In terms of politics, the media plays an important role in influencing citizens. The question that must be asked in this relationship is “Who is in control”? Do media shape politics and the outcome of public opinion, or does the powerful government control the media for their own benefit? Bernard Cohen, in his agenda setting theory, would state that media control politics. Cohen once wrote, “[The press] may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (Baran & Davis 279). Basically, media can’t control how people will respond to issues, but they can select which issues people focus on.
In regard to today’s politics, citizens have become increasingly critical of President Obama’s term thus far. Likewise, media have fixed a critical eye on the president’s action. While there are many issues that the media could focus on, they highlight certain issues more heavily than others. As McCombs and Shaw found in their study, the media definitely influence voters (and, to extend beyond this, media consumers in general). They write, “It might be argued that the high correlations indicate that the media simply were successful in matching their messages to audience interests. Yet since numerous studies indicate a sharp divergence between the news values of professional journalists and their audiences, it would be remarkable to find a near perfect fit in this case.” They add, “It seems more likely that the media have prevailed in this area of major coverage” (McCombs & Shaw 160). At the top of today’s most covered issues are the health care debate and the economy. While these are undoubtedly two of the most critical issues of our time, the media certainly help catapult these discussions to the forefront. While the media might not tell us exactly what stance to take, they still accentuate the important issues in Obama’s presidency. Here, the role of the media is clearly evident.
Since the media clearly has such an influence in terms of politics, this leads back to the question I first asked. Who is in control? Have the media taken over politics in a negative way? In media intrusion theory, Dennis Davis claims that “media have intruded into and taken over politics to the degree that politics have become subverted” (Baran and Davis 293). Take, for instance, the recent Massachusetts Senate election between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. Many of the ads from both sides attacked the opponent, then stated why the candidate running the ad should be supported.
For more details of the attacks, please see http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/09/brown_coakley_sharpen_attacks_in_debate/.
This is certainly nothing new from today’s presidential campaigns. As Baran and Davis state, “These reports don’t help news consumers develop useful understandings of politics… Rather, they encourage consumers to become political spectators, content to sit on the sidelines while the stars play the game” (294). Is this approach helpful for consumers? While it might help the winning candidate, it simply doesn’t help consumers. McCombs and Shaw state, “In our day, more than ever before, candidates go before the people through the mass media rather than in person” (McCombs & Shaw 153). This means that citizens must depend on the media to inform us. If we can’t rely on the media to provide us with useful information on the candidates, then where can we turn for our information?
Is it possible for the media to cover every aspect of a politics? How do they select the most important issues for consumers? Returning to Cohen, he claimed the media don’t tell people what to think, but what to think about. If they have this type of control over public opinion, then what’s stopping them from telling people what to think? Basically, it seems that ethical journalistic standards are in place to prevent this type of influence, but if these standards were not in place, then what would the outcome be on how the media influence what we think?
The purpose of the media, or so we would like to be believe, is a means for messages to be relayed to the public. We read newspapers, magazines, and tune in to news broadcasts for the purpose of finding out what is happening in the world around us. It should not be a means to control the public, however when it comes to politics it definitely sways our decision. The media has a remarkable impact on politics and in many cases it may not always be beneficial. Yes, as Lauren stated “ethical journalistic standards are in place to prevent this type of influence”, but they are simply there to diminish our qualms concerning media coverage.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to say whether it is media alone shaping the public’s opinion or if it is the government controlling what the media feeds their viewers. I would be inclined to say it is a combination of both—the government understands the media’s power. It is a powerful weapon. The media also understands it can benefit financially working for the government. So they feed from each other and in the end, both get what they want. Take FOX News as a prime example. That news station is entirely devoted to attacking the democratic administration. When Bush was in office, there was no doubt in my mind that when I turned to that channel, a depressing story about the Iraqi war or the struggling economy may be shown, but guaranteed Bush would be portrayed as the saint attempting all that he could to facilitate the situation. Now though, FOX is set on making President Obama’s time in office as difficult as possible, attempting to undermine every attempt he makes at making improvements in society. As Baran and Davis state, “Readers learn not only about a given issue, but how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position…The mass media may well determine the important issues—that is, the media may set the ‘agenda’ of the ‘campaign.” [Barnes and Davis, 279] When people may be consciously watching a newscast about the ongoing war, but subconsciously all they are receiving are the station’s opinions about the leader’s ability to handle the situation. When you are constantly receiving negative feedback, it is difficult not to develop the attitude that the station holds.
