1. LAPDOG, WATCHDOG, AND JUNKYARD DOG: THE EBB AND FLOW OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA AND POLITICS SINCE 1945
Kayla Lardner
Politics and the Media
February 4th, 2016
According to Steven Barnett, who expands on Larry Sabato's’ original three phases of
postwar American journalism, there are four phases which encapsulate and explain postwar
British Journalism. Barnett’s phases follow much of the same pattern as Sabatos’ lapdog,

2. watchdog and junkyard dog journalism, but Barnett not only updates the language, but also adds
a fourth phase.
Firstly, beginning in the 1940’s and spanning the early 1960’s, is the age of deference.
Immediately following the Second World War, “not only were broadcast journalists fawning and
submissive in their approach to politicians, but politicians could barely conceal their reciprocal
contempt for the upstart medium of television.” 1 2 This period became demeaning for
journalists and exalting for politicians. However, beginning in this period, the rise of television
would soon force the tables to turn. In 1952, the “television revolution” began with Richard
Nixon’s “Checkers” broadcast, in which he proved his innocence in terms of financial
misappropriation while winning over his television audience. 3 “This blatant appeal to sentiment
proved spectacularly successful and confirmed Nixon’s vice-presidential place on the
Eisenhower ticket.”4 This was the first in a long line of political advertisements known as
“talking head spots”, which used a singular issue to show the audience and the voters that the
speaker could not only address and solve the issue, but also handle any other issues that may
come their way.5
Two vice-presidential terms later, Nixon was again on the cutting edge of broadcast
political journalism, however, this time he would not walk away a victor. The first ever televised
debate, “ironically contributed to Nixon’s undoing… Despite an assured verbal performance -
those listening on the radio thought he had bested Kennedy”6 “But those listeners were in the
1
Steven Barnett, “Will a Crisis in Journalism Provoke a Crisis in Democracy,” The Political
Quarterly 73 (2002): 403.
2
Mark Garnett, and Philip Lynch. Exploring British Politics. (Harlow:Pearson Education, 2007).
67.
3
Bill Jones et al., Politics UK. (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2007), 220.
4
Jones et al., Politics UK, 220.
5
Brian McNair, An Introduction to Political Communication. (London: Routledge, 2003). 108.
6
Jones et al., Politics UK, 220.

3. minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions — up from just 11% the decade
before. The number of viewers who tuned in to the debate has been estimated as high as 74
million.” 7 The outcome of this debate and the stark division between listeners and viewers
cemented the growing power of television and of the image it portrays on both media and, more
specifically, politics. After Kennedy’s success in the televised version of the debate, “politicians
the world over looked, listened and learned that how you appear on television counts for as much
as what you say.” 8
However, Nixon’s failure in the televised debate format would not be the last time he
would be at the center of a major political and journalistic shift. Beginning in 1964, journalism
began to enter a new age, called the age of equal engagement. This style of journalism was more
interrogative, and “from 1964 and into the 70’s it was possible to see broadcasters growing into a
greater watchdog role, partly fueled by the unfolding Watergate scandal on the other side of the
Atlantic.” 9 Following the major breach of trust, and the empowerment of journalists, such as
Woodward and Bernstein, “journalists were prepared to question and challenge politicians, and
politicians accepted a reciprocal obligation to be held to account and engage in genuine debate.10
As we slowly move from this phase into the next, this is where the media and the public began to
lose faith in their politicians.
Since Watergate, “any statement or action by a politician is seldom taken at face value
but is scrutinized for ulterior personal motives.”11 The media and the public began to question
the motives of our politicians and our political process. In the late 70’s, chillingly close to 1984,
7
Kayla Webley, “How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World,” Time Magazine,
September 23, 2010. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html
8
Jones et al., Politics UK, 220.
9
Barnett, “Crisis in Journalism,” 404.
10
Barnett, “Crisis in Journalism,” 404.
11
Jones et al., Politics UK, 4.

4. George Orwell’s words loomed in the back of our minds, damaging what little trust there was
left. “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of
others; we are interested solely in power… We know that no one ever seizes power with the
intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of persecution is
persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” 12 Though Orwell
was condemning a totalitarian regime, “in developed democratic countries [there is] one
somewhat cynical school of thought insists that [power] is still the chief underlying
motivation.”13
The third phase, the age of disdain, came into fruition in the 1970’s as more politicians
began to use marketing techniques to brand and present themselves. Not only did this make the
politicians seem more like products and less like people, but “journalists began to feel that they
were being treated as unconscious accessories in a new media-led style of political
communication.” 14 By playing along with the politicians fabricated PR facade, “their critical and
independent function was being progressively undermined.” 15 Thus, the new journalistic
techniques became more reliant on revealing the truth behind the pre-packaged messages;
questioning rather than returning to the original age of deference. This fear of a return to the old
relationship between politicians and the press perfectly illustrates just how far political
journalism has come. No longer is the media content to accept and regurgitate everything
politicians say. The relationship between the two has been irrevocably damaged with an inherent
lack of trust on both sides, leading to contempt.
12
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four: a Novel. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1954). 140.
13
Jones et al., Politics UK, 6.
14
Barnett, “Crisis in Journalism,” 403.
15
Barnett, “Crisis in Journalism,” 404.

