What I found interesting was the large role the media played in this election, and I believed agenda-setting was a major part of this. Baran and Davis define agenda-setting as "The idea that media don't tell people what to think, but what to think about." This was an extremely important election that could very well determine the future of health care in the country, and as the days passed and voting day came closer and closer, the media decided to focus on...Curt Schilling?
In a now infamous gaffe, Coakley stated in a radio interview that Schilling, a Red Sox hero, was a Yankees fan. Here is a link with more information:
http://wbztv.com/local/coakley.schilling.yankees.2.1430657.html#addComments
This insignificant, albeit embarrassing remark, was instantly the top news. It was on every local news station, in every local newspaper, and sent around the Internet by blog after blog. I know the news does tend to latch onto something small and make it News of the Year, but I ask you this - why was this remark so important? Why did the media make this the top story of the night, as well as a major factor in the election? The media did set some campaign agenda with the focus on this story, by taking the focus off of national politics and bringing it back to who would be best for Massachusetts - if you don't know anything about Curt Schilling, and by extension Massachusetts culture, should you really be our senator? It may have been incidental (after all, this is liberal Massachusetts with a liberal media) but do you think this was important? Do you think this should have been as important as the media made it out to be?
My other question is, if the media hadn't reported this radio interview, do you think the people still would have picked up on it and distributed it themselves? The agenda-setting theory gives a lot of credit to the media - it basically says that they tell voters what is important and, as an indirect result, who to vote for. But if the media ignores something the people deem important, do you think voters have the power to make their voices heard? To make their issue significant? Or are we at the mercy of media bigwigs, picking and choosing which issues they want to share with the world?
Elizabeth said the incident was all over the media and concurring with that statement, I googled the story and there were pages upon pages of articles about what had happened. I do not think that the media should have made as big of a deal as they did, and I also do agree with Elizabeth that agenda setting has played a major role in this election, especially with this incident. The media not only takes control of what they think needs to be relayed to the public, but they also shape viewers/readers on how they should think. In McCombs and Shaw’s reading they stated, “Readers not only learn about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue and from the amount of information in a news story and its position. In reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well determine the important issues-that is, the media may set the ‘agenda’ of the campaign” (McCombs, Shaw 153). It is the medias role to relay to the public what the candidates are saying about how they are going to help their people, as well as what they are saying about the election, and about their competitive candidate. The media knows that when elections take place, the public turns to the mass media to find out what stories are being told, and thus the public bases their votes upon the revealed information. The stories conveyed about the campaign turn out to be the most important to the public because those are the stories that the media find most important. In the study that took place during the 1968 election, the results deemed “the data suggest a very strong relationship between the emphasis placed on different campaign issues by the media…and the judgments of voters as to the salience and importance of various campaign topics”(Baran Davis 280). This proves that the media decides what they think is important and it is difficult for the public to think other wise. The media is shaping voters attitudes, opinions, and beliefs, and thus they are changing the public image of Coakley, regardless if they are even trying to. There have been many comments that have been left regarding various articles that media channels have distributed on the Internet and it proves how much the media affects the public. For instance, the article that Elizabeth had posted, one person commented on the bottom of the article, “Um is she alright? Seriously, she's showing her desperation. I was all for Martha at the beginning of her campaign. Now I'm voting Scott Brown all the way. He seems so much more sane and reasonable!” The person is obviously very affected by what Coakley said and in fact there were many posts that explained how disgusted they were with her and how she wouldn’t ever be able to represent the people. After this incident, her public image has become very negative and has changed so drastically that people have actually decided not to vote for her.
ReplyDeleteI also think some people would have heard it, especially diehard Red Sox fans, and they would have discussed it with friends, but I don’t think they would have made it as big of a deal as the media did. There are many invalid statements that are made by leaders, celebrities, and so forth, but people truly only talk about it when the media picks up on it, sets the “agenda,” and makes it a big deal.
(THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF MY BLOG)
ReplyDeleteThis remark is important but not as important as the media made it out to be. The reason why I think it is important is because she was running for Senator and during an interview she brought up sports as if that is critical to the election. Although the people of Massachusetts are known to be diehard Red Sox Fans and she was probably hoping this would affect the publics decision, unfortunately her facts weren’t the truth. It backfired on her because most of the public is saying that she is stupid for making another mistake. It is normal for her to try to reason to the public why they should vote for her, and not Brown, but at the same time her reasoning should be about society, politics, and the economy and how she is going to help and represent her “people” in betters ways than Brown could ever.