There are certain instances though, like the one involving Brown and Coakly, where the media take the situation into their own hands. The television ad created to hurt Coakly’s campaign was reprimanded by Brown. He summed it up perfectly when he stated, “I encourage anybody who’s trying to influence this election to stop and let us do our jobs and let the people learn about us and not get sidetracked on these red herring issues.” [Brown] Of course, there are many individuals who understand that what is shown on television [especially political advertisements] in all likelihood possess some sort of falsity. As McCombs & Shaw stated in The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, “candidates go before the people through the mass media rather than in person. The information in the mass media becomes the only contact many have with politics.” [153, McCombs & Shaw] So they cannot complain when people have the wrong impression of them when they go to cast their votes. If political candidates want to rely on the media to relay their message, they need to be prepared for the consequences.
Michelle Kokot
I absolutely agree with what Michelle has written. The first thing that came to mind was FOX news and the way they have a specific agenda to portray their specific messages to the audience and not just broadcast the news. It is so hard today to just take the news for what it is and just accept whatever the news station said. The news that you get and the side of the story that is shown depends on the news shows that you get your information from. Bernard Cohen said, “The press is significantly more than a purveyor of information and opinion” (Baran and Davis 279). Media consumers need to be smart and able to determine the facts from the fact that has been twisted to portray specific point of views. Cohen takes this idea even further talking about how the world looks different to different people, depending on their personal interests, but more importantly the way that “the map is drawn for them by the writers, editors, and publishers of the papers they read” (Baran and Davis 279). The media definitely knows this and is very aware of the “map” they are drawing for their consumers.
ReplyDeleteA lot of this agenda setting that is discussed is most obvious, in my opinion, in politics like both Michelle and Lauren said. Media consumers get facts about the campaign but how much importance to attach to that information depends on the news story they watch and the position it holds. People need to be very careful when deciding what media outlet to get their information from. “In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality” (Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw).
Lauren is right when she states the media is an influencing variable on citizens. Being that the readings had a theme using politics, I feel that it’s only appropriate to reflect on her response and the reading from a political perspective. First off, I do believe that the media is in control. As many of our classmates have stated, Cohen is sited as saying that the media “…’may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but…much of the time telling people what to think about.’ (Baran and Davis, 279)” Agreeing with this premise, I feel that many view this as a negative thing but it shouldn’t be. No matter what form it may be distributed, we (the public) use the media to become educated in current events. Initially, I believed that It was a resource that is valuable and shouldn’t be seen as a tool that’s used to control what we think. As Gerbner said in last week’s readings, we should first understand a message distributed by the media and draw an opinion after that.
ReplyDeleteLauren adds that today the public uses the media as a major resource of politics. She explains that important issues such as the economy and health care are emphasized due to the importance they have towards citizens. After reading “The agenda-setting function of mass media” and her response, I had a few questions of my own. Does the media truly influence everyone regarding political issues or is it more of a resource for those who are so-called “casually” politically involved? Baran and Davis stress the idea of selective perception while stating that voters are in “…more of an agreement with all the news rather than with news only about their own party/candidate preference” (Baran and Davis, 158).” This research shows that the media has the greatest influence on those who are impartial to a political preference. After reading this, I changed what I originally thought as I now believe the media can control what we think.
Putting these two ideas together, the “casual” political citizen has to be aware that media outlets today have become biased towards political parties. The two best examples are FOX News (Conservative) and MSNBC (Liberal). These two resources clearly support opposite ends of the political spectrum making it inevitable for the politically independent citizen to be vulnerable to siding with either party. Attached is a video of Michelle Obama’s speech during the National Democratic Convention. Notice how the two media outlets are covering the exact same speech but have two completely different perspectives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Pjudf0810
In the article “Agenda Setting Research: Where Has it Been, Where is it Going?”, the idea of media credibility is defined as “…the degree to which a communication source or channel is perceived by an individual as trustworthy and competent” (Rogers and Dearing, 86). The article explains that if an individual perceives a source to be non-credible he or she will not accept it. Although both MSNBS and FOX News are both credible news sources, they aren’t impartial to political parties. If the less committed and “casual” political citizen is aware of this, they can reduce their susceptibility of being persuaded to a political party without making a choice for their own.
Wrapping up my reflection and to answer the remainder or Lauren’s questions, the media is doing the right thing addressing the issues most important to the public because “Media gatekeepers have a general idea of the news interests of their audience…”(Rogers and Dearing, 88). In general, I don’t think the media is telling people what to think. However, in specific situations (Such as the election and the biased coverage from outlets like FOX News and MSNBC) they do take advantage of being educators of the public. Again, many know the radical political stands some media resources take so the best solution is to take this news with a grain of salt. Personally I choose to retain my political knowledge through the PBC, especially during an election year because I feel it is most neutral.
I agree with many of the points made in Lauren’s blog and believe that it’s really hard to distinguish who the media really work for. Do they write their stories for us, the “little” people? Or do they write their stories for the higher ups (government). I like to think that journalism and all of the various media outlets it encompasses still strive to deliver fair and accurate news, but it’s hard not to notice agenda setting in everyday news.
ReplyDeleteMelvin DeFleur and Sandra Ball-Rokeach made an interesting point in saying, “in our industrial society, we are becoming increasingly dependent on the media (a) to under the social world, (b) to act meaningfully and effectively in society, and (c) for fantasy and escape (Baran & Davis 274).” As a society, we rely on the media to direct and almost dictate our everyday lives. We depend on them to find out simple things such as what the weather is going to be for the day or what the traffic is like on our highways. We also trust the media to educate and inform us about the bigger issues, such as the state of our economy and whether or not every US citizen is going to be able to have healthcare.
When we are that dependent upon the media, it allows our society to become vulnerable to their agenda setting and their objectives, whether or not we actually agree with them. Lauren quoted a part of the reading in Baran & Davis, saying, “’These reports don’t help news consumers develop useful understandings of politics… Rather, they encourage consumers to become political spectators, content to sit on the sidelines while the stars play the game” (294). Is this approach helpful for consumers?”
I don’t think that this approach is truly helpful for consumers. A lot of what the media does is allow us to sit on our couches and be spoonfed opinions about important issues in our society. I’m being pretty hypocritical in pointing this out though, as I am someone who is guilty of getting the majority of their information and opinions from the news. Instead of doing research, gathering information, and making our OWN opinions, we take the quicker and shorter route of being told what the “facts” are (which often times in the news industry, can be skewed or twisted to fit biases). We use these “facts” to form judgements and make decisions, such as who to vote for in elections. So in reality, our choices may not be made with a clear understanding or education on the topic and the candidate.
Because of the agenda setting in the media, it also can hinder everyday citizens from speaking up about issues they find important. When you constantly see reports on the news, on websites, or in newspapers about what issues are considered important, you will begin to doubt your own opinion on what is important. The “spiral of silence” as described in the textbook is really a problem that can occur in almost any situation or setting, but it is particularly troubling in media and politics because that is something that affects everyone. Elihu Katz writes, “When everybody believes that he is the only one who thinks something, and does not talk about his opinion for fear of violating a moral taboo or an authoritarian ruler, or of just being unpopular, it sometimes happens that a wave of publicity will sweep through the community, informing people that everybody else (or many others) think as they do (McQuail 381).”
So in response to Lauren’s question, it’s hard to give a definitive answer because of all the variables that come into play, but I think that the media takes on the biggest role and has most of the control in our society, as they are the gatekeepers and the most important tool in getting information about what is going on in the world.
The news is meant to inform and educate us as an audience without persuasion. It is very obvious that some news media organizations do have a political bias but most knowledgeable viewers are aware of this and actively decode the messages. "The mass media softly but firmly present the perspective of the ruling class to their audiences" (Rogers and Dearing 80). I agree with this idea that most media outlets do express the majority opinion which could be considered the "ruling class." While people are slightly influenced or affected by the information they receive from the media I believe that as a society people are smart enough to interpret and analyze the messages they hear through the media. However, I do feel that people like feeling united and want to be part of the majority.
ReplyDelete"People seek affiliation and thus celebrate the unity of their shared perceptions; those who feel outside this consensus fall silent. Noelle-Neumann's majorities are social beings; the minorities speak only to each other and, gradually, to no one at all" (McQuail 383). I feel that people tend to use the media to blend into society. Although they might have differing opinions they do not stand up to the majority, they instead want to become part of the majority. This is not the fault of the media, this is simply the society that we are a part of. People want to know they are part of a larger unit.
The media is not a persuasive outlet for information where people passively take in and believe everything that is said. Some media sources are extremely and obviously bias towards a political party however it has become common knowledge to most of society. "The media are far from being the sinister manipulators of the popular mind suggested by some conspiracy theories. Their major functions seem to be to support the system, to uphold conformity, to provide reassurance, and to protect members of society from excessively disturbing, distracting, or dysfunctional information (Rogers and Dearing 80). The whole idea behind the influence of the media is that it strongly influences decisions made in society when in reality people choose to conform with others. While I agree with the above posts that some media outlets do have political agendas, I do feel that most people are aware and can interpret the media for themselves. I think most media audiences are active and can form their own opinions based on their personal history and their knowledge of the issue.
I strongly agree with many of the points Lauren made in her blog, I too believe that the media has the ability to get the political issues and questions it wishes to uncover to the forefront of the public’s eye. Walter Lippmann said that the media “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (Baran & Davis 279). I believe that this quote explains my view of the media and the power that it has very well. To answer Lauren’s first question, I am not sure whether I believe that there truly is one side that’s more in control of political outcomes. I say this because while the media might discuss political issues, it is each individual in the public’s own personal decision to decide what it is that they want to believe. I do however believe that the media has shown time and time again that they have the ability to sway some people as well as I believe that the media discusses political topics often times and that it forces the public to think about the issues and pick a side. I believe that while the media can point out specific political issues and questions that it wants the public to converse about, it will never be as powerful as the individuals who watch or listen to it. Everyone is different in their own ways so I believe that it is impossible to say that the media has the power to change all of its viewers and listeners minds and sway politics since peoples own predicaments such as their own personal incomes certainly sway some individuals to lean one way on political issues such as the current health care debate. I know that many people are against it since it would tax them even more to benefit others.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about the media system dependency theory and how it believes that the more dependent an individual is on the media, the more they will trust what it says and allow it to influence them. I read, “if more and more people become dependent on media, media institutions will be reshaped, the overall influence of media will rise, and media’s role in society will become more central” (Baran & Davis 273). I have to say that I believe that those who agree with this idea are extremely overly-confident in the effects of the media, simply because people immerse themselves in the media does not mean that they will believe everything that they see or hear. For example, my grandfather lived with my family for about 10 years before he passed away and he would watch CNN religiously and by religiously I mean from nine in the morning until nine at night unless we put a movie on or the Uconn women had a basketball game (he loved them too). My point is, he watched all of CNN’s news and all of the political issues that they would present throughout the day and watching it all the time didn’t change his beliefs. I would say that he was “dependent” on the media in the fact that he enjoyed to watch it for twelve straight hours every day if given the chance, however his dependency on the news did not influence his political beliefs and the sides he chose to take.
As Michelle pointed out, Fox News is infamous for always taking a highly republican stand on everything and anything that they report. In one of my other media studies classes we recently watched the film “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” and I learned a lot about how Fox News does everything in its power to make the republican party look good. For example, everything and anything that President Bush did was turned into some sort of a heroic act, they would cut microphones if guests on the show began saying something that was putting the republican party in any sort of a negative light, the infamous Bill O’Reilly yelling at guests to “shut up” if he didn’t like what they had to say. Everything about the Fox News channel forces viewers to in a way believe that the republican party is the superior to the democratic party they will even insert their own political opinions for the republican party of course and use the phrase “some people say” so that these opinions aren’t pinned on a specific person or the Fox News station. Fox News Corporation is I believe the closest media vehicle to being viewed as “in control” of politics only because they don’t allow their viewers to choose who or what they believe in, they only show what makes the republicans look good and the democrats look bad.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I believe that the media is our only way of staying in-touch with any and all current political issues because if we don’t follow the media, how else can we expect to follow politics? Unless we are able to go to each and every political gathering and meeting and be able to listen to and view our political leaders speak and gather our knowledge first-hand, then we must turn to the news and the media to provide us with this knowledge. The biggest problem with hearing about the politics through the media always makes you wonder how true the information is. Did they edit out sections, are they giving me people’s opinions or the honest truth these are common questions that we must think about when gathering our political updates from the media. I believe that when all is said and done, the people will stand up for themselves and look past what the media has told them and ignore what their friends may have told them so that they can make their own decisions. Politics are extremely personal and I believe that most people or I would at least like to believe that most people will decide their political sides on the basis of their own personal beliefs and individual wellbeing. While I was reading through McQuail I came across a sentence which reiterates what I just explained about my belief of politics. I read, “individuals are motivated by self-interest; this may sometimes lead to action that takes no account of the group or action that is contingent on what the others do” (Mcquail 382). People must learn to be individuals and think for themselves rather than constantly worry about what others think and whether or not they are being judged. I believe that we only live once and it’s not worth going about our lives going against our own beliefs and needs in order to meet other’s standards. I believe that the media can broadcast whatever it wants to and can side with political issues in any which way but that I will always take my own personal interests into account over anything else, after all it’s my life.