Evaluate the view that the influence of the media in politics is exaggerated; it is not heavily biased
and has little power of persuasion.
In this essay, the term media refers to traditional outlets such as television and the press, as well as
the increasingly dominant force of social media. To assess its influence in politics, it is necessary to
examine how the media shapes the electorate’s perceptions and voting behaviour. Some argue that
the media’s influence is exaggerated - claiming it merely reflects public opinion, is constrained from
bias by regulatory bodies like Ofcom, and has declining persuasive power due to falling newspaper
circulation. However, the stronger argument suggests that the media retains significant influence:
shaping public opinion, bypassing regulation, and shaping the agendas of those in power. Overall, this
essay will argue that the influence of the media in politics is not exaggerated, it is heavily biased and
has power of persuasion, particularly through its ability to frame political narratives, shape leadership
perception, and adapt to new digital platforms such as social media.
Firstly, an argument that the influence of media in politics is exaggerated is that for the most part, the
media is reacting to changes in public opinion rather than creating them. This is exemplified through
The Sun newspaper, where they have backed the winner of every election since 1974, and recently
backed Labour in the 2024 election rather than their usual Conservatives. Because it was clear from
the opinion polls that the perceived incompetence of the Conservative party over the last 14 years had
made a Labour government all but inevitable, it was in the Sun’s interest to endorse Labour in the hope
this support would translate into influence over the new government. And while this could have been
exaggerated, it appears to be historically true, with Tony Blair and the Sun’s owner Rupert Murdoch
having regular secret policy meetings notably, around 2006 in return for his support. The rationale
behind such access was partly because past Labour leaders like Kinnock were attacked by right-wing
papers, and given the fact future leaders such as Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn were attacked
through headlines as well, perhaps he was right to do so. This ties with the idea of ‘presidentialism’, as
election campaigns are now heavily influenced by how voters perceive party leaders - perceptions that
are shaped by the media, as they are in the US. Negative perceptions of leadership for the
conservatives proved destructive. The media's framing of controversies such as ‘Partygate’ and Truss'
mini-budget disaster are examples of this, and despite Rishi Sunak meeting with Murdoch around 5
times throughout 2022-2023 they were unable to combat the wrath of the media's power, resulting in
their worst defeat in history in the 2024 election. While the media can sometimes mirror public
opinion and the subsequent effects of these messagings could be exaggerated, the difference in how
individual politicians are viewed, can influence how people vote. Therefore it can be argued that the
influence of the media in politics is not exaggerated.
Secondly, an argument that the media is not heavily biased is the rules and regulations around TV. As
Ofcom states, 50% of the electorate considered TV and radio their most popular way to consume
news regarding the 2024 general election. TV channels have to follow Ofcom's regulations and
remain strictly unbiased around political issues to ensure balanced coverage and prevent any single
viewpoint from dominating. However, as the TV channel GBNews have shown, extremely biased
content can be broadcast if you argue the shows are not news but ‘current affairs’. Moreover, Ofcom
has little power when it comes to print media. Newspapers are able to push a one sided agenda, often
reflecting their owner’s agenda. The Daily Mail labelled the Supreme Court judges - who ruled that the
UK government needed the assent of parliament to trigger Article 50 - printed “Enemies of the
People” in a 2016 headline. This not only undermines judicial neutrality, a key aspect of a working
democracy but it demonstrates their biased judgement when it comes to Brexit. While TV has some
restrictions this has recently become threatened with Ofcom regulations being ignored, and the press
media’s blatant partisanship. Therefore it can be argued that the media is heavily biased.
and has little power of persuasion.
In this essay, the term media refers to traditional outlets such as television and the press, as well as
the increasingly dominant force of social media. To assess its influence in politics, it is necessary to
examine how the media shapes the electorate’s perceptions and voting behaviour. Some argue that
the media’s influence is exaggerated - claiming it merely reflects public opinion, is constrained from
bias by regulatory bodies like Ofcom, and has declining persuasive power due to falling newspaper
circulation. However, the stronger argument suggests that the media retains significant influence:
shaping public opinion, bypassing regulation, and shaping the agendas of those in power. Overall, this
essay will argue that the influence of the media in politics is not exaggerated, it is heavily biased and
has power of persuasion, particularly through its ability to frame political narratives, shape leadership
perception, and adapt to new digital platforms such as social media.
Firstly, an argument that the influence of media in politics is exaggerated is that for the most part, the
media is reacting to changes in public opinion rather than creating them. This is exemplified through
The Sun newspaper, where they have backed the winner of every election since 1974, and recently
backed Labour in the 2024 election rather than their usual Conservatives. Because it was clear from
the opinion polls that the perceived incompetence of the Conservative party over the last 14 years had
made a Labour government all but inevitable, it was in the Sun’s interest to endorse Labour in the hope
this support would translate into influence over the new government. And while this could have been
exaggerated, it appears to be historically true, with Tony Blair and the Sun’s owner Rupert Murdoch
having regular secret policy meetings notably, around 2006 in return for his support. The rationale
behind such access was partly because past Labour leaders like Kinnock were attacked by right-wing
papers, and given the fact future leaders such as Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn were attacked
through headlines as well, perhaps he was right to do so. This ties with the idea of ‘presidentialism’, as
election campaigns are now heavily influenced by how voters perceive party leaders - perceptions that
are shaped by the media, as they are in the US. Negative perceptions of leadership for the
conservatives proved destructive. The media's framing of controversies such as ‘Partygate’ and Truss'
mini-budget disaster are examples of this, and despite Rishi Sunak meeting with Murdoch around 5
times throughout 2022-2023 they were unable to combat the wrath of the media's power, resulting in
their worst defeat in history in the 2024 election. While the media can sometimes mirror public
opinion and the subsequent effects of these messagings could be exaggerated, the difference in how
individual politicians are viewed, can influence how people vote. Therefore it can be argued that the
influence of the media in politics is not exaggerated.
Secondly, an argument that the media is not heavily biased is the rules and regulations around TV. As
Ofcom states, 50% of the electorate considered TV and radio their most popular way to consume
news regarding the 2024 general election. TV channels have to follow Ofcom's regulations and
remain strictly unbiased around political issues to ensure balanced coverage and prevent any single
viewpoint from dominating. However, as the TV channel GBNews have shown, extremely biased
content can be broadcast if you argue the shows are not news but ‘current affairs’. Moreover, Ofcom
has little power when it comes to print media. Newspapers are able to push a one sided agenda, often
reflecting their owner’s agenda. The Daily Mail labelled the Supreme Court judges - who ruled that the
UK government needed the assent of parliament to trigger Article 50 - printed “Enemies of the
People” in a 2016 headline. This not only undermines judicial neutrality, a key aspect of a working
democracy but it demonstrates their biased judgement when it comes to Brexit. While TV has some
restrictions this has recently become threatened with Ofcom regulations being ignored, and the press
media’s blatant partisanship. Therefore it can be argued that the media is heavily biased.
