The Influence of the Media in Politics, Campaigns and ElectionsPublished: Wed November 14th, 2007By: Laura LaneCategory: Opinion and Editorial

The Influence and Relationship of the Media in Politics, Campaigns and Elections - In an age of timeliness and demand for information, the media plays a crucial role in informing the public about politics, campaigns and elections. But while the public demands information from the media, there is also an underlying cynicism in the American culture against the media and politicians for negative campaign coverage and a perceived media bias. What is often missed is the influence the government has on the media, and equally, the influence the media has on the government. Additionally, the media helps influence what issues voters should care about in elections and what criteria they should use to evaluate candidates. There is a cyclical relationship between the media, the government and the public and while the media can occasionally shape public opinion, it has a greater influence in communicating to voters what issues are important and less of an influence in convincing them what to think about those issues. The media works more effectively by placing a spotlight on certain issues they feel the public should be concerned with. "A large body of evidence now indicated that what appears in print or on the air has a substantial impact upon how citizens think and what they think about: e.g., what they cite as 'important problems'" (Page 23). The government plays a role in dictating the media's content through the media's regular use of public officials as sources in the news. Just as the government influences the media, the media can help set the political agenda by focusing on specific issues and influencing what issues the public and government should be concerned with.HE AFFECT OF A MEDIA BIAS

here is a wide-spread belief that there is a strong political bias in the media and while that may be true to some extent, it doesn't have a significant effect on shaping the voter's views. One area that newspapers do take a stand on is in editorials, which has largely dictated by how people view certain publications. Page argues that various media outlets take distinctive stands, which can remain consistent over a period of time. He states that

The Nation leans left, and the National Review tilts right. The Washington Post and the New York Times are socially (and, to a lesser extent, economically) liberal, while Wall Street Journal editorials thunder with conservatism; other publications line up at various points along the ideological continuum or continua" (21).

hile I would argue the political stereotypes of these publications have shifted in the past ten years, the argument is still relevant that there is a wide-spread belief of a media bias. Even though editorials are clearly opinion pieces, Page argues

that newspapers have a central viewpoint throughout all coverage and news stories often mirror the political views expressed in editorials. Through his studies of the 1952 Nixon and Stevenson "fund" coverage by 31 different newspapers, Page found the news stories typically have similar viewpoints as the editorial endorsements of each publication. Similarly, he found a correlation between news and editorial stories in the media's coverage of the Los Angeles riot (22). In his studies of New York Times articles on the whether or no to go to war with Iraq, Page argues that columns and editorial "came from limited kinds of sources, expressed a limited range of viewpoints, and were arranged with almost perfect symmetry on both sides of the Times's own stand" (21).

ewitt feels that the media has a very strong bias when it comes to the coverage of the war. He says, "The assault on the war began with an assault on the American military, and it was an assault with deadly consequences" (50). One major example he gives is regarding a Newsweek article which stated that interrogators had flushed a Qur'an down the toilet and abused detainees by leading them around on a dog leash and mistreating them. The article sparked world-wide rage and response from the White House. When independent sources could not verify the incident, Newsweek finally admitted there were parts of the article were not true until pressure from the White House forced them to retract the article. When the White House felt a retraction was not enough because so much harm had already been done, the media got extremely upset with the White House, due to the pressure they were putting on the publication (52-53).

egala agrees with Hewitt that the media has a bias, but argues that it is a liberal bias. He cites the media's obsession with the Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and how, "Even when Clinton was leaving office, he was hounded and pounded by the press" (199). He argues the news coverage was unfair, brutal and unethical in the way both Bill and Hillary Clinton were treated during the scandal (200). Begala also says Al Gore was treated very poorly by the press during the election, by being misquoted. Gore made major contributions during the early phases of the internet and made a comment on CNN saying he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Begala argues this was blown out of proportion and more than a thousand articles have been written quoting Gore saying he said he "invented the internet" (202).

he people's perception that certain publications are bias can have a negative affect on journalists as a whole. While the public demands that the press question politicians, Robinson says there is public discontent when bad news is reported due to the publics distrust in news and a "kill the messenger syndrome." At times, the public will assume all media is the same and when one publication is guilty of inaccurate or bias news, it can hurt all the media (96). But it is impossible for any political coverage to be completely free of opinion or objectivity. The media is forced to make decisions when covering politics about

who to interview, what quotes and facts to select and how to interpret information. Page argues that media outlets, such as the New York Times, use the selection process to further their own policy by running articles with "colorful, value-laden adjectives and adverbs" and calling the piece an analysis (21). While it is hard to assess whether certain publications consistently have the same political stands and how they maintain those stands, Page suggests it is a combination of selective recruitment and internal expectations (23).

ompaine disagrees that journalists today have an agenda and are influenced by their publications. Despite what he notes as a brief period of muckrakers in the 20th century and the political reporting in Watergate, Compaine says that ownership no longer matters like it did when "media moguls like William Randolph Hearst, William Loeb, and Robert McCormick were attracted to the media because they each had political agendas" (22). There is a wide-spread belief that the media is becoming monopolized. Even though there are some large media outlets, there is no one media conglomerate that owns newspapers, book publishers, radio stations, cable companies, or television licenses in every major world market (21).

