Mirela Mazurkiewicz, Media in the Sphere of Politics; Observers or Creators of the Political Stage?

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

Mirela Mazurkiewicz (Opole University) MEDIA IN THE SPHERE OF POLITICS; OBSERVERS OR CREATORS OF THE POLITICAL STAGE?

The article was written for the 60th anniversary of Radio Opole.

Key words: The media in politics, politics in the media, infotainment, the power of the media, media as the watchdog of democracy, function of the media, political marketing.

Abstract: The global processes of informatization and the progressing tabloidization of the media cause the evolution of their current functions and roles in the society. Reliable and thorough analysis gives place to events or pseudo-events which, on one hand are devoid of cognitive value, but on the other hand are endowed with the emotional component which speaks to the recipients louder than the most thorough analysis. According to some people, the media gradually lose their label of „the fourth power” which came into being in order to control the three other powers. On the contrary, the media has become the first power, admittedly devoid of the legal instruments but in fact the most powerful one. What is the role of the media in the contemporary politics and social life? Which one of their functions is dominant: the one of the controller and the observer of the political scene, or the one of the creator of the events? The author comes to the bitter-sweet conclusions. The media are still the guard of the democratic values, but selecting the content and forming the message, they are driven by the economic aspect which enforces them to choose the style which, in turn, attracts the biggest amount of the audience. The more brutal (even if it does not go beyond the verbal sphere) and sensational setting, the better. This is what the audience expects and their preferences influence what the media market offers.

Introduction A discussion on a role of the media and their impact on the society has been continuing for years.

Some researchers think that the debate is in many respects a critical battle in the larger, cultural war.1 On the one hand, there are media entrepreneurs who generate revenues in the process of production and distribution of information and, on the other, their opponents: social elites anxiously watching broadcasters gaining power. The influence of media on the public opinion is indisputable, however researchers differ as to how strong that effect is.

The aim of this paper is to take part in the debate on the evolution of contemporary media and their significance in the social and political life. It is the author’s objective to look at the debate from the macro level, i.e. global trends and micro perspective, i.e. the Opole Province (Voivodeship), in which regional media and politics interrelate, crossing the established boundaries, and from an observer’s point of view as he is becoming a creator of political stage.

1

The battle is over the foundations of broadly understood social order, in which we live. See: S. J. Braun, D.K. Davis, Teorie komunikowania masowego [Theories of Mass Communication], Kraków 2007, p. 51.

220

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

Paradigm of the media as creators of reality The power of the press was already noted by Alexis de Tocqueville who said that “It is the power which impels the circulation of political life through all the districts of that vast territory. Its eye is constantly open to detect the secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders of all parties to the bar of public opinion. It rallies the interests of the community round certain principles, and it draws up the creed which factions adopt; for it affords a means of intercourse between parties which hear, and which address each other without ever having been in immediate contact. When a great number of the organs of the press adopt the same line of conduct, their influence becomes irresistible; and public opinion, when it is perpetually assailed from the same side, eventually yields to the attack”.2 Free media have been instituted, among other reasons, to become guardians of democracy. Journalists were to control the government, defend citizens against the abuse of power.

Particularly interesting today is the question how far the media influences society and to what extent they are able to shape behaviour (also voting behaviour). Some researchers, emphasizing the role that the media play in the contemporary world, call it the fourth power. Others take a step further, calling them not the fourth but the first power, but there are also those who think that talking of the media in terms of power is a considerable exaggeration.

The term “the fourth estate” is attributed to the English philosopher and politician Edmund Burke who, in 1774 during his address in the British Parliament, turned to journalists calling them the fourth estate, next to clergy, gentry and merchants. John B. Thompson in his work The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media distinguishes three forms of governing the society. The first, economic power, is related with owning goods or means which become the source of riches. Political power, on the other hand, either by birth or privileges obtained by election authorizes one to make binding decision. The third power, mentioned by Thomson, is based on violence and it refers to violence and power, either real or potential.3 Karl Marx said that real power is held by those who possess the means of production.

