Voting in Political Elections

The ability to vote is paramount to the success and continuation of a democratic government. But why do we vote the way we do? Well believe it or not mass media has the power to help decide who gets elected. In my last post, I covered how campaigning affects the politicians whom are running for office, now let's look at how mass media effects the people voting for those candidates.

In a humorous use of hyperbole, Family Guy hits the disheartening reality that many voters don't really know why they believe certain things, hold viewpoints, or support candidates. They hear buzz words which generate a connotation based on associations held with those words. So how were the associations built? According to the idea of socialization the associations are created from the experiences people have.

According to the Kids Health organization "kids under age 6 watch an average of about 2 hours of screen media a day, kids and teens 8 to 18 years spend nearly 4 hours a day in front of a TV screen and almost 2 additional hours on the computer (outside of schoolwork) and playing video games."

With that proportion of children's life devoted to mass media there is no doubt it plays a role in everything about their life; including political party affiliation. While it is true there is a direct socialization effect from children copying their parents, generally households tune into news stations which are similar to their beliefs. If a household only watches one source of mass media for their news, they are only getting one perspective on the issues which surround them.

From children to adults, the 24 hour news cycle, the endless supply of political commentators, and the inundation of partisan stories; the mass media plays a large role in how we vote.

Another theory on the effect of mass media is the narcoticizing dysfunction effect; it says that the volume of information creates passive audiences This effect is currently visible in American politics of today. In a statistical brief released by the United States Census Bureau using information collected during the 2008 Presidential election. The numbers showed that the younger a person is, the less likely they were to vote. While there are other confounding variables, it is interesting to note the younger generations are more connected to mass media. 

Sources:

1. Shabazz, A. (2006, May).

2. "What is Socialization?" http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/baldwin/classes/soc142/scznDEF.html

3. Kids Health. http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html

4. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

Campaigning with Media Theories: Agenda Setting, Two-Step Flow, and Ron Paul

The humorous video about Ron Paul embedded in this post could just show the typical press coverage third tier presidential candidates receive from mainstream media sources. That is one hypothesis, but it is possible it could also be seen as one example of a larger trend in the media today. The video contains videos from the different major television networks FOX, CNN, and MSNBC talking on similar points presenting a similar story. Is it just coincidence that all these separate major networks touch on the same themes? Is it just a coincidence they all choose to ignore poor Ron Paul?

Media theorists Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw would say it is more than just shear happenstance. They agreed that "The mass media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political images ofpolitical figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting whatindividuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about."

In politics, the media theory of Agenda Setting (what McCombs and Shaw were describing) is not just an idea, it is a political reality. The name of the game is airtime; the more a candidate's name is out there, the better their chances of success in a campaign. If a candidate fails to get on the agenda, or fails to touch the political issues found on the agenda, then they might as well pack up and go home.  What is on the agenda, are the issues which people think are important.

One way fringe candidates attempt to gain publicity is through celebrity endorsements and media commentators. Think Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rachel Maddow.

Oh, poor Ron Paul. Not the type of endorsement you want.


In an article published in the International Journal of Press/Politics it was found that endorsements from famous and influential people increases perceived viability as a candidate, perceived chances of winning, and more media exposure. This is study is similar to the Theory of Two Step Flow in communication. This theory states people's opinions are based on opinion leaders, not direct influence from the media. 


While these leaders are not necessarily famous (preachers, politicians, and community leaders) the fundamental relationship is the same. Opinion leaders hear about information, create their own opinions on the matter, express those opinions to their base of support, and those people become "opinion followers."


-Matthew Morris

Sources:

1. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747787?seq=2
2. International Journal of Press/Politics. http://hij.sagepub.com/content/13/4/386.abstract
3. Jon Stewart.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo 
4. Weimann, Gabriel. (1994).
5. Stephen Colbert.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX_c0Sa7oqk

Media as a Watchdog: Keeping the Government in Check

The media is often referred to as the “watchdog” of the government. It is taken for granted that the job of journalists and reporters is to monitor government actions and report them to the public with the intention of protecting and informing us. 

