Dr. Janet McMullen

Updated:  11/11/2002

As we begin our discussion of how media affect various aspects of our individual and social lives, it's important to recognize that many of these effects are so much a part of our culture, that we don't even think about them.  The questions we have to ask ourselves are, "Does it have to be this way?  Do these effects have to take place? What can we do about it? What should we do about it?"  

By the time the election was over in 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore had each spent $50 million on television commercials and each of their parties will have spent another $$60 million! (MSNBC, AP,10/31/200  In the recent gubernatorial campaign in Alabama, both candidates will have spent a combined $10 million on television commercials. (Anderson, 10/28/02)   What is the role of television advertising and news coverage in our democratic republic?  What do we, as citizens, need to appreciated and understand about the effects it has on our system and our country?

In a 1997 speech before the Radio Television News Director's Association, Dan Rather stated that he believed the greatest danger before new is that entertainment values "completely overwhelm news values" and the search for ratings is paramount."  (McClellan, 9/29/97p 59 )

One of the most important effects of news is AGENDA SETTING:   Media don't tell people what to think, but rather what to think about.  Related to that concept:

• Prestige Conferral:  If it's on TV, it's important.
• Symbolic Annihilation:  If it's not on TV, it's not important or it doesn't exist at all.

According to Center for Media and Public Affairs, crime is the major story of the 90s, with nearly 10,000 stories on crime since 1990 as of July, 1997, Averaging 110 stories per month, 4 per day in those seven years. The topic which was a distant second was economic news with 6,673 stories..That was followed by health and medical stories with more than 6,000 and in fourth place at 4,962 stories was the topic of the Soviet Union and Russia. Crime stories made a radical jump in number in 1993 when coverage doubled.

Other trends which present problems with serving the democratic interests of citizens:

• The softening of news through the increase of feature stories over hard news stories. Feature stories totaled 20% of NBC Nightly News stories.
• Decrease of foreign news coverage. How are we supposed to know whether or not our leadership is doing what we want if we have no understanding of the rest of the world? Foreign news coverage dropped from the 30%+ in 1990 to 15-23% in 1996 (ABC had 23% and NBC had 15%). (Center for Media and Public Affairs, "News...", 1997)

Another CMPA research project revealed:

• Only 51% believe media get the facts straight.
• 37% think media are not careful to correct their errors.
• General complaints include
  • too much emphasis on negative news
  • too much violence
  • Most believe the news is generally accurate and not overly sensational
  • 63% believe one side is favored in news stories
  • 77% believe political biases exist in news stories
  • Most believe that bias is liberal (43%)
  • 63% think news media help democracy
  • 52% think media abuse their power.
  • 60% believe journalists do NOT share the values and beliefs of most Americans
  • 63% think journalists are influenced by influential people and groups.
  • Large numbers perceive journalists as more arrogant, cynical and less compassionate than average people.
  • 80% think media often invade people's privacy.
  • 84% think government should require media to give equal coverage (!).
  • 70% support court-imposed fines for inaccurate reporting

(CMPA, "What..." 1997)  Research conducted by the ASNE Journalism Credibility Project found similar results. (American Association of Newspaper Editors)

Other factors which influence public perception of credibility and truth...

Professional Acceptance of Deception: A recent article in News Photographer discussed whether or not hidden cameras were justified. Some contended that deception was necessary to reveal corruption and hidden vices. But others argue that it's hard to say you value the truth when the primary tool used to get is based on deception. The conclusion of the article suggested that hidden cameras should be used only when prominent people are involved and when significant issues of public concern are at stake.  (Scherer, 1997)

Soap Opera... The American public has been upset with the coverage of the Clinton scandal, especially the fact that so much time has been devoted to it. One unhappy reader wrote to the Washington Post, "Never in American history has so much been said by so many who know so little about nothing..." But as the coverage increased, so did Pres. Clinton's popularity, according to polls. And while they objected to the coverage, the public watched it - LOTS of it.

Money....Another reason why truth is questioned, and credibility is compromised results from the extremely lucrative contracts paid to top news people. The question then becomes "Are they in it to tell me what I need to know, or are they in it for the money?"

So WHAT?