Theories of the information society, on the other hand, insist that power belongs to those who have access to information. Today it is thought to belong to those who own the media. Brian McNair, the author of Cultural Chaos. Journalism, News and Power in a Global World, noted that in the era of cultural chaos and globalization it is hard to know who holds the power, what it truly is and where are its centres. Power is dispersed and concealed and recognizing this new reality takes a detective more than a scholar.4 The power that the media has at their disposal can be called ‘symbolic’. It is celebrated through images and language, in order to create the desired vision of reality. It is held by those who can reign over the imagination of the public and society, and know how to impose their vision of the world on society. Such an approach raises the question of whether or not the impact of media on the public should be treated in the category of power, or merely influence. The concept of ‘power’ has a narrower meaning than ‘influence’. Every power is an influence but not every influence has the character of power. According to the definition of Mirosław Karwat influence is a capacity to effectively persuade others to act according to the sender’s will or a capacity to cause change

2

A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, pp. 346-347 http://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&id=yp2y_Kdz9icC&q=springs+of+politics#v=snippet&q=%22political%20lif e%22&f=false [20.03.2014] 3 J. Jastrzębski, Ani pierwsza, ani czwarta [Neither the First Nor the Fourth] [in:] Media w Polsce. Pierwsza władza IV RP? [The Media in Poland. The First Power of the Fourth Republic], ed. M. Sokołowski, Warszawa 2007, p. 289.

4 McNair’s words are quoted by Jerzy Jastrzębski in his text Ani pierwsza, ani czwarta [Neither the First Nor the Fourth] [in:] Media w Polsce…[The Media in Poland…], p. 289.

221

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4 (immediate or permanent) in the way other people think, behave and what they aim for.5 Power, on the other hand, is the possibility of exerting real influence on an individual or a group e.g. in the social and political sphere by directing the behaviour of other people, and is usually provided with tools with which it can force those resistant to its controlling power to behave in a specific way.

Media does not have such instruments at their disposal, however judging by the impact they have on society, and the effects they can spread in the social and political sphere, they do have power.

Journalists have never had and they still do not have any formal or decision-making power, but they have had and they continue having an impact on the public opinion which, in the democratic society, is often much more important than political or administrative power. Although mass media have no formal attributes of power, they often pass judgment not unlike judiciary authority, and define principles of actions, as if they held executive power, and readers, audiences and viewers follow them blindly. Prof. Tomas Halik, Czech thinker, took things a step further by saying that media has become a kind of contemporary religion. They take over many functions of traditional religions: offer new symbols, use their own language, interpret the world for us, have an impact on our thinking and behaviour.6 According to Juliusz Braun “the media are at the same time huge enterprises fighting the battle for billions of dollars and the rule of the people’s minds. The greater the power, the larger the revenues. The larger the revenues, the better the tools for obtaining power”.7 The supporters of understanding the media as the fourth power, assign them a role of an independent entity in the political system, emphasizing their informational, opinion-making, critical and controlling function. As Vaclav Havel rightly pointed out “the power of the media comes from their powerlessness.” They have no real power but are of enormous social importance. They can as quickly create a hero as they can destroy him. In the opinion of some American sociologists if a popular cartoon character, such as Donald Duck, decided to take part in the elections, without even holding a campaign, he would be certain to get 25% of votes.8 In their critical and controlling function, the media take on the task of careful observation of what political and state elites are doing, detecting irregularities, pathologies or any abuse of power.

This is why they are called ‘the watchdog of democracy’, and just as a chained dog, they are supposed to watch and guard. It is their role to ‘bark’ when those in power break the law or abuse authority. Joseph Pultizer, the famous American publisher, said that “the fear of the press has thwarted more crime, corruption and immorality than the law.”9 It is journalists’ task, as the Noble Prize winner Camilo José Cela said, “to stand (…) on the side of those who suffer throughout the history rather than those who make it”.10 This requires a state of organized uncertainty of journalists towards those who are in power, because, as German philosopher Georg C. Lichtenberg said “It is almost impossible to bear the torch of truth through a crowd without singeing somebody’s beard.”11 John C. Merril refers a little more cautiously to the impact of the media on society. He thinks that “media have some power but there is a lot of exaggeration in our thinking of its force.” Public role of the media is influenced by many different factors, depending on the circumstances. And so 5

M. Gulczyński, Politologia. Podręcznik akademicki [Political Science. Academic Handbook], Warsaw 2010, p.

74.