HE MEDIA AS A POLITICAL SPOTLIGHT

hile many are afraid that a biased media will shape people's views during elections, the media is more effective in dictating what issues voters should view as important and less effective in shaping those views. Ramsden argues that although the media "might occasionally influence attitudes, they are more frequently effective as a spotlight" (66). He argues the media is effective in telling voters what issues to focus on, and less effective in telling them what to think of those issues. Since the media is practically the only way to get campaign information widely distributed, they influence what issues people should consider when evaluating a candidate and what criteria to judge them by (65).

obinson agrees and says "while the media can play an important role in changing voters' perceptions, information, attitudes, and even behavior," their viewpoints do not drastically change and the media has more of a reinforcing role than it does in shaping viewpoints (101). The media has a strong influence on the issues the public views as important because repeated coverage of certain issues become priorities for the viewers and can affect the evaluation of candidates. One example is how Reagan's public approval rating dropped when the media began focusing on the Iran-contra affair. The new coverage dictated new criteria the public should judge Reagan by (Wood and Edwards 329). Ramsden says this is true for judging both the policy of a candidate as well as their character. He uses the example of Jimmy Carter, saying that although he had very little experience, the public widely ignored this issue because the press did not make it a concern. While the press could not necessarily influence the public's view of

Carter, it could influence what criteria should be used to evaluate him (66).

HE MEDIA ACTING AS A SPOTLIGHT IN ELECTIONS

y spotlighting what issues the public should focus on, the media helps to dictate what issues voters should be concerned with in elections and what criteria they should use to judge politicians by. "Most of the new information voters receive over the course of a political campaign is transmitted either by news media or through social networks such as interpersonal discussion" (Mondak 62). The media can greatly influence the public by limiting coverage of certain candidates. The media has the discretion to cover only the candidates it feels are legitimate candidates and have a viable chance of winning the election. In this way, the media acts as a filter, by narrowing down candidates and sifting out lesser-known candidates and giving more coverage to the better-known. Although the public should ultimately decide on its own who they feel is a viable candidate, Ramsden notes that the newspaper editors will argue that with so many candidates to cover and with limited resources, it is impossible to cover all candidates equally (80). While Ramsden argues that the media should stray away from covering the viability of candidates, he admits it would be useless to cover candidates who do not have a reasonable amount of voter support, simply for the sake of equal coverage (80). As a solution, Ramsden says the media should cover all candidates equally so voters can get to know them all. Then after voters have been informed about the candidates, the media can look for cues about where to allocate the most coverage. (81)

attenberg argues media coverage practically ignores political parties and focuses instead on the candidates themselves (Wattenberg 225-226). This observation has both positive and negative implications. This tends to be a more unbiased approach, because it allows voters to become more informed about an individual candidate they are voting for, versus blindly voting for a candidate of a particular party. This could potentially cultivate a more diverse electorate. It could, however, be negative if voters focus too much on the candidates themselves and not on the issues the candidate stands for.

his could have a negative effect if voters are not voting on candidates that best represent their views on public policy. "Voters are less likely today to vote simply along party lines, and more likely to split their tickets and defect from their party's choice, if the candidate's stand on the issues or the candidate's ideology is relatively unattractive" (Robinson 97). The media can not directly dictate how voters will think, but it can influence what they should be thinking about. In an indirect way, the media sets the agenda. People will not think about issues or events they are not informed about (Ramsden 68). It is however, important to note that not all political opinions are shaped by the media. Voters also receive information from their friends, family and co-workers. "Political discussion contributes to that information mix, with resulting influence on

electoral choice" (Mondak 83).

HE MEDIA'S INFLUENCE ON CAMPAIGNING

he media can greatly effect elections by generating attention, whether it is through negative campaigning or through their choice in coverage of a candidate. "In competing for the attention of the large swath of the electorate that is uninterested, disheartened or cynical- or is at least perceived that way- politicians, interest groups and even the media often resort to negatively, demonization, polarization and at times, sensationalism" (Hamm and Mann 18). In the 1992 Ohio House race, a political banking scandal generated media attention which ultimately led to Republican Martin Hoke beating incumbent Mary Rose Oakar with 57% of the vote. Hoke campaigned nearly the entire time by attacking Oakar. In another district where there was far less media attention, Democratic incumbent Louis Stokes effortlessly won the reelection. Mondak argues that without the media attention focusing on the negative campaigning by Hoke, the incumbent might have been reelected (65).

egative campaigning has become a staple among American politics and negative reporting can have a major impact in shaping the public's evaluation of public officials. This can be seen by the media's role in forming voter's national economic evaluation in the 1992 election. Despite positive economic conditions at the time, which appeared to favor Bush for reelection, negative reporting on the economic performance during the year affected the public perception of the economy. Hetherington argues that relentless negative reporting explained why George Bush lost the reelection despite an economy that had rebounded from a recession, which ended by March 1991, 20 months before the election (Hetherington 372).

