Katz

I wanted to briefly comment on what Katz said on pg. S39 that the three ideas separate from the limited effects model, institutional critical, and technological, are all connected in some way.  I believe this is also the case and found what Katz said quite interesting. The institutional model brought together the ideas, what to think about and the knowledge gap, both important terms we covered in class.  This ties into the technological model because TV has changed politics.  It has not only contributed what to think about, but also how it is brought to us.  Take for instance how may different news outlets covered the presidential debates tonight.  Both of these definitely tie into the critical model. 
 
Under the critical model, which is also in political realm,  tells people what not to think.  In this Katz brings up the comparision of Pepsi vs. Coke.  The idea that we think we have a choice, when we really don't echos Adorno.  It also got me to thinking, yea if we look at it from that angle it seems discouraging to think our choices are made for us.  Yet sometimes we don't always have to chose one or the other.  We can choose juice or milk or water, but then aren't out choices again narrowed down to a few different selections?  One might think so, except I see the idea of political influence different.  What if you chose to make the juice yourself (interpt politics through live speechs, political campaign, self assessment) rather than choose a bottled version of what might be going on (news clips, out of context statements).  Would we still be told what not to think?   

I say I Built This! What are you going to do about it?

Let me start off by saying that I have never been in an accident. I don’t think I am the best driver in the world, but I’d say that I’m probably better than most drivers. However, if you were to do a poll most people would say the same. But then you might say “Chris, how is that possible? Part of being better than most drivers means that you are in the minority of above average drivers. So how can the majority of people be in a minority?” Well skeptical reader, that is because most people believe they are better than other drivers whether or not they actually are. It’s a phenomenon demonstrating this idea of the “third-person effect.”  

Not to be confused with the third-person shooter, Mass Effect. 

Now when it comes to media, which the third-person effect actually refers to, the way I would best summarize it would be the words of someone else, W. Phillips Davison (the guy who wrote the book…or rather the paper on it). “People will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behaviors of others.” For instance, I know that that ad on TV is just trying to convince me to buy their product, but most people aren’t as astute as I am so it would not surprise me if people actually believed that Bounty really is more absorbent than your leading brand. Then you might say “Chris, just because people believe something about others doesn’t mean that media is causing an effect on the public.” Well, incredibly astute, yet awfully impatient, skeptical reader, the effect is in the reaction people have to these media messages. Think about the current presidential election. When the Republican campaign took the “you didn’t build that” sound bite from one of Obama’s speeches, you may have thought, “well that was taken completely out of context.” But that didn’t stop the Obama campaign from going out and clarifying his remarks in that clip. The larger of society may have not been affected by that clip, as shown by a lack of change in the polls following the speech, but the opposition was fearful enough that such a message could influence voters that they felt compelled to retaliate. The effect is in the response.

"We" as in myself, my investors, and the government with those roads and power plants.  

It begs the question, how much does our retaliation go? In the past, people certainly have seen bars and even death for speaking out against the government. Are we so afraid of the power of subversive media messages that we will use forceful coercion to mitigate this perceived influence? Perhaps we need to take a look at our society and see how to mitigate our anxiety towards dissension rather than the dissenters themselves.

But I hate to leave you on a depressing existential questioning of the role of the mass media, so here is an Onion article about the exaggerated effects of a media message if they were true. Enjoy.

Me, You, and a Bunch of Assumptions

Third person effects is defined in two parts. First is "... this hypothesis predicts that people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others (3)." The second part is "... whether or not these individuals are among the ostensible audience for the message, the impact that they expect this communication to have on others may lead them to take some action (3)." If you were in class then you should already know this. What I find most interesting about this hypothesis is how it fits together with other phenomenon that Davison points out. They are pluralistic ignorance, spiral of silence, and bandwagon effect. Davison believes that third-person effects can go side-by-side with these other beliefs and I am inclined to agree with him. 