So, very obviously, it looks a little something like this:

or this: 

However, the usefulness and effectiveness of the media in this role is not as clear. In an article written by Warren Franke, he states that the only way to even partially understand medias role is by studying “the evolving institutional history of the press, including its control, ethics, laws, technology, organization, and the content of news stories.” 

But the government can also play a similar role in moderating what information can be distributed through different media. What I really want to discuss in the rest of my blogs is how the media can set agendas and frame issues. As well as how the government pushes back and censors media to a certain extent.

According to the Public Broadcasters Corporation, censorship can be defined in many different ways. In ancient times it was defined as assessing or opinion giving. 

However, in today’s world there is no single agreed upon definition so for the purposes of my posts I am going to define it very broadly as the “official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order.

The watchdog role of the media is often seen as a necessity to democracy and monitoring the behavior of government officials. I found this article to be very interesting and explanatory of how media, finances and the government are so interconnected.

While the many opportunities that technology like twitter, facebook – and yes even blogs - afford to journalists and politicians in getting information to the public, there are issues of credibility and transparency that deserve some thought.

Other Sources: 

Franke, Warren. The Evolving Watchdog: The Media’s Role in Government Ethics. 1995.

Audiences? Trends? Voting? What is it all about?

Demassification. Concentration. Convergence. Interactivity. Globalization. What are these words you ask? Trends; trends found in mass communication. But what exactly do these words mean? Let’s start off by defining demassification since this will be a major part of my discussion. Demassification is defined as “media’s focus on narrower audience segments” (Vivian 11). The other trends listed above are pretty self-explanatory. In mass media, these types of trends are extremely important. They allow a company, or in my case, the political realm to become invested in their audience and gain the support needed to be sustained.

Let’s look at an example. In an article titled “The Uses of Polarization” by Thomas B. Edsall, he discusses that “a primary goal of a presidential campaign is to incrementally increase margins of support among volatile and persuadable demographic groups…" We can see that it is all about the audience and use of trends like demassification. In the online article he begins to explain the ethnic groups that the Republicans and Democrats tend to advertise towards.

In order for a candidate to gain the attention of the voter, several measures must be taken. There are about 3 that I can think of:

1)                   Pick a cause to support. 

2)                   Make said video or advertisement about the cause to draw in the voter.

3)                   Travel around the country trying to gain the respect and interest of as many

              voters as possible.

These steps seem appropriate, right? On YouTube you can find many

political ads that are linked to a certain "group" of voters. Let’s take a look at one: Can

you guess what "group" he is talking to?

      In an essay by David C. King, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, he outlines “Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter.” He describes the notions that politicians go through and makes known the difference between the stages of voting and the dedication of the politician to each voter in that stage. Does that make sense? Here is a better way to put it: “This paper tracks the relationship between a congressional district’s two-party competition and a member’s fidelity to voter interests.” According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives website, during the 2010 US Representatives Election the state of South Carolina had a total of 1,318,794 voters and the country total was 86,784,957 voters. No wonder trends such as demassification and concentration have to be used to gain the attention of such diverse and large audiences.

      In my next blog I will draw on the topic of globalization and interactivity in relation to the political spectrum. 

Sources Used:

The Media of Mass Communication by John Vivian

"Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter" by David C. King

"The Uses of Polarization" by Thomas B. Edsall

Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 2, 2010 by the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Karen L. Haas

In trying to answer the question, “Does Media shape Politics, or do Politics shape Media?” we have to look at the purposes and functions of media in political context…

                The media informs.

                The media persuades.

                The media builds communities.

Without media, how would the public know what is going on in the world of politics? What are the issues? Who is ahead in the polls? Media acts as the bridge between the government and the people. The only way to gain political awareness is through media consumption. There is no direct communication between the United States and the American people. The media is the informant. In 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense to inform his fellow soon-to-be-Americans about the misconduct of Britain. He used mass media to provide the public with information they did not have before. As Common Sense reached more readers, the informed population continued to grow. An exigency was established. A discourse began.  A community of support emerged, as well as a community of opposition.  One pamphlet catalyzed the fight for American independence. While, Paine used the pamphlet as his medium, today, we rely on newspaper, television, radio, internet, even posters and bumper stickers for information.