Media and Power

The media plays an essential role in a democratic society. It is often considered an alleged "fourth power", a power outside government that have the ability to sway the public opinion in almost any chosen direction. Authors Anthony Mughan and Richard Gunther define the mass communications media as the "connective tissue of democracy" in the book "Democracy and the media: a comparative perspective". In an age of immediate demand for information, the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about politics, especially during elections. The power of the media becomes even more evident during elections: the media helps influence what issues voters should care about in elections and what criteria they should use to evaluate candidates. In the analyses of Anthony Mughan and Richard Gunther:

The paradox of the contemporary political communications media is that they helped to sound the death knell of authoritarian or posttotalitarian regimes by fostering political pluralism, thereby helping to spread democracy, but within established democracies they have failed to live up to their potential to improve the quality of democracy. Despite the dramatic technological advances of the past few decades, which have moved in tandem with higher education levels in most countries, the richer political pluralism and the more active, better-informed citizenry that many observers predicted (e.g., Pool 1983) have failed to materialize. Indeed, in some countries (especially the United States), the trend has been toward ever lower levels of political participation and higher levels of political participation and higher levels of cynicism toward democratic politics per se. The key to understanding this paradox is the recognition that the communications media are precisely that - a channel through which information flows to citizens. The political effects of this information are shaped by the interaction between its use by elites and the receptivity of individual citizens who are the target of political messages. While we have surveyed a number of technological, economic, and social-structural factors that influence the impact of the media on political behavior, we conclude that the most decisive determinants of media effects are the strategies and behavior of elites, particularly political elites.

In Brazil, there are a few peculiarities to be added to the scenery. Democracy and freedom of speech are elements relatively new in the country: from 1964 to 1989, Brazil was under a military dictatorship that controlled all the information disseminated by the mass media. Most of the political elite that was part of the dictatorship remains involved in politics until this date, since in Brazil the end of the dictatorship was accompanied by amnesty to both members of the resistance against dictatorship and members of the dictatorship alike. Apart from this, all major Brazilian media institutions belong to traditional families that are part of the country's elite. In the definition of historian Raymundo Faoro, author of the book Os Donos do Poder (The Owners of Power), "The Brazilian elite is in favour of sellouts" ("A elite brasileira é entreguista"). Faoro pointed out the existence of a patrimonialist estate in Brazil that emerged from the decline of the landed class and became dominant after the country attained its independence. Faoro analyses that the patrimonialist bureaucracy endorsed the formation of a national project that was not concerned with the national interests, but only with the interests of the elite itself.

As a result of all this elements, the Brazilian mass media is completely aligned with the elite's interests. And that speaks volumes about the way the elections are covered by the media.

Suggested soundtrack: "What's in the headlines", Don Covay.