Along with some crazy used-car salespersons and attorneys, they are probably two of America’s most disliked professionals —ÿjournalists and politicians.

I am both of those, kind of. With a double major in journalism and political science, I often come to the defense of both fields. However, there comes a time when people in the political and media arenas are critical of each other. That’s when I find myself on a high-wire trying to decide which side I favor.

Such has been the case in my United States foreign policy class recently. Throughout the semester, we’ve learned about American foreign policy through different presidencies and eras in history, the process of creating foreign policy and much more. Although that may seem a little dry to a lot of people, it really is quite interesting.

But in the last few class meetings, our class has discussed whether the media sets the agenda for American foreign policy by pressuring politicians to make a hasty decision or if politicians dictate what is news by informing the media of what is happening. Basically, we are trying to prove or disprove what has been dubbed the “CNN Effect.”

Some claim the media creates the foreign policy issues of the day. Take stories on starvation in African countries for example. In 1984, the hot topic of Ethiopian hunger could be seen on the nightly news. According to “American Foreign Policy Policy and Process,” by my political science professor, James McCormick, the reaction to NBC’s airing of a story about the famine was “immediate and overwhelming.” After that, CBS and ABC began stories on the Ethiopian people. In short, the story exploded.

The same with Somalia. In 1991 and 1992, the television networks and newspapers bombarded their pages with stories about hunger in Somalia. In both African countries, the president sent troops to aid the starving.

Proponents of the CNN Effect argue that the media portrayal of these two countries forced the executive office to make quick and undeveloped policies toward the region. They also argue that sometimes America really has no foreign policy interest in some of these parts of the world.

People on the other side argue that the politicians make the media lapdogs who must rely on the information the government releases to inform the public. Also, politicians sometimes take media presence to their advantage in promoting what they think is news.

Actually, that’s what happened in Somalia. A band of aid officials precipitated media coverage by trying to get the administration’s attention in order to show that Somalia was an issue. After that, stories were flooding the media.

Then the government sent in troops to help administer aid. And after media reports that 16 American servicemen were killed and one paraded through the streets, troops were pulled out. However, many Americans see the picture from the other side of the screen — they think the media started the blitz in Somalia.

Surely, there are times when the media, particularly television networks, present a story that pressures the president to make a policy toward a region. In Africa, there was pressure because millions of people hungry and dying are especially riveting to the American public. Action must be taken. But it’s also very important to remember that politicians do try to manipulate the media for their own uses.

Although I see the arguments of both sides, I think I am leaning more toward the journalist in me. Much of the attack on the media is directed toward television’s instant coverage of events. This also hits home for me because I hope to work in the broadcast side of journalism.

On CNN, you can tune in to see things live. Politicians often criticize that as pressurizing, but if something is important, why shouldn’t the public hear about it? Why can’t the public SEE it? The wonders of technology are phenomenal. Someone in Iowa can see a riot in a public square in Beijing, China. People around the world can tune in to see an interview with an Iowa woman who had seven children.

Also, is it the media’s fault if the administration doesn’t have a policy toward a particular region as an event happens? No. Journalists are reporting what is news and they shouldn’t have to stop to think what Clinton will think about this or whether he has a policy yet. Basic reporting is a must in informing the people.

It is not right for the media to cap their reports for that reason, just as it is not right for the media to hold back on informing the American people.

In much of politics, but especially the foreign policy arena, there is also the argument that the public is apathetic about what is going on. Many are fed up with politicians in Washington, and many think homeland news is more important than the ongoing tensions between the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Foreign news is of lesser importance, which can be seen in the decrease of foreign news bureaus of CBS, ABC and NBC. There is now more reliance on news agencies, such as Associated Press Television, Reuters and Eurovision, to get the video and the story. But does that diminish the actual importance and effect of foreign news on the American people, despite any apathy? Not really.

The media shouldn’t rely on what the government tells them is news. Take Watergate for example. Without media inquiries from reporters like Woodward and Bernstein of the New York Times, Richard Nixon may have finished his second term as president because the illegal activities of the infamous “plumbers’ unit” may have been brushed off and not uncovered.

Investigation and fulfilling the watchdog role of government is excruciatingly vital for the public.

It’s impossible to side with either the politicians or the media because it would mean denying faults of both media and politics. There is a distinguished circling effect between the two portrayals of the media, but it is clear that not doing stories simply for the sake of foreign policy or any other administration’s interest is the wrong path to be following. The role of the media cannot be diminished.

---

Erin Payne is a senior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids. She is the opinion editor of the Daily.