Distrust in the Media and Confirmation Bias

Everyone knows that Republicans only watch conservative television shows like CNN and FOX, while Democrats watch MSNBC and ABC, right? We've covered it all throughout the class-- it appears as though Americans are highly polarized, and the supposed polarization in the coverage from major news stations where they receive their information reflects this.

This article discusses the relationship between media trust/distrust and the self-selection of news outlets. What the evidence in the article shows is that, according to the frequency by which Republicans and Democrats Americans have become increasingly more polarized since the 2000s. In 2000, whether respondents were satisfied with the media's coverage or not, there was no particularly strong relationship between attitudes toward the media and partisan self-selection of media outlets. In 2010, another study was done but this time, one that measured perceived levels of media bias against partisan self-selection of media outlets. The results of this second study reveal a truth about contemporary relationships between partisan self-selection and attitudes toward the media. Perception of media bias leads to distrust in major media outlets. Americans with these dispositions would tend to slip back into the comfort zone of attending to news outlets that confirm their attitudes and deeply held values, thereby securing them into an echo-chamber.

We've discussed the dangers of echo-chambers, whether it be through new media outlets like social networks or with traditional media like print and broadcast media. Just like the customization of friend lists and the accessibility to remove those from your sphere that disagree with your attitudes is dangerous, we can see this same sort trend even with the news outlets that Americans tune into.. or not.

The important thing is that even in the the midst of media uncertainty, it is vital that we stay informed via a broad range of media outlets and always be willing to engage in political dialogue with those that don't hold our attitudes, opinions, and beliefs politically.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/27/distrust-in-the-media-and-confirmation-bias/

Melissa Harris-Perry

I remember reading a blog post by a fellow student the other week about the hope for broadcast news with the airing of a new talk show on MSNBC, hosted by political scientist professor Melissa Harris-Perry.  There was a sense of optimism by many in the political science field, who felt that this was a good thing for  broadcast television news.  I happened to stumble across a clip of her show, as I scanned the Huffington Post home page the other day.  As one of very few (if not the only) black women political science professors with their own television show, naturally we can expect some of her content to be different than a news talk show consisting of three old white dudes.  This was evident in a piece she did about the successful film touted for Oscar glory, "The Help".

Her argument is that "The Help", is a "Disney-fication" of the historical period dominated by Jim Crow laws and that the reality of black maids' employment was "much closer to a horror film than a lighthearted drama. Just ask those who found themselves at the mercy of Jim Crow justice, at the end of the lynch mob's rope or a burning torch...for black maids, the threat of rape was always a clear and present danger."

I am not focusing on the Huffington Post article's coverage, but of the actual video from the show, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

What is refreshing here, is not just the actual experise and relevance of Harris-Perry's guests (rather than your typical political pundit), or the intelligent social critique of the piece, but also of the genuine discussion and argument-formulation that goes on during the discussion.  There is no simple pro- or anti- side one can quickly take, and the guests engage in what seems to be a genuine and semi-formal dialogue about the topic.  Harris-Perry clearly has an opinion on the matter, and does not shy away from sharing that.  However, she does so with civility and respect, often acknowledging the other guests' differing points of view.  Not only is this show positive in engaging topics that might not be completely in line with the status-quo, but the way in which civil political discourse is encouraged makes this show stand out when it comes to responsible news commentary.

Academic Hope for TV News Station

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/02/13/melissa-harris-perrys-new-tv-show/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/business/media/host-of-msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-is-a-professor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Much of the "concerned" American public has strayed away from televised news due to its disappointing nature and lack of actual important academic content. Much of us are bored and simply do not care for the infotainment about Whitney Houston, award shows, or the murderer that may or may not be in my neighborhood (who can blame some news stations though, as "infotainment" is their business model).

MSNBC will become the first major news program to feature a talk show by a real tenured professor. The news station has a new program with Melissa Harry-Perry, a professor of political science.

MSNBC's newest academic addition scratches at the surface of the media's role as the protectors and promoters of the public interest and education. Perhaps this new model will become a trend for other televised new programs to follow? In hopes that it certainly does cause a new trend, the American public may prove to be more than just a mindless consumer market place. Academic scholars in well established news programs will provide an opportunity for a change in mass media towards its original goals of professionalism and objectivity.

Maybe, there is hope that televised news programs will provide "intellectual stimulation" for the general American Masses.

Prioritizing the News

                  A quick look at the news will tell you that there are a lot of things that go on in the world that need our attention.  Between the conflicts in Syria, the Republican primaries and the daily issues that crop up we have quite a bit going on.  That's why it baffles me when certain news stories get coverage to certain levels and others struggle to catch the eye of the media.  I visited multiple news sights while writing this entry and I am surprised to see how some events can barely get a quality amount of coverage.  It's surprising that on a day in which the US has launched new sanctions on Iran and people are getting killed in Syria that the biggest picture on MSNBC's website is of Clint Eastwood and talks about his Super bowl commercial's political effect.  Really? Is this the type of journalism we need? At this point is the media still helping us or hindering our access to more valuable information?
                 Honestly, much of this content comes from what we have been discussing in class and about the role of the media.  The media can be a great resource but, they can also be used to hide things and keep us in the dark by burying news stories.  This is the inevitable issue with the media and it's something we have yet to figure out how to correct. Blogs and social media do a good job measuring reaction to news stories but they are as mainstream as CNN, FOX and MSNBC.  With these major channels burying certain stories how do we expect people to get the full picture?  When figuring out which stories should be reported in which order in my opinion it goes without saying that issues of politics, human rights and the environment are more important than analysis of a Super bowl commercial.
                Ultimately, we are faced with the dilemma of searching out quality news (which most Americans wouldn't do because we like having our news brought to us) or continue being fed the same news which is so synthesized and broken down by so many analysts and experts sometimes it can lose sight of the main point. This is not an issue we can easily answer and part of the reason we don't know what's going on in the world is because the vast amount of world news for us goes unreported and lost.