hence, these partisan newspapers mobilize party supporters to participate in the voting process. Newspapers also voter turnout it been a result of increasing civic engagement and social capital. Impacts of newspapers on election outcome depend on the competition of newspapers.
Newspaper editorial decisions also dictates elections outcome, especially in endorsing candidates. Actually, when a newspaper endorses a candidate, they take sides in informing the public on elections, of which it takes place at the peak of election campaigns. For example, in 2008 Barack Obama received more than twice endorsements in the newspapers that his competitor John McCain. Newspapers change the perception of voters by providing various hosting cues on the salience news of topics in day to day activities. Incumbency advantage in political elections is particularly powerful. Newspapers, therefore, dictate the outcome of political election by either decreasing or increasing incumbency advantage (Campus 227). Generally, with globalization and advancement in technology, newspapers are not the only main mode of mass media that dictate elections; but, in a society where there are no newspapers, turnout of voters is low, this is because they have limited information on candidates, issues as well as elections. Each newspaper dictates the public depending on the type of readers it serves (King & Nelson 3)
Magazines are also another modern communication technology. In fact, magazines are among the most informative material on personality of candidates. Print media, of which it includes magazines, are printed on either daily, weekly, monthly or annually. Individuals in most cases, sell their manifestoes using colorful printing of magazines. Magazines are exceptionally attractive at a glance, because they are printed in many colors. Therefore, politicians reach the voters using magazines. The contents on magazines mainly focus on the characteristics of the candidates. For example, family background, education, cultural beliefs, as well as issues they support.
Perhaps, politicians use magazines to market themselves; hence, what is written on most newspapers is positive. This influence the way voters perceive the candidate. Most of them are swayed to vote, but others go further and look or more information on the leader. It therefore, builds a sense of eagerness to know more on the candidates (Dickinson 37). Due to significant interest publication of magazines, it can easily betray the voters’ genuine decision to vote. In the past, candidates have also used magazines to expose the negative issues of the opponents. The public is always on the watch, anything that comes from the media is influential (American Political Science Association). Most magazines are imported and exported; this implies that information reach is extended to voters in Diasporas. Basically, magazines dictate an election outcome through spreading of manifestos, propagandas, and biasness. As matter of fact politics is a gamer that can be won by all means, what is decisive is winning the confidence of the voters (Castells 27).
Perhaps, broadcast media has done a terrific job in shaping the politics of the world. Broadcast media include television, radio as well as internet. As a form of modern technology, television is old in the field of politics, and it plays a bigger part in politics during election. During elections and campaigns, the news on television is all about politics. Other social and economic issues are put aside. For example, televised presidential debates and election began as early as 1960. Since then, television has influence the outcome of politics negatively and positively. Television acts as the connector between political candidates and the public. In fact, television gives candidates a chance to be seen by the public in a human form (Stanyer 7).
Generally, political candidates cannot travel to the entire nation and meet all people in person; television allows these candidates to come into sight in more human image in the eyes of the voters. Additionally, it makes contenders be more accountable for their activities. Television presents live debates to the public, where the public are given a chance to question the candidate on various issues (Bennett & Iyengar 730). Therefore, it plays a critical role in determining political outcome. The debates on televisions are based on ideas, but the audiences see beyond the idealistic framework. Just like newspapers, television dictates elections by recommending various cues on salience. Television allocate a lot of time to the election and campaigns, as well as opening the newscast with elections stories (Oppel 1).
The way television presents certain political issues has an impact on opinion of the public. In fact, television can stress a small issue in the political arena that can change the entire outcome of elections. Television also can confuse the public; this is because it focuses more of physical view making the public focus on minor and wrong aspects of the contestants. In the past, elections were best on ideas and political views, but since the introduction of television focus has shifted to who looks fabulous. Additionally, televisions undermine other personal traits of individuals that are indispensable in leadership (Castells 30). Of which many people will base it in voting; some presidential candidates are not quick in answering questions during debates, but they have substantial manifestos, and fundamental leadership skills. But such candidate will be voted out because the public will be influenced by the debate. Television dictates election outcome because it reaches many people. Television develops a new reality that is full of media consultants, pollsters, doctors, elites, and even bandits. Hence, candidates will try to conform to what television portrays society to be (Wagner 17).
