New York Times v. Sullivan Essay

IntroductionCommunication refers to the exchange of ideas or information between two or more people. Information composes of voice (e.g. telephone, happy talky etc), data (short message services/SMS, facsimile etc), and video (video streaming, video conference etc). Although the types of information are still the same, their importance always gets stronger eventually.Information is the outset of actions and becomes more central in this information age. This is because its importance has even doubled, tripled, or even infinite as people in this age understand the necessities to take in about incidences in other go away of the world and become more knowledgeable to use appropriate information for their advantages.As the sense of knowing wee reasons and confidence to act towards edits, information, if delivered truthfully, can be the instruments of great deeds. In contrast if the information is manipulated it will lead people to disastrous wrongful acts.Televisions, newspapers, magazines, radios and the internet are now becoming main sources of national information where we can find out what happened in the world. The media, thitherfore, fool been noteworthy sources of information although it faces great challenges since readers now in earnest question about the truth of information presented in the media. Readers think that most of media tend to create public opinion that the sources want, driven by their semipolitical concerns.This is uncoiled since politic, in its nature, is capable to influence and control e reallyones life and lifestyles, and has always in the spotlight. As society gets wiser, attention on politics has never been this scrutiny. With very stiff people or party played their hands in it, politics has been one of the strongest reasons why the role of media as a trustworthy courier is questioned. In line with the idea, Lynden Johnson saysreporters are puppet, they simply respond to the pull of the most powerful strings.In this paper, we will discuss the role of media in setting the political agenda. We take into account the 1964s object lesson New York Times vs. Sullivan in describing the topic. Prior to the discussion, we will develop the idea of media power, and the framing, priming, and agenda setting.New York Times vs. Sullivan eventBack to the 1964 where the feud between New York Times and Sullivan existed, we witnessed that the case has gradually changed the maneuver of U.S. newspapers. Nowadays, we witness that U.S. media are paying a great attention on Paris Hilton than on Capitol Hill. The reason is that todays media are less concerned to expose the misdeeds and motivations of powerful people or public officials.According to Goldman (2004), the case of New York Times v. Sullivan begun when New York Times published a full-page ad that suspected the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a concerted effort to tear down Kings efforts to integrate public facilities a nd encourage blacks to vote.The ad soon arouses the ire of a public official named L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner. The commissioner then filed a libel action against the Times and brought four black ministers who supported the ad into the court for claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police force defamed him personally (Goldman).Under the auspices of the Alabama law, Sullivan finally won the case and received $500,000. This was happened since under the states law Sullivan did not even reserve to prove that he had been harmed. In contrast, Times defense saying the ad was invalid since the ad contained factual errors (Goldman).2.2 Learning from the case of New York Times v. SullivanThe conclusiveness of the Court that favored Sullivan was based on the First Amendment, which protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are make with actual malice with knowledge that they a re false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity (Goldman).Furthermore, Goldman explains the new ruling, in instal to this day, says it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that a printed or televised account is false and defamatory. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff needs to show that the media has account erroneous and recklessly ignoring facts.The actual malice rule at a minimum encourages newspapers to take risks defaming people they otherwise would not take. The new ruling makes media to have the best defense when dealing with sue by a public figure. He adds that such defense would make it very difficult to sue newspapers and telly stations even if they got an entire story wrong. Unfortunately, the case of Times vs. Sullivan have driven the press a little more arrogant than it needs to be when embraceing politicians or public figures.III. How Powerful Is Media?Mc Combs and Shaw in their book the Emergence of American Political Issue, state that todays medi a have the powerful function to organize how the world looks for us. They might not successfully control our minds, exactly they are undeniably capable to direct our everyday thoughts.In standardized tone, Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder in his book News That Matters, says that by paying attention to one issue and neglecting others, television is able to decide what American believed to be the most important issue to think about.For instance, Israel Palestinian lifetime conflict has been Americas most important concerns in 2003, and judging from the nature of the issue (e.g. atrocities, suicide bombing, etc), it is newsworthy, but as the media turn their focus to the Iraq war, Schwarzeneggers governor election and the California Wildfires, the Israel-Palestinian issue is somehow diminished, although the debacle is not even approaching a win-win firmness of purpose (Anti Propaganda Watch).Framing, Priming and Agenda SettingFraming is the process of making a meaning out of inciden ts or stories. In the effort of expression a line of comprehension between journalists and the readers, the frames are often drawn from. It is said to often chosen unintentionally. As an example, when a journalist is making a story about the high rising rate of poverty in a state, he or she will have to do what is called thematic framing, which mover that eventually, a connection will have to be made between the increasing rate of poverty and the state governments policies. While in periodic framing, the routine nature of the story derive journalists to put the blame on individual actors, preventing audience from making a generalization of the stories (London).Priming is do when a journalist gives an extra weight onto an issue or an opinion, allowing peoples mind to have a change in their opinion. This is usually make by giving extra amount of coverage, making an issue salient while others not.Agenda Setting is even more conspicuous than the two impairment we have mentioned bef ore. It is a process of giving a certain theme over incidents that happens in a coverage area. By using materials that are exquisite to society, journalist can properly put in ideas on peoples head. For example, research shows that a single exposure on a violent crime-related news can heightened peoples fear of being victimized, which then gave the idea that violent crime is a very important issue (Media Effects).One of the most attractive issue on priming and agenda setting is the LA Times anti-Israel Propaganda. In the join the boycott website, there are enough reasons to make visitors of the site hate the LA Times. According to the website, the boycott is due the intolerable bias on news coverage relating Israel-Palestinian eonian debacle. Furthermore, it shows that LA times has done all of the three forbidden acts of journalism we have addressed before. This situation also applies to the case of New York Times v. Sullivan in which the Times has set up a political agenda about Black community to vote.ConclusionThe role of media in our society is unbelievably important. open coverage is always a worthy achievement. Politics does not come in the form of campaigns, elections, and the affairs of big government, but also the press as mind setters of the society.Furthermore, the new ruling, in effect since the case of New York Times v. Sullivan to this day, favors media to expose the misdeeds conducted by politicians or public figures in which the new ruling enables media to cover politicians aggressively without fear of lawsuits.However, the audiences still have absolute control to choose what they want or do not want to value what journalists distinguish as important. Nevertheless, the psychological implications of framing, priming and agenda setting are less significant. The existence of a picture and the atmosphere of the language can be a teachable but powerful way to alter opinions to the preferred direction.BibliographyGoldman, Jerry. New York Times v. Sullivan. OYEZ. 2004. Retrieved April 2, 2005 How Public Is the NPR? Retrieved March 19, 2005 from Iyengar, Shanto. Media Effects. 1998. Retrieved April 2, 2005 fromLA Times Israel anti-propaganda Watch. 2004. Retrieved April 2, 2005 from London, Scott. How Media Frames Political Issues. 1993. Retrieved April 2, 2005 from Pulle, Matt. Dont buck the Messenger. Nashville Scene. 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2005 from U.S. Supreme Court. New York Times v. Sullivan. Retrieved April 2, 2005 from