Media: A Discussion and Analysis on the Whether or Not Impact Can be Measured - Essay Example

? Section/# Media: A Discussion and Analysis on the Whether or Not Impact Can be Measured An undeniable aspect of the current world is with regards to the fact that media proliferation exists upon almost every level of society. Working hand in glove with this level of media proliferation is the fact that individuals from all demographics are continually integrated with news stories as they develop. Moreover, a societal norm is represented by the media and has a profound level of impact with regards to the way in which individuals integrate with understandings of morality, consumerism, and/or appropriate behavior. As such, the power that media has upon the lives of individual around the globe is dynamic and likely will increase as globalization and media integration continue to be evidenced. As a function of seeking to understand the impact that media has on stakeholders within society, the many scholars have questioned whether or not it is even possible to measure this impact. Theories for and against this approach have fundamentally focused upon the methodology of measurement and the difficulties that researchers have in attempting to integrate with such a nuanced and complex topic whatsoever. As a means of seeking to draw a further level of understanding with regards to this subject, the following analysis will provide an in depth level of discussion and argumentation with respect to the ways in which this author believes that even though measurement of media influence is difficult to engage; it is most certainly evidenced within the existing scholarship and research that will be reviewed within the forthcoming analysis. One particular study sought to measure the extent to which television media influenced upon the beliefs and public opinions of Britons. As such, what the analysis found is statistically denoted below in figure 1.0 from Zayani (2010). As such, the statistical analysis that was employed by Zayani was contingent upon measurement of the manner through which media proliferation was impactful upon public opinion; with a specific focus upon how individuals within society viewed the impact of media as a tool that integrated with and changed public opinion. Figure 1.0 Agreement or disagreement with regards to media being able to influence public opinion: By a wide majority, the study noted the fact that the differential between “perceived” impacts of media on public opinion most generally under-emphasized the relationship between the two; however, in relation other studies that had been performed by a litany of different researchers, the results invariably indicated that the impacts of media upon public opinion were much greater than such a self analysis could have assumed. Although the approach was simplistic, the results were rather profound. The analysis itself was carried out in a proper manner; however, it left the reader/analyst to question the methodology. Even though going directly to the source and seeking to engage the individual with regards to their own interpretations of the way in which media has shifted public opinion was something of a novelty, due to the tacit and innate ramifications of public opinion and the way that it is subconsciously shifted, it was the concern of this author that such a level of analysis was not truly telling with respect to the actual levels of change that ultimately were exhibited. Such a breakdown in methodological approach is further weakened with regards to the fact that the individual interpretation of impact is measured against other studies that had been conducted in more tradition ways; factoring in many other nuanced variables. Although such an analysis does not mean the statistics that were employed within this particular study are “junk science”, it lends the analyst to question whether or not the results are truly reliable as compared to the litany of other statistics and information that have been compiled upon this very subject. Bringing the level of analysis and discussing to the present time, one can quickly see that handful of extraordinarily powerful firms are responsible for buying the bulk of the advertising that exists on major media outlets; regardless of whether or not this outlet’s television, print, or radio. Ultimately, the process that has been defined is so pervasive that it is almost impossible to consider a situation in which media proliferation is not able to integrate powerfully with the societal stakeholder. As a means of studying this relationship to an even further degree, Paun (2011) noted that when asked about their interpretation of the media’s representation of global events, 43% believed that the representation was highly accurate and trustworthy, with 21% believing that it was accurate, 27% believing it was inaccurate and only 9% believing it was highly inaccurate. Although this particular study does not delve directly into proving a linkage between media and public opinion, the tacit and innate levels of trust that individuals are willing to give to the media that they consume speaks volumes with regards to the overall worldviews that they ultimately espouse and the means through which public opinion can be shifted; even via the slightest manipulations of relevant news items. This illustration of this survey can be seen and noted below in figure 2.0 Figure 2.0 One of the primary issues that many researchers have faced is with regards to the measurement of impact. DellaVigna et al. (2012) realized that this had been a core constraint that other studies had struggled to define and ameliorate. As such, the approach that they engaged was concentric upon analyzing “new media” in terms of the growth and proliferation of Fox News Network; an almost entirely “right leaning” cable media outlet that had not existed prior to 1996. In such a manner, seeking to discuss and analyze the impacts that such an outlet had upon voter choice within the geographical area that the study focused upon was effected. Whereas the study itself was statistically sound, the fact of the matter was that the measurement of voter behavior was largely predicated upon and within otherwise largely Republican regions; thereby reducing the overall level of inference that could be had with regards to the results that were attained. Moreover, seeking to provide a level of further inference with respect to the way in which media impacts public opinion merely based upon the way in which one cable network was able to potentially impact upon viewers and encourage integration with a single political party is of course something of a stretch; and does not adequately lend itself to expressing a more profound and detailed understanding of the way in which public opinion can be shifted by a more global and universal media. Further identification of the issue is concentric upon the fact that many of the dynamically powerful firms that ultimately control the media are ones that also share a stock in providing for basic human needs; denoting the fact for why such massively profitable companies are represented as a means of meeting every day needs to the consumer. The danger conflict of interests and impact that this has with regards to