Looking at just bandwagon effect and third person we see that they go hand-in-hand. Bandwagon effect is pretty much joining the majority. The idea of these two things is complicated and possibly opposing theories. For example, let's say that President Cupcake is running for reelection. He starts campaigning and a couple of months down the road, he is the favorite to win. Looking at the bandwagon effect you would have someone vote for him since he is the most likely candidate to win. But from a third-person standpoint, you might say that you aren't going to vote for him due to his hatred of monkeys even though he is most likely going to win. You will also believe that people (they) will vote for him because he is winning (bandwagon effect). Do you see how complicated this can be? This example shows the relationship between bandwagon and third-person effect not even taking into account the theory of spiral of silence. I think I am developing a tumor. This might not be a great example but to me it seems you can't have one without the other. I have embedded a video that will test both bandwagon and third-person effect. See how this affects you.

Above the Influence

Davison's "The Third-Person Effect in Communication" seems to hit on more than just a hypothesis of mass communications. Just to review, the third-person effect hypothesis "predicts that people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others" (3). People are more likely to see themselves as relatively unaffected by mass media, while assuming others who are not "me" or "you" are not as fortunate. This intrigued me because it reminded me of psychology - in a given situation, people lean towards seeing themselves in a positive light and optimally explaining their behavior, while others who behave the same way are seen negatively. For example, if I cut someone off in traffic, I say it's because I was in a hurry to do something important. If someone else cuts me off in traffic, I assume the worst and say they're rude and inconsiderate drivers who shouldn't be on the road. Same situation, different standpoints.

The third-person effect and the psychological example are not completely parallel, but it seemed similar enough to share. People tend to think the best of themselves, and this can be seen especially in light of the media. Researchers go back and forth on the idea of mass media's "powerful" effects on audiences, and perhaps this triggers a desire to be "above the influence" among consumers. However, it seems to me that people generally revel in their independence. Desiring to be autonomous, they lash out against any implication that somehow they are influenced by something they may not be conscious of. People like to trust in themselves, and it can be unnerving to discover their lack of total control. Are you unsettled reading this and mulling over the possibilities? They also have the ability to manipulate others, which unfortunately does come into play - whether it be within interpersonal communication or national propaganda campaigns. What we face every day inevitably affects us to some degree - but how willing are we to admit it? Whether we may be played as puppets by the media (strong effect model), or taking in useful information from the plethora available to us (selectivity/limited effects) or to other degrees, it is fascinating to explore the notion of how perhaps the third-person effect exposes something about the human condition.

Pure Beauty of the Media

In "Communications Research Since Lazarsfeld,” Elihu Katz analyzes three challenges to the paradigm of limited effects, which were called institutional, critical, and technological. One challenge that I am going to focus on is the institutional model that explains that the media tells us what to think about. Currently, we are in the midst of a presidential election, so it is typical that the media focuses most on the campaigns, the political parties and the candidates. Since most of us have never met these presidential candidates, the media influences our opinions and votes, since it is the only source of information that we can get. As Katz explained, “Campaign studies of the sort that occupy the limited effects paradigm are thought to address the proposition that the media tell us what to think or what to do” (Katz 303). I personally agree with this thought that the media tells us what to think about. We are constantly bombarded with media messages everyday, whether it is through advertisements, the radio, and the television; we have become trained to think about what the media wants us to think.

        

The most recent thing that has caught my attention in the media besides the presidential campaign is a popular song called “Gangnam Style” by PSY, a Korean rapper. The song has gained instantaneous success on its YouTube release and has been popular since. I feel as though everywhere I turn, I hear people playing “Gangnam Style” or at least talking about it. Recently, I came across a video that stood out to me that not only involved the song “Gangnam Style,” but it also incorporating Mitt Romney. In my opinion the video is hilarious and was made out of pure entertainment; however, it really stuck out to me. Even though the video was a complete joke, it reminded me yet again about the presidential campaign and what each candidate and their political parties stood for. This is where the institutional model comes into hand where the media tells us what to think about. The media has now connected two things for me that I would never have compared otherwise, “Gangnam Style” and Mitt Romney. This is the pure beauty of the media; it can compare two things that really have no relation to each other.

(I will show the video in class on Thursday)

Information in Media

Mass media has, without a doubt, profound influence on different aspects of our lives. From the way we perceive the world to the way we act around our friends and family, everything we do and think has some sort of media monkey hanging onto it (if by its fingernails). P.J. Tichenor, G.A. Donohue, and C.N. Olien's piece titled "Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge," the "increasing knowledge gap" is defined as the growing disparity of information retention between the people of different socioeconomic statuses. They single out education as the main perpetuator of the knowledge gap in this study. In "Mass Communication and Information Diffusion," John P. Robinson goes further and elaborates on different mediums and possible exceptions to Tichenor et al.'s argument.

Although the essays are a bit antiquated, the arguments still persist to this day. Tichenor et al. and Robinson do not address the Internet and radio (Robinson touches on television slightly), but we can look at their essays in relation to today's media-consuming world. Robinson mentions the term "status conferral" and defines it as the increase of the "status conferred on [objects] merely by being exposed to media attention" (357). My first thought upon reading this was the stars of Jersey Shore. They obviously do little to contribute positively to our political and social institutions with what little talent they have, yet they make more money than some of the veteran movie stars out there. Their antics on the hit show drew the attention of a select few, who then blew their stories into a national phenomenon.Although many people don't look upon them favorably, they have achieved a higher socioeconomic status in society through the attention that we give them.

In reading Tichenor's, Donohue's, and Olien's essay, I was a bit bothered by one of the assumptions they make in the beginning of their piece. They say that their argument "applies primarily to public affairs and science news having more or less general appeal" (160). It is a very valid assumption and contributes greatly to their argument of the effects of mass media on information distribution, but I feel like it is worded in such a way that makes their hypothesis un-disprovable.  "Public affairs and science" can describe a good majority of the information that gets presented in mass media, even to this day. Information covers such a wide range of things... I mean, knowing the next big restaurant in New York City is also information! People have different interests and backgrounds, so I don't think we should disregard them. However, I will applaud the person who decides to conduct a study on every individual in this country; God knows that no one has the time or patience.

Education + Media Usage = Knowledge of Information

             In his article “Mass Communication and Information Diffusion,” John P. Robinson states that advances in media is causing information diffusion, which gives society access to information in quicker ways than ever before.  During the time that Robinson conducted his research, he noted that interpersonal communication served as a better tool of information diffusion than the media.  Robinson stated, “the diffusion of literature is far more valuable in suggesting an approach whereby media can exploit the powers of interpersonal communication” (359).  He believed that in order for people to be well informed the media needed to implement aspects of interpersonal communication.  Nowadays, interpersonal communication does serve as a tool of information diffusion in the form of social media.  The rate of information diffusion is continuing to increase, as it is common for us to be informed of major events not only from checking the news or websites, but also from alerts or statuses we see on social media.  As we talked about in discussion section, many of us are being informed about certain events via Twitter statuses faster than we hear about it on the news.  For example, I hear about many national or international issues and events via Facebook statuses and then conduct my own research to find news articles on the topic if it is of interest to me.  

            In addition, Robinson notes that there is a strong correlation between media usage the amount of information we know and obtain.  Exposure to media and information is also directly related to level of education.  When Robinson conducted his research, he found that people with a higher level of education were more informed of important world issues and events that were taking place at the time.  His findings concluded that although we are more exposed to world events and issues by the media, education is a dominant factor in how informed we are and the motivation we have to stay informed.  Robinson stated, “…it is the best educated segments of our population who are both well informed and who keep themselves better informed by more serious usage of the mass media for informational content” (354).  There is so much information available to us on the Internet, but it is correlated to amount of media usage people expose themselves too.  People need to want to know what is going on in the world in order to stay informed. 

            Moreover, Robinson noted that due to the increase of information that is spread to society through the media, various kindergarten and first grade teachers noticed that their students were more advanced in terms of verbal skills and had more interests than students in the past.  This observation is directly related to the knowledge gap that Professor Retzinger discussed in lecture.  The example she gave was that kids who were exposed to the television program “Sesame Street” entered school with a better knowledge of numbers and letters.  People from a higher socio-economic status are more likely to have access to certain mediums such as a television or computer and are therefore more likely to be exposed to the information the media provides audiences with.  People from a higher socio-economic status are also more likely to have higher levels of education, which, as Robinson noted, could lead to them staying updated with information.  Robinson believes that many Americans are ignorant to important political and personal issues; therefore, it is in our best interest to expose ourselves to media and stay informed with important topics.