• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Money and Media dominate modern day politics " how far do you agree?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Money and Media dominate modern day politics" - how far do you agree? It is widely claimed that the media, and the money available to dominate it, has a much wider grasp over the voting public than manifesto or policy. The majority of the worlds media sources hold some sort of partisan alignment, and its hold on the public means this bias is passed on to the electorate. How much it influences the electorate however, is different amongst many theories. The manipulative theory suggests that the media submerges real news in meaningless trivia in order to benefit itself. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch's support of Labour only once they'd dropped clause 4 of the constitution. The Hegemonic theory agrees with the accusation of the biased nature of the media but argues that it is less calculating. Any political stance it holds is the genuine opinion of the papers or broadcasters, and its publicising of these views is not in an attempt to manipulate the electorate. The pluralist theory argues that the customers choose the media, not the other way around, and their political views are reflected by their choice of newspaper or broadcaster, not changed by it. ...read more.

Middle

America's heterogeneous nature means that local press are the standard newspaper to read and these already reflect the views of that state, which unlike Britain votes united in an electoral college. In the 1992 general election, with Kinnock and Labour the favourites, the sun released the headline, "Will the last person to leave the country turn out the lights". A few days later, after a shock conservative victory, they released a follow up headline, "It was the sun what won it". Just 3 years later they switched allegiance, with "Sun backs Blair", something pointed out as one of the factors in Labours landslide 1997 election victory. This, along with the fact the paper has backed the winner in all but 3 elections in the last 50 years, implies that Britain's biggest newspaper holds immense influence over the electorate. However, it can also be argued that with only 3 million papers in circulation, the Sun doesn't have enough readers to change the result of an election. Not only has this but it faced opposition from big papers such as the mail and the telegraph as well. ...read more.

Conclusion

The heterogeneous nature of the USA would obviously require more expenditure in a campaign, but the 5, 6, and sometimes 7 figure expenditures in senate races seem slightly out of proportion. In Japan the electoral system was making candidates of the same party campaign against each other, which gradually pushed the price of campaigns up and up until reform was enforced. The influence money was having on elections had created a rift amongst parties as well as losing a sense of democracy. It is clear that money and the media have a huge influence on voting behaviour, but not in the way it may first have been perceived. Where the theories generally carried the view that money could drive the media, and the media in turn influence the electorate, I believe it is changing voting behaviour in a different sense. Money and the media have glorified politics, and particularly in America have given it a Hollywood effect. The public are reacting to this by voting not based the manifesto and ideologies of candidates, but voting for the greatest 'celebrity'. Money and the media do play too great a role in modern day politics, and have replaced the electorate's voting on policy with its voting on personality. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Response to the question

The student answers the question very well by referring to both of the ideas introduced in the question - money and the media - which is good as it shows that they have enough knowledge to answer the question. The ...

Read full review

Response to the question

The student answers the question very well by referring to both of the ideas introduced in the question - money and the media - which is good as it shows that they have enough knowledge to answer the question. The student also refers to theories such as the "hegemonic theory" of the media, which shows that they can respond well to the idea in the question by adding their own knowledge of theories. In the introduction, they only talk about money when discussing how it affects the media, when they should mention it as a separate point - money doesn't just affect the media, it also affects campaigns in its own right. They go on to do this in the essay itself, but if they did it in the introduction, it would show the examiner right away that they can organise their knowledge.

Level of analysis

The evidence used in this essay is excellent. The student uses a lot of statistics, such as "spending about $10 per vote he gained". This shows that the student understands that the amount Obama raised was huge and unprecedented, which helps to answer the question. It is good that they use Obama as a recent example as it shows they stay up-to-date with politics, but any essay on money in US politics would benefit from mentioning that Obama raised it largely over the Internet, as that was so new and innovative. The student also uses lots of facts, such as quoting names like "Ross Perot" and groups like "PACs", which is good as it shows that the student isn't just understanding that millionaire candidates exist but can prove it with factual knowledge. The student could improve this by using the full title rather than the abbreviation, so in this case "Political Action Committees" rather than just "PACs", because it would prove that the student knows the full meaning of the term. After you've used it in full once, it's fine to abbreviate again. This student then goes on to explain why the facts they have used are significant or insignificant: "This seems less of a ceiling..." shows that they have the understanding to say what the statistic seems to show, rather than just rhyming off lists of figures they have learnt. The conclusion to the essay is very good as it challenges established theories, which shows that the student has the understanding to make up their own mind. However, it is still perfectly fine to agree with the established theories you have learnt, as long as you can say why, because it still shows a considered judgement.

Quality of writing

The political vocabulary used in this essay is excellent. Saying "they switched allegiance", for example, is better than saying "they decided to change their minds" because "allegiance" is often used as a word meaning support for a political party, and it shows better understanding than just using general phrases. The spelling, grammar and punctuation are all excellent, meaning that the examiner can focus on giving the student marks for knowledge and analysis rather than working out what they are trying to say.


Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn

Reviewed by lordharvey 24/04/2012

Read less
Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.

    5 star(s)

    'The bridge to nowhere' being a prime example where millions were spent on a bridge connecting a small town to it's local airport in Alaska replacing a 7 minute ferry route. Also with the 'spending habit' of the federal government, there were many arguments that stated that the federal government

  2. Do the strengths of the US constitution outweigh its weaknesses?

    In 1876, 1888 and 2000 this has happened and can be argues as a weakness to the constitution whereby the person who the majority of America has voted for doesn't become their President. In all 3 instances it has been the matter of a couple of percent (if that)

  1. Invisible Primaries, USA.

    consisting of a wide scale income generating campaign (invisible primaries, or money primaries). This is two years before the general presidential election. The current president would usually seek to serve another term (assuming he can do so), and indeed, Obama has given speeches before the Democrats already regarding the economic mismanagement of the Republican Party, under Bush.

  2. 'The President faces considerable constraints in domestic policy in comparison to the UK Prime ...

    The Bank of England and Insider groups such as the CBI can restrain the Prime Minister with Economic muscle in much the same way the President is to some extent at the mercy of the oil companies who fund him.

  1. McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    They knew that they were probably missing some laws and that with the change of times new laws would be needed to carryout the Constitution. The necessary and proper clause gave Congress flexibility in doing their job of executing the Constitution by giving them the liberty of interpreting which laws

  2. An 18th Century Strait-jacket - Is this a fair description of the Constitution?

    in terms of the current President George W Bush: "American presidents have vied with the other branches of government for power. And in times of war and national emergency, presidents have exercised heightened levels of authority - in some cases openly sidestepping the Constitution to do what they felt was necessary.

  1. Is the USA still a federal state?

    Therefore not all presidents enact large scale federal government measures to affect all the states. Also the role of the Supreme Court can develop the relationship between the federal and state government. In some cases Supreme Court rulings may limit the federal government?s exercise of authority.

  2. Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government

    If the separation of powers is a horizontal division of powers, federalism is a vertical division of powers. There was originally little want for a nationalised government ? states wanted to govern themselves, from the 1780?s to the 1920?s, dual-federalism took place, where the national government was weak, their role limited to matters concerning money, war and peace[21].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work