Why is the issue of credibility so important? Because accurate, significant information provided to a thinking, involved and caring electorate is essential for a democratic republic to function. If in this country, television news is our primary source of information,, what happens to the electoral process, indeed to our republic, if that source cannot be trusted with providing the truth? What happens if they don't even SEEK the TRUTH, but rather what works best for themselves?

This was the topic of a recent article in Columbia Journalism Review. James Carey wrote:

"Indeed the tone and imagery of these scandal, if not their origins, are now a function of unused capacity in communications: too much time and space chasing too little information. As a result, news is displaced by hyperbole, rumor and innuendo as if the technology had caused a cultural stroke. And in the midst of this, journalists, particularly on the television, seem to derive unusual pleasure from the national trauma, suggesting they no longer have a stake in the Republic. After all, if it is good for journalists, it ought to be good for the country.

"Attempts to excuse the press from diminishing the authority of the democratic institutions simply will not work." He goes on to say that arguing that it's always been that way or that they're pleasing the audience won't work. Carey says this position is based on the assumption that times will always be good. But what happens if we have a serious crisis, and the institutions we have depended upon to provide information and to lead our country are no longer perceived as dependable?....(Carey, 1998)

How is news defined?

Jack Fuller, in his book: NEWS VALUES offers some key formulas that define news and related concepts:

News = significance + interest

And he provides a standard of truth:  truth = accuracy + objectivity       (Philosophers might have some others definitions.)

• Objectivity = depersonalization + balance    
• Depersonalization = no ideological perspectives or evaluations of the reporter affect the story
• Balance = Neutrality = fairness + equanimity for all sides of an issue or story

Bias is the opposite of objectivity.  Bias = personal opinion + lack of balance

But we don't always meet that standard, and Fuller provides a list of FUNDAMENTAL BIASES that help to explain why:

• bias of immediacy:  limited background info, that which we can get quickly
• bias of interest: that which people will watch
  • usually negative because it has more drama
  • may result in whole areas of significance being ignored completely
• bias of proximity:  that which is close to the audience's community (why we don't have a lot of internationals news -- most of us don't care if it's not in our back yard.)

Robert Entman provides another list of biases:

• evaluation bias:  How do media decide what's important?  Because "someone important" says it is? The more important people think something is important, the more attention media give the issue or event.
• production bias: These are the result of the demands of the industry -- what it takes to get the story or newscast on the air -- and include such things as
  • Can you get your reporters there to cover it?
  • Is the story worth the money it takes to cover it?
  • Will the audience care or will they turn the station?
  • Can you tell the story in the time available?
• event context:  What else is going on?  (During the Olympics not much campaign coverage took place, and the MLB Playoffs and World Series took time away as well.  When the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in the middle east, the campaign virtually disappeared for two or three days.)
• skill:  How well can you tell your story?  Here's where "SPIN" comes in.  Spin is putting the event in the best light for your people or your position. 

Slant is a different concept:  Slant is the result of decision that journalists must make because of the nature of the industry.  They include the following:

• not every story can fit into a 22 minute newscast
• not every story can be first
• how easy is it to get the story?
• how much time can you devote to a single story?
• how will the story be covered?
• should the story be covered at all?

Those decisions will be influenced by two conflicting ideals about journalism:

• Mirror Reality Ideal:  The job of the press is to mirror reality with as much objectivity and accuracy as possible.
• Watchdog Role:  Media must actively choose what to report and hold government accountable; that means they go after the stories and must make personal judgments

News slant has some key levels as well:

• Importance
  • placement : first stories are assumed to be more important
  • length: longer stories are assumed to be more significant
  • repetition: the more a story appears, the more important it must be
  • duplication: do other networks and media carry the same story? If so, then it must be important.
• Criticism:  how negative is the coverage? 
• Linkage: what connections are made between the subjects of the story and persons responsible for it? Are consequences clear?
• Perspective: what sources are chosen? How was that decided?

In a classic book on news, News from Nowhere, Edward J. Epstein attributes some of the clauses of slant to be

• loyalty to the company: It's pretty hard to report something that hurts the company that provides your check.
• peer expectations: What will your peers and colleagues think of what you're doing?
• shared ideology: Most of the people in the media have similar backgrounds, especially regarding education and journalistic training and philosophy.
• bang per buck:  The bottom line and ratings are key influences in what goes into a news program.
• personal ambition:  People want to cover the stories that will get them noticed, so you don't want to do anything that will jeopardize your chances of getting on the air or getting the "good" stories.  "Don't rock the boat."

