"Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason."
Politics, one of the topics ‘they’ (being people with better manners than I have) suggest we never talk about in polite company, alongside religion. The definition I found most interesting about politics was; “The science or art of political government”. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics?s=t
The reason I found this definition so interesting is the use of the word ‘art’. Now I am the first to admit that I have absolutely no idea about politics. I simply don’t care. I know there are people out there that will get irate at the thought of someone having no interest in the future of our nation, but quite simply, I don’t see myself making one bit of difference in the political world, with or without voting. Sure, I vote, because if I don’t I will get a fine. That’s the only reason. I look at politics like going to the theatre. It’s all bells and whistles in front of an audience, but out the back is an overweight man eating Doritos calling the shots. Are our prime ministers and presidents just a face? I believe so. I think it’s all an act, so either way we vote in an election, we are voting in a fraudster. Someone pretending to make decisions but used much like a puppet on a string.
Now that my personal opinion on politics is out of the way, how do politicians use the media? This ties in with my opinion actually. I believe that the media use politicians as much as politicians use the media. Media need politicians to create stories, hype, and the media dig up stories on politician’s personal lives as well as their political statements to create newsworthy stories. Making people want to tune in. Everyone remembers the scandals; Clinton and the cigar, Kennedy and Marilyn, and the Watergate scandal in the 1970’s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal. The media has played an irreplaceable role in the exposure of these scandals, and without the media exposing these scenarios, the truth may well have been hidden from the public for many years, if not indefinitely. Obviously personal infidelity in a politician’s private life, or sexual orientation may not be as much of a concern as a more career orientated problem, the public still sees it as their right to know as much about these public figures as possible.
It brings to mind a saying about the ethics behind these sorts of media releases that it can be either in the Public’s interest, or in the interest of the public (Stoker & Stoker, 2012, p. 31). The best way I can explain this is, is the information we are receiving in our interest, or do we just find it interesting? Do we need to know the private lives of politicians to make a decision whilst voting? Surely a person’s sexual orientation or marriage problems cannot make them a better or worse candidate in an election, or can it?
Stoker, K, & Stoker, M 2012, 'The Paradox of Public Interest: How Serving Individual Superior Interests Fulfill Public Relations' Obligation to the Public Interest', Journal Of Mass Media Ethics, 27, 1, pp. 31-45, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 January 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment