Although McCombs's study did not prove
the agenda-setting function of the mass media it did successfully
show that the media are the major primary sources of national
political information for the general population. Everything we hear
regarding politics comes from a mass media. Be it television, radio,
internet, newspaper, or magazines. As McComb said, we sometimes don't
even seek it ourselves. It is there, and we consume it passively at
times, creating for ourselves a general idea of what is going on in
the political spectrum regardless of our political affiliations or
specific interests.
This research was of great interest to
me because it applies greatly to today's age of information overload
that has been facilitated by the democratic public sphere that is the
internet. Furthered by innovations in technology, this democratic
platform is now an every-day part of our lives. We now get tweets,
Facebook updates, blog posts, Youtube video, and the classic daily
news on television and newspaper along with shows that satirize
politics like the Daily Show with John Stewart or The
Colbert Report. Because we are exposed to so much information,
the real issues, the nitty gritty details that are of most
importance, and are the very reason we elect such candidates for
office are lost. Upon analysis of the major item emphasis on
different topics and candidates during the 1968 campaign, McCombs
found that “a considerable amount of campaign new was not devoted
to discussion of major political issues but rather to analysis of the
campaign itself.” This is upsetting. But as Retzinger discussed in
lecture, this is exactly what is going on. If the media
chooses to devote more information to the candidates, their personal
lives, their mistakes, their families, their chances of making it,
then they are setting the stage for us to mistake this information
for being of great importance, for being about the issues, when it
in fact is really not. As Walter Lippman famously concluded in his
book Public Opinion“...public
opinions must be organized for
the
press if they are to be sound--not by
the
press as is the case today”(Lippmann, 1922). And his words still
ring more true than ever before. We must be wary of what we hear and
not accept the truth that we believe to be so. We cannot let the
media think for us.
You actually point to the same phrase that Eileen did (quite a few posts back), and we should discuss tomorrow whether or not the media focus on how campaigns are run is worthwhile or not (or whether it detracts from attention to issues and values). Clearly, the ideal is a middle ground. If we didn't pay some attention to the veracity of candidates' claims about opponents, as well as the way they've conducted their lives to date, we'd risk being deceived or taken in by false claims and appearances. However, it does seem that the bulk of campaign money and time goes toward managing perception rather than more substantive debate.
ReplyDelete