he first spot commercial ever used in presidential campaigns was in 1952 by Dwight Eisenhower, whose ads featured him answering a series of questions (Hamm and Mann 13). Since then, campaign advertising has drastically changed. While candidates hate to admit it, negative campaigning, or "comparative advertising" as Bob Dole called it, have become the ad of choice, because they have proven to have the most influence and be the most memorable. Although, lately voters have become turned-off from all the negative campaigning and name-calling, campaign consultants know that voters are still cynical of politicians and will react to any sign of doubt. "It can be argued that the negative campaign simply responds to cynicism, even as it amplifies it" (14).

he media also influences the public's perception on the viability of a candidate. If reports say a certain candidate is ahead in an election, the public will come to accept that evaluation, which can greatly influence how voters cast their ballots. For the most part, people do not want to waste time on candidates they believe

do not have a chance to win. This can be seen in Gary Hart's 1984 New Hampshire primary win. Hart convinced the media he was a viable candidate and not his opponent John Glenn. The media's favorable coverage helped seal Hart's victory (Ramsden, 67). But over-reporting the viability of a candidate can turn the coverage into a "horse race," meaning the media focuses too much on who is winning and who is ahead. This can influence voters by swaying their focus on what candidate has the best campaign style and not necessarily who has the best "platform or leadership skills" (72). Ramsden says that although the "horse race" needs to be covered, it deserves much less coverage that it currently gets, because voting based largely on viability defeats the main function of democracy, which is to elect candidates that represent the will of the people. He argues "the media should allocate its coverage in terms of policy issues first, character issues second, and viability third." (78)

MEDIA'S INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT

ven after the election, the media still plays a large roll in influencing the government's agenda through spotlighting issues and directing public and political concerns. Wood argues that while the media may not be a source of new ideas for the White House, it still has an affect on policymakers because "the public's familiarity with political matters is closely related to the amount and duration of attention these affairs receive in the mass media" (Wood and Edwards 328).

t can be argued that in some incidents the media can set the political agenda by covering issues the government does not want to focus on. This was evident through the media's coverage of U.S. interventions in Somalia and Bosnia and the media's pressure on the government to take action. This is an example of the media informing the public by spotlighting an issue that would otherwise be unknown. This incident caused President Clinton to say the media was "trying to force me to get America into a war" (Wood and Edwards 329). Instead of the President choosing what international affairs to engage in, the media dictated what issue should be a concern.

n another case, the media sparked political action by sending military force and humanitarian relief in response to the 1990 coverage of the starving children in Somalia, which coined the phrase the "CNN effect" (Compaine 26). "The mass media can be seen not only as a driving force behind cultural and social change but also as an index for political mobilization, both domestically and internationally" (Gerges 104).

GOVERNMENT AFFECT ON THE MEDIA

Trust as the media can help to shape the political agenda, the government can equally influence the media's coverage. Page argues that the government can

dictate political media coverage to a certain extent, because the media regularly uses officials as sources in news stories and they are able to express their views and set their agenda on a regular basis. The media has become dependent on using officials because of "the nature of newsgathering routines and the need for regular easy access to legitimate sources who possess valuable information" (22). The government can shape the media's agenda by providing the press with briefings, background, press releases, interviews and press conferences (Wood and Edwards 328).

Although Gerges argues that "The political process is more likely to have an influence on the news media than the news media on the political process (105)," even if the media is skeptical of the President, the President still sets the agenda by receiving constant media coverage. Whether or not the media agrees with the White House, it still influences the public through the "spotlight" affect by telling the public what issues are important. In some ways the media can be seen as an instrument for the government to propagate their agenda and political stance. While the media does have the ability to select what information they use, as Page argues, the media is limiting itself by simply passing along the view points of whatever political power is currently in control (22).

American politics is increasingly characterized by the 'permanent campaign' in which politicians and interest group leaders engage, in the words of Hugh Heclo, 'in continuous efforts to orchestrate, amplify, and inject the presumptive voices of the American people into the formulation and management of national policy'" (Hamm and Mann 18).

THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF MEDIA

There are many different forms of media that affect the political landscape, but the two primary types of media are paid media and free media. Paid media can make or break a campaign depending on how much a candidate has to spend on television, posters, fliers, etc. "To a large extent, campaign spending is driven by the behavior of the challengers; when the challenger is well-funded, the incumbent will spend more in response" (Mondak 67). Paid media can be expensive and because voters have learned to tune-out political propaganda, free-media can be much more effective. With paid media it is not always easy to get the message heard by voters. Viewers are impatient now more than ever and political messengers must work in a 30-second commercial to break through cynical viewers who flip through channels and live in an entertainment-filled world. "They must sharpen and simplify their messages in order to be heard. And they must use the most popular entertainment medium as the conveyor of their messages" (Hamm and Mann 13). During the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole broadcast 1,397 hours of commercials in the 75 major media markets from April up until Election Day (Hamm and Mann 15). While

television reaches a mass audience, campaigns can also chose to send out targeted mail to voters who fit a certain profile or engage in political organizations (Glaser 76).

