Larry D. Lauer

This week Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House without the concurrence of the President, breaking all established protocol for a state visit. This event had me thinking again about how the balance of power is supposed to work versus how media revolutions in the past have been able to significantly disrupt it. And the more I thought about it the more I could see media influences once again contributing to this disruption.

In the US we have a checks and balances system designed to balance the power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. But with each media revolution, from print to TV to digital and Internet technology, the balance of power has shifted in favor of those branches and individuals who understand and use the new dominant medium most effectively.

For example, among the 425 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate, only those who know how to use television and digital media effectively are able to attain widespread visibility and influence. The executive branch, by virtue of its administrative importance, has greater media access and so the president has the advantage of his powerful “bully pulpit.” And the judiciary’s “court of last resort” function tended to diminish its media access and influence, although recent hot constitutional issues might be changing all that… producing more balance disruption.

The appearance of Netanyahu before the US Congress is still another development in this changing media dynamic. Was the US speaker of the House’s invitation to speak to Congress without consulting the US President a pure Republican political move?  Was Netanyahu’s interest in coming primarily influenced by his impending bid for re-election back home? Was this just a dramatic  example of an inevitable permanent shift in the balance of power? Or was it a horrible blunder with negative consequences for the Speaker and/or the Prime Minister?

Whatever the motives, television and digital media and the ability to use it clearly made this event possible. And yes it could change the protocols for conducting foreign affairs in the future. Are we better off? Only time will tell. Change is difficult no matter how it comes, and this is still another example of what I mean when I argue that “media revolutions change everything!”