A Political Balancing Act: Equalizing the Partisan Effects of the Media

The term "liberal media" has become a universal buzzword in modern American culture. Those on the political "right" deride mainstream news reporting, claiming it sways voters with liberal propaganda under the guise of objective journalism. Meanwhile, ideologues on the "left" side of the spectrum are critical of the monopoly conservatism seems to hold in the talk radio industry. Sociological research into the effects of the media on the political views of individuals tends to focus on the early political indoctrination of children. Research has shown that the type of news coverage viewed by young Americans has a greater effect on their political indoctrination than even their parents and teachers (Conway, et al 1981). What this research does not address, however, is the ability of news outlets to influence individuals of voting age. This paper will examine some of the most popular current research on the political influence of the media on children as well as adult voters.

In their research, Margaret M. Conway, Mikel L. Wyckoff, Eleanor Feldbaum and David Ahern (1981) looked at the ways mass media influence the political development of young children. The rationale for the project, as explained by its authors, was to emphasize an area of development that had not received enough attention in past research. Past studies tended to focus on the way interpersonal communication with family and peers shaped the political attitudes of children. The goal of the authors of this study was to shed light on the effects of mass media on these children and argue that the media has as much if not more influence. They cite previous work which has claimed that the media serves only to reaffirm the political beliefs already held by young children. The authors deride this notion, claiming that children enter into their relationship with the media at a time when they have few political inclinations. Thus, they are ripe for their views to be shaped by what they watch or read.

Conway, et al (1981) collected data from seven different East Coast elementary schools. Two schools were working class, three were middle class and two were upper class. 760 fifth and sixth grade students were given questionnaires featuring seventeen inquiries about the political system. After answering these questions, the students were then asked to rate their frequency of use of three different types of news media: television news, newspapers and news magazines. The goal was to measure the link between interaction with these different types of media and political awareness.

The findings of the study supported the idea that the media has a huge impact on the way children view the political arena. The authors concluded that "the analysis indicates that news media use, alone and in conjunction with knowledge of the American political process, is a significant determinant of children's political attitudes and patterns of political participation" (Conway, et al 1981, 177). In other words, it was found that the effect of news media on the participant children was greater than any of the other potential influences.

While this study is an illuminating illustration of the vast power of the news media, it would benefit from an update to contemporary media standards. Sociologists twenty-seven years ago had no idea about the coming internet revolution. As listed in the questionnaire given to participants in the study, political information was gathered either through print media or through television (which at the time was still monopolized by no more than three different channels).

The knowledge of current political activity for children today is almost certainly much greater due to the advent of the age of information. Additionally, young students' views are likely to be much more diverse given the wide range of ideologies they come into contact with as a result of the myriad personal web-logs found online, as well as the massive expansion of the number of television channels available in the average American home. A modern-day update to this study would greatly enrich our understanding of the political socialization of children.

Benjamin Page (1996) takes ideas about the media's political influence to the next level. Page sets out to determine whether news outlets consciously work to push their particular political agenda on their consumers. He argues that previous research has decisively revealed that truly objective journalism is impossible to achieve. He is perplexed by the seemingly universal propensity of other researchers to simply dismiss the possibility of widespread bias in American news rooms.

Page (1996) believes that the simple act of putting together a story for a newspaper reflects the reporter's bias in that it is up to the individual to determine what stories are important and what facts are paramount in relating those stories to the public. He also cites the fact that modern newspapers such as the New York Times have made it common practice to include "analysis" articles in their supposedly objective news sections. These articles, Page points out, are filled with loaded adjectives and adverbs that work to apply value judgments to the stories of the day. He points out that it is common knowledge to layman observers that the New York Times and Washington Post lean left while the Wall Street Journal leans right. Meanwhile, however, highly educated scholars are intent on writing off these biases as pure speculation.

Page sites a 1957 study of thirty-one newspapers that found a close correlation between the ostensibly objective news coverage of the Nixon and Stevenson fund stories and the endorsements of candidates by the editorial sections of the newspapers. He goes on to explore the relationship between public officials and their local media outlets. Most newspapers are heavily reliant on the information gathered from elected politicians in order to put together the facts needed for their stories. As a consequence, newspapers and other news sources may often attempt to stay in the good graces of these public officials by slanting their stories in a direction favorable to the politician. Additionally, this dependence on the government officials for facts means it is in their hands to tweak the information gathered by the press in the first place.