This all gets more complicated as media companies get bought into mega media conglomerates and the concept of "synergy" [or in the vernacular, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...."] becomes more and more important.

Charles Prestwich Scott was a founder of the journalistic profession.  He wrote that the role of the journalist was to help the audience to "see life is steady and see it whole."  To him that meant

•    steady = seeing the day's events in proportion   (context, priorities, values)
•    whole = understanding the connections among events  (consequences and causes)

Fallows believes we have lost sight of that goal and believe television is one of the big reasons for that.  He is not alone in that observation.  We now cover what works rather than what is important.  Television has changed news in the following ways:

• Television demands that news be seen as spectacle.   Big events, dramatic pictures, lots of emotion or action.  It's got to be entertaining.  The O.J. Simpson trial was a great example of news and entertainment converging.
• Journalists are now celebrities:  They are removed from the people to whom the report because their lifestyles are no longer the same.  They may not even do the reporting, but the celebrity reporters may be flown into the site of the story where a producer has done the actual legwork on the story.  Result is that reporters don't have the feel for the story and may not ask the right questions.
• Presidents are Made; They're sold--news is spun....It's not what happens, it's how well you spin and the pictures are more important than the words
• De-emphasis of the President as world leader, and so it's easier to say negative things about a guy who's not dealing with the cold war and the future of the free world.
• Decline of the local newspaper and specialization in media in general.
• Journalists are put in the role of public explainer, but not given the tools to do it right. (not experts on the things they cover; they're hired for other reason)
• News is defined as that which is NOT ordinary with the result:
  • non-disastrous news is not covered
  • messages are overwhelmingly negative
  • demeaning messages about women, blacks, foreign countries, etc. get covered
  • system of news which tells people that their world and system of government are out of control.

  Discuss the kinds of issues which are discussed in the current election?

  •    issues vs. horse-race
  •    entertainment vs. significance

  People don't ask the same questions that reporters do.  We want to know how a candidate will affect our lives? What will you do about ....  Reporters ask more about strategy and how well someone is doing.  Television reports politics as a GAME.

Policy issues don't get reported because:

• The speeches don't change much; reporters have heard some of them dozens of times during a campaign
• Policy is hard to fit into a "sound bite"
• Policy is too complicated
• It doesn't meet the game schema: where's the conflict? drama? suspense?
• News is defined as events, specific actions -- somebody DOING something.

Result is that issues, and especially campaigns are covered like a game or a "horse race."  

• competition
• winner and loser
• focus on who's a head at any given time
• focus how each is trying to out maneuver the other
• focus on how spectators are reacting to performance of each
• image and appearances are paramount
• whatever pleases the fans works

This coverage is made possible by changes in media and technology:

• the computer and development of sophisticated statistics helps generate the numbers that measure the race
• candidates now have consultants who help them strategize and manipulate their images
• when journalists saw the image-making taking place, they believed it was their responsibility to help the audience understand what was going on, especially regarding candidates who would do anything to win.
• shift from the print model of journalism (heavy on words and light on image) to television model (visual is more important; emotion is more important)

So how does this all boil down in a practical sense?

• Political campaigns are covered as "horse races"
• Image is more important than substance
• Complex issues don't play well
• Political news managers have to boil the message down to "sound bites," "talking points," and "spin."
• The role of news media as information providers is diminished
• The focus is on the negative rather than the positive

If people aren't getting information from newscasts, where are they getting it?

• Debates are a primary source of specific information about issues and policy
• Limited information is provided in commercials and advertising
• Print media do a pretty good job  providing information
• The internet also provides solid sources of information (and some which are not so sound).

These is an excellent discussion of Debates in your text book.  Be sure you are familiar with the issues surrounding debates in campaigns.

But since media are changing and the way campaigns are changing, candidates have found they need to use new media sources to persuade voters.  Ross Perot and Bill Clinton revolutionized use of different media outlets in the 1992 campaign.  Ross Perot announced his campaign on Larry King Live and Bill Clinton received a lot of attention for playing the sax on The Arsenio Hall Show. In 2000, candidates Gore and Bush have appeared on The David Letterman Show, Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O'Donnell, as well as Larry King, the morning news programs.  The candidates are also slated to appear in a Saturday Night Live Political Special which will air the Sunday before the election.   These appearances are deemed important, because they allow the candidate to appear to be more personable, relaxed, and give the candidate an opportunity to be a "good sport," "laugh at himself," and allow the public to see them as "real" people.

