#16 Media molding minds
Media Molding Minds
Lukas Otteson
Professor Eng
COMM 302-6981 Mass Communication and Media Studies
University of Maryland University College
November 2, 2018
Introduction
What do technological determinism, media, and the future of American politics have in common? Leo Marx and Merritt Roe Smith (as cited in Hess, 2015) say that technological determinism is the idea that “an invention once introduced into society,” takes on “a life of its own.” Langdon Winner (as cited in Hess, 2015) argues that the core assumption of it is that technology forms the basis of social life and “changes in technology are the single most important basis of change in society.” Technological determinism is an idea that may be interpreted as society adapting to technology. Smith and Marx (as cited in Hess, 2015) also argue that technological determinism is a view that circulates widely in the media. If we are operating under the assumption that we, collectively, must adapt to technology rather than adapting our technology to our society, then the question may become “are we adapting?” Our society needs to adapt to its technology sooner rather than later, especially with the expectation to adapt perpetuating throughout it.
One specific domain that draws particular concern is in the political arena. Taylor Dotson said that technological determinism contributes “to the biasing of political discourses, practices, and organizations toward non-decision making and adaptation with regards to technological change (2015). Our modern media is influencing our attitudes and perceptions toward political candidates and we need to become aware of its influence in order to live in a society that isn’t shaped mindlessly into whatever benefits people controlling media. Technology is powerful and if we don’t adapt, it could be dangerous; we could be manipulated into carrying out the wishes of the parties controlling media and lose our independent, critical-thinking when it comes to elections. Lev Manovich (as cited in Wielgosz, 2017) reasons that technological determinism is based on the assumption that technology has the fundamental and decisive influence on shaping society’s customs. Biased political discourses, practices, and organizations are inherent because people are inherently biased, but certainly are not anything for a society to aspire to. If our modern media reinforces bias, then that could help to explain the political divide in America. If the media is, in fact, influencing our attitudes and perceptions toward candidates, then we need to be aware and adapt. If we don’t adapt, we run the risk of becoming a country that does whatever is best for the people controlling the media, rather than for the citizens as a whole. The media is the technology that we need to adapt to, or run the risk of having our perceptions and attitudes toward potential American political leaders manipulated by it.
Opinion Shows and Partisan Programming
Today, our news programming and journalism has been muddied by opinion shows and the distinction between news and opinion is something that viewers have been left to decipher on their own. Opinion shows have been the subject of scrutiny in regards to influencing voter behavior. Glen Smith & Kathleen Searles examined the content and effects of opinion shows during the 2008 presidential election, finding that opinion shows devoted the majority of their time to attacking the opposing candidate instead of praising the like-minded candidate and that exposure to opinion shows made viewers less favorable toward the opposition candidate and more toward the like-minded candidate (Smith & Searles, 2012). Opinion shows having influential power and people not understanding rationale for opposing viewpoints are the makings of an ignorant populace. The media may be helping people choose to align with viewpoints without them ever challenging themselves to come to their own logical conclusions. If an opinion show is lacking rationale and the viewers of this show are also not understanding the oppositional rationale, then they are without rationale. Smith & Searles’ results suggested that opinion shows had a stronger effect on viewer perceptions of candidates than news shows, like viewing a candidate as ideologically extreme (for both liberals and conservatives) (2012).
Smith & Searles said, “It is possible that exposure to opinion shows on cable news and political talk radio increases the vitriol in modern politics, where any attempt to compromise is viewed as consorting with the enemy,” (2012). Selective exposure is perpetuated by this fear of opposing viewpoints and people have to understand and remove themselves from this vicious cycle if they wish to make truly informed decisions about who they vote for.
The partisan divide among popular mediums of political discussion is easy to see and only aids in the selective exposure that is fermenting throughout the collective conscience of the American people and their thinking about political candidates. Philip Jones, Paul Brewer, and Dannagal Young conducted a study examining how exposure to network news, partisan opinion talk, and political satire programs during the 2012 Iowa presidential caucuses affected viewers’ perceptions of candidate viability (likelihood of capturing the party nomination) and electability (likelihood of winning the general election) (2016). Jones et al. noted the way in which ABC World News (traditional broadcast evening news), Fox News Channel’s Hannity (typical partisan opinion talk genre), and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (typical of political satire genre) framed the story of the 2012 Iowa presidential caucuses and the different ways that they affected viewers (2016). Their study would have been more telling if they had either both liberal and conservative shows for each type of show they picked or independent, impartial shows for satire, opinion talk, and traditional evening news genres, but their finding can still be interpreted in ways that show media influencing attitudes and perception toward candidates. Jones et al. found that respondents who watched all three genres found Mitt Romney to be more viable while those who only watched Hannity viewed Romney as more electable than those assigned to the control or to view The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (2016). They concluded that the assessments of the front-runner were significantly shaped by assignment to view television coverage, demonstrating potential importance of all three media genres in the presidential nomination process (Jones et al., 2016). Morris’ study found that the use of Fox News as a primary source of information was significantly associated with a higher tendency to subscribe to negative stereotypes of Democratic leaders and reject negative stereotypes of Republican leaders, vote choice is associated with Fox News and CNN, and both audiences perceive the current state of domestic and international affairs differently (2007). Different types of media are resulting in different attitudes and behaviors toward candidates and if we aren’t fact-checking our sources, then we may be instruments in an agenda. Sunstein (as cited in Smith & Searles, 2012) stated that partisan news sources allow people to isolate themselves from contrary arguments. Mutz and Martin (as cited in Smith & Searles, 2012) say, “this selective exposure can increase hostility and polarization because neither side understands the rationale for opposing viewpoints.” We need to be critical of all these sources and not trust their information just because it aligns with our biases. We need to expose ourselves to sources that look at the world differently than we do, because if we don’t look at it from all angles, then we may be missing something. If we don’t adapt, then we can be deceived by simply appealing to our biases.
Bias
Bias within the media can influence perceptions and attitudes and if that bias isn’t identified, then it can be unknowingly adopted by viewers despite the possibility that it doesn’t represent their best interests or, in fact, what they claim to support. Jakob-Moritz Eberl, Markus Wagner, and Hajo Boomgaarden studied the effects of visibility bias, tonality bias, and agenda bias on voter assessments of politicians’ traits (2016). They say that visibility bias “exists when party leader is the subject of an undue amount of coverage (high or low) compared with other leaders and other media outlets,” tonality bias “exists when evaluations toward one candidate are systematically more or less favorable compared with other candidates in the same outlet and the same candidate in other outlets,” and agenda bias “may exist if candidates can talk about their issues and positions in the media (Brandenburg, 2005); negative agenda bias is present if candidates are connected to issues they try to avoid,” (Eberl et al., 2016). All of these biases are evident in Smith & Searles’ study, showing that opinion shows have a disparity in coverage for oppositional or like-minded candidates, give oppositional candidates more coverage and less favorable evaluations, and allow a channel like Fox News or CNN to use opinion shows as a vehicle to push their agenda (2012). They concluded that voters “update their assessments of candidates’ competence and assertiveness in response to valenced portrayals of candidates in the media,” that voters “perceive candidates political traits and overall image more favorably if those candidates are able to address their own favored topics relatively more prominently in media coverage, thereby probably priming the specific issues on which they want their political aptitude to be assessed (Druckman et al., 2004)”, that there “was evidence that visibility bias moderated the effects of tonality bias concerning competence perceptions,” and that “if tonality bias is negative, more visibility somewhat worsens the impact of media coverage for that candidate,” (Eberl et al., 2016). Morris said, “individuals who see bias in political news reporting believe that the direction of the bias is counter to their own political beliefs (Perloff, 1989; Vallone, Ross, and Lepper, 1985),” (2007). Morris said, “Americans are getting different versions of the same issues and events, which may hinder the chances of political moderation and compromise among the mass public,” and concluded that, “This phenomenon exposes a possible irony of the fragmented media era: as the number of available news sources increases, the likelihood that the public is exposed to counterattitudinal [sic] perspectives might actually decrease,” (2007). This all makes sense, but it requires a processing of news programming that acknowledges these biases. Until this type of processing becomes common sense, there is still work to be done. Technological determinism would tell us that we need to adapt to today’s news, and that it isn’t going to change for us. Therefore, awareness of these biases needs to added to the repertoire with which the aspiring informed American needs to be equipped.
Online News and Social Networking
Online news and social networking sites may be influencing attitudes and behavior more than most realize as well. Monathar Faraon, Georg Stenberg, and Mauri Kaipainen examined the differences in influence between online news (e.g New York Times) and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) on attitudes in political campaigns (2014). Faraon et al. found that, “information emanating from online news had a significant influence on explicit and implicit attitudes while that of social networking sites did not” while “negative information from either type of media was more likely to change participants’ explicit attitudes in a negative direction and as a consequence also change their vote [sic],” (2014). Media is clearly shaping people’s perceptions and attitudes toward candidates. There is a pattern forming in terms of negativity from the media being significantly manipulative. Negative information from either online news or social networking sites being influential enough for people to change their votes is concerning. Faraon et al. noted that those who viewed material on Youtube and Facebook were more likely to vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election than those who viewed television network sites and presidential candidate websites, despite being perceived as less credible than online news media known for credibility and quality in the editorial process (2014). Christiane Amanpour warned against the algorithms in social networks and internet use that reinforce selective exposure, saying that users are becoming entrenched in a cycle of like-mindedness and avoidance of opposing views (2017). Like-mindedness doesn’t necessarily entail correctness and some Americans may be at a point now where they’re choosing misinformation over credible sources because they suspect bias. Both online news and social networking sites are shaping attitudes and perceptions toward candidates and neither blindness to bias nor adoption of misinformation is going to be a satisfactory adjustment to this new world of news.
Conclusion
The media is affecting the way people are perceiving candidates and people must become aware of how they’re being manipulated if they want to have an honest say in what happens in America. The future of our political discourse depends on us adapting to the new world of “news.” People need to know the differences between shows giving opinions and news programming. We need to be aware of the biases and agendas of different programs in order to critically analyze the information being given to us as objectively as possible. We need to remove ourselves from the vicious cycle of selective exposure and seek the truth. Right now, we have adapting to do. We need to be honest with ourselves as to how much the media molds our minds or give away our freedom to participate in American political discourse.
References
Amanpour, C. (2017, September). How to seek truth in the era of fake news. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/christiane_amanpour_how_to_seek_truth_in_the_era_of_fake_news
Dotson, T. (2015). Technological determinism and permissionless innovation as technocratic governing mentalities: Psychocultural barriers to the democratization of technology. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, Vol 1, Pp 98-120 (2015), 98. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.17351/ests2015.009
Eberl, J., Wagner, M., & Boomgaarden, H. (2016). Are perceptions of candidate traits shaped by the media? The effects of three types of media bias. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(1), 111-132. doi:10.1177/1940161216674651
Faraon, M., Stenberg, G., & Kaipainen, M. (2014). Political campaigning 2.0: The influence of online news and social networking sites on attitudes and behavior. JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy & Open Government, Vol 6, Iss 3, Pp 231-247 (2014), (3), 231. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.76fd62147b8843099311b6cd3c4c6c8d&site=eds-live&scope=site
Hess, D. (2015). Power, ideology, and technological determinism. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, Vol 1, Pp 121-125 (2015), 121. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.17351/ests2015.010
Jones, P. E., Brewer, P. R., & Young, D. G. (2016). The effects of traditional news, partisan talk, and political satire programs on perceptions of presidential candidate viability and electability. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 24(3), 172-184. doi:10.1080/15456870.2016.1184666
Morris, J. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 707-728. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00479.x
Smith, G., & Searles, K. (2013). Fair and balanced news or a difference of opinion? Why opinion shows matter for media effects. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 671–684. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1177/1065912912465922
Wielgosz, Marcin. (2017). Usefulness and potential benefits of analyzing new media from the perspective of L. Manovich’s soft technological determinism – The case of Instagram and Smartphone. Social Communication, Vol 3, Iss 2, Pp 6-13 (2017), (2), 6. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1515/sc-2017-0007
