Increased media coverage is changing the way our government works. It affects who gets elected, how they behave while in office and whether or not they get re-elected. The polls, opinions of broadcasters, columnists and the constant, paparazzi-like surveillance by the media contribute to the increasing internal conflict and outward uselessness of the federal government.
For example, when I was trying to decide who to vote for in the primaries, I went straight to the media. I read articles and opinion summaries. Most importantly, I looked at recent polls to see where my vote would matter most. I did not even consider the candidates that the polls predicted would lose by large margins. The polls do more than predict who will win. They change who will win.
This has been the most media-influenced election in history. The politics of our country have never been more closely monitored. There are countless Web sites, magazines and even TV channels devoted to politics.
Theoretically, this is a good thing. The government certainly exists only with the consent of the governed. The media allows us to keep an eye on our representatives at all times, and that's the way it should be. After all, they are working for us.
The problem is that they aren't working for us, because they just aren't working. Our government has stalled. The priority of elected officials has changed from improving the nation to getting re-elected. Who can blame them?
Getting re-elected has never been more difficult. Any mistake, any phrase not quite thought through by a public official will be replayed for weeks by the political paparazzi and analyzed by columnists like me.
Unfortunately, one thing many constituents view as a mistake is a compromise or a changed opinion. The intense media coverage requires candidates to stick with their views even after they realize they are wrong. If they change their mind or determine that the promise they ran on will really hurt the nation, they have only two options. Work on another solution, (possibly the other party's) and get booted by their constituents as soon as possible, or "stick to their guns" and keep fighting for their original idea - even if it's a mistake - so they can get re-elected. On the other hand, a good way to keep constituents happy is to prove that they made the right choice, by putting down and undermining the opposing party. The internal conflict in our government produces a constant fight for votes.
This internal conflict keeps elected officials from being effective. Furthermore, as elected officials are constantly under surveillance, any action they take will be broadcast and criticized nationwide. Is it possible that we are micromanaging our government? Are we monitoring them so closely that we are keeping them from acting on our behalf? When the Constitution was written, it was done in complete secrecy. Members of Congress could speak their minds and make compromises without fear of consequences.
While I certainly don't believe that Congress should do its business in secret, maybe our elected officials need some more room to breathe, to think and to get their priorities straight. If the media gave voters and the people they vote for a little more autonomy, maybe things could return to normal and we could all do our part to keep the country running smoothly.
Sheridan is a Plan II and political communications sophomore.
Be the first to comment on this article!