But the best media of all is free media. Bill Clinton did a remarkable job of taking advantage of free media by appealing to wide-range of voters by going on MTV during the campaign and through his famous appearance at Arsenio Hall when he played his saxophone (Hamm and Mann 16). Knowing how to take advantage of the media is essential in a campaign. John F. Kennedy helped shape the modern day model for understanding the media and going public through his relationship with the media in the 1960 campaign. Nixon on the other hand, did not have such a good relationship with the media and did not understand the importance of mass coverage. Just before Election Day, Kennedy visited northeastern states with large electoral votes and more importantly, major media outlets where he would be seen by a large audience. Nixon on the other hand, wanted to fulfill his promise of going to every state and went to Alaska. What Nixon didn't understand was that it was more important to be seen by voters than it was to go to every state (Maltese 16).

OW PEOPLE GET THEIR INFORMATION DURING ELECTIONS

During elections, people turn to different forms of media to get their information, depending on what information they are looking for and how involved they are in politics. Robinson found in studying the 1969 elections that there was a slight decline in newspaper and magazine use during campaigns, where television is the leading source of information (97). Although most people claimed they get most of their political information from television, it is printed media people frequently cite as the source of "specific news content" (Robinson 99-100). Mondak, on the other hand, found that by studying the 1992 Pittsburgh elections, voters turned to television for the Senate and presidential campaigns and only turned to newspapers "as substitutes for their missing local dailies" (68-69).

laser found that newspapers are often read more by people who are educated, informed and already interested in politics. He also said newspaper articles can inform the viewer more than television coverage can. (78). Robinson agreed that people who pay attention to the media during campaigns are normally already involved in politics (98). "Attention to the media for campaign news is mainly found among people who are already involved in political activities" (Robinson 98). Glaser argues that people can recall television reminders more than radio or newspapers. He noted a 1960 Gallop Survey that asked people "Where do you get most of your information about what's going on in the world- from magazines, TV, radio, or newspapers" (74). He says television leaves a more lasting impression than other medias (83). While much has changed since these surveys were conducted, the public is still concerned with timeliness, which I

would argue is one of the leading reasons people turn away from print during elections.

would argue that the internet has just recently begun to take the place of TV, just as TV took the place of print. People go to the internet because it is accessible and immediate. I would also argue the internet has a clear advantage over television because viewers can chose what information they are looking for and when they get it. In the age where timing is everything, viewers don't want to wait through an entire broadcast to hear the information they are looking for and they certainly don't want to wait through commercial breaks. The internet is also a great outlet for individuals or small groups to reach the masses. It is cheap, easy and available to anyone. It breaks the saying that "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" (Compaine 24).

CONCLUSION

Through free media and paid media, the press is able to influence voters by telling them what issues are important at the time. While there is a wide-spread belief that they media is bias to either the right of the left, it should be less of a concern to the public because the media is largely unsuccessful in shaping opinion. The media also influences the government through the spotlight affect and discussing issues that might not have been at the top of the political agenda. The media has a very strong affect in politics, campaigns and elections by dictating what issues are relevant, what candidates will get the most coverage and what criteria they should use to evaluate candidates. Equally, the media is affected by the government, who is able to use the media as a political instrument by furthering the political views of whatever power is currently in office. While it is not absolute because outside factors also shape positions, the media, public and government has a cyclical relationship that influences one another.

Policy Issue:

Citizens learn about politics and government primarily from television and

newspapers. These media outlets can influence voters not only through the slant

of a particular report, but also merely by choosing which to stories to cover.

Recent studies suggest that media exposure can have a sizable impact in shaping

the public’s political knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. However, these studies

may have overestimated the impacts of media influence due to individuals’

tendency to seek out information that agrees with their pre-existing views.

Context of the Evaluation:

Prince William County in northeastern Virginia lies just 25 miles from

Washington D.C. Here, the population is far enough away from the nation’s

capitol so as not to be dominated by citizens involved professionally with

politics, but close enough to be within the circulation of Washington’s

conservative and liberal newspapers. The Washington D.C. metro area is served

by two major newspapers, the conservative Washington Times and the more

liberal Washington Post. The presence of a liberal and conservative paper

serving the same region creates an opportunity to study the effect of media slant

in a natural setting within a single population, which is subject to the same

outside factors, such as political events and outcomes, and has a range of

political leanings.

Details of the Intervention:

This study takes advantage of this natural setting to measure the effect of

political news content on people’s political behavior and opinions.

Approximately one month prior to the Virginia gubernatorial election in

November 2005, researchers administered a short survey to a random selection

of households in Prince William County.

From the 3,347 households of registered voters who reported that they received

neither the Post nor the Times, researchers randomly assigned households to

receive a free subscription to one of the two papers for ten weeks, or to the

comparison group that was not sent either paper. A week after the election, a

follow-up survey was administered asking individuals whether they voted in the

November 2005 election, which candidate they selected or preferred, their

attitudes toward news events of the previous weeks, and their knowledge about

recent news events. Voter turnout data was also collected for the November

2005 and 2006 elections from state administrative records.