5. Now we are truly in the fourth phase, an age of contempt, not just for politicians by
journalists, but also for journalists by the people. Our current phase is characterized by
journalists “trying to trap politicians into damaging admissions… while politicians avoid giving
straight answers.”16 Again, this unhealthy communication characterizes a damaged relationship,
but now this damage is affecting not just politicians and the media, but us as well. As we watch
and read about the mistrust that the press and broadcasters have towards politics, we have begun
to mistrust the media as well. This mistrust again breeds contempt, and “the result has been an
increase in public cynicism… This has created a vicious circle; sensing that the public attaches a
low priority to politics, the media gives it less and less coverage and tends to focus on cynical
soundbites and frivolities - the very things which helped to generate public contempt in the first
place.” 17 Now we have a broken relationship between politicians and the media, which has
damaged our relationship with politicians, as well as with the media.
However, the question we need to ask ourselves is can these relationships be mended?
Can we look past the contempt without disregarding everything we have learned since 1945 and
find a happy medium between contempt and deference? Or is the damage truly irrevocable and,
thus, we are doomed to continue this self-fulfilling prophecy of mistrust and cynicism forever?
Maybe I am an optimist, but I believe the damage can be reversed.
There are two schools of thought on the contribution of media to politics and the
relationship between the two. Clearly, Barnett’s stance, if his addition of the age of contempt
characterizes his mindset, is negative. This pessimistic view, “argues that the commercialization
of the media has turned politics into another branch of the entertainment industry by
personalizing and trivializing political debate. At the same time, the media have become overly
16
Garnett and Lynch, Exploring British Politics, 68.
17
Garnett and Lynch, Exploring British Politics, 68.

6. critical and adversarial.”18 By researching the so-called age of contempt, we see that this
viewpoint assumes that both media and politics are, alone and in relation to one another,
inherently flawed and untrustworthy. This pessimism denies any hope for reconciliation, and,
though the first step is admitting that there is a problem, we must also hope for the future by
seeing the positive aspects of media and politics today.
The second school of thought on this subject does just that. This “argues that the growth
of the media has opened up new channels of communication between elites and the public,
expanding sources of information, widening access and increasing the diversity of content.”19
These are all intensely positive things. These new features of media allow more and more public
interaction and debate among all levels and sides of political interest. The more media coverage
there is and the more wide-ranging that coverage is, the better the public will be able to
determine their individual political views. “Moreover, this empowerment is set to continue as
technological changes increases the range and diversity of media provision and content, making
it more difficult for politicians to manipulate the supply and presentation of information and
hugely increasing citizen choice.”20
As with any relationship counseling, the first step is to begin the conversation. We need
to acknowledge that there is a problem and that that problem is caused by a lack of trust on both
sides. We need to be open and honest. Politicians do have a problem with utilizing marketing
strategies, but this is only a defense mechanism against the doubts and resentment the media has
towards them. However, the media is suspicious of politicians because we have been hurt in the
past. Previous scandals has hurt the media and us, as the audience. This is also something
politicians need to acknowledge, yet, the media also needs to understand that just because past
18
Raymond Kuhn, Politics and the Media in Britain. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan) 263.
19
Kuhn, Politics and the Media in Britain. 264.
20
Kuhn, Politics and the Media in Britain. 264.

7. politicians have made mistakes does not reflect the entirety of current political agendas. Only
when we are open about our fears with the media and politics, can we begin to rebuild the
relationship on a stronger foundation. I believe that we can all start anew as long as we
communicate honestly, and, in the end, we will enter a new phase in our relationship, stronger
and healthier than ever.
Bibliography:
Barnett, Steven. “Will a Crisis in Journalism Provoke a Crisis in Democracy,” Political
Quarterly 73 (2002): 403-407.
Garnett, Mark, and Philip Lynch. Exploring British Politics. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2007.
Jones, Bill, Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, and Philip Norton. Politics UK. Harlow: Pearson
Education, 2007.
Kuhn, Raymond. Politics and the Media in Britain. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 263.
McNair, Brian. An Introduction to Political Communication. London:Routledge, 2003.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four: a Novel. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1954.
Webley, Kayla., “How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World,” Time Magazine,
September 23, 2010. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html