Internet is the most developing type of modern communication technology. Internet is the closest competitor to television in dictating election outcome. It is not yet televisual, but employs the use of pictures and texts. Online political information and internet enhances voter information on elections and candidates, as well as stimulating citizen participation and interest. Internet is selective in influencing election outcome because of its accessibility. In most cases, it influences those who have access to it. They include elites and individuals belonging to higher socioeconomic class. Basically, internet dictates elections by increasing the turnout of predisposed voters (Weiss 12).
Introduction of online voting and online registration has increased participation and increased confidence of the voters. On-line voting eliminates rigging and other election irregularities. Internet has become the main source of videos, news, and information related to campaigns and elections (Ross 57). In developed countries many people are informed on election issues through the internet. Research shows that internet traffic increases during elections. Internet serves a sizeable percentage of the youth in society, the old still use television and newspapers to get election campaigns. For example, Barrack Obama used internet to capture the attention of many youth (American Political Science Association). Undeniably, internet dictates election outcome by providing a platform for interaction between the voters and candidates. Use of social sites such as twitter and facebook has increased the interest of voters to participate in political discussions.
Fm radio is the cheapest means of receiving information as compared to other modern communication technology. Hence, it is possible to communicate to masses using Fm radio. Radio elevates the status quo of candidates, enabling them to convince voters on their opinions and correctness of information (Castells 24). Undeniably, Fm radio has a positive influence on election outcome; this is because voters have the privilege to listen to candidates and critically analyze them based on facts. Radio campaigns eliminate stereotype decision making based on appearance. Moreover, radio advertisements are rampant during elections. Every candidate uses radio to advertise themselves and persuade voters (Campus 230).
Conclusively, modern communication technology dictates the election outcome in society today. As a matter of fact, it enhances civic literacy, increases competition among the candidates, as well as increasing the outcome of voter turnout. Furthermore, with the introduction of modern communication, voters are influenced to vote based on issues rather than propaganda. On the other hand, modern communication technology can negatively affect the election outcome through biasness, spreading propaganda, and passing wrong information to voters, this implies that modern communication can cause imperfection in a democratic system. Political outcome depend on new from the mass media, this is because individuals in society base their election decision on how media presents the candidates. In fact, voters trust mass media than politicians, hence, they have entrusted them the role of giving them direction on how to make decisions during elections. Despite increase of modern communication dictating election outcome, voters should always vote wisely, basing their decisions on facts and ideas.
Work cited
American Political Science Association. APSA Political Communication. Web. Retrieved 18
February 2012 from http://www.apsanet.org/~polcomm/
Bennett, W. Lance and Iyengar, Shanto. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing
Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication Vol. 58 (4): 707-
731.
Campus, Donatella. “Mediation and Personalization of Politics in Italy and France: The Cases of
Berlusconi and Sarkozy.” The International Journal of Press/Politics Vol. 15 (2): 219-
235.
Castells, Manuel. Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press (USA), 2009.
Dickinson, Tim. “Romney Camp Tapped Volunteers for Deceptive Polling Effort in Michigan.”
Rolling Stone 15 February 2012. Web. Retrieved 18 February 2012 from
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/romney-camp-tapped-
volunteers-for-deceptive-polling-effort-in-michigan-20120215
Esser, Frank, ed. Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases and Challenges. New
York:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
King, Neil, and Nelson, Colleen McCain. “GOP Primary Math = Long Division.” Wall Street
Journal 18 February 2012. Web. Retrieved 18 February 2012 from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204059804577229281456013096.html?
mod=WSJ_elections_article_liveupdate
Oppel, Richard A. “Santorum Questions Education System; Criticizes Obama.” New York Times
18 February 2012. Web. Retrieved 18 February 2012 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/santorum-criticizes-education-system-
and-
obama.html?_r=1&hp
Ross, Corey. Media and the Making of Modern German Communication: Society and Politics
from the Empire to the Third Reich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Stanyer, James. Modern Political Communication: Mediated Politics in Uncertain Times. New
York: Polity, 2007.
Wagner, Roland. Communication Education and (Local) Politics. Proceedings of the
International
Colloquium on Communication. Web. Retrieved 15 February 2012 from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ICC/2008/ICC2008Wagner.pdf
Weiss, David, ed. What Democrats Talk About When They Talk About God: Religious
Communication in Democratic Party Politics. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books,
2010.