Results and Policy Lessons:

Impact on Political Knowledge: Receiving either paper produced no effect on

knowledge of political events or stated opinions about those events, and there

were no differences between the treatment and comparison groups in voter

turnout for the 2005 gubernatorial election.  In November 2006, however, there

was a 2.8 percentage point increase in voter turnout. It is surprising to see a

result in 2006 but not in 2005. This could be a result of the post-election

exposure to the remainder of the ten-week newspaper subscriptions, or the fact

that 17 percent of the treatment group renewed their subscription after the free

period ended.

Impact on Political Preference: Interestingly, receiving either newspaper led to

an increase of support for the Democratic candidate. Despite the political slant

of the newspapers, the effects were similar for the Post and the Times, resulting

in an overall 7.2 percentage point increase in likelihood of voting for the

Democratic candidate. This may be due to the fact that the Republican

President’s approval ratings were falling over that period of time, or perhaps the

Democratic candidate was conservative leaning. In either case, these results

suggest that the informational effect of more exposure to news was stronger than

the effect of its slant.

MEDIA, EFFECTS, AND POLITICS

by

Russell Madden

What do cigarettes, movies, junk food, video games, alcohol, and comic books

have in common?

These are all examples of products whose advertisements offend and frighten

various politicians and "public interest" groups. The mass media messages we

see and/or hear on television, radio, film, the World Wide Web, music CD's,

newspapers, books, and magazines are used by these watchdogs to justify

restrictions on what mass media can or cannot portray for public consumption.

Because of such criticism, that long-time spokes-animal for Camel cigarettes,

Joe Camel, has disappeared into the electronic ether. Also, after they were

targeted for complaints, not much has been heard from the Budweiser frogs.

(Perhaps they croaked?) These symbols of mass-marketed consumer products

are not alone in receiving bad press from those who seek to control that press.

In order to better understand this situation, I will examine some of the history

behind these media-related controversies. Two social science theories

attempting to explain these phenomena have competed for prevalence for nearly

eighty years: the strong or powerful effects model and the weak or limited

effects model. Each views human nature in radically different ways. Each leads

to divergent conclusions. Only one has dominated political thinking in this and

other countries.

Those practical consequences of accepting a particular abstract theory are ones

to which we should pay close attention. What we face is a direct assault on not

only the foundations of our Constitutional government but on what it means to

live in a free society. Our campuses, our work places, even our entertainment

choices are being threatened by this trend.

Defining Mass Media

Mass media can be defined as avenues for messages that are created for

consumption by large numbers of people. These "message consumers" are

physically separated from one another (to distinguish a mass medium audience

from, for example, attendees at a pro football game). They are also diverse in

terms of their interests, values, and other demographical characteristics.

The first mass medium was books. When Gutenberg produced those Bibles with

his movable type press, he set the stages for a revolution. No longer would

books be produced by hand solely for the edification of the rich, privileged, and

powerful. For the first time in history, printers made books -- and the ideas they

contained -- available to citizens of more modest means.

This spread of "dangerous" notions frightened rulers who depended upon a

compliant and uncomplaining populace for their power and prestige. Those who

dared defy these monarchs by marketing their mass wares faced burning, burial

alive, and seizure of their property.

Despite these harsh penalties, books continued to spread. Eventually, they

contributed to Martin Luther's "heresy" and the formation of the Protestant

Church.

Even today, books continue their subversive ways.

For centuries, mass media were limited to books, newspapers, and magazines.

The dawn of the Twentieth Century saw an explosion in new ways for writers,

business owners, and others to reach large numbers of people. Thomas Edison's

hand-cranked films led the way to silent movies, followed by "talkies" in 1925

and "3-D" extravaganzas in the 1950's. Now movies are distributed not only in

theaters but via television, videocassettes, DVD's, and for short pieces, even

through the Internet.

Before TV, however, radio spread throughout the country. From the Twenties

through the Forties, families gathered around their clunky AM radios and

listened to variety shows, news programs, adventure serials, and soap operas.

After the introduction of TV, radio shifted its focus more towards music, news

and, especially in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, so-called talk radio.

Again, as with movies, distant radio programs are now available on the Internet.

In the Fifties, a number of people feared that television would kill movies just as

some thought it would lead to the demise of radio. Neither happened. More

consumers now view films on TV than in theaters. With the advent of cable TV

and satellite dishes, ever-expanding options are available to viewers. As broad

band Internet connections become more commonplace, TV will also likely

appear on the Internet scene.

As the world moved from the Nineteenth to the Twentieth Century, music at last

achieved mass medium status. Phonographs made classical and popular music

available to anyone. Edison's cylinders gave way to 78 rpm discs. Long-playing

33 rpm records, single discs at 45 rpm, tape cassettes in various formats, CD's,

and now MP3's continue the evolution of music for the masses.

As should be clear by now, the Internet and the World Wide Web are, in many

ways, merging these disparate mass media. Now anyone can electronically

publish a book or article for access by distant readers. Magazines and

newspapers post electronic versions or eschew print entirely. Production and

transmission of films, music, TV, and radio continue to evolve on the Internet.

