Models and theories to clarify the dynamic affiliation between politicians and journalists have attracted interest since the use of propaganda progressively after World War I to convert the public to various purposes by the politicians. The rise of ideological developments in World War II and Europe and furthermore the rise of other media, for example TV and radio, have broadened researchers' interest in the connection with journalists and politicians and their suggestion on public judgment . As Lipmann (1922: 29) correctly observes, "the world which we have to manage politically is distant, out of mind and out of the picture." To be sure, more often than not we are confronted with a world with which we have no coordinated knowledge or understanding. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Media journalists have helped people connect the world which is inevitably developed by some particular news reports "which are chosen under various inspirations amidst predictable predispositions." (McQuail 2005: 36). Given that we do not have open doors for independent approval of data on the vast majority of occasions, the public is certainly dependent on the media "and the opinion of journalists from time to time." (Van Gorp 2005: 484). Now, the media does not function as completely autonomous actors. They have a mutual give-and-take relationship with governments and politicians that has a positive impact on news management and the data the public receives. Mass correspondence scholars have created distinctive models and speculations to clarify this dynamic connection and its consequences for the data the public receives. Communication scholars have mostly referred to the concepts of “propaganda”, “model”, “cascade model”, “indexing approach” and “hegemony”, to clarify the connection between journalists and politicians. source of political data for citizens in a democratic society. Some might say that they have a huge impact on both politicians and individuals, since they are known to shape public sentiments and opinions from time to time, and their role turns out to be more authoritative especially during elections when political parties they are sensitive about how journalists and the media present themselves to the public. Ideally, journalists should fulfill the political task by dispersing the full scope of political opinions, allowing the general population to make political decisions and enter national life. Normally, in democratic societies, for example, the media is a channel of correspondence that ensures the exchange of opinions both among the overall population and in power, political parties do not exert coordinated pressure or weight on the media (however this varies from country to country ). . In liberal democratic nations it advises the public and acts as a government watchdog. On the other hand, journalists should make the political system more “simple” and “transparent”, helping individuals to participate in political choices, understand how the government operates, and so on. Fortunately, in practice, most of the time the media and some journalists play different roles. It stimulates transparency and does not serve the values ​​or political evaluations that "transparency" arouses, it hides the essential data in a mass of produced political realities and substances. Despite this, transparency and political candor are unthinkable without the coverage of journalists and the media. Politicians, and even governments, can control the reach and coverage of data to achieve their own political and conservative goals by diverting public attention. THEPoliticians seek to strengthen the flow of "their favorite frames in the media and reach the public to stand out enough to be noticed and supported." (Kriesi 2004: 46). This procedure forces the use of some pre-established attempts in favor of governments since they cannot rely on the ability to simply exploit the media. However, the media does not really focus on the substantive part of the messages provided by the authorities, yet they strive to "show their freedom and independence by focusing on the personal and social aspects of the political context and the strategic intentions of political actors" (McQuail 2005 : 192) Media associations use their authority that derives from the choice and selection of news (gatekeeping), confining the content of the news. In this sense, journalists do not just provide data, but can also become independent actors in politics. In this procedure, the link between politicians and journalists can be measured in terms of the power struggle to impact the agenda and "make their frames part of the story with the ultimate goal of influencing public opinion." McCombs 2004: 12). For these particular reasons, governments try to convey strategies and methods to spread their messages instead of anticipating that their messages will only be exploited by the media. Based on this, news administrations can be described as "the strategic attempts of the government to influence the plan and structures of the media which, thereby, give the government an advantage regarding public opinion". (Kohut 2007: 191). Political actors include the creation, circulation, and control of data in ways that help support the government's cause to achieve the desired impact on public opinion. There are various procedures and methods followed by governments for this specific principle. The implementation of these methods and strategies is based on the "national context, the problem context, the individual context and the application of news management that skillfully considers these different factors in play". (Entman 2007: 170). When it comes to managing news, politicians have a number of tools they can use effectively. One of these tools is to have control of data on specific problems, especially war and global terrorism. Various surveys and studies demonstrate an overwhelming dependence on official sources by the media for external issues. In particular, in conflicts that occur internationally, journalists usually give much more importance to official sources in their country due mainly to the availability of data and somewhat of the standard of claiming objectivity by using official sources. This circumstance gives the source of government the inevitable power to adapt its preferred schemes to an event and a problem. This power is much more prevalent than military circumstances that “allow politicians to be accountable to the realities on the ground.” (Robertson 2004: 35). Embedded journalism shows the government's authority and power to control data during war. Indeed, the use of authoritative sources and the embodied journalistic act inevitably lead to the predisposition to unintentional and biased news coverage that “supports politicians and the government.” (Hallín 1988: 22). Reese (2004) convincingly communicates and expresses how embedded journalism “undermines journalists' independence regarding safety and security, driving military logic, distorted reporting, and heroic attitudes among journalists.” Furthermore, with institutionalized events, politicians can similarly create pseudo-events of their own that appeal.