With the advent of new digital technologies, the power relationship of capitalism, which is accumulated and manifested through generations, has begun to emerge. How will mass media affect politicians and political systems as a window for voters to see the world? So far, many studies have shown that mass media framing issue opinions, but there is not much to study the role of media in ‘preming’ political distrust and political efficacy. Here, ‘Freaming’ means that news media report on an event or issue using a specific frame. (Goffman, 1974) and political efficacy are subjective beliefs about an individual’s influence and authoritative government activities that may be exercised in the political process within a society.(2013)
That is to say, the satisfaction gained by a voter’s participation in politics. Voters become more effective when they feel they can participate in politics and do what they intend. Here I also need to find out about ‘frame theory.’ George Reykoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California in the U.S., said, ‘Frame means framework, framework, and frame in frame theory is an intuitive framework that defines the relationship between the essence and the meaning of modern people’s recognition of political and social agendas.'(2007) According to the theory of frames, the one who first defines public thinking by presenting a strategically constructed frame wins politics, and the effort to refute it falls into the dilemma of strengthening the frame. (2007)
When we look at these strategic frames, we can see some facts. First, a ‘strategic frame’ can have an important effect on political distrust. The more a ‘strategic frame’ composed of video messages is portrayed in conflict, the more negative the emotional response to politicians is. Second, the higher the ‘political distrust’ caused by the strategic frame, the lower the acceptor’s effectiveness in voting and alternative politics. In other words, political distrust is an important variable in predicting the effectiveness of an acceptor. Third, the strategic frame was expected to have a direct impact on the acceptor’s political efficacy, but was not It was also found that the higher the ‘political efficacy’ of the acceptor, the higher the will to participate in the system politics and the willingness to participate in alternative politics. (2001.)
By confirming these studies, we can see that the strategic frame of the media deepens the political distrust of the inmates. It also shows that the media can erode the foundations and foundations of democracy. As a result, the media’s ‘how’ reporting can have a huge impact on citizens’ political attitudes and participation in politics. As to whether the media is causing political distrust, there are conflicting opinions within journalism as well. Scholars such as Cappella and Jamieson (1997) point out that the media is one cause of deepening political distrust.
The media’s negative reporting style strengthens the acceptors’ tendency to increasingly distrust politicians and political systems. As such, the argument that the media intensifies the acceptor’s distrust in politics is called ‘the media’s erosion of democracy.'(Newton, 1999) But some other scholars argue that the media plays a positive role in contributing to the acquisition of the acceptor’s knowledge and further enhancing the inmates’ political efficacy. (Chaffee & Schleuder, 1986.) As such, the media’s view of improving the political efficacy of inmates is called ‘the theory of enhancing democracy in the media.’ (Newton 1999)
According to the ‘hardening theory,’ acceptors can be politically socialized, such as acquiring knowledge through mass media. In modern society, mass media has become a big part of political socialization. Therefore, the media passes knowledge on to the inmates and increases interest in public work and desire for information. By extending these factors, it is believed that the media plays an important role in deeply intervening in the political and socialization process of the general public. For example, most of the citizens get news through the media. Through the news, you will be able to learn information about what is happening in the world and satisfy your desire to pursue information. It is inferred that inmates have higher subjective efficacy in the long run because of an increase in news-related knowledge.
Thus, according to the theory of intensification, inmates who ‘listen to political news’ will have more political interest, frequency of political debates, and acquisition of political knowledge.(Arkin& Gantz, 1980) As interest in politics increases, the probability of direct intervention in politics becomes even higher.(Chaffee & Frank, 1996.) The result is that the public has a positive effect on getting more involved and focused on politics. This theory of ‘political socialization’ or ‘media dependency’ assumes that the media will serve as a catalyst for political participation by providing inmates with knowledge of the public domain and increasing their trust in or effectiveness in politics.
Nevertheless, there is also a downside to the position of ‘hardening theory.’ First, the problem is pointed out that the rich media environment and the level of the inmates’ knowledge do not increase proportionally. (Robinson & Davis, 1990.) Voters’ level of knowledge is still pointed out to be low despite their prolonged exposure to television, which is rated as strong in their growing media environment or their ability to transmit There is also a problem where the relationship between the use of the media and political trust is inconsistent. First of all, looking at the relationship between media usage and political trust, there was no significant relationship between media usage and political trust. (Becher, Sollowale, Casey Jr., 1979.)
Also, the more media is used, the more political distrust is developed rather than promoting political confidence. (McLeod,& Mcdonald, 1985). There are also different results from country to country about whether reliance on newspaper media makes politics trustworthy. Becker also argues that the United States tends to believe in the government by voters who rely on newspapers for information. On the other hand, according to ‘potentialism,’ the media tends to focus on activities that ‘political actors attack or counterattack’ that threaten their status, and focus on strategic games among political actors, such as ‘win and defeat, strategy and methods, focus on appearances, and hype.’
Cappella and Jammieson (197) said in a report frame like this. In other words, the strategic frame is not a fair way but a style of reporting that focuses on how to pursue political actors’ ‘benefits.’ Robinson (1976) pointed out that the media played a key role in the overall decline in political trust in American society in the 1970s. He showed that reliance on television was strengthening political cynicism, weakening political efficacy and weakening political loyalty. This study is meaningful in proving for the first time the negative role of television in politics. According to those who insist on ‘potentialism,’ the continued access by inmates to media negative campaign reports or strategic frames reduces public confidence in politicians, leading to a decrease in political efficacy.
I personally think ‘potentialism’ is the current flow of our media. I can’t say unconditionally that ‘hardening theory’ or ‘sleeping theory’ is right, but I think social flow is flowing in the direction of ‘sleeping theory.’ One thing we can be sure of is that as the media’s industrialization and marketization accelerate over time, the function of ‘criticism and surveillance,’ which was the cause of the media’s existence, is missing, instead, economic efficiency and profit have become the main values. The content of the media is only one product for profit, and the acceptor is only a consumer who consumes such goods according to his or her preferences. The media has gradually disappeared as a public forum for civil enlightenment and is turning into a market of greed that only discusses economic benefits.
I think these media problems can be caused by ‘concentration of ownership’. (C, Edwin Bay, 2015) The fact that the media is concentrated under a small number of control is to destroy the ‘diversity’ of democracy. When we talk about media diversity, we often pay attention to the diversity of views and content. However, diversity is only a result of ‘process diversity,’ so in a democracy it is not aimed at diversity of content or perspective itself. Democracy is about the process rather than the outcome. So what are the effects of a strategic frame? The media’s negative portrayal of politicians, such as the media’s significant emphasis on conflict reports or mobilizing strategic frames in election reports, highlights politicians’ pursuit of ‘private interests,’ which in turn leads to political disappointment to the public, which in turn worsens political distrust.
This process could lead voters to regard the election process as meaningless. From a political standpoint, the cause of political distrust is largely divided into two subjects. Political distrust or political dissatisfaction seen in politics often stems from the crisis of leadership or economic difficulties. That is why some political scientists point out that it is the cause of political distrust, ‘complaints resulting from the mistakes of incumbent politicians or the failure of the party’s policies.'(Citrin, 1974 & Green, 1986.) According to them, the object that voters are dissatisfied with is the behavior of politicians or the policy of political parties. Another topic in the study of political distrust is the argument that economic distress such as economic recession and unemployment causes people to have political grievances.