Media plays an essential part in the functioning of a democracy. It acts as the voice of the people, ensuring transparency and accountability in the governance of a nation. Media helps to remove the veil of secrecy around the functioning of the government. It is often said that a nation can only be as good as its people, but this also holds true for the media. Thus, for better or for worse, if the media is influential, then how it acts must be a concern to anyone who is concerned about democracy.
The elections are the bedrock of political participation in any democratic society. They allow the populace to choose its leaders and, in a manner of speaking, set the course for the ship of state. But the most important thing that takes place within the election process—if not the most crucial factor leading to the election's outcome—is the media covering the election and the candidates involved.
After establishing the "why," it will then look at two key areas in which information about elections has to be communicated to the public: using the media as a tool for what might be described as "democracy outreach," and ensuring the accountability of the candidates and elected officials themselves.
At the outset, it should be said that coverage in the media is the main conduit for conveying information to the electorate. And in this information age, where the sheer abundance of content can often appear overwhelming, it is vital to remember the central role that the traditional tools of journalism play in the processes of platform and candidate exposition. For many voters, the limited time they can dedicate to the consumption of electoral-related material is largely filled by the four main types of media: television, newspapers, radio, and digital formats. And with compelling grassroots plays and slick viral stunts serving as the sum total of the appearance given by some campaigns, it is in these traditional media spaces where the tire tracks leading up to the respective campaign's front door are most likely to be found.
In addition, public attention and interest are further cultivated by the way in which an event is covered by the media. When it comes to elections, people not only want to know the who, what, where, and when but also the why and how something happened. This hunger for juicy details and good gossip is harnessed by the media, which tends to play up and dramatize facts in a way that makes them more palatable for public consumption. Audiences are much more likely to pay attention to and engage in discussions about an issue, particularly around election time, when the media have underscored its perceived importance. Even better, for the media, is when an issue surrounding the election is contentious and has demonstrably split public opinion. Then the media don't just get a captive audience; they get an audience that is actively joining in the debate and discussing among themselves and with others why it is that they favor what they favor.
Media coverage plays a critical part in holding both candidates and elected officials accountable. Among the significant parts of this coverage is the welcome presence of investigative journalism. Several media outlets conduct routine investigations—uncovering and exposing unflattering truths about both life and government in America—as a necessary part of its function as a “watchdog.” It’s the constant poking and prodding of both the media and the public that keeps the life of a candidate “honest”; if it were otherwise, we’d doubt the integrity of the electoral process itself. We may not like everything that our “watchdog” media does, but we ought to appreciate its presence in maintaining a system where candidates and public officials who’ve done something wrong are held to account and aren’t allowed to escape unscathed.
Media coverage serves a vital purpose in an electoral democracy—establishing the basic facts about an election. Who is running? What issues are they debating? And why does it all matter? In addition to these basic functions, extensive media coverage can lead to increased participation in the electoral process. By citizens, of course—the public being covered. But it can also lead to increased participation by not-citizens—those being covered by the public. And what is this heightened "awareness" I keep mentioning? It is necessary for electoral democracy to have a heightened awareness of, well, democracy. And not just the form, but also the issue content.
Yet all media attention is not created equal. Social media and the many new information channels can lead to troubling questions about the quality and reliability of the news Americans consume. With everyone in a hurry these days, a report cannot be too far behind if the findings are sensational enough. Indeed, the intense competition among national media to be the first with a story—even a partially accurate one—has undermined public trust in journalism as a whole. Yet the recent polls churned out by some of these same media have no illusions about being any more trustworthy than any other polls historically or at present.
To sum up, the covering of government elections by the media is essential for the proper operation of democracy. Serving as an information highway, voting as a process is rendered intelligible to the electorate by the media's election coverage. And when the vote is in, its meaning is conveyed to the people via further reporting. This is not only a "first draft of history" responsibility; the media also have a public service mandate to encourage as much citizen engagement as possible. Reporters should always strive for a balance between what is legally permissible for candidates to say and what is right for them to say if they wish to serve as genuine role models for the kind of democratic citizenship that the Founding Fathers envisioned.