6 Based on: T. Halik, Europa: rany przeszłości i wyzwania jutra [Europe: Wounds of the Past and Challenges of Tomorrow] [in:] Europa wspólnych wartości. Chrześcijańskie inspiracje w budowaniu zjednoczonej Europy [Europe of Common Values. Christian Inspirations in Building the Unified Europe], ed. Father S. Zięba, Lublin 2004, p. 141.

7 J. Braun, Potęga czwartej władzy [The Power of the Fourth Estate], Warsaw 2005, p. 18.

8 J. Marszałek-Kawa, Kilka słów o dziennikarzach [A Few Words About Journalists] [in:] Współczesne oblicza mediów [Contemporary Face of the Media] ed. J. Marszałek-Kawy, Toruń 2005, p. 53.

9 Quoted after: M. Chyliński, S. Russ-Mohl, Dziennikarstwo [Journalism], Warsaw 2007, p. 20.

10 M. Kunczik, A. Zipfel, Wprowadzenie do nauki o dziennikarstwie i komunikowaniu [Introduction to the Science of Journalism and Communication], Warsaw 2000, pp. 103-104.

11 Op. cit.

222

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

we do not really know what force or power the media have at their disposal because we cannot isolate their influence and separate it from other factors, such as family, school, church or social environment. It is likely that the media can stir our attention but they will certainly not force us to take action.12 There is, however, no doubt that the media enjoy symbolic power, meaning that they influence the hierarchy of values created by society.

The contemporary “glocal” Agora The press, radio, television and, in the recent years, also the Internet provide a forum for discussion among citizens. They provide an arena for stormy debates between the rulers and the ruled, not only in the local but also in the global aspect. Media should be observers and critics of political stage as well as organizers of free debates expressing the public opinion, and it is precisely because the society in democracy is sovereign that the voice mediated and broadcast by the media should be the voice of the highest, and so of the first, power. It is, after all, the general public who directly or indirectly decide in the elections who will govern and control the quality of power. Today, more or less consciously, the media become creators of politics, being often taken advantage of by political actors in a particular game. This is not what the fathers of communication have planned for them.

Harold D. Lasswell thought that the media should have three important functions. First, they should observe the environment and report to the public opinion on the changes taking place in it (both natural and social). The early discovery of threats (but also opportunities) and their disclosure helps society (or individuals) counteract the former and take advantage of the latter. Media should also correlate the responses of individuals, institutions and the collective so that their activities are more ordered and therefore more effective.13 These typologies do not exhaust the catalogues of the functions of the media. An attempt of creating a synthetic typology was made by Denis McQuail. He thought that mass media are to inform, i.e. provide information about up-to-date news in the country and abroad and facilitate innovation, adaptation and progress. Further on, a correlation is needed, which is interpreting and providing commentaries on the meaning of events and information. This is particularly important for those who are insufficiently educated or qualified to form an opinion about socially relevant issues independently.14 Mass media are skilled at attracting attention, which is why, according to Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Meron they validate public issues, people and organisations.15 Information flow is regulated by a number of barriers, the so-called gates, which are controlled by individuals or institutions which play the role of gate keepers. These are publishers, media owners, editors-in-chief who decide which information is made available to the general public and what is kept secret.16 Mass media, by directing the public’s attention to the selected subject matters and events, put them at the centre of interest. Through agenda setting they tell us not what we should think but what we should think about. The fact alone that an event or a person was at the centre of the media interest raises their rank.17 This situation is aptly summarized by Krzysztof Mroziewicz: A frog “cannot see” flowers, among which it hunts for flies, because its eyes fail to notice them. People “see” only what television, the extension of its senses, “notices” for them. If it does not exist on television it does not exist in the viewers’ minds. There are only insects whizzing by in the world of the frog. In the world of a man who lives in the global TV village, airplanes only fall, husbands kill their wives and politicians only steal.

Happy landings, agreeable couples and honest politicians hardly make the news.18 Today, in the era 12

J. Jastrzębski, op. cit., p. 292.

M. Mrozowski, Media masowe. Władza, rozrywka, biznes [Mass Media. Power, Entertainment, Business], Warsaw 2001, pp. 113-114.

