In our everyday lives we are capable of making decisions based on our beliefs and ideas that we find to be the most appealing. We are selective in all aspects of our lives but more so when choosing which forms of mass media content we want to be exposed to. As American consumers we are exposed to endless amounts of information on a daily basis. However, only the most captivating pieces of content will gain our attention, which varies for each individual. For example if you were to pass a billboard advertisement on the highway, it would only gain one’s interest if it were relevant to their beliefs and preferences. This behavior is done by the general public is also seen in a political setting among our nation’s leaders. America’s elected leaders are elected to further their beliefs onto the public and we as a democratic nation are the one’s in control of that. These leaders can influence public attitudes and preferences through the choices they make. This type of choosing can be further explained through the theory of selective exposure, which is the behavioral act of preferring to be exposed to arguments and ideas based on one’s own positions and ideas. This theory also states that individuals will not agree with beliefs different from their own. Understanding this theory could help explain how people are more likely to absorb a piece of media with content relevant to their liking. Selective exposure is observed through a political frame as candidate’s seek support for their beliefs why trying to avoid being challenged. A political candidate’s beliefs can influence public attitudes and preferences as well. Some existing trends in selective exposure literature provide a better research of this theory’s effect on the mass media. A r... ... middle of paper ... ...y progressing. The focus of methodological questions in this study further guide the selective exposure theory by empirical and theoretical methods. In conclusion, the selective exposure theory has shown a plethora of findings that will continue to expand for years. Prior research has shown this theory appear in a few current trends, course topics and political issues. The theory suggests that individuals will tend to agree with their own beliefs and ideas while rejecting any that oppose theirs. This theory has been compared to other alike it such as the hostile media phenomenon and online citizen journalism. With the correlations made, one could say that selective exposure could span over a wide range of political communication topics. Although research continues, the selective exposure theory will remain decision-based theory reliant on one’s own point of view.
Political communication—communication with a political purpose about human interaction—takes many different forms including novels, poetry, music, television, and film, which all have their distinct advantages and disadvantages in communicating with the public. Although some political communication intends to enact or drive social changes, some political communication seeks to maintain the status quo. The film medium, which is the subject of this paper, has a much broader mass appeal than other medias and often changes the viewer’s original beliefs and perceptions when he or she experiences over an hour straight of visual indoctrination of only one view.
Political discourse has suffered because of this change. We no longer focus on the issues in politics but rather the relatability of a politician or on certain aspects of their personal lives. Even though the internet has subsumed television in today’s society there are still instances where we see this in both mediums. On the television politicians are still using their personal appeal to persuade their audience and on the internet the lives of these political figures are readily available, also influencing our choices. A possible course of action to navigating this world of false advertisement and excessive insight would be to educate people of these unconscious influences on their decision making and reinforce that it is the quality of one’s beliefs that should matter upmost and foremost. In the end, it would be entirely up to the people to decide how easily subjective they will
398).It is also stated that news divisions reduced their costs, and raised the entertainment factor of the broadcasts put on air. (p. 400). Secondly, the media determines its sources for stories by putting the best journalists on the case and assign them to areas where news worthy stories just emanates. (p.400). Third, the media decides how to present the news by taking the most controversial or relevant events and compressing them into 30 second sound-bites. (p.402). finally, the authors also explain how the media affects the general public. The authors’ state “The effect of one news story on public opinion may be trivial but the cumulative effect of dozens of news stories may be important. This shows a direct correlation between public opinions and what the media may find “relevant”. (Edwards, Wattenberg, Lineberry, 2015, p.
The media takes a biased approach on the news that they cover, giving their audience an incomplete view of what had actually happened in a story. Most people believe that they are not “being propagandized or being in some way manipulated” into thinking a certain way or hearing certain “truths” told by their favorite media outlets (Greenwald 827). In reality, everyone is susceptible to suggestion as emphasized in the article “Limiting Democracy: The American Media’s World View, and Ours.” The
Rather than being a neutral conduit for the communication of information, the U.S. media plays an intricate role in shaping and controlling political opinions. Media is extremely powerful in the sense that without an adequate functioning media, it is virtually impossible for a sophisticated social structure like the U.S. Government to exist. Henceforth, all known sophisticated social structure, have always dependent upon the media’s ability to socialize. The U.S. government generally will exploit the media, often times manipulating the enormous power of the printed word. Ultimately empowering the U.S. government, strengthening it with the ability to determine and control the popular perception of reality. One way in which government achieves this objective, is by its ability to misuse the media’s ability to set the agenda. Contrary to popular belief, media is in fact an enormous hegemony. In fact, separate independent news organizations relatively do not exist. Rather than creating an independent structured agenda of there own, generally lesser smaller news organizations adapt to a prepared agenda, previously constructed by a higher medium. Based upon this information alone, it is quite apparent that media functions in adherence to the characteristics of a hierarchy. This simply means that media is structured in a way that it operates functioning from top to bottom. This is also identical to the hierarchical nature of the human body, in that from the commands of the brain transferred through the central nervous system, the body responds accordingly. In order for the U.S. government to control and determine the public’s popular perception of reality, the government must shape and oversee the information that the media reports to the existing populous. This particular process of democracy is known and referred to by political scientists as cognitive socialization. However, many of us, who do not adhere to the cushioning of political correctness, refer to it as the propaganda machine. Numerous political scientists consider cognitive socialization to be the most effective form of political socialization. According to theory, cognitive socialization is doctored up information, which is strategically fragmented in such a manipulative manner, that the probability of its rationalization is highly predictable. The manipulative properties of cognitive socialization are so diabolical and Machiavellian in nature, that I consider it to be the ultimate perversion of the democratic process. In all seriousness, numerous intellectuals, and gentleman held in good stature agree, that cognitive socialization is the product of an evil genius.
Television is a vital source from which most Americans receive information. News and media delegates on television have abused theirs powers over society through the airing of appealing news shows that misinform the public. Through literary research and experimentation, it has been proven that people's perception of reality has been altered by the information they receive from such programs. Manipulation, misinterpretation, word arrangement, picture placement and timing are all factors and tricks that play a major role in the case. Research, experimentation, and actual media coverage has pinpointed actual methods used for deceptive advertising. Television influences society in many ways. People are easily swayed to accept a belief that they may not normally have unless expressed on television, since many people think that everything they hear on television is true. This, however, is not always the case. It has been observed that over the past twenty to thirty years, normal social behavior, even actual life roles of men and women and media, regulatory policies have all been altered (Browne 1998). Media has changed with time, along with quality and respectability. Many Americans receive and accept false information that is merely used as an attention grabber that better the show's ratings and popularity. Many magazines and Journal reviews have periodically discussed the "muckraking" that many tabloid shows rely on to draw in their viewers. This involves sensationalizing a story to make it more interesting, therefore increasing the interest of the audience. "Along the way, all sorts of scandalous substance and goofy tricks appear, but not much mystery in the logic," (Garnson 1997). People often know that these shows aim to deceive them, but still accept the information as truth. Many times, people have strong opinions on certain topics. Yet, when they are exposed to the other side of the argument, they may be likely to agree with the opposite view. As Leon Festinger said, "If I chose to do it (or say it), I must believe in it," (Myers 1997). This is an example of Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory, which pertains to acting contrary to our beliefs. Television influences many people to change their original beliefs. It has the viewers think that the majority of other people hold the contrary idea. Once these views are presented, people have the option to hol...
Growing up in this day of time, one is constantly surrounded by social media, affecting all of us in some kind of way. Social media is at the touch of our fingertips, within seconds, one can search the news that happened a minute ago and get the latest details. We are able to follow up with the most cutting-edge trends and the latest gossip going around. Social media, being one of the biggest social identity components, can leave teenagers and younger adults pressured to socially construct their identity, that including television, the internet, and social network.
The media is sometimes called the “Fourth Estate” because of its influence in shaping the course of politics and public opinion. Some people are influenced by what they read or hear and others are not. There is a well-known psychological process called selective attention. Wilson, Dilulio, and Bose define it as “paying attention only to those news stories with which one already agrees.” (290)
McCombs and Shaw fully developed the theory of agenda setting in respect to public agenda in a study in the early 1970’s. Their cross-sectional study involved the effects of media agenda setting on public opinion. They revealed that there were indeed correlations between the two, which backed the ideas of Cohen (Brosius 5). They derived that, “the basic agenda-setting hypothesis asserts that the issues and information presented on the media agenda become over time the issues and information on the public agenda (Leckenby).
As Americans we take pride in our liberating government. But, it is essential to ask how much we, the general public, know about our democracy. Because of the representative structure of our government, it is in our best interest to remain as knowledgeable as possible about political affairs so that we can play an active role in our democracy by voting for candidates and issues. The media, which includes print, television, and the internet, is our primary link to political events and issues. (For the purposes of this essay only print and television will be considered.) Therefore, in order to assess the success of our democracy it is necessary to assess the soundness of our media. We are lucky enough to have a media, in theory, free from government influences because of our rights to freedom of press and freedom of speech, but we are still subject to the media’s interpretation and presentation of politics, as is the danger when depending on any source for information. So, we must address how the media informs us; how successful it is at doing so; and how we should respond to it.
“Through the ongoing interaction of theorizing and empirical research consistent with the scientific method, agenda-setting theory has evolved from a tightly focused perspective to a broad theory. Initially, the focus was on the way media affect the public’s view of which issues are important. Later the theory broadened to encompass five distinct aspects of public life: basic and attribute agenda-setting effects, the psychology of these processes, and the consequences of these effects for opinions and behavior. The participation of scholars worldwide has been central to the continuing productivity of the theory” (Maxwell McCombs).
The Mass Media has had a greater in influence on modern culture than either education or history.
In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then make them appear more salient. Similarly, priming works by repeatedly exposing certain issues to public. As the issues get more exposure, the individual will be more likely to recall or retain the information in their minds. This paper will discuss these three factors played out systemically by media and how our opinions are constantly being influence and shape by them.
Althusser (1971) explains that, as an ideological state apparatus, media doesn’t use pressure as a way to bind society together under one dominant ideology, but instead uses the will of the people to make them accept the dominant ideology. However, media is also used as a way for people to challenge the dominant ideology. Newspapers, for example, will have articles that openly criticise and oppose the dominant ideology for what it is, whilst at the same time providing perspectives and opinions on different ideologies (such as feminism) that society can believe in. Although these alternate ideological perspectives exist, they are usually overlooked and only ever reach small audiences. Ideology can also help us understand the media because of the way in which it distributes ideology.
The mass media has played a key role in shaping people’s lives. The modern society’s use of mass media including TV, radio, newspaper, as well as print media has largely influenced people’s ideas regarding themselves and the society at large. This is evident from their behavior towards themselves and their community as well as their treatment of the environment. While some experts believe that the media is to blame for most of the negative behavioral traits among the active members of society, the majority agree that the media makes people understand and develop a positive sense of association with their society within which they live, making it easy for them to identify and get their role in it.