I definitely agree with Liz’s assessment that the media has the power to pick up even the littlest remark and make it the top news story—and as was proven with this Massachusetts senatorial race, it can even have major effects on the outcome of elections. I will admit, as a New Yorker I did not really know much about this race other than the fact that its outcome would have a major impact on the Democratic majority in the Senate, so I did not know about this gaffe made by Coakley (and also as a New Yorker, I don’t see why being called a Yankee fan is such a bad thing, but that’s another story…). However, this is just one example of the media taking a mistake made by a politician and running with it. As I was reading Liz’s blog, I couldn’t help but think of all the times that various “Bush-isms” became fodder for late-night comedians, or how the embarrassing Sarah Palin/Katie Couric interview undermined her credibility as a candidate and made people question whether she was fit to be in the White House.
ReplyDeleteI found it quite surprising that the media in such a historically liberal state would report so much on the mistake of a Democrat, especially a gaffe as major as this, since I always hear from my relatively conservative father that the liberal media never reports on the mistakes of their “pets”, the Democrats. The media practitioners must have known that this would be a big deal to the public—after all, especially in times of important elections; the media has more power than ever. As Baran and Davis state in Chapter 10 in regards to the 2008 presidential election, “Of all the issues that should or could have been aired and examined, only a few became dominant. Only a few were viewed by many Americans as the most important issues facing the United States. This is agenda-setting” [Baran and Davis, 279]. The same can be said for this Senatorial election—many issues could have been discussed in the media right before the election, but the media decided to highlight this small mistake. To answer one of Liz’s questions, I do not think that this should have been as important as the media made it out to be, but the fact is, it did become important and it did have an impact—a perfect example of the media setting the political agenda.
However, I do think that even if the media had not heavily reported on this mistake, the people probably would still have picked up on it. All it takes is one person to hear this radio interview and then go online and tell a friend and then they tell other friends, or the listener blogs about the incident and it gets picked up by its readers and spreads like wildfire. As Liz stated, the agenda-setting theory gives a lot of credit to the media, but I think it does not give enough credit to the public, especially in this era of user-generated content on the Internet. The people definitely have the power to make their voices heard and their views significant, which is why I agreed with the Rogers and Dearing reading on agenda-setting, which acknowledged that the public also has a role in agenda-setting, not just the media. For example, in this article they cite a quote by C. R. Wright which said, “Social processes other than mass communication also affect the public’s judgment of an issue or person as important. For one thing, people talk to one another about social issues, and these conversations may play an important part in their judgments” [Rogers and Dearing, 85]. Following this logic, whether a person heard about Coakley’s mistake from the media or from a friend, it likely would have had the same damaging effect. In this way, we can see how important agenda-setting is, regardless of the source of the information.
As any election day draws nearer, any and every statement made by all candidates is scrutinized by the media and put on display for the viewers. The election discussed in Elizabeth’s blog was of such great importance to both the state of Massachusetts and the Democratic Party that the media had all eyes on the candidates. Martha Coakley’s remark, though an error dealing with a nonpolitical issue, could have been ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’, per se, for some voters. This foolish comment that she made in her attempt to both appeal and to relate to the diehard Massachusetts Red Sox fans not only tainted the image she was trying to portray but also severed the connection she was aiming to make with the voters. It was an epic fail.
ReplyDeleteMost voters look to the mass media to provide them with political news and a better understanding of the current issues. Essentially handing the power over to these media, the media controls the information being sent out or viewed and puts its own twists on that information, shaping the consumer’s ideas and thoughts. In Maxwell E. Combs and Donald L. Shaw’s article titled “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media”, Berelson is quoted, saying “On any single subject, many ‘hear’ but few ‘listen’” (153). People, especially those without the time or interest to research political issues, pick up the sound bites of the situations from the media and form viewpoints that way. They simply “hear”, dwelling on those small, minute details and because they do not investigate further or look at the bigger picture, they are unable to “listen”.