Campaign Advertising:

The goal for a campaign is to package and deliver the voter. 

• The voter wants to be talked to not AT.
• It is more important for a voter to FEEL a candidate rather than SEE him or her.
• You also don't want a politician to "burn out" like a popular song.  Therefore, you use many commercials and provide a variety of commercial approaches.
• Make sure the printed graphics in a commercial look exactly like they will look in the voting booth.

Types of commercials:

Advocacy Ads:  those which ask you to "vote for" a particular candidate.  They are paid for by the campaign or political action committees and are under regulation of the Federal Election Commission.

Issue Ads: These commercials don't ask voters to support a particular candidate, but rather ask them to consider a particular issue.  They may be asked to "contact" their elected representative.  These are not sponsored by the campaign or the party and are not under the authority fo the Federal Election Commission.

Attack Ads:  These are negative commercials directed at tearing down and opponent rather than providing positive information about the candidate.  They usually include some distortion, omission, or unfairness and they may indeed be divisive. 

Do negative ads work?  The research is mixed, but generally it is concluded that while voters don't like them and backlash is possible, they very frequently remember the messages of these ads.  They can work.

Not all negative ads are attack ads. Sometimes it is legitimate to deal with issues and differences of opinion or to question an opponent's character or policy.

While TvB estimated political advertising spending would range near $665,000 in the 2000 campaign, it now looks like the number will be closer to $1 Billion dollars. 

Campaign strategists recognize that people usually vote for the LOP = Least Objectionable Politician.

Another important issue in campaign coverage is polling:

Trial Heat Poll:  These are the polls that are asked every day and include usually only one or two questions such as "If the election were held today and the candidates were _____ and _____ for whom would you vote?"

Trackng Poll:  These polls are done with a rolling sample.  In other words, the poll is conducted on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, results are averaged and reported on Thursday.   On Friday, the results are the average of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday's polling results.   CNN/USATODAY/GALLUP offered six day tracking polls as well as the regular 3-day poll reported daily during the last few weeks of the 2000 campaign.

Exit Polls:  Exit polls are conducted by asking survey questions to voters as they leave the polls.  They offer several benefits in that they include actual voters, they are gathered in all states, and they are very accurate. Exit polls are currently conducted by the Video News Service a cooperative effort of the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and others.  By agreement with Congress exit polling results are not to be revealed for an area before the polls have closed there.  This agreement was established after Congressional hearings were called after the 1980 election was "called" based on exit poling before the polls closed in California.  There was serious concern that such action caused many voters to fail to vote, thinking the race was done and their vote didn't count. That may have significantly hurt local and state elections.   

Exit polls may be less controversial this year since the race is so close.  Networks may be less likely to risk being wrong based on exit polling data which may be within the margin of error.  However, it is likely that exit polling data may be leaked and published on the Internet by non-VNS members, such as the Drudge Report or others. 

What are the effects of the these media realities on the electoral process?

1.    Many researchers believe that voter apathy and cynicism are fed by negative campaign commercials and attacks.

2.    Voter turnout has declined with each election over the past several years and concerns about "spin" and "media manipulation" may be contributing.

3.   Voters seem to be less informed about the issues.

4.   Voters are making decisions based on image, personality, and feelings rather than careful, informed evaluations of policy.

5.   There may be very real risks to our political system when candidates who are most qualified may not be "elect-able" because they are not "telegenic."

Resources:

For more information, see Dr. Mc's Politics and Media lectures at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/450.htm , particularly the lectures on Politics and Polling and Campaign Advertising.  Those lectures contain complete bibliographies and links to additional resources.

• Fallows, James.  News Values
• Patterson,
• Epstein, Edward J.  News From Nowhere
• Anderson, John.  "Riley Holds Slim lead over Governor."  The Huntsville Times. 10/28/02
• Associated Press, "Ad Spending Surges in Final Week" MSNBC.com 10/31/00

Copyright, 2002

Dr. Janet McMullen