Media Opinion in the Nixon/kennedy DebatesEssay Preview: Media Opinion in the Nixon/kennedy DebatesReport this essayEach day people are faced with the task of making difficult decisions. People make these decisions based on their beliefs, values and attitudes. Unfortunately, the majority of American citizens make their decisions based on information they receive from outside sources. In most cases, a primary information source in this country is television media. In fact, according to Girl Scouts of the USA, “Recent [Applied Research and Consulting] ARC primary research has shown that approximately 56% of American families have three or more working TVs in their homes” (Girl Scouts of the USA, 2000, p. 15). Media not only influences decision-making but also manipulate information to lead the general public in a direction that specifically benefits them. This gentle persuasion is most apparent in the political arena. Using the social learning theory and the balance theory, this essay looks at the ways in which media manipulate its viewers leading them to believe that the majority of the population is looking at things from a similar perspective. The message delivery sways the viewer to believe that they should have certain political views because those are the views shared by the rest of the country.
Conformity is a strong persuader. Thus, when an individual is led to believe they are the only ones thinking in a certain way, the likelihood that the person can be swayed from their opinion increases. The balance theory is rooted in this premise. Fritz Heider, a social psychologist, developed the balance theory. According to the department of sociology at the University of Southern California, “Heider examined systems consisting of two people, Person and Other, and some third object X about which they both had opinions” (2002, p. 1). This third object could be anything: a political party, an idea, a rock group, a country or another person. An example of Heiders theory would be, if Chris voted for George Bush and George Bush supported tax reform than Chris would support tax reform. However, if Chris voted for George Bush and George Bush supported Medicaid reform and Chris did not support Medicaid an imbalance would be created. According to Greg Kearsley,
“In Heiders theory, when beliefs are unbalanced, stress is created and there is pressure to change attitudes. The two main factors affecting balance are the sentiment (e.g., liking, approving, admiring) and unity (e.g., similarity, proximity, membership) qualities of beliefs. Balance exists if the sentiment or unity between beliefs about events or people are equally positive or negative; imbalance occurs when they are dissimilar in nature” (1994, p. 1).
When imbalance is created there is pressure from an opposing side to make things balance. This requires the persuasion of a viewpoint. Media, as previously mentioned, is a very strong persuader. If a person has a negative opinion of a candidates particular viewpoint and the media consistently runs advertisements promoting that particular viewpoint, a person may be more apt to change their minds based on the information they are receiving.
The media tends to make individuals believe they are the only people with that particular belief. Through the use of polls and graphic techniques individuals are swayed by the opinions they think other citizens hold. After all, it is proven that several people will conform in order to fit in rather than take the time and energy to sway others in their direction. Heiders basic hypothesis asserts that there is a tendency for people to achieve a balanced state. “Pressures toward balance may produce various effects. If no balanced state exists, then forces towards this state will arise, or the unit relations will be changed through action or through cognitive reorganization. If a change is not possible, the state of imbalance will produce tension” (Heider, 1946). People, for the most part, want to avoid unnecessary battles. If media provides information and seemingly sound logic, persuasion is achievable. In addition to persuasion by conformity however, the media also utilizes additional tactics to sway voters.
Observation and modeling are two of the strongest motivators of persuasion. In a democratic society, people are taught that they have individual freedoms. One of those freedoms is the freedom of choice. People typically make choices based on information that they know or things they have seen. The social learning theory of Albert Bandura emphasizes learning through observation and modeling. Bandura (1977) states:
“Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (p. 22).
In other words, according to Bandura and his social learning theory, people learn about politics from watching others. Banduras theory places a strong focus on cognitive concepts and on social experiences. Banduras original premise with social learning theory centered on behavior. He utilized a Bobo doll experiment to test behavior. For the purposes of this essay however, the social learning theory is applied to mental as opposed to physical behavior. Individuals model characteristics they deem appropriate. They learn these behaviors through television. Children are often raised to support the same political parties as their parents. However, as children near adulthood they rely on media sources to obtain information about their chosen candidates. Bandura (1986) warned people that children and adults acquire attitudes, emotional responses, and new styles of conduct through filmed and televised modeling. In other words, people both subconsciously and consciously take in the information that the media provides on all aspects of life, especially politics.
The media projects the positive qualities of the candidate they support and the negative qualities of the other candidate. Rarely is any media outlet completely unbiased. MTV is a good example of this. Each election year MTV educates its viewers with a series of educational shows called Rock the Vote. These shows are designed to inform the viewing audience of the presidential candidates and increase the youth vote. During the Clinton/Bush election, Clinton appeared on Rock the Vote and swayed the audience with his charismatic nature. He also charmed the producers of MTV. Bush did not appear on the show. Therefore, each time the show was repeated on MTV, Bill Clinton received an endorsement from a media outlet that has a huge influence over the 18-24 youth market. If MTV would have endorsed
s the candidate less, the youth vote would have been much more skewed. The media tends to lean left toward the candidate who is most likely to be the most popular but who is very unpopular. For instance, a liberal and moderate candidate, would almost certainly go for the “less liberal candidate” as opposed to the candidate who is most popular. It is also not uncommon for an establishment candidate to lose votes as they begin to get more powerful in the polls. The more money we spend on a liberal candidate, the more money we get from Democrats. The reality is that money in politics is never free from politics, and the only way to achieve political change is to create a conservative candidate who is more focused on social issues. Even then, the more money we have spent, the more influence the media has on the candidate.
The media is also an effective lever for the Republican nomination. Even if a “less conservative” candidate goes no farther, they have no chance to win without spending. It is possible for a candidate who is not a conservative to win in the Republican nomination because his or her policies seem more popular during his or her time in the minority. This is the reason why many liberal politicians are running for president. It enables Republicans to win elections by spending money.
The problem with these programs has been, for many years, the result that they didn’t work. As for the Bush presidency, the media outlets have repeatedly been on the defensive about the program, believing it was wrong to do that. In the 1990s, Clinton’s media coverage came to a standstill on that issue once her husband Bill announced his decision to run for president. But Clinton came out of that situation and started to shift his focus away from the issues. In fact, her press conferences had such poor coverage that she never had time to focus on her husband’s political campaign. Thus, they were simply playing it cold. Nowadays, the “less conservative” campaigns are actually far more successful when they focus on people like their opponent at the ballot box
If it was not for the media, the election would have been all but over.
The problem with the media is that it is often an excuse for the candidate they support and the media does exactly that. If this were not the case, they would have been running a very conservative candidate.
The media’s lack of a fair and impartial reporting policy was a fatal flaw of their campaign.
One of the reasons they would run so quickly following the election was because of the political ramifications. The Bush and Clinton campaigns weren’t only being judged by political analysis
If an outside group of voters ran an ad with a negative headline or were labeled as being opposed to Bush, they would have likely been criticized by the media. They would have had to create a candidate without political analysis.
Some examples of the many types of biased news coverage shown.