No doubt new and as yet unthought of types of mass media will be invented.

The increasing reach of mass media makes it even more imperative that we

properly understand their influence on the public.

The Powerful Effects Model

The advent of penny papers, film, and radio at the start of the Twentieth Century

caused concern for many observers. In the late 1920's, 40 million young people

in this country -- 17 million of them children under fourteen years of age -- went

to the movies every week. Adults anxiously worried that such mass viewing

undermined parental controls; that those flickering images on the wall taught

immoral behavior; and that they created a hazard threatening the stability of

traditional culture.

One of the first of tens-of-thousands of such studies, the Payne Fund Studies,

was conducted by the Motion Picture Research Council in 1929. The researchers

wanted to investigate this new mass medium and determine whether alarm was

justified. To everyone's horror -- though perhaps not their surprise -- their dire

suspicions seemed to be confirmed. Youthful moviegoers imitated the behavior

of movie stars, unintentionally learned things their parents might prefer remain

hidden, and found themselves emotionally moved by what they viewed.

These studies, however, suffered from methodological shortcomings. One

problem they faced is still debated today: do movies reflect social values or do

they create them? If the former, then the results are nothing more than a post hoc

fallacy: the belief that because event X occurred before event Y, then Y was

caused by X.

Nevertheless, skepticism of movies' influences continued. In the 1930's, for

example, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Code determined what

kinds of images could be shown, what kind of stories told, and what morals

revealed. In an era of burgeoning numbers of immigrants, increased levels of

urbanization and industrialization, and a progressively modernized society, the

culture was less homogeneous and less reliant on tradition than ever before.

People suffering such "alienation," such socially isolated lives seemed ripe for

films to subvert.

The strong or powerful effects model states that mass media effects are

significant in magnitude, uniform across audiences, immediate in influence, and

-- too often -- harmful. Such effects generate false images of the world's nature

in consumers' minds. They also encourage unacceptable behavior in the form of

"copycats" who mimic what they see and hear, for example, drinking and

smoking. These media effects are thought not only to be highly effective as tools

of persuasion for both children and adults but also (in a negative way) to

dominate our political system.

In this theory, mass media messages are viewed as "magic bullets" that

miraculously bring about a desired result unattainable in any other fashion. Mass

media have a kind of "hypodermic" needle effect, in a sense "injecting"

messages into the psyches of viewers and listeners.

This theory essentially grew out of Darwinism. In that era, human behavior was

thought to be guided in basically the same manner as that of lower animals, that

is, from inherited instincts. This uniform set of instincts ensured people would

receive and interpret mass media messages in similar ways. With such a direct

connection between message and action, the results would also be uniform,

immediate, and powerful.

This stimulus-and-response view posited human action as not being under

rational control. The notion that humans are infinitely malleable in the hands of

a master sculptor led later to B. F. Skinner's work in behaviorism as detailed in

his book, Beyond Human Dignity.

If this theory were correct, freedom of the press as guaranteed by the

Constitution might well be a bad idea. Such a dangerous capacity for mischief

should be restricted for the good of all citizens. Many Americans agreed then

and agree now with such fears. If mass media messages can so readily harm

people -- indeed, control them -- then they should be controlled themselves and

subject to censoring.

The Weak Effects Model

Unfortunately for the (scientific) acceptance of the powerful effects model, two

studies in the 1940's appeared to spell its demise.

In the 1940 presidential election, in Erie County, Ohio, sociologists Paul

Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet conducted a study on how

media messages influenced voting. They found that, yes, such messages could

persuade people but only in a select, limited fashion. The scientists discovered

that the media of the time activated people to vote, that is, got them to do what

they planned to do anyway.

Media also reinforced the beliefs some people already had, strengthening their

positions. Few individuals actually engaged in conversion, that is, changed their

votes. Membership in one's social group and the relationships one had with

friends and families proved more significant. (A modern example of this is the

fact that teenagers who begin to smoke are influenced to do so more by peers

than by cigarette advertising.)

The second set of studies was done by the U.S. Army during WWII. Filmmaker

Frank Capra produced a series of seven films collectively entitled, "Why We

Fight." Shown to soldiers, the hope was to create resentment of Japan and

Germany while simultaneously increasing confidence in the United States and

the justice of its battles.

To the chagrin of the top brass, the soldiers learned facts about the conflict but

experienced only minor changes in opinions. When changes did occur, they

were linked more to the soldier's level of intelligence and his schooling than the

messages per se. While this result supposedly killed the magic bullet theory, as

we will see, its influence continues half-a-century later.

The limited effects model offers a number of explanations for its predictions.

While it readily acknowledges that mass media can and do influence people, an

influence is not the same as a primary cause. Factors other than the message

itself are more important determinants of how people will respond to that

message.

Variations in individual psychology and values, membership in a particular

social category, disparities in income, religion, age, gender, and other

demographic characteristics can and often do overwhelm a mass medium

message. In contrast to the strong effects model, the weak effects model

contends that people not really isolated but interact socially with family, friends,

and co-workers.

