The Media, does it actually influence?

There is some political science term for it (I forgot), but in short it states that:
The media does not change political orientations, it just influences a person's priorities (like focus should be on economy rather than abortion, etc.)

Any thoughts? I personally think the theory has some merit; for example, FOX news watchers won't so readily watch MSNBC and vice versa...

What do you folks think?

JoeMama said:

There is some political science term for it (I forgot), but in short it states that:
The media does not change political orientations, it just influences a person's priorities (like focus should be on economy rather than abortion, etc.)

Any thoughts? I personally think the theory has some merit; for example, FOX news watchers won't so readily watch MSNBC and vice versa...

What do you folks think?

Click to expand...

That depends, do you get any information (ANY information) from newspapers, computers, radio, cell phones, podcasts or television? Do you ever make decisions based on that information? Anyone who answers no is either a liar, ignorant, or an ignorant liar.

idk said:

That depends, do you get any information (ANY information) from newspapers, computers, radio, cell phones, podcasts or television? Do you ever make decisions based on that information? Anyone who answers no is either a liar, ignorant, or an ignorant liar.

Click to expand...

Point is taken, but you are evading the issue of will a person change his or her political orientations (like liberal ->libertarian or ->republican).

Obviously people get info from the media, that is the main source, but the question is, does that info (which is coupled with media bias) change their political orientations?

People have the habit of 'selective perception' - listening to what they only believe in or want to hear - so it's possible that a person will not change his/her ideology.

JoeMama said:

Point is taken, but you are evading the issue of will a person change his or her political orientations (like liberal ->libertarian or ->republican).

Obviously people get info from the media, that is the main source, but the question is, does that info (which is coupled with media bias) change their political orientations?

People have the habit of 'selective perception' - listening to what they only believe in or want to hear - so it's possible that a person will not change his/her ideology.

Click to expand...

Since I can't imagine many people are born with political ideology, the media are bear a great influence on said ideology. I think particular events (9/11 could be one, which probably changed the opinions of many) in a person's life bear responsibility for shaping/changing our ideology, but it is the media which introduce these events.

Being young, I used to watch only Fox news, unaware that any news media could be biased, or present misleading information. My views were primarily conservative. When I started posting on political forums, I shifted to the left. The internet, and thus the availability of more personalized and specific information, shifted my political beliefs to the left.

So, while I don't believe (for the average person) political beliefs are a simple reflection of the media, I think they bear an often understated influence on consumers. The media are powerful. If this were untrue, marketing would not be a multi-billion dollar industry.

idk said:

Since I can't imagine many people are born with political ideology, the media are bear a great influence on said ideology.

Click to expand...

Again, I understand. Just to let you know (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic), the other ways one would become politically oriented would be through family and school...at least that's what conventional wisdom has said.

idk said:

The media are powerful. If this were untrue, marketing would not be a multi-billion dollar industry.

Click to expand...

Not to fast :stop:
Can you find other multi-billion dollar industries predicated on misconceptions?
I think we could all name a few.

JoeMama said:

Again, I understand. Just to let you know (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic), the other ways one would become politically oriented would be through family and school...at least that's what conventional wisdom has said.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is definitely not an easy question you've proposed (and in all candor, I've already realized that I probably posted my answer too soon). Valid arguments are to be made claiming family and friends are the singular variable in a person's political ideology. Still, I believe the power of news media and new presentation cannot be trivialized.

[/quote]
Not to fast :stop:
Can you find other multi-billion dollar industries predicated on misconceptions?
I think we could all name a few.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but I fully believe the advertising industry cannot be included. If companies didn't have tangible evidence of significant increase in revenue following marketing campaigns or high profile advertisements, they wouldn't spend more dollars per second in super bowl ads than in high-budget, blockbuster films. Advertising works in the subconscious- and it works. News media use the exact same techniques because they understand this.

An example from a psychological study on false memory is fitting to demonstrate this point. Researchers found that interviewers could plant false memories in eyewitnesses simply through rephrasing a question. Asking the witness to a staged crime, "What color eyes did he have?" yields significantly different results than asking, "And he had brown eyes, right?"

News media such as Fox and MSNBC blatantly exploit this flaw in human reasoning on a regular basis. We've seen the headlines. A talking head presents a "report" with the title, "Does (Obama/Bush)'s new regulation create terrorism?" That question is then planted in our subconscious, triggering an emotional response and possibly altering our views on the subject. And this is only one of the most blatant techniques borrowed from advertising agencies.

James Carville once said, "Nowadays, people use the media the way a drunk uses a street lamp - for support rather than illumination."

I would wager that a high school where students learned history from regular textbooks will have a different partisan demographic than a high school that uses Howard Zinn's textbooks.

JoeMama said:

There is some political science term for it (I forgot), but in short it states that:
The media does not change political orientations, it just influences a person's priorities (like focus should be on economy rather than abortion, etc.)

Click to expand...

The way it influences is not in political ideologies. People tend to more or less know where they stand on issues and will seek out media that reflects their beliefs.

What it influences is the very discourse itself, the way people, events, and things are referred to, and the values we place on them. It also affects priorities, like you said. People are prompted by the media to care about certain things that normally they wouldn't even think about. The media defines the appropriate spectrum of discussion. For example, if you scan DebatePolitics daily as I have for over a year now, you begin to see that the range of topics discussed within the sphere of the U.S. is actually limited. The same topics are regurgitated over and over, sometimes with a new face, but the content is the same. The media not only sets priorities for discussion but it also restricts the range of discussion while simultaneously making it appear limitless.

Media is also an instrument of nationalism. The fact that news reports on all areas of the country implies right from the get go that you should care about the country as a whole. This in turn makes it the perfect dissemination tool for government.

Once media becomes corporatized as it has in the U.S., journalism becomes vulnerable to executive manipulation and sensationalism. They care more about money than journalism and so will show the most eye-catching stories. What we are seeing now is a shift away from journalism towards salaciousness for the sake of ratings, which in turn influences people to mistakenly believe that there is no major breaking news.

Right now the news is shifting away from Iraq as is what happened to Afghanistan a year after 9/11, causing the public to maybe believe that nothing big is happening, even though there is. The hot button topic is terrorism and personal safety, which is way more useful to the powers that be.

RightinNYC said:

I would wager that a high school where students learned history from regular textbooks will have a different partisan demographic than a high school that uses Howard Zinn's textbooks.

Click to expand...

And books aren't a form of media?

idk said:

And books aren't a form of media?

Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

I'm disagreeing with the statement in the OP because I believe that the media in all its forms has a huge impact on what people think and how they identify their own political beliefs.

RightinNYC said:

Where did I say that?

I'm disagreeing with the statement in the OP because I believe that the media in all its forms has a huge impact on what people think and how they identify their own political beliefs.

Click to expand...

Didnt say you said it, I drew an implication from your post. I read an opinion that seemed to discount books as a form of media and instead based ideological opinion on an education separate from media. Apparently, I misread the intent of your post.

Here's a weird out of the box question:

Is all media conservative in nature?
There's always a business sector, but no labor/union sector. Also, corporate and business interests sponsor almost all media outlets, not public sector workforce interests, like the ACLU or any sort of union official.

:screwy

Z3n said:

Here's a weird out of the box question:

Is all media conservative in nature?
There's always a business sector, but no labor/union sector. Also, corporate and business interests sponsor almost all media outlets, not public sector workforce interests, like the ACLU or any sort of union official.

:screwy

Click to expand...

That's a capitalist bias, not a liberal or conservative one. It is also not the topic of the thread.

idk said:

That's a capitalist bias, not a liberal or conservative one. It is also not the topic of the thread.

Click to expand...

And is sort of "status quo" capitalism not more conservative? :2razz:

I know its not the point, just trying to extract some larger conclusions

Z3n said:

And is sort of "status quo" capitalism not more conservative? :2razz:

I know its not the point, just trying to extract some larger conclusions

Click to expand...

Capitalism has no political bias, it follows the profits. Seeing as capitalism is consumer based and this country is center-right, there should be some apparent bias; but this is a reflection of consumer demand, not inherent capitalistic conservatism.

The media is not conducive to changing a person's political orientation because it is not a forum wherein substantive, thought provoking and insightful arguments are typically made, but where superficiality, lies, half truths and distortions reign supreme.

Z3n said:

Here's a weird out of the box question:

Is all media conservative in nature?
There's always a business sector, but no labor/union sector. Also, corporate and business interests sponsor almost all media outlets, not public sector workforce interests, like the ACLU or any sort of union official.

:screwy

Click to expand...

Let's say I'm a huge Yankee fan who owns a radio station in the Boston area. I understand that because the people in my market love Boston and hate the Yankees, I need to pander to that in order to turn a profit. As a result, I hire the most hard core Red Sox-biased commentators to host my radio shows.

Would you call my station "Yankee-biased by nature" simply because the owner likes the Yankees?

RightinNYC said:

Let's say I'm a huge Yankee fan who owns a radio station in the Boston area. I understand that because the people in my market love Boston and hate the Yankees, I need to pander to that in order to turn a profit. As a result, I hire the most hard core Red Sox-biased commentators to host my radio shows.

Would you call my station "Yankee-biased by nature" simply because the owner likes the Yankees?

Click to expand...

No, but theres a difference between reading the teleprompter and spewing out production opinion like most news casters do. And the opinion talk where actual non-singular political bias is revealed.

JoeMama said:

There is some political science term for it (I forgot), but in short it states that:
The media does not change political orientations, it just influences a person's priorities (like focus should be on economy rather than abortion, etc.)

Any thoughts? I personally think the theory has some merit; for example, FOX news watchers won't so readily watch MSNBC and vice versa...

What do you folks think?

Click to expand...

In my opinion,... media outlets provide their products to meet viewer/ listener demands in much the same (subconcious) manner that churchs meet religious demands.

That is (just as it typically is with church goers) people 'shop' from one to another to another,... not looking for one to 'change' the way they look or feel about anything,... but to find one that makes them most comfortable with how they already feel.

Just my 2 cents.

THAT SAID (edited to add 2nd. thought),....

There is a reason MILLIONS are paid for a few seconds of commercials during halftime at the Super Bowl,... "Advertising does have an affect,... else no-one would waste their money on it"

Chuz Life said:

In my opinion,... media outlets provide their products to meet viewer/ listener demands in much the same (subconcious) manner that churchs meet religious demmands.

That is (just as it typically is with church goers) people 'shop' from one to another to another,... not looking for one to 'change' the way they look or feel about anything,... but to find one that makes them most comfortable with how they already feel.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

Finally, a conservative that makes sense :lol:

Z3n said:

No, but theres a difference between reading the teleprompter and spewing out production opinion like most news casters do. And the opinion talk where actual non-singular political bias is revealed.

Click to expand...

Which rebuts my point because...?

The point is that corporations are biased toward making money. If the way to make money is to talk about how corporations are evil or how capitalism sucks, then they will do that. It's a bit simplistic to assume that because major media organizations are large corporations, they are always biased in favor of corporations or capitalism.

ScummyD said:

The media is not conducive to changing a person's political orientation because it is not a forum wherein substantive, thought provoking and insightful arguments are typically made, but where superficiality, lies, half truths and distortions reign supreme.

Click to expand...

Where do you get your news?

idk said:

Where do you get your news?

Click to expand...

Internet. Certain aggregate sites.

I'm sure it's probably happened before, but I expect that it would be extremely rare.