public opinion is profound. As such, news entities and media outlets in question are unlikely to represent any type of negative media attention towards such an entity as long as it continues to buy relevant advertising space on their particular network. Of course there are cases in which a particular news article or story was so sensational that this law or unspoken rule has been broken; however, by and large, a tacit level of understanding exists with regards to the major media outlets and the means through which they do not openly criticize or investigate newsworthy items concerning dangers or harm that could be caused by their lead advertisers. As such, studies with respect to the impacts of public opinion and the media have been concentric upon the forms of self-censorship that is taking place. Many individuals who have reviewed the situation have pointed to the fact that since September 11 marks an increase in the range and extent to which the government, in tandem with media partners, can stifle dissent or the expression of outrage on a given topic. By using the events of the past several decades as a focal point, scholars, to include Thomas (2011) and Paun (2011) have accurately measured the manner through which state and corporate enterprise has function in something of a streamlined manner to shift public opinion in one direction or the other. By harkening back to the examples of the way in which “national security” is trumpeted as the ultimate concern through which all media outlets should acquiesce, the level to which objective reporting can seek to engage the audience with a true level of understanding concerning their own civil rights and the realities of the world around them is greatly decreased. For instance, recently released information denoting the way in which presidential campaigns are carried out has revealed the fact that news articles are in fact it invested by major newspapers to the respective candidates league chief information officer prior to ever going to print. As such, the objective nature through which journalism can take place within such self-censorship is ultimately in question. Furthermore, recent revelations by NSA leaker Edward Snowden, have revealed the fact that government censors and “free readers” exist within the media and help to supervise the information as it is released; denoting that which would be ultimately harmful to the United Kingdom and/or the administration as well as denoting that which would ultimately benefit from their particular approach. Even though this last example is a result of direct censorship exists within the current news media, it also serves as something of an exemplification of the way in which self-censorship continues to take place. Due to the fact that all of the major news entities and media outlets that have thus far been discussed do not have any particular desire to have their licenses suspended or to be under a specific level of harassment by the United Kingdom government, they are passively coerced into acquiescing to the needs and demands that the government places upon them. The unit of focus that these two studies engaged was concentric upon seeking to measure the statistical differential with regards to the way in which an overall rise in media participation grew as a result of what was termed by the authors as “times of national interest”. Such times included, but were not limited to times within the recent past in which media consumption precipitously increased as a result of a terrorist attack at home or abroad, an increase with respect to an election of importance, or any of a handful of other subsequent measurable increases. Accordingly, an increase in media consumption during a time of “national interest” was measured against public opinion on similar issues at times in which a renewed interest in such an item was at something of a lull. A keen example that the authors used was with regards to terrorism after the period of the 7/7 bombings. Subsequently, the difficulty that was then faced was with respect to measuring this rise in interest to a shift or change in public opinion; due to the fact that causation alone does not equate to correlation. Approaching the issue from something of a different perspective, Zaller (1996) and Druckman (2005) noted that media impact upon public opinion could in part understood with regards to biases. Whereas a litany of different studies upon media and bias necessarily exist within the body of literature on this subject, the correlation between media bias and the impact that it has upon public opinion is a topic that both of these authors integrate with within their respective work. Firstly, both authors reference the fact that a particular bias is necessary in order for public opinion to be measurable shifted in one direction or the other. As a means of measuring this scientifically, both studies engaged in plotting core issues and analyzing them based upon societal levels of interest. Once this interest had been determined and once the issues were defined, they then set about seeking to understand the manner through which the media in turn picked upon upon the interest of the issue and sought to provide a focus and analysis upon it within something of a unified manner. Naturally, it was not possible for “the media” to be understood monolithically; as such, the weaknesses of such studies are inherent – in tandem with the relative lack of inference that could be gained from determining whether or not the media or the general public was in fact the vehicle for promoting issues to the forefront of attention within society. Thus far, a rather exhaustive level of research has been conducted with respect to the way in which different scholars have sought to measure and understanding the relationship between media and public opinion. However, few of the studies have yet integrated with an understanding of the profound level of importance that the possibility media being solely and entirely focused upon selling and advertising might necessarily have. Due to the fact that the power of special interests and the unbelievable power that advertisers and massive firms can have upon the direction and focus of news, the individual observer should be keenly aware of the fact that bias within news reporting is not only the function of a political orientation or of the way in which a particular news entity seeks to represent the story based upon their own point of view. Such an understanding was focused upon by Morris (2007). As such, public opinion was something of an aside in the research as the main thrust of the analysis was concentric upon proving the statistical correlation between what was deemed as “resonating news” and an increase in viewership; thereby increasing profitability. Morris subsequently pointed to the fact that bias within the media can more definitively be understood as a function of the way in which governance and special interest advertisers are able to impact upon the way in which stories are represented and items of interest are understood. The proofs and statistical models that were utilized for this assumption/theory were largely financial; proving the fact that the news media is invariably one that is primarily concerned, as any business