In Barans and Davis, it is written that “These reports don’t help news consumers develop understandings of politics….” (294). Martha Coakley’s statement was so heavily reported on that this single comment not only changed the minds of some actively-participating voters but it created an opinion for the passive voters. By reporting this incident over and over, the media was able to alter opinions and ideas of voters based on Coakley’s lack of knowledge on Red Sox trivia rather than on her knowledge on local, national, and international issues and proposals.
Though Martha Coakley’s blunder should not have been the center of the media’s attention, this mistake was a major one that definitely would have been recognized by the people even if the media did not draw such a great deal of attention to it. By discussing subject matter in which she was obviously not well versed, Coakley asked for this sort of attention from the media and helped the media in painting the negative image of her. If the interview had gone smoothly and she had not erred, she would have appealed to the voters and would have succeeded in relating to them on a different level and connecting to them. She would have welcomed the idea of being at the center of the media’s attention and processed positively in the media agenda setting. Instead, as the Attorney General of Massachusetts and the Democratic Senatorial candidate, Martha Coakley not only appeared to be phony, she sounded unintelligent which played a part in her loss of the Senatorial campaign.
I did not know anything of this incident with the election and the somehow connection of baseball. After reading the blog and the article from the link Liz provided, I found myself confused. I did have to read the interview again to make sure I was understanding correctly. I've always found it strange and slightly entertaining when non-relevant information becomes big news and ironically very important. The fact the media does have the power to turn something so small into top news, just proves how powerful the media is.
ReplyDeleteThe media system dependancy theory "assumes that the more a person depends on having his or her needs met by media use, the more important will be the role that media play in the person's life, and therefore the more influence those media will have on that person" (Baran & Davis 273). I think that this theory is really important for when the media chooses what to elaborate on especially in this case with Coakley and her slip-up. Obviously not everyone will take that "breaking news" the same way. I found it completely irrelevant, slightly entertaining, and pointless. However others, such as Red Sox fans, especially those other people who are so dependent on the media may see this as a bigger deal. If this is what the media is saying is important, especially during the election, that could have had a major effect on the outcome of the voting.
It seems that scholars have been studying how the media seems to affect audiences so powerfully. This "agenda" that the media has ranks what is most important. This is what the media is telling the people should be more important to them. Between the events and issues of the specific agenda items, the media is who chooses what items make it to the top of their list. (Rogers & Dearing 82-84) I can just picture it now, a group of people sitting at a table arguing over what to tell the people is more important.
I think that if the media really has such control over all of us then how would there even be people who protest and disagree with others. Wouldn't we all just be mindless drones? I think there are some people who can't think for themselves. However people do ultimately make their own decisions and I think that with something such as voting, the media isn't the ultimate decision maker for us. I do somewhat agree that the media does have the power to pick and choose what we become more focused on. Ultimately though, it is up to us to make decisions for ourselves and learn by all means rather than just one, the media.
The people are in control! We have this illusion that the media controls the decisions we make, but that is simply not true. WE control the decisions we make. It is up to us to take the information retained by the media and interpret it correctly. Sure, the media has a way of bending the truth; the media has a way of manipulating the facts; the media has a way of editing imagery...so what! Research. Be scholarly. Find different media outlets and determine the truth from there. The media is objective. I don't care what these corporate executives promise the viewing public. They are in control of what we see/hear. But we are in control of how we act on this information.
ReplyDeleteOn page 5 of THE AGENDA-SETTING FUNCTION OF MASS MEDIA, there was a quote that particularly caught my attention. "...voters pay some attention to all political news regardless of whether it is from, or about, any particular favored candidate." This is a good thing. I believe that it is important to see all aspects of the media in regards to an election. It is essential to retain in the biased opinions, which in turn can lead to a more educated decision for the voter.
When determining whether or not the media has control over the people, I think it is important that we define “control”. I mean, what is control? Is control influence? Many believe that parents have the most influence on what people stand for politically…so are we under the control of our parents? Is control manipulation? Our government has manipulated us to believe that the education system here is one of the best in the world, though it is flawed in too many ways. So are we under the control of our government? Sure, they make the rules for our parents and our parents make the rules for us…but I would hardly call them in “control”.
I make my own decisions; I am not going to alter my voice because the media has assured me that Matt Damon feels a certain way. Wake up! Ignore! Educate yourself. We are in a technology driven society, where the greatest information literacy tool ever created is at our fingertips as we blog here today! This “agenda” that Rogers and Dearing keep speaking about should hold no baring on what we actually believe. They can control what we see and what we hear, but they cannot control what we feel. Be information literate. Read a book! Pick up a newspaper! Watch the news! Research on the Internet! Then make an educated decision based on everything that you’ve read. We need to utilize.