After concluding that news outlets, whether of their own inclination or under the pressure of retaining valuable sources of information, do often show a conscious bias in their reporting, Page (1996) asks what effects the biases of the media actually have on individuals. He proclaims that "The days of belief in 'minimal effects' by the media are over" (22). Page thus believes that the influence of the media is far-reaching and extremely consequential.

His final point is that, in order for the marketplace of ideas to function as intended, it is imperative for different news outlets to have political agendas that differ from each other. Even though it is impossible to completely remove all bias from the press, the effects of these biases are negated if the views of different sources conflict and compete with each other. The real dilemma comes when all the various outlets push one singular agenda that is out of step with the general public. Whether or not his worst case scenario has already occurred is, according to Page, up for debate.

Although the main focus of Page's essay is not entirely social psychological, it is nonetheless extremely important in any discussion of the effects of mass media on individuals. As we examine the varying research and opinions on this topic, it is important to take a look at what the agendas and intentions are of those who put together the news reports that we consume. Page's points in this essay have real merit and are almost inarguable. The days of reliable, objective journalism are over, and, in fact, likely were never a reality at all.

The rise of the internet, with its high-speed, easily accessible information has made fact checking of news reports much more straightforward. It has also given voice to millions of dissenting opinions on any given topic. Ordinary people are now able to hold the press accountable like never before. It is because of this revolution that we now become aware when a news outlet has become wholly slanted to one side of the isle. The golden age of reporting is more than likely a myth. News has probably always suffered from immense biases. The difference is that we are now able to detect these issues and get the word out to others with incredible speed.

Fay Lomax Cook, Tom R. Tyler, Edward G. Goetz, Margaret T. Gordon, David Protess, Donna R. Leff and Harvey L. Molotch (1983) set out to determine the influence of the media on the opinions and policy-making of politicians. The rationale for this particular experiment is that there had not been, by the authors' account, any significant empirical research done into the effects of the media on more than just the general public. They believe the effects on policy makers may be even more important. The idea is to objectively discover if there is a causal relationship between news reports and shifts in the perception of priority for certain social issues.

The setup for the Cook et al (1983) experiment revolved around an editorial news journal piece that was about to air on television. The researchers collaborated with the investigative reporters behind the piece, who provided information on the precise contents of the story as well as the date it would air. This allowed the authors of the study to collect data prior to the release of the news magazine story as well as data after the airing. Comparison between these two sets of data would provide an impression of how the media changed opinions.

The distinction emphasized by the authors between this and other similar studies is that the research did not end with the study of how the media affected the general public. Past research had stopped at that point, assuming that any changes in policy were simply the result of democracy working to implement public opinion into public policy. This study went to great lengths to look at the opinion shift in the public while separately examining the shift in policy in an attempt to determine if there is actually a causal effect.

The experiment showed that the media has a huge influence on government policy makers, but little to no effect on interest group decision makers. Government officials who viewed, or just heard about, the news report showed a large change in their positions on the issue. The study also asked participants if their sense of the importance of the issue had changed after viewing the report. Overwhelmingly, the government officials once again showed a significant change while the interest group members did not. On the question as to whether the subjects felt more strongly that action was needed to address the issue, the results were predictably the same. The final subject of interest tested by the researchers was how the change in the views of the elite policy makers compared to the change in the views of the general public after viewing the piece. The finding was that, while both groups viewed the issue with much more importance than they had prior to the editorial, the public was affected to a much greater extent. Having been given a list of serious social issues and asked to rank them in order of their importance, the issue remained in last in the policy-makers' pecking order, while members of the general public actually bumped it above some other issues (Cook et al 25-7).

This study is extremely sociologically important because it points out with clear empirical evidence the massive clout wielded by the media which enables them to sway not only the general public, but even government policy makers, on any given issue. The differences between the changes shown in public officials and interest groups are likely attributable a few key factors. First, elected officials deal with a wide range of economic and social issues on a daily basis, thus the importance of any one cause becomes watered-down in their list of priorities. Special interest groups, on the other hand, are generally dedicated to the one specific cause in question. Because of their constant attention and undying devotion to their cause, it is possible their interest in it has reached a ceiling. They do not need to have their emotions stirred by one more editorial piece on an issue because their minds are made up, and they already see this issue as being of the utmost importance. Meanwhile, the issue may have been lost in the shuffle by politicians as they juggle the many responsibilities on their plate. Seeing a riveting editorial piece may be what they need to stir them to action.

