This document summarizes a presentation about how political actors compete for control over news media. It discusses two key principles from the book - that political power can translate to power over media, and that powerful actors can lose control over media when they lose control over the political environment. It provides examples showing how the US lost control of media coverage during the Vietnam War as public opinion turned, while maintaining control during the Gulf War. The document argues new technologies have increased spontaneous stories, but traditional media still influence how they are framed.

1. Slide 1. Hello everyone. Today I’ll be presenting the first week’s assigned readings and I
called my presentation “Political actors compete over the news media” because it’s basically
what we will be talking about and it also correlates with the name of the first part of Gadi
Wolfsfeld’s book which we read last week.
Slide 2. Before we start, a few words about the author and the book itself. Gadi Wolfsfeld is
professor of communication and Head of the Communications and New Media MA program
at the Sammy Offer School of Communication at the Reichman University, Israel.
In Making Sense of Media and Politics he introduces readers to the most important concepts
for examining the interrelationship of media and politics. In this course we will learn about
all five major principles, however today I’ll be talking about the first two.
Slide 3. The first one can be formulated as “Political power can usually be translated into
power over all forms of media”.
Recall the name of the president in your country? Prime minister? Minister of culture?
More political power the person has within the country the more newsworthy (s)he is
considered. Simply put, journalists run after the politically powerful and politically weak run
after journalists.
Not only do politically powerful actors receive more coverage, but also this coverage is
usually more positive. The author gives us the metaphor of entering the news through the
“front door”. In addition, politically powerful actors usually have the ability to hire “spin
doctors”- PR specialists who can package and promote the story to the media, as well as
political advisors, and even a Web team who can provide the media with nicely prepared
photo and video materials.
Slide 4. This idea is not limited to politicians. There are also individuals, organizations, and
companies that are newsworthy because they have vast resources that also allow them to have
a major impact on society (Microsoft, Google, Greenpeace).
However, it doesn't mean that weaker political actors never get into the news.
Slide 5. The news media have a preference for conflicts that is just as important as their
preference for power. You can see a lot of examples of the talk shows inviting opposition
leaders which encourage debates to make the show more appealing.
Slide 6. Another way for the weaker political actors to become newsworthy is to do
something especially weird. The author of the book calls it “entering the news through the
back door”.
For example, if Greenpeace can directly raise concerns about unethical treatment of the
animals and be heard, smaller organizations take off their clothes and protest with signs “I’d
rather go naked than wear fur” in order to attract media attention.

2. Another example is the protest we organized last year at Taipei’s Liberty Square to draw
attention to the atrocities committed by Russian troops in the Ukrainian town of Bucha. On
that day dozens of demonstrators lay on the ground while sounds of explosions and gunfire
were played from speakers to simulate Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
However, most of the time extreme protests can pay a heavy cost of legitimacy in their desire
to attract media attention.
Slide 7. Strategy that weaker groups can use to attract media attention without sacrificing
legitimacy is civil disobedience. The success of this tactic depends on three factors: the level
of violence that the authorities use against the group, the extent to which people can identify
with your cause and the level of violence you use.
The great example is The Orange Revolution that took place in Ukraine in 2004. It was a
series of civil disobedience acts, sit-ins, and general strikes organized by the pro-Western
opposition movement against falsification of the presidential elections. The main result of the
revolution was the appointment by the Supreme Court of a repeated second round of
presidential elections and Constitutional Reform which reduced the powers of the president.
Slide 8. Most political movements are the classic “back door” challenges, because unless
they do something extraordinary usually they are not considered newsworthy. Now let’s talk
about how the emergence of the Internet and new media can help them to become more
powerful. There are four major goals political movements attempt to achieve where the new
Internet media could be useful:
1. Mobilizing supporters of the cause
2. Transferring messages and news stories in the traditional media
3. Influencing the public opinion
4. Impacting politics
These 4 goals can be seen as 4 stations that movements have to pass in their attempts to
achieve success. And the tendency is that new technology becomes less helpful as one gets
closer to the top. Indeed, if movements’ messages resonate with the public opinion, the
Internet can help them to increase membership and resources. However, it doesn't guarantee
that the news about movement will transfer into traditional news. TV and newspapers have
limited timing and space and huge competition over it. The study by researchers. J.
Leskovec, L. Backstrom, and J. Kleinberg shows that only 3.5% of all major news cycles
were initiated in the blogosphere and then moved to other media. It proves that traditional
media remains the best tool for generating political waves about an issue. Same logic works
for the last two stages: the only Internet without other media support usually doesn’t make
major differences in influencing public opinion and impacting politics.