As a native New Yorker, i wasn't aware of Elizabeth's blog post. While reading i was a little confused on why Coakley would make such a remark. Furthermore, why was this small statement making national headlines? This irrelevant remark ( at least in my eyes) just proves the impact the media has. According to McCombs and Shaw, "In Reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well determine the important issues- that is, the media set the 'agenda' of the campaign" (153).
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with McCombs and Shaw's statement in regards to agenda setting. I believe during our most recent election agenda setting definitely played a pivotal role in our outlooks between both candidates. The media made Obama to be the "golden child". The way the media portrayed him and his views, definitely impacted people my age to go out and vote for him.
In a time where our country is facing so many issues, the media decided to concentrate on a miniscule remark from Coakley. At the end of the day, How much relevance does this statement really make? (besides that Massachusetts is Red Sox nation). According to Iyengar and Kinder the agenda-setting hypothesis is "Those problems that receive prominent attention on the national news become the problems that viewing public regards as the nations most important" (1987, p.16). This is exactly what the media did in this case. This stupid story got prominent attention, which led to the public believing it was the most important. How can Coakley remarks that world series "hero" Curt Schilling is a yankee fan, affect the nations views on the candidates?
The only reason i can think this remark was so big is due to the hate Red Sox fans have towards the Yankees. There is no other reason for this to be published let alone major news. The reason the media concentrated on this issue, is anybody's guess. The media intended to influence the public to vote another way, knowingly that this remark would stir some voters the wrong way. This example just goes to show how powerful the media is today in society. The media is a vehicle that shapes our lives, thoughts, and decisions on a daily basis (sometimes without even knowing it). If an opinion or view is told enough, we will start to believe it. In this case this is what Massachusetts media managed to do.
If the media didn't get a hold on this radio interview i honestly don't think it would of became news. This is such a minor issues in regards to the election, that its almost disturbing that it came so huge. I honestly believe we need the media in order for our views to be heard. We as people are not big enough to do it on our own. The media would be able to spread "our stories" more efficiently and quicker due to advancements in technology. I believe the media tells us what's important because they know will listen to them.
The media for the most part is like our parents, we listen to them and follow what they tell us. Unfortunately, thats just how it works. I would like to think of myself as a man with an opinion, but in reality most of the time my opinions stem from what the media tells me.
The idea of; do we think, or does the media think for us is extremely interesting. I 100% believe that the media plays a role on us and our beliefs. From two of my political science classes we have even learned that the Media is one of the best ways to communicate with the people and win over individuals. Since the media is EVERYWHERE in our ears at the gym, in our cars, on our TV’s, magazines, newspapers even PEREZ, it is unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteA good example of how the media teaches us to think was the last presidential election. Barack Obama was giving speeches without an American Flag pin on. This raised arms (and grabbed headlines) and he was quickly questioned for his nationalism. I believe this detail was so minute that the majority of viewers would have easily looked over it, however with our friend the media, it was unavoidable and therefore an issue we instantly cared about.
Dennis Davis (1990) talks about the media intrusion theory. The theory is an “idea that media have intruded into and taken over politics to the degree that politics have become subverted.” He further discusses the decline of social capital. Since many individuals are becoming TV reliant, they are participating less in social and political groups. This means that social groups are losing members and their influence, therefore granting the media even more power.
Robert Entman (1989) proposes a potential solution. He believes that the only solution to media intrusion would be for the politicians, journalists and public to change their behavior. He states “politicians must stop relying on manipulative and expensive strategies, journalists must cover issues rather than spectacles, and the public must give serious attention to issues, not campaign spectacles and personalities.” I believe that this idea of media intrusion is a huge concern. However, even though Entman was able to identify the problems with the media in relation to politics and the public, it is too hard to tell people to just “change their minds and how they observe things.” Therefore, his idea on changing how politicians campaign, and journalists report and the public obtains is ideal, it is unrealistic and not feasible.
In the McCombs and Shaw reading they discussed how various media outlets have “major/minor” levels to see what the mass media emphasizes as important. In order for a story to be constituted as “major” there must be: on television, a story 45 seconds or longer, in a newspaper, on the cover or 5 paragraphs long (think prime location), in a news magazine, any story more than one column long, or an editorial page cover in a lead position.
I thought it was interesting to read how McCombs and Shaw classified how a story can be portrayed through the means of mass media and how the individuals can obtain it if there is enough coverage on it. Since the majority of Americans have seen a television documentary on a political election lasting 45 seconds long in their life, Shaw and McCombs felt this has a major impact on the viewer. Since politics (especially presidential races) get SO much attention it is evident why individuals choose the media to learn from. Even if they can’t brainwash us, they sure are displaying their views in front of us everywhere we go. However is the media focusing on what’s important? I don’t think so. An example of this would be Mrs. Sarah Palin. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen one million news articles on her “lipstick and pit bull speech.” Instead of dwelling in on one comment and badgering the candidate, maybe we should focus on the issues, what they are and how our candidates can best address them. Is this a question of American media influence, or simple what the American citizens want? Do we care about entertainment and gossip more than the actual political issues and the media are simply catering to our needs?
Unfortunately, I think we lost control, but even worse I don’t think the majority of us care as long as we’re being entertained along the way.
I do not think that the Yankees comment was particularly important, but I think that the media considered it to be. In my mind, the media is like a baker reviewing his products. For example, in a very simple kind of explanation, on a Sunday, a baker may make loaves of bread and be satisfied with what he has made. People would come into the bakery and eat the bread that the baker made. By Monday, the bread would be a day old and the people still come to buy some, but would be more reluctant. By Tuesday, the bread would be very old and very little people would come into the store to buy bread. By Wednesday, the bread would be stale and the baker would know that time had come to make new bread.
ReplyDeleteNo media wants to reach a have a “Wednesday effect” like the baker. The media are constantly looking for fresh stories before the old ones go stale so that people will come back to them for more. If USA Today were to run the same front page story for a week, though it might be interesting, by the third day or so people would be going elsewhere for the latest news.
If the media hadn’t picked up on the story, people might have picked up on the story but certainly not the same number of people that had before. The story may have become a 1-day phenomenon rather than a 1-week phenomenon. People become dependent on the media to feed them information so that they can share it with others. In Chapter 10 of Baran and Davis, the authors state that the “media dependency theory assumes that the more a person depends on having his or her needs met by media use, the more important will be the role that media play in the person’s life, and therefore the more influence those media will have on that person” (273).
I think that had the media not aired the story, people would have had a voice, but a very hoarse one. Many people, unfortunately, are followers and wait for many people to converse about one thing and then join in. As McQuail states in Chapter 35, “fearing isolation, individuals will not express their opinions if they perceive themselves unsupported by others” (380). It’s very sad that people in their 20’s and 30’s still fear mockery and rejection by their peers.
I think that despite what we would like to think, the media will always dictate and rule the world. Even when people commit independent acts of bravery or change, the media is still the object that lets us know. Even those that are leaders will always be followers in a sense, and unfortunately the thing they are following is not even a living form of life, but rather a blaring screen.
Before reading this blog, I’m a little embarrassed to admit, but I didn’t know anything about this senatorial race. However, after reading the blog and the readings I immediately though of Sarah Palin. She said some pretty (for lack of a better word) stupid things during the election and unfortunately for her that was the larger focus of the media. I think this is an example of priming. Baran and Davis write this about priming theory, “people consider the things that come easy to the mind, or as researchers say, ‘those bits and pieces of political memory that are accessible’” (Baran and Davis 281) I know I don’t remember much about Sarah Palin’s politics but I do remember that she said she could see Russia from her house in Alaska. I think that was similar for the people in Massachusetts. People in Massachusetts love the Red Sox so if someone is running for senator its unfortunate but they better love them too or at least know enough about them because people won’t give you an inch (especially if you call one of their best pitchers a Yankees fan).
ReplyDeleteThese are easy bits and pieces of information people can remember which is why I think the media forces these stories. In the article, Agenda-Setting Research: Where has is been, Where is it going? by Rogers and Dearing, they write, “An issue will not move through the priming sequence if it has not aroused public opinion.” (Rogers and Dearing 85) I think this shows even though it may not be important politics it is important to the people of Massachusetts that Coakley didn’t remember who Curt Schilling was because the media wouldn’t have made it such a large issue out of it if the people didn’t want to hear about it. The media is going to waste pages in a newspaper or airtime on a story that people don’t want to hear about.
It is actually funny that you brought up this point about the Massachusetts election because I had the same question myself. I am a native New Yorker and only heard about certain aspects of the election because it was not directly effecting me. However, I didn't understand the correlation between both Brown and Coakley political standings and how the media was covering them. I first heard about the race on The Daily Show, which other than BBC.com is where I get my news. From a montage on The Daily Show it shows Brown's political commercial centered around his truck and "ordinary life" and Coakley being attacked by political pundents. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards
ReplyDeleteI personally do not feel that statement should have received as much media coverage and excitement as it did. If Coakley's comments were concerning her politic platform then I can see how the media might question her ability to be in a politic position in Massachusetts. I mean in New York right now Harold Ford Jr. a former Tennessee Congressman, has decided to run in the Senate race. As you can see from this clip from his interview on The Colbert Report, (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/263090/february-01-2010/harold-ford-jr- ) his political views sway towards what the demographic is. Now in this case I question whether Ford has the best interests of the state in hand and if he really knows about New York as a whole.
As is stated in Baran and Davis, the information/ innovation diffusion theory has both positive and negative aspects that would also apply to this situation. If people do not watch shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report that are political compilation clips and recent file footage from both recent and past media coverage to show a clearer picture of what is going on in the country politically.
I think if people are actually interested in finding out all the facts about a certain election there are multiple outlets they can search, to find out how a candidate voted in the past, if they supported any lobbyist in the past; so you can make an educated choice. The other way I think people will vote is as we talked about a couple of classes ago through the two step flow. No matter which way people are voting the media is still in control because in the end we can not 100% guarantee that a candidate will uphold there promises or know that some of the less experienced candidates will flourish within their new positions.
It is absolutely interesting that the media has full control over what we learn from issues, such as, important elections. Since we receive our information and beliefs from news shows, and radio interviews, we are easily swayed to be biased, based on what is influencing us. I am from New York, so I understand this STRONG passion for devoting your time to being a huge baseball fan. However, I think it is absolutely absurd that this is what the media decided to focus in on. Because of this, the audience was easily influenced, because ideas were put into their heads. Now that I attend a university in New England, a Boston Red Sox fan can be pretty devoted and intense. When thinking about the agenda-setting theory, it is amazing how it shows the audience what to pick up from the media, and what to deem “important.”
ReplyDeleteThere’s an interesting quote in the Baron/Davis book, “More important, though, is the question of the actual nature of the relationship between news and its audience. Maybe the public sets the media’s agenda and then the media reinforce it (Baron/Davis 280.)” I 100 percent agree with this quote. In Massachusetts, there is only one baseball team, they play well, and they have some of the most die-hard fans. But what’s even more interesting about a Red Sox fan, is how much they HATE the New York Yankees. The media is clearly aware of this kind of fan (which is most of the residents of Massachusetts,) and knew that this media would be picked up. The media looked at the relationship between the information (the interview) and the audience (residents of Massachusetts,) and reinforced it (made it into a bigger deal than needed.) The media ran with this, and completely caused uproar. Absolutely fascinating!
In the Combs/Shaw book, there is a quote, “On any single subject, many ‘hear’ but few ‘Listen’ (Combs/Shaw 153).” I can attest to this, because I am extremely busy between school, relationships, etc… Since I am too busy to sit and always for my own opinion, I can only pick up what I am receiving from the media. This is a problem, because the media has already chosen what they want to focus on, and completely changed the attention. Something so small, can be blown into a huge controversy, and completely sweep me up into the beliefs of what the media wants me to think. And while I think this is unfortunate; I don’t take the time out to research further, so I become completely wrapped up in the small controversy. (Like Liz said people question: is he the right candidate? Could he really know about the state of Massachusetts, if he made a mistake about our baseball hero!?)
While I think its unfortunate the way the media “brain-washes” us, it’s become a way of life. We feel the way we do about events/politics/controversy, because of how the media portrays it. A perfect example is the difference between Fox News and CNN. While they’re both news, FOX news is extremely conservative, while CNN is very liberal. So depending on which news you choose to watch, will decide what makes you bias. It’s just the way media and audience works.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete