Sunday, February 19, 2012
Media and Politics? ...meh
Let’s get something straight, research has concluded that media has a very miniscule effect on public opinion.
Wait a minute. Why am I currently enrolled in a class labeled “Media and Politics”? It seems that the entire class can be reduced to the simple statement above, summarizing the conclusion of past research.
If the study of media and politics only revives a very complex ‘meh” from the social science community, then I guess the media really doesn’t matter right?
WRONG.
After pacing back and forth for an hour attempting to find a way to defend my use of $4117.50, which just about covers the cost of the four credits “Media and Politics” provides us here at Stetson University, I understood one thing clearly: The media has a miniscule effect on public opinion because that is exactly what it is, PUBLIC OPINION! And opinion entails the presents of a host with values, and no slick haired reporter is going to remove those values and reconfigure the host’s opinion.
So what?
What I’m trying to get at is that the media might not be able to sway public opinion, but what if we remove opinion swaying and stick to the information which the media provides to the public. By this I mean understanding agenda setting and its effects on what the public will quote and reference around the water cooler the next morning.
For example
Today I awoke to the awful sound of Michele Bachmann stating full heartedly convinced that President Obama has had one of the worst records of foreign policy ever.
“What!” I yelled at the television.
For I have recently wrote an essay that included the review of a TIME article “The Strategist” by Fareed Zakaria, Which very intelligent approach of examining President Obama’s foreign policy by referencing the actual diplomacy of the current administration. What Zakaria concluded in his article is that Obama has been a really effective foreign policy president and will prove to be one of President Obama’s best platforms for reelection this November.
But refuting Bachmann’s statement isn’t the point.
The point is that had I not read Zakaria’s article, what would I have done when I heard Bachmann tearing President Osama a new one.
Nothing, I would have only been exposed to Bachmann’s negative information on Obama’s foreign policy. That would influence me! Why? Because it is information which does not require me to introduce my values and form an opinion around.
“Well all I know about Obama’s foreign policy is that its horrible. Yeah I saw Bachmann’s critique of it on CNN.”
The point of this post: MEDIA MATTERS
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/bachmann-president-obamas_n_1287463.html>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely understand this point. However, I this our own values and/or political values take simple or factual information and convert it to fit our own beliefs. While one may read an article about how president Obama is doing fairly well in foreign policy, another person may read that article and find flaws in the research, or simply disagree. This explains the selective perception that we learned in class today. I know I am definitely guilty of listening to another opinion but always being able to find a reason to discount that information. I do agree that media matters, in fact I think if people are not at the polar sides of the political spectrum, I think those people are very easily swayed by the media. However those who are on the polarized side can be persuaded by the media but in a different way. They may be persuaded to do further research because they do not believe the media, or they may be persuaded to believe the value or idea because its their belief. Either way, media mobilizes people, it sets a fire under peoples behinds to get out and do something or to simply become passionate about an idea, unless you have the types of people who couldn't care less and don't care whats going on in the world or our own country, there is no hope for them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we in the class, or media and politics scholars in general, have concluded the media have a minuscule effect on public opinion. In fact, the Page and Shapiro reading suggested it had a great effect. The point of the current topic is that the impact of the media on changing individual level attitudes is limited by a variety of mediating factors. Individual level values simply don't change easily.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you correctly noted, the media play a crucial role in informing us about the political world. Without the media, how could we possibly gain information about government and politics? The question is whether or not they provide the information we truly need.
As I have noted several times this semester, without strong media, it is difficult to imagine a healthy democracy, and it is based on that premise that we, and other media observers, are trying to understand how and why the media fall short in fulfilling their role. Once we get that figured out, then we can identify ways to improve the way in which the media covers politics and governance.
PS. The point of an undergraduate class of this nature is to expose students to a body of literature in a given area of study--in this case, Media and Politics. The professional academics who devote their time and energy to this area of study have determined that exploring if (how and why)the media can effect the attitudes and values of citizens is an important part of understanding the role of the media in democratic governance. To ignore this important and interesting stream of literature is to inhibit one's understanding of the Media and Politics, and that--to state it bluntly--is not good pedagogy.