The Demographics of Punditry (or Why the Sunday Morning Talk Shows Get It Wrong)

An interesting and relevant discussion by Neal Gabler on the problem with political reporters:  they're out of touch with their audience.  Read it here.

What Really Influences You?

The “Hypodermic Needle” and “Two-step Flow”

World War I (1914-1918) was the first time modern media  (including newspapers, magazines, film, still photography, records and even, to a limited degree, radio) were used in a systematic way to influence public opinion.  Leaders on all sides assumed that these media were so powerful that, used properly, they could shape public opinion on a wide scale, making even those who were opposed to the war into supporters and convincing their respective publics of the rightness of their cause.  Thus began the heyday of propaganda, and the prevailing media effects theory of the 1920s through the 1950s:  the “hypodermic needle” or “direct effects” theory.

There’s nothing complicated about this theory; it simply assumes that controlled and consistent media messages can “program” audiences into certain beliefs and behaviors.  Harold Lasswell defined it in 1927 as “the control of opinion by significant symbols, … by stories, rumors, reports, pictures and other forms of social communication.”  It especially relies upon visual imagery, because images bypass the rational, logical mind and go directly to the emotions, and it’s no accident that this theory became prevalent as media became more visually-oriented.

And you know what?  It worked. 

Sort of.

Under very specific conditions.

Propaganda proved to be quite effective, at least on the surface, in such places as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (although it’s hard to tell whether the mass of people really believed in the approved messages or were too afraid to disagree.)  In both places, all media were completely controlled by the State and citizens had no access to any outside or conflicting information.  Central propaganda ministries made sure that the messages were consistent across all available channels.  In Germany, the government even made a radio set available for a very small cost—a great offer for people suffering through a horrible economic depression.  The only catch was that the radio came pre-tuned to a single channel—and could not receive anything else.

   It seemed to be pretty clear that propaganda engineered public opinion  and belief systems pretty effectively in these places, and the model that the Nazis and the Soviets used is still found in some parts of the world (most notably, North Korea).

We used propaganda, too, developing everything from radio programs to comic books to a vast array of movies—even Disney cartoons.  It’s often overlooked today that in the United States, as World War II approached, there was a huge populace opposed to getting involved in the war, and the government was determined to change their minds.  Great sums of money were spent to inject media messages into such citizens and gain their support.

And you know what?

It turns out that the propaganda didn’t work.  Those who already supported the war tended to reinforce their support.  But those who started out opposed remained largely unconvinced, at least until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Why?

For a democracy, the hypodermic needle theory is simply too simplistic (although many people still instinctively believe in it—just listen to some activists worry about the power of video games to turn children into killers.)  People in this country had access to other opinions and sources of information other than the government’s.  And they had, as it happens, less faith in the media than had been supposed.

Thus, a new model started developing in the 1940s that has become dominant:  the two-step flow theory (now refined into a more sophisticated multi-step flow model.)  I won’t take up much space to describe it; you can read a pretty good summary of it here. 

Basically, though,  flow models recognize that mass media are certainly one influence on the way we think, dress, talk, and behave.  But they’re not the only one, or even the most  powerful.  What are?

 

Other people—people we admire, respect, and want to be like.  Such people are called “Opinion Leaders.”  They may be parents, religious leaders, politicians (well, at least they used to be), sports star and other celebrities, even friends.  Their opinions count; the rest of us tend to emulate them.  In an influential recent book, The Tipping Point, writer Malcolm Gladwell distinguished two “stages” of such opinion leaders:  “mavens”, or people who collect vast amounts of information, and “connectors”,  people who somehow know so many others that they can spread ideas like a virus.

The multi-step flow model has become the basis of most modern persuasion industries, from advertising to politics.  If you can identify the 20% or so who are such people and persuade them to wear your fashion or promote your product, they will have an enormous influence upon the rest of us.

Who can you identify as “opinion leaders” who might be playing such a role in your life?

Kurt Schilling Fired By ESPN

Hall of Fame pitcher and ESPN sports analyst Kurt Schilling was fired for comments he posted on his Facebook page.  Read the story here.  Is this a violation of his free speech rights or not?  What is the responsibility of a media outlet like ESPN?

Yellow Journalism

Today's tabloids carry on a journalistic tradition begun in the 1890s:  "Yellow Journalism".  This is where the emphasis on sex, violence, sensationalism and celebrity really took root.  You can read a history of it and profiles of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer here.

Can NPR Survive?

National Public Radio has consistently served a small but dedicated following with long-form, reliable news programs like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. But that audience is aging, and younger people don't seem all that interested.  Can NPR move into the new media future?  Read an article from Slate here.

Agenda-Setting: How the Media Created Donald Trump

Salon.com, an openly partisan online magazine, published an interesting and provocative piece about the media's role in creating and maintaining the popularity of Donald Trump.  You can read it here.

First Amendment Center

It would seem that our right to free speech and a free press is long-settled and guaranteed.  Not so.  Virtually every day challenges to that right arise and are adjudicated; the right is constantly evolving.  To keep track of current First Amendment issues, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum is an excellent source.

Investigative Journalism At Its Best

One of the consequences of the decline of newspapers and other "mainstream" media has been the decline of long-form, investigative journalism.  There is a site, however, dedicated to accurate, well-researched investigative reporting:  Pro Publica.  You can access them at: https://www.propublica.org/

Agenda-Setting

AGENDA-SETTING: A few years ago now, Michael Jackson died the day before I wrote this. As I wrote, every medium I consulted was devoting huge amounts of space and/or time to this particular story. It was the lead story on network television news broadcasts, of course, as well as on their partner websites. Oddly, it was also the lead story on the local television news broadcasts as well, even though Michael Jackson’s local connections were almost laughably tenuous (the ...Experience Music Project dusted off the sequined coat he wore the first time he moonwalked, and that got video.) The remaining daily print newspaper devoted a huge headline and front-page photo to the story, as did its online edition and the online Post-Intelligencer as well. Local radio stations dedicated their full playlists to Michael Jackson songs. A Facebook friend posted the “Thriller” video from YouTube, and, of course, there was a day-long discussion thread going on the subject. Jackson’s CDs immediately moved into the 15 best-selling CDs on Amazon.com.

What happened to the protests in Iran, which had been dominating the news?

This is a classic example of one of the media’s most powerful effects: agenda-setting.
Many people worry about the ability of mass media to manipulate our thoughts, our values, or our behavior. An entire industry, advertising, is built upon the assumption that media can make us do certain things. Yet, as you’ll see, this assumption is questionable. Media has influences on our thinking, to be sure, but so do many other factors—and other people, as it turns out, are probably the most important influence.

But, as a saying goes, while the media aren’t really very good at telling us what to think, they are exceptionally good at telling us what to think about. Our daily lives are full of stimuli; we’re overwhelmed by input. Just to maintain sanity, we need to filter out much of what clamors for our attention. And modern media help us to do that, by turning a narrow lens on a few events or personalities and directing our attention toward them and away from other things. 

But who directs this lens? Editors and producers will tell you that they respond to audience demand—they give the public what the public wants to hear. But how does that public choose what it wants to hear in the first place? Can you be interested in something you haven’t heard about?
This is a useful starting point for media studies: what else is out there that we could, or maybe even should, be paying attention to? If we find ourselves discussing a particular celebrity, ask why we’ve chosen to pay that person the honor of our attention and not some other. What values does this person exemplify? What story does their life tell us? What, in short, makes them important? 

Who sets the agenda?

When We Quit Reading Newspapers (from Communications Management, Inc.)