The second factor, greatly related to the first in many ways, is the disparity in the knowledge of the facts surrounding the issue between policy makers and interest groups. Because the lives of the interest group members revolve around the subject at hand, they go into their viewing of the editorial piece already possessing an extensive knowledge of the facts. It is difficult, in other words, for the journalist relaying the story to tell them anything they do not already know. Politicians, however, are more likely to be jarred and moved to action when they hear, for the first time, the sobering statistics or personal accounts relayed in the editorial.

Much of these same concepts translate to explaining the differences between changes in policy makers and the general public. Although less aware of the particular social issue than interest groups, politicians are likely more aware than members of the public. While they do deal with a broad range of issues on a daily basis, policy makers are still dealing with issues. They come into the editorial with a certain knowledge and perception of the issue at hand. Meanwhile, the general public is often too busy with their occupations and families to spend much time examining the social issues of the day. Thus, when they do sit down and look at a story, they are much more likely to be presented with these facts, statistics and testimonials for the first time. This situation is tailor-made for a larger, more emotional response.

Gamson and Stuart (1992) conducted a study of political cartoons during the Cold War to see how they utilized symbolic meaning to make political statements during this time period. The rationale for the study was to examine the ways in which conflicting ideologies use the media as a battleground, with the goal of defining certain symbols in ways that are beneficial to their particular cause. Understanding this struggle, according to the authors, can help us understand how the media affects political views in general.

Gamson and Stuart (1992) note that it is important to pay attention to the disparity in resources between the competing ideological factions. During the Cold War, as the authors explain, there was one side composed of the federal government and military, as well as a host of well organized and funded private groups, in support of the government's campaign. The other side was made up of mostly public interest groups with little funding, lackluster organization and minimal public support. Also important is the admitted bias of the news media, which the researchers claim favor the "official" explanation of current events, the official narrative being the one provided by the federal government.

These two groups competed during the Cold War, each looking to create symbols that would have an effect on the public, while at the same time battling over the definitions of symbols that already existed. One important concept used by the government was the concept of "Soviet Expansionism." This being the idea that the Soviet Union was looking to expand its borders endlessly and perpetuate the much-feared notion of the Domino Effect. To this end, US government proponents utilized the now-commonplace symbols of Soviet dictators exaggerated as evil villains attempting to conquer the World. Cartoons from the time show massive Russian evil-doers towering above the planet ominously (Gamson and Stuart 1992).

Another common symbol, perhaps the most famous, used to conjure fear in the American public was the atomic bomb. Countless cartoons of the time depicted the evil Soviet leaders threatening the United States with the iconic weapon. One particular cartoon shows a dictator, in the form of an atomic bomb, standing over a baby carriage in a threatening manner (Gamson and Stuart 1992).

Groups on the other side of the debate attempted to depict the US government as fear-mongering, vilifying the Soviets for its own gain. One cartoon depicts the government as a brawny caveman knocking out another caveman with a club and dragging him by the hair. The club is labeled "Soviet Super-Bomb Threats," while its helpless victim is labeled "Neutral Nations" (Gamson and Stuart 1992). These examples clearly show how opposite sides of an issue compete to define the symbols through which the public views political issues.

The modern sociological research into media effects on politics shows that there is a huge impact. Not only has previous work shown that the media wields great influence over both the general public and political policy makers, but also that the media is acutely aware of its power. Some journalists attempt to stay objective, while others consciously try to sway people one way or another. The important thing is that the media is populated by multiple conflicting ideologies that fight to institute the symbols and definitions by which we live. Their constant struggle maintains a balance that allows for every side to be heard on important issues.

References

Conway, Margaret M., Mikel L. Wyckoff, Eleanor Feldbaum and David Ahern. 1981. "The News Media in Children's Political Socialization." The Public Opinion Quarterly 45: 164-178

Cook, Fay Lomax, Tom R. Tyler, Edward G. Goetz, Margaret T. Gordon, David Protess, Donna R. Leff, Harvey L. Molotch. 1983. "Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Group Leaders, Policy Makers, and Policy" The Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 16-35

Gamson, William A. and David Stuart. 1992. "Media Discourse as a Symbolic Contest: The Bomb in Political Cartoons." Sociological Forum 7: 55-86

Page, Benjamin I. 1996. "The Mass Media as Political Actors." PS: Political Science and Politics 29: 20-24