Pages

Showing posts with label Matthew Morris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew Morris. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Push and Pull: Government and Media's Interactive Relationship


Over the course of the last few weeks, our group has been researching the many different ways in which media and politics interact. We have decided to try and synthesize all the information we have gathered into a cohesive final blog that describes this relationship.

link

Mary Beth wrote in her blog post about how media informs us. Without media, the public would not be informed about what is going on in the political realm, what the issues are, who is a contender, or what is going on in the world.
As she says in her blog "The 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.”

Taylor focused a lot on trends and found that the trends of mass communication can be seen all throughout the political realm. Some of the particular topics that were focused on were demassification, convergence, interactivity, and globalization. She was able to use great examples to back up her research due to the current Presidential election. Our group posed the question “What has more influence: media on politics? Or politics on the media?”
Taylor came to the conclusion that media has more of a role on politics Due to the impact media plays on society, politicians have to carefully edit their actions. News today is all about the latest scandal and what can be made entertaining. When you combine politics and scandals, it can take things to a whole new level.



Matthew tended to agree with Taylor and found that issues of political stereotyping, socialization, narcoticizing dysfunction, agenda setting, and the two step flow theory all point in the direction that the media shapes politics. Media is the source of our political information. Media shapes the issues our politicians debate. Media creates identities for our political parties. The amount of information media releases to the public desensitizes the voters to political issues.

link

Jordan’s research pointed to some conclusions that were different than those of Taylor and Matthew. Delving into researching the role of media as a political watchdog was much like diving into a whirlpool of murky water.  The relationship between the government and media is very cyclical in nature, with both entities pushing and pulling against one another. She agrees that media can frame political issues and set the agenda, but there are many avenues for the government to influence media. Jordan talks a lot about them in her most recent blog.

Finally, Carly focused on the economics involved. 

Click here for link
She found that when the media tends to focus on the financial aspects, the public views the politicians negatively since all the focus is around them and their money. Even though some think the amount of money used for the campaigns is ridiculous, that money is what benefits the candidates in getting ahead in the race. The financial support of politicians is a huge topic in media currently, and will be for quite some time because money is always a point of contention and concern.

link

In the United States, the media will always be inherently tied together with the political system. As the medium for transmitting the information, the media has an intrinsic power over our politics and how we view them. We are a people powered by technology and communication, with almost unlimited means of obtaining information. Because of this we must be careful to make sure we are analyzing media for ourselves, not just consuming it without thought.

link here



Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Political Stereotyping






Definitely NOT a Republican...

Freeze. The bolded sentence made some of you laugh (hopefully). Because you understood the sarcasm behind that statement. But where did the sarcasm come from? It stems from a mutual understanding on a key concept (Cowboy Hat + Gun + Southern Accent= Republican). That mental connection is an example of a political stereotype. Stereotyping is an effect of repetitive mass communication that creates the relationship between certain traits and an idea, person, or thing..  This is becoming a big issue in our over saturated society which is compounded by the democratic nature of American society. Writer Andrew Norman explains more in his blog;

"In the US, issue ownership analysis is part of broader theories about voter ignorance. We know from many surveys that the general public has very limited knowledge of political institutions and policies. They tend not to know very much about broader social trends either. This means that electors draw on various informational short-cuts to make political decisions."

One of these informational shortcuts is the stereotyping of political parties. Candidates can now run for office with less to fear about the issues, their voting record, or their moral turpitude; it all has to do with whether or not there is an "R" or "D."  



The use of stereotyping in politics is readily apparent in social commentary about politics. Look at SNL and there use of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. It was a phenomena which shaked the political landscape. An image was created by the media, and that very stereotype came to define her and the presidential election. 


While it could be argued that this is image branding and not stereotyping, the amount of political coverage which revolves around similar themes is unprecedented. Majors news stations, FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc. will present their stories on politicians through "stereotypical Republican" or "stereotypical Democrat" lenses. 

Sources


1. Inskeep, S. & Roberts, C. (2012, April)



Monday, March 26, 2012

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

Thursday, March 22, 2012


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?



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