3. The main conclusion of this part is that the powerful still have the upper hand. However, in
some instances they can lose control over news stories. This brings us to the second principle
of the book.
Slide 9. “When the powerful lose control over the political environment, they also lose
control over all forms of media.”
Slide 10. The best way to understand the notion of a leaders’ political control is to look at 3
major indicators of success:
1. The extent to which they are able to take control over important events
2. The ability of the authorities to take control over the flow of information
3. Ability of the leaders to mobilize a broad consensus in support of their policies,
especially among the political elite.
To see how these indicators work let's compare the political environment in the U.S. during
the war in Vietnam (1965-1975) and the Gulf War with Iraq (1991).
Slide 11. War in Vietnam was seen as the essential battle to stop the spread of communism
with a great level of support in the beginning. However Neither the political nor the military
authorities were able to take control over the events surrounding the war. As the war was
going on the number of casualties among Americans had risen enormously and the horrible
cost of the war became apparent.
In terms of control over the information there was no censorship. Journalists could cover the
events as they saw fit. Eventually the news media started to raise questions about whether the
war was winnable at all.
In the end, the war moved from the “sphere of consensus” to the “sphere of controversy”
where public figures started to change their opinions.
Slide 12. The climax of it can be seen in 1968 when journalist Walter Cronkie who was
considered the most important news anchor on TV said that the Vietnam War could not be
won and the U.S. would have to find the way out. President Lyndon Johnson reacted by
saying: “If I lost Cronkie, I’ve lost Middle America”.
Slide 10. So going back to the major indicators of success Lyndon Johnson wasn’t able to
meet any of it. And the U.S. had to withdraw their troops in the end.
Slide 13. In comparison, the issue of whether to pursue the war with Iraq was at first
controversial. Once the war began however, the political climate became extremely
supportive and it was difficult to find any criticism.
In terms of control over events the U.S. was able to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in a very
short time and the number of American casualties remained relatively small.

4. Also, the Government had a monopoly on information about events due to the circumstances
of the war and made sure that only supportive images and information were released to the
media.
Therefore, as president Bush was able to take control over the political environment and
consequently control over the media, the Gulf War is the classic story of success.
Slide 14. In both examples we can see a clear PMP (politics-media-politics) cycle where the
political environment changes the media perspective which in turn can change the political
environment once again. However this cycle works in different directions in two examples I
was talking about.
While during the Vietnam War consensus changed to controversy through the media
coverage, controversial at first Gulf War became consensual with the help of supportive
media.
Therefore the news media do not merely reflect political change, in many cases they can
magnify and accelerate change.
Slide 15. I just spent some time talking about how important it is for political leaders to have
control over the flow of information especially during the war. You might ask a question:
“How to control information in the modern media environment where even a kid with a
smartphone can record and upload anything online?” One way to discuss these changes is to
talk about event-driven journalism. The basic idea is that technological innovations have
increased the number of spontaneous news stories that are neither planned nor driven by the
authorities. However, these stories usually become an issue only after appearing in traditional
media where authorities still have a big influence on how the story is framed.
Slide 16. One revealing example is the story of A 22-year-old woman who died in an Iranian
hospital days after being detained by the regime’s morality police for not complying with the
country’s hijab regulations. Photographs of Amini lying in the hospital bed in a coma have
circulated on social media. Her hospitalization and death drew criticism from Iranian
celebrities and politicians. International media outlets quickly picked the story which led
women across the country to protest by burning their hijabs or cutting their hair in a statement
of "No to the Islamic Republic”. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned protesters that "acts
of chaos" are unacceptable. As anti-regime demonstrations spilled onto the internet and social
media Iran responded by internet blackouts and the shutdown of mobile networks across the
country.
Slide 17. This story is not only an example of how a story on social media can go viral and
even lead to the mass protests but also shows us how most authoritarian regimes deal with
them. Three most commonly used tactics are: censorship, banning social media platforms,
internet blackouts and the shutdown of mobile networks. Other examples can be seen during
protests in Belarus against the fraud election’s results in 2020. Or in China where Google,

5. Facebook, WhatsUp, Instagram and some other platforms have been blocked for over a
decade. BTW Russia is doing the same now.
Slide 18. The second assigned reading for this week “The media and democracy” was written
in a form of discussion or even a debate between two viewpoints when it comes to the media
- hegemonic or manipulative and pluralistic. Basically, the first ones see the media as a threat
to democracy in that they are controlled and operated by a narrow range of people who have
power to influence or even manipulate the public opinion. Whereas pluralists protect free
speech and a range of opinions. Now as my presentation time is coming to the end, I would
like to ask you guys about the current situation with media freedom in your country both
traditional and online: is it censored? controlled or owned by the government or political
elite? And what in your opinion is the right balance between control over the information
and freedom of speech when it comes to the media coverage?