One can imagine several ways in which media influences public behaviour. Anyone on the street will agree that media influences them. However, academics call for more analysis of the validity of such claims, as the one in question. I believe that the media is a major shaper of public opinion and plays a vital role in modern politics and how it operates. How vital, is a question that needs analysing.
To understand the effects of media on the public’s opinion, we need to understand what is meant by mass media. It has been defined as “the various agents of mass communication and entertainment: newspapers, magazines and other publications, television, radio, and the cinema.”[1]We need to add to this definition, the various different forms of new media opened up by the internet, such as blogs, online journals and newspapers which has gained popularity in the latter part of the 20th century especially among young people. Mass media’s functions include, predominantly, entertainment. The political function of media is more indirect and subtle. It includes the collection, organisation and dissemination of news and information and aiding in public debates. Also, “At societal level, mass communication is now indispensable to: the acquisition of power; the legitimisation of authority; the enforcement of social norms; and the organisation (including the definition) of public opinion.”[2] Media is also used as a tool for mobilising the public.
Democracy entitles the right of political decision making to everyone through means of voting and expressing their opinion. Effectively, what voting does is to measure the public opinion on a candidate, his/her stand on issues and approval of a particular candidate. The notion of democracy has evolved from rule ‘of people, for the people, by the people’, to a more representative process, whereby elected individuals and parties represent us in parliament and government, and express our views on issues. While this process made governing easier logistically, it also meant that the public is distant to a certain degree, from the ‘public’ sphere. A medium which relays information from the private arenas of government to the households and streets was needed. This device came to be the mass media.
“God made the people read so that I could fill their brains with facts, facts, facts- and later tell them whom to love, whom to hate, and what to think” Lord Northcliffe.
Several studies done on the effects of mass media on society have proven what many of us have suspected: mass media has important effects on society in general and on elections specifically. However, the strength of these effects depends on a variety of other factors such as the length of exposure time and the variety of media sources.
Earlier studies of mass communication measured conversions or changes in political attitudes and found that there was little evidence to support this claim. For example the Elmira study of the 1948 presidential campaign showed that only 3% shifted parties between August and October.[3] Studies done by Berelson and his colleagues also found that there was little evidence of a bandwagon effect. Rather, their studies concluded that mass media “crystallises and reinforces more than it coverts”.[4] ‘Crystallises’ here refers to learning and sharpening of political attitudes and ‘reinforcing’ to strengthening of pre existing political attitudes. This suggests that the media has a teaching role to the public. But opinions and attitudes do not form from thin air. They have to be established from some point and it is almost always based on primary or secondary information gathered from the media which is the most readily available source. So the earlier studies did indicate that the public learnt from mass media. The more exposed you were the more information you had. But as political attitudes are built up over time, no immediate attitude change was observed.
McCombs and Shaw’s study of a group of voters from Chapel Hill attempted to demonstrate that by controlling and choosing news stories, editors, news reporters, broadcasters and staff play an important role in shaping political reality. This, they called agenda setting. They were interested to see whether there was a correlation between what was being emphasized by the media and what the group of people considered important. Their findings showed that voters tend to place emphasis on the same issues as the media. It also showed that voters paid attention to political news regardless of where it was coming from. While three candidates highlighted on different issues, the important issues that the voters emphasized on were the issues being given attention by the media, not by their preferred individual candidates. There was also evidence that undecided voters attended well to all news compared to voters affiliated with a particular party or had already decided on their choice.[5] This is an important finding as campaigns today are becoming targeted towards the median voter rather than extreme thinkers. Therefore, campaigns can use media sources to their advantage to try and swing the median voter to their advantage.
The press makes or breaks a candidate. Campaigns for office have never relied on mass media as much as now. The media not only keeps the public abreast of what the candidates think are important, but they also make a candidate and his/her traits obvious or silent. Candidates who receive more coverage are better known. In a study done among 1018 British adults in 2001, more than half of the polled claimed that leader and party image mattered to them in an election.[6]In trying to explain the poor turnout in the British General Elections of 2001, researchers have found that the poor media coverage was a dominant reason. The media had come to the conclusion that they were bored of the election. And the coverage was minimum and mostly focused on electoral process and procedure rather than issues and leaders which public was more interested in. And most reports on the elections were negative rather than positive. Because of the lacklustre way the campaign was covered in the media, the public did not get much chance to see the candidates and their positions.
The lacklustre election coverage not only failed to give the electorate the chance to connect with the candidate, but it also failed to inspire people, especially young people, to go out and vote. In contrast to the 2001 election in Britain, the ongoing USA presidential election is turning out record numbers of young people (18-24yrs) even though it’s only the primaries. What is different this year is, the candidates are turning to more modern types of media that young people can easily access: things that they are used to. Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, announced her candidacy on the internet, clearly in a bid to reach out to the younger voters. Political blogs and internet are just a few ways media is mobilising youth and other voters in USA elections. Media is often used this way, especially during elections. Even otherwise, as most voters do not keep up to date with politics in between elections, media often plays a vital role in informing the public about ongoing issues and debates.
Often it is questioned whether media shapes the public opinion, or whether media is just a reflection of what the public is feeling. This means that public and media reflects on different incidents in the same way: that they see the same message in the different conflicts. Evidently, this is not the case. Media does not respond to news the same way the public does. Newspapers often judge any incident by its newsworthiness: the way it could enhance theirs and the newspaper’s opinions. It would be naive to consider that editors of newspapers, programmes, e.t.c. do not have their own agendas or bias in choosing the news stories and headlines. If not the editors, then the owners, in hiring their editors and other related activity, may push their own views on the related media vessel. These ‘actions’ may happen unconsciously or consciously and because of the “subtle nature of processes like the selective recruitment and internalized expectations, highly confidential nature of overt intentions” make it difficult to properly assess this.[7]
One could assess how much states view the media as a threat or an asset. With regard to how much states value media, it is evident in the often close relationships state officials have with reporters and media officials and vice versa. The media is needed by the government to often legitimize their actions. State leaders have often used the media as a tool to develop stronger relationships with the public; for example George W. Bush addresses the nation weekly on the radio. Some states see media as a threat to their legitimacy. Some states restrict the public’s access to it, Iran, Pakistan and China being some examples.
The bottom line is, that media does influence public opinion. These effects may not be short time but rather visible over a long period of time, which suggests that influence on public opinion is dependent on other factors such as exposure time and density. Preference of family, social groups or society of certain kinds of media may also influence one’s opinions. Media is an important part of democracy. Mass media has a substantial effect on how citizens think and moreover, on what they think about. And what media says has direct effects on what policy makers do. Policy makers usually look for favourable opinions from media sources as they believe that media shapes public opinion.
The question remains, to what extent? Public usually gets information in two ways: directly from the source and from indirect sources such as mass media. Armed with the information, the public makes decisions about issues affecting their lives. As it is less likely for a large proportion of the public to have access to direct sources they have to rely on indirect sources thus showing that public opinion does rest majorly on what the mass media projects: thereby making mass media a force to be reckoned with.
Bibliography
Axford, B., Browning, G., Huggins, R. and Rosamond, B., Politics: an Introduction 2nd edition, 2002
Blumler, J. G., Bogdanor, V., (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, 1987
McCombs, M. and Shaw, D., ‘The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 1972, p176-187
McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003
Page, B., ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1996, p20-24
Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47
Worcester, R. and Mortimore, R., Explaining Labour’s Second Landslide, Politicos, 2002
Campbell, I., McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003
[1] Campbell, I., McLean, I. and McMillan, A., (eds), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edition, 2003
[2] Blumler, J. G., Bogdanor, V., (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, 1987
[3] Berelson, Lazarsfield and McPhee, ‘voting’, p23, tab 3, as cited in Mc Combs, ‘Mass Communications in Political Campaigns’ p171 cited in Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47
[4] Ibid. p248 as cited in as cited in Mc Combs, ‘Mass Communications in Political Campaigns’ p171 cited Weaver, D., ‘What Voters Learn from Media’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 546, The Media and Politics, July 1996, p34-47
[5] McCombs, M. and Shaw, D., ‘The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 1972, p176-187
[6] Base: 1018 British adults 18+, 29 May 2001, Source: MORI/The Times cited in Worcester, R. and Mortimore, R., Explaining Labour’s Second Landslide, Politicos, 2002
[7] Page, B., ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1996, p20-24
1 comment:
Good blog.
portugal
Post a Comment