14 D. McQuail, Teoria komunikowania masowego [Mass Communication Theory], Warsaw 2007, p. 79.

15 M. Kunczik, A. Zipfel, op. cit., pp. 173-177.

16 Op. cit., pp. 173-177.

17 Op cit., pp. 183-188.

18 J. Braun, op. cit., p.15.

13

223

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

of dynamic development of new media, it is the Internet that aspires to the role of a ‘guru’ bringing order to our messy lives, as its reach increases from one year to another.

One of the examples of media involvement which led to a real ‘earthquake’ in politics was the Watergate scandal, an illegal action taken by Richard Nixon’s administration to eliminate his political opponents. On 17 June 1972 a failed attempt to bug the election headquarters of the American Democratic Party in Washington was disclosed. Since the very beginning the trail led to the people at the very top of Nixon’s administration but there was no hard evidence. Two journalists of the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played a significant role in working out the affair, as they reported on the backstage intrigue. Years later, their source was named as the former deputy director of the FBI, who decided to cooperate with journalists, as he saw that the scandal was being hushed. Finally, a committee was established to investigate the affair and its hearings were broadcast by the media. The revelation of the compromising evidence resulted in a drop in Nixon’s support. At the beginning of 1974, the House of Representatives began an impeachment procedure but finally the president was not convicted as he had resigned.

The regional perspective – Opole Province (Voivodeship) A local example of media authority is the so-called “Town Hall Affair”, which took place in 1994-2002, when Opole was ruled by SLD (Democratic Left Alliance) politicians. Public prosecution accused the left-wing notables that they took bribes worth over PLN 200,000. The money was taken for favourable decisions in public tenders, licenses for selling alcohol, decisions regarding leasing premises, speeding up bureaucratic formalities and “future favours”. Public prosecution was interested in the affair but when, in 2001, the parliamentary election was won by SLD, its work stalled. An official reason was given as ‘slow work of experts’ but, unofficially, public prosecutors admitted that Warsaw did not approve of any serious investigation.

The scandal began with the foundation of Dobre Domy (Good Houses) construction company in Opole, in which 51% of shares was owned by a Sopot based firm, and the remaining 49% by the Municipality of Opole. Irregularities in the building process were reported since the very beginning, and the money earned on building the housing estate was mass leaked to the family members of some of the key Opole politicians and bureaucrats, which brought the company to the edge of bankruptcy.

On 11 October 2002, Nowa Trybuna Opolska newspaper published an article entitled “These Houses Were Not Good” by Krzysztof Zyzik and Ewa Kosowska-Korniak, which brought a breakthrough in the affair.19 The Rywin Affair which was disclosed two months after the first publications by the newspaper was a catalyst for the system of justice. Grzegorz Kurczuk, who was then the Minister of Justice, was badly criticized for knowing about Rywin’s corruptive proposal and doing nothing about it. It is also worth mentioning that the Trybuna’s journalists did not stop in their efforts, even when a secretive informant suggested that he had witnessed a conversation between the Mayor and the Head of the City Council, during which they planned “getting rid of Zyzik”, or when the Mayor warned the publisher of Nowa Trybuna Opolska that he would close down their print house.

Still, the articles published in this largest daily in the Opole Province, along with other favourable circumstances resulted in the Public Prosecution being instructed to speed up their works.

Finally, August 2003 saw a wave of detentions and arrests among Opole politicians and businessmen who were connected with the largest scale to date. Among those detained was the head of the province, marshal of the province, mayor and deputy mayors, heads of municipality departments and the head of the city council. Some of them are still imprisoned today.

19

K. Zyzik, E. Kosowska-Korniak, Nie były to dobre domy [These Were Not Good Houses], „Nowa Trybuna Opolska”, 11 October 2002, p. 1.

224

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

Do contemporary media act as a catalyst of civic activity?

The control of power and disclosing regularities are not the only political tasks ahead of the media.

They should also encourage citizens to participate in the democratic processes. At least theoretically, the press, radio, television and the Internet should prepare citizens to make informed choices based on reliable information. In practice, the media have fallen in love with the so-called polittainemt, pseudo-events, which only pretend to be politics, rather than with factual debate, which your average ‘Kowalski’ would find hard to follow. This is the reason why the media reported on Janusz Palikot’s happenings with a pig head or a vibrator as if they were major political events.

The media are the main broadcast channel for communications sent by political actors to citizens. They are, in fact, a source of 95% of all information received by voters.20 A few years ago television, which produced over 60% of all news, was the leader in this respect, but all this changed with the development of the Internet which provides information on demand. No one has to wait to the main evening news anymore as they can access the news at any time and practically any place on earth. One of the tangible examples of the potential that lies in the media is their use by politicians for election campaigns. It is worth mentioning here that campaigning methods have changed a lot since politicians discovered the enormous benefits of skilful media self-presentation.

The media have given politicians an access to a broad group of potential voter but they also changed the broadcasting format of political ‘offer’. It is said that a politician who takes more than 30 seconds to convey his vision should look for another job. This is obviously too short a time to get involved in any factual discussion, which does not sell too well anyway, so politicians who realise this produce a show because they know too well that sensation-hungry journalists will always find a place for it in the agenda setting, providing free publicity to a candidate. In consequence, many candidates do not even bother to pretend that they have a political programme as they have replaced it by showman personality, eccentric expression and countless events, what Tomasz Olczyk calls “polittainment”.21 A voter is a finicky client on the electoral market, which is why a seemingly interesting political programme, involving interesting concepts for the development of the country, region or municipality does not secure success. Politicians are ready to do a lot to creep into favour of journalists who can help them reach for power. A good example of this were the local government elections in the Opole region in 2010, during which Tomasz Garbowski, candidate of SLD for the Mayor of Opole, gave away pastries and fudge sweets ‘Garbuski’ for the phonemic resemblance of their name to the surname of the politician, to potential voters, and in cold days he distributed hot chocolate.22 Violetta Porowska, his opponent from PiS (Law and Justice), invited people for ‘a morning coffee’.23 In this way, politicians fought not only for the support of individuals they met (both Porowska and Garbowski organised this kind of actions very rarely, so in this way they could directly reach only a narrow group of voters). The candidates actually thought that they could creep into favour of journalists who reported on the spectacular event (as this is how this situation should be treated) and helped reach the voters who could not be met in person. The candidates were aware that this could bring them closer to the election success, more so than election spots broadcast in prime time television. “An appearance in the main news night produces better results than half a year of meetings organised across the country”.24 First, because this is free advertising (they have to 20

B. Dobek-Ostrowska, Media masowe i aktorzy polityczni w świetle studiów nad komunikowaniem politycznym [Mass Media and Political Actors in View of the Study on Political Communication], Wrocław 2004, p. 45.

21 Zob. T. Olczyk, Politrozrywka i popperswazja. Reklama telewizyjna w polskich kampaniach wyborczych XXI wieku [Politainment and Pop-Persuasion. TV Commercials in Polish Election Campaigns of the 21st century, Warsaw 2009.

22 http://www.tomaszgrabowski1.blip.pl, 15.08.2013.

23 http://opole.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,8656200,Slodkie_poranki_z _Tomaszem_Garbowskim.html, 15.08.2013.

24 C. Trutkowski, Społeczne reprezentacje polityki [Social Representations of Politics], Warsaw 2000, p. 198.

225

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

pay for the production and broadcasting of prime time spots, even if they are only broadcast in the local media); second, because the unimposing “advertising” through the presentation of candidates on the news may be more effective than the said spots, posters or billboards because the recipient of the news is convinced that what is being watched is reliable information and not advertising which is part of the election battle. In this way journalists rationalize the contents of the voters’ heads, telling them not only what they should think but what or who they should think about.

Politicians and political candidates wish to become celebrities, admired by the citizens who are interested in changes in power, and laymen who are altogether bored with politics alike. This makes the political message they sent lose its informational glamour and shift towards entertainment. They become “a never ending political show, with politicians and public figures being actors and end users of the media becoming audiences. In this way media personnel plays the role of presenters or stage artists fronting the show”.25 As a result of such mediatisation of politics, political candidates and the media live in the kind of communication symbiosis, as they need one another, and the success of one side becomes the achievement of other. Politicians provide spectacular (though usually essentially mindless) subject matter, which fills up newspaper columns, radio and television programmes. Journalists, on the other hand, by giving candidates the chance to appear in the media, increase their recognisability among potential voters and bring them near their election success.

Politics, the market and the media are interconnected with a network of correlations. They are often in conflict but ultimately they cannot function well without one another. As Ryszard Kapuściński said in Lapidarium VI: “In our contemporary civilisation, in the times we live, politics dominates all other spheres of life. Its role has particularly increased owing to the development of the media, its growing ubiquity and participation in our private lives. We are watching not only personal but also substantive coalescence, the penetration of the worlds of politics and the media, and behind this fusion, financing it, is the great capital – the money of the world.”26 The danger arises when the coalescence of these worlds leads to a situation in which journalists are incapable of playing the roles they have been appointed for; when the media support politicians by not only presenting them to the society and creating their image but also making up for what is missing or concealing what could become damaging.27 Conclusions The examples presented above demonstrate that the media are hardly mere observers or guardians of political stage but they have an enormous influence on its actual shape. Political affairs which abolish politicians who have been thought “unabolishable” are one of many examples of such correlation.

The media communications as built by journalists have an impact on the perceptions of candidates by potential voters, which in consequence leads to a situation, in which it is the politicians favoured by the media that win the elections (for example the TVN station was often accused of covering up the shortcomings of the politicians of the Civic Platform for the fear of their main political rival, Law and Justice, seizing the power).

Journalists get, more or less consciously, entangled in the political game out of laziness and desire for profit. They prefer to report insignificant events which are more interesting to an average person, than to try for ambitious programmes that explain the intricacies of social or economic policies. Why otherwise would they love the studio programmes so much, in which their role is limited to inviting distinct political personalities of two competing options and moderating the discussion in a way which stokes up emotions. Content disappears into the background as the front stage is taken by form: the more controversial and verbally brutal the better. And all this merely for 25

B. Dobek-Ostrowska, op. cit., p. 139.

R. Kapuściński, Lapidarium VI, Warsaw 2007, p. 69.

27 P. Śpiewak, Polityk w makijażu [A Politician Wearing A Make-Up] Gazeta Wyborcza dated 22 April 1998, p. 11.

26

226

Zarządzanie Kulturą, tom 6 (2013), nr 4 / Culture Management, vol. 6 (2013), no. 4

the amusement of the crowds; clearly not designed to improve the condition of politics or, even less so, to prepare voters for their participation in democracy.

Mirela Mazurkiewicz – z wykształcenia politolog, z zawodu dziennikarka, obecnie zatrudniona w „Nowej Trybunie Opolskiej”, nominowana w konkursie Grand Press 2012 w kategorii News za artykuł Zabrali matkę w nocy na oczach jej dzieci. Doktorantka na Uniwersytecie Opolskim, bada okres stanu wojennego z perspektywy Rozgłośni Polskiej Radia Wolna Europa.

Media w obszarze polityki. Obserwator czy kreator sceny politycznej?

Słowa klucze: Media w polityce, polityka w mediach, infotainment, władza mediów, media jako watch dog demokracji, funkcje mediów, marketing polityczny.

Streszczenie: Globalne procesy informatyzacji i postępująca tabloidyzacja mediów sprawiają, że ich dotychczasowe funkcje i role w społeczeństwie ewoluują. Rzetelna, pogłębiona analiza ustępuje miejsca eventom i pseudowydarzeniom, pozbawionym wprawdzie waloru poznawczego, ale zaopatrzonym za to w komponent emocjonalny, który przemawia do odbiorców silniej niż najbardziej pogłębiona analiza. Zdaniem niektórych media tracą stopniowo miano „czwartej władzy”, powołanej po to, aby kontrolować trzy pierwsze, a stają się władzą pierwszą, pozbawioną wprawdzie instrumentów prawnych, ale za to najpotężniejszą. Jaką rolę pełnią media we współczesnej polityce i życiu społecznym? Która ich funkcja staje się dominująca: kontrolera i obserwatora sceny politycznej czy też kreatora wydarzeń? Wnioski do jakich dochodzi autorka mają słodko-gorzki posmak. Media nadal są strażnikiem demokratycznych wartości, ale selekcjonując treść i nadając formę przekazom kierują się aspektem ekonomicznym, którzy każe wybrać taki styl, który pozwoli przyciągnąć jak najwięcej odbiorców. Im bardziej brutalna (nawet jeśli nie wykracza ona poza sferę werbalną) i sensacyjna oprawa, tym lepiej. Tego chcą odbiorcy, a ich preferencje przekładają się na to, co oferuje rynek medialny.

227