These kinds of distinctions lead to differences in what individuals will find of

interest and what messages they will select to consume (i.e., what they will

choose to be exposed to); how closely they will focus upon or attend to those

messages; how those messages will be interpreted; and how those messages will

affect them. Given such a universe of possible combinations, any given mass

medium message will have only limited effects on the public overall.

No wonder successful persuasion in such arenas as advertising is a headache to

producers!

By Any Other Name

The hoary theory of eighty years ago continues to surface under other guises.

One such example is the theory of American media and cultural imperialism.

This essentially Marxist concept says that mass media messages reflect "a

deliberate policy designed by powerful economic and political interests to

transform and dominate the cultures of other people." (DeFleur and Dennis, p.

420)

Countries in opposition to the United States are said to be specially targeted for

undermining. Imported media messages create social change and alter the course

of normal national development. By controlling what news people hear, the U.S.

is able to dominate domestic media and other economic producers. Because

native peoples have limited choices in what media are available to them, they

are exposed to what superficially appears to be an attractive alternative to their

own way of life. Media messages "instill" or "create" needs and wants for

consumer products that citizens don't really need and can't afford.

Such unsatisfied desires can then lead to political unrest and exploitation by

more sophisticated Western powers.

The responses to this theory are visible in a number of nations. In France, certain

American words are outlawed. In Canada, the supply of American videos,

movies, or TV is restricted in favor of locally produced products. China controls

satellite dishes; Germany outlaws Nazi-related items on the Internet (viz their

suit against Yahoo!); and Arab countries complain about encroaching Western

hairstyles, clothing, personal behavior, and speech that is offensive to their

religious sensibilities.

What is deemed "proper," of course, is to be determined solely by the

politicians.

Realizing that media consumers are active individuals capable of exercising

their free will is not popular with the leaders in our (or any other) country. To do

so would be to limit them in their attempts to exercise more political control.

One need not look far to find examples in which politicians operate from -- and

impose laws based upon -- the discredited powerful effects model.

The Politics of Media

Violence

"Excessive" violence in the media is a perennial boogeyman trotted out by

politicians for each new election cycle. Whether on TV, in movies, video games,

comic books, the Internet, or music CD's, our national leaders view "violence"

(however poorly defined) as a prime excuse for censorship and state oversight.

While there is evidence that such media-portrayed violence can influence certain

children, usually such kids are more aggressive to begin with. As the limited

effects model suggests, there is no strict causality between media violence and

subsequent real-life violence perpetrated by media consumers.

The fact that actual violence abounded long before mass media were around

does not deter the prohibitionists and the censors. Wars, rapes, kidnappings, and

murders are staples in human history. What the anti-violence crowd cannot

explain, for example, is the recent decrease in youthful violence even as make-

believe violence in films and games has increased.

Nevertheless, the fear of "copycat" crimes pushes politicians and others to act.

V-chips are installed in new TV's to "protect the children"...whether you have

offspring or not. The publisher of the book Hit Man pulled the title after being

sued for "inspiring" a murderer. TV and game producers "voluntarily" label their

products before the government can impose such ratings.

Coverage of the mass murders at Columbine and elsewhere transform gun

advertisements in magazines and innocent products such as toy soldiers and toy

guns into deadly threats that can only be dealt with by draconian "zero

tolerance" policies in our government-run, mandatory schools. "For the

children," images of guns are expunged from movies and cartoons. "Violent"

lyrics in music are blamed for the murder of police officers.

Not much has changed since Fredric Wertham's 1954 book, Seduction of the

Innocent, lambasted EC Comics and led to the creation of the Comics Code

Authority. In the eyes of such fear-mongers, only media can explain and be

responsible for any and all violence perpetrated in this country.

Sex

If anything, sexual images in mass media are viewed as even more dangerous

than violent ones. Pornography is a favorite whipping boy. In the Nineteenth

Century, even literature discussing contraception was deemed "pornographic"

and worthy of censorship. From the Comstock Act of 1873, to the

Communications Decency Act of 1996, the federal government has taken it

upon itself to protect the public (and, again, children) from sexual oriented

materials. As pointed out in the movie, "South Park," you can get away with

mass killings in the media more easily than you can dirty words.

Beauty

In her book, The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf discussed "How Images of Beauty

Are Used Against Women" (her subtitle). According to this thesis, the diet,

cosmetic, and pornography industries promote false images of proper feminine

beauty. "Psychologically weakened" women fall prey to these "hallucinations"

and suffer such ills as bulimia, anorexia, economic and sexual exploitation,

powerlessness, low self-esteem, and, again, violence.

In this scenario, women are helpless pawns in a capitalist game waged by

Revlon and Weight Watchers. Somehow, though, despite the irresistible

influence of media messages on women, Ms. Wolf herself somehow managed to

escape being brainwashed.

Morality

Reminiscent of the concerns expressed in the Twenties, mass media today have

been blamed for promoting such things as the breakdown of family values (viz,

the Murphy Brown vs Dan Quayle controversy); relativistic morality; rudeness;

and parental authority. As in that earlier time, the debate as to which came first

-- the problems or the depiction of those problems -- wages on.

Never loath to seize an opportunity, our government has passed legislation

outlawing same-sex marriages and wields the tax code as a means to encourage

what it views as proper family arrangements and social behavior.

Tobacco

Despite the fact that the dangers of tobacco have been discussed for centuries,

the recent lawsuits against "Big Tobacco" acted as though consumers of such

products were naifs incapable of resisting the lure of the Marlboro Man. Even

worse, Joe Camel "seduced" children into the vile habit of smoking.

Well, billions of settlement dollars later and after Joe has retired to the desert,

smoking among young people -- and particularly girls -- has continued to

increase. That will not alter the mind-sets of those politicians and citizens who

view banning cigarette advertising in all media as the only logical means of

blunting the creation of new smokers.

Alcohol and Food

The Budweiser frogs are castigated for making drinkers of children by being too

"cute and funny." Hard lemonade is said to be packaged to "attract" and confuse

young people. Liquor ads -- while not banned by the government -- were

"voluntarily" abandoned by the industry. It remains to be seen whether recent

forays into TV liquor advertising will attract the attention of regulators.

Meanwhile, politicians push to eliminate junk food and soft drinks from our

schools lest they "corrupt" the dietary habits of our children. Serious calls are

made to ban fast food advertising and ads for sugar-laden cereals. This particular

trend has only just begun to gather steam.

Ideas

Most important to consider are how ideas in mass media are treated by the state.

Unlike most countries, our First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to

keep the politicians out of this realm. (Though, of course, the examples cited

above also technically fall under this general heading.) Past governments

exercised prior restraint, either preventing publication of "bad" ideas or jailing,

fining, or censoring producers of messages the government didn't like.The case

of John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, set the stage

for the First Amendment. When he criticized the British government, he was

tried for "seditious libel" but was found not guilty because the jurors believed

that what he said was true.

Unfortunately, the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." is more honored in

the breach than in its observance.

The licensing of radio and television broadcasters; requirements that they act

responsibly and improve their communities; regulation of permissible content in

terms of language and plot; the now-defunct fairness doctrine; and the role of

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in policing the media are but a few

examples of those who do not understand all the facets of "no."

Despite the lip service given to freedom of expression, the public is less inclined

to give that approval out of principle. Too many people are far too ready to say

"there ought to be a law" whenever their favorite ox is gored.

"Generally,...support of freedom of the press is often based not on the idea that

the government simply has no right to control the press, but on the belief that a

free press is the best method for ensuring a well-informed public and a stable

democracy. When the press appears to be doing a poor job of informing the

public, support for its freedom is likely to diminish." (DeFleur and Dennis, p.

497)

Though people often recoil from images of Hitler and Goebbels (who headed the

bureau of "Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda"), close to half of today's

public agrees that "offensive" language should be prohibited. The virus of

"politically correct" speech and verbal "sexual harassment" continues to spread

from academia to the general public. Such views have ruined more than one

individual's life and crippled more than one business's operations.

Calls for "campaign finance reform" that prevent people from expressing their

political views prior to an election continue this depressing thread.

Media Influences in Context

As mentioned earlier, no one disputes the fact that mass media can help alter

behavior and beliefs. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that most

of those effects are small and, if truly effective, accumulative. In other words,

tiny bits of information add up. Repetition of a message, its consistency over

time, and apparent corroboration can help shift public opinion over the long-

term.

This process has helped change attitudes and behavior in a variety of contexts,

some for the better, some for the worse. For example, few people now think that

drunk driving is a proper thing to do. So, too, has smoking lost much of its

mystique (though the backlash has gone much too far the other way). Technical

inventions and innovations from home computers to microwave ovens to cable

TV took years to become fully accepted. Media stories helped bring about those

changes.

While disdain of littering and pollution is a useful result of media campaigns,

the pendulum in favor of "the environment" has swung too far into fantasy. New

media messages challenging such dogma as recycling, global warming, and the

ozone hole have yet to push aside the dominant images people see and hear.

Hopefully, time, truth, and fresh mass media outlets will correct the imbalance.

Despite its view of humans as irrational, stimulus-response automatons, the

strong media effects model continues to serve as a convenient tool for those

seeking to limit our freedoms. As long as we remember that we possess free will

and moral autonomy, however, those reactionaries will eventually lose.

For the vast majority of boys and girls who play cowboys and Indians, cops and

robbers, spacemen or soldiers, Barbie or teacher; who imagine themselves as

Davy Crockett, a member of the Beatles, Madonna, a Teenage Mutant Ninja

Turtle, or a Power Ranger, the short-term imitation of the actions, words, and

dress of the people they admire does no permanent damage...and may, actually,

help them survive into adulthood.

Mass media are here to stay. So, too, are the struggles over their control.

Perhaps the best tool to keep mass media in their proper place is the one

discovered after researchers studied Orson Welles's radio production of H.G.

Wells's "War of the Worlds," in 1938, for the "Mercury Theater of the Air." In

those studies, the single greatest factor influencing whether the broadcast was

taken literally or not was...the ability to think critically.

That's a media lesson we all need to learn.