would be, with continuing levels of profitability. Therefore, of all of the models and approaches that have thus far been engaged, it is the understanding of this author that the proofs and theories that are put forward by Morris (2007) tend to the be some of the most profound and have a direct level of impact with respect to increasing the understanding of the way in which public opinion is merely reflected by the news media and not necessarily impacted by it to the same degree or extent that the other studies that have far been analyzed denote. In such a manner, Soroka (2006) engaged in a level of research that focused specifically upon the metrics by which good news and bad news influences public opinion in different manners. The information that was reviewed pointed to the fact that an asymmetric level of interest and shifts in public opinion was predicted upon the emotional type of engagement that the viewer discerned from the manner that the news was represented and the way in which the story itself could be understood culturally, socially, and ethnically. The representation of news stories as a function of economic realities at that time was tracked by Soroka and is principally represented below in the graphs that comprise figure 3.0 Figure 3.0 Ultimately, what can be seen from a statistical analysis of Soroka’s main argument is that the level of economic representation had (and likely continues to have) a profound impact upon public opinion and the manner through which such topics as the unemployment rate and inflation are understood within society. Although the level of focus that Soroka engaged in was rather small, the findings can likely be expanded to deal with a litany of prescient and future trends with respect to public opinion and the manner through which individuals will understand the “reality” and “society” in which they live. It is without question that one of the determinants of the current era is with regards to the degree of time spent utilizing technology in tandem with media. Whereas many of the articles that have been discussed are relevant with respect to the way in which media shifts public opinion, a great change has been perpetrated over the past several years; one that sees social media and other forms of increased technologically slowly integrating with the way in which public opinion is formed and illustrated throughout the current global climate. Interestingly, few, if any of the articles that have thus far been examined have even attempted to measure or consider the dynamic shift that this has caused. Only a few years past, the workplace and social life were not defined by technology, the current world is pervaded by technology in all its forms. From the era of teletype to fax machines, from pagers to cell phones, and from snail mail to email, society has increasingly been impacted upon with regards to the technological advancements that it taken place. As a direct result of the level of integration that this technology has with regards to daily life, individuals have become more and more reliant on it; thereby spending a greater amount of time integrating with it. Alongside this dynamic shift with regards to how society currently operates, a unique issue has been determined and has been labeled by research as Problematic Internet Usage or (PIU). One aspect of PIU that the article does not cover in enough depth is with regards to whether or not PIU is entirely dependent upon the exhibition of psychosocial issues. Although it can be appreciated that PIU is an issue that affects a broader and broader subset of current society, the fact of the matter is that determining whether or not this is an issue that should concern broader society is ultimately rooted in what the outcomes and side effects of PIU portend. If it is true that PIU is mutually exclusive and cannot exist without the prevalence of psychosocial issues, then the research itself stands solidly upon the framework of delineating a codependent relationship between these. However, if it is the case that PIU can exist to varying degrees without clear and determinate impacts upon psychosocial interaction, the entire rubric and theses of this particular research is undone. Another shortcoming that is evidenced with regards to the research is whether or not correlation equals causation. Although the researchers lay out a definitively well researched piece with regards to whether or not anxiety, depression, and a litany of other psychosocial ills can result from Internet dependency, the reader/researcher automatically questions whether or not the weekend exhibition of these could merely be exacerbated by the withdrawal from society and increased usage of the Internet as a means of escapism. Naturally, this particular review and analysis piece is neither the time nor the place to discuss whether or not such an alternative theory is indeed more applicable; however, it is worthwhile to note that accepting the theoretical model put forward by the authors of the research piece lens one to categorically accept several inherent weaknesses of the research. Evidence of this impact can of course be tangentially noted with respect to the way in which many of the dictatorships throughout the Middle East have reacted to revolutionary movements among their own populations. Realizing that it was impossible to battle against an insurgency while removing its form of communication, the Egyptian government sought to fight back utilizing a paid militia of commentators and news pundits that integrated and inundated Facebook and Twitter with pro-government stances. In such a way, the reader can come to the profound level of realization that even though globalization and the proliferation of media initially helped the truth to come out with regards to the occurrences that were taking place within these autocratic and repressive regimes, these very same tools were quickly use against the opposition as a means of neutralizing their effect. Accordingly, rather than saying that social media and/or the globalization of media and its impacts are ultimately neutral or bad, the reader should instead come to the interpretation of the fact that these same tools, put forward as a hopes of democratizing the media, can in fact be utilized in quite the opposite direction and have an inverse affect. From the information that has been presented, it must be understood that the media has a profound and residual affect upon nearly each and every aspect of the way in which human beings live their lives, integrate with one another, understand salient news, and formulate a view of culture/morality. In such a manner, the effect of media, in all its forms, cannot and should not be understood to be miniscule or tangential; rather, it is a very real and present influence that helps to define reality for everyone who integrates with it. Moreover, as a result of the increasingly globalized world in which we live, the level and extent to which a person is able to escape from the impacts that media has and not be affected in any way shape or form by it is almost impossible. Sadly, the take away and conclusion that the reader can draw from all of this is the fact that the current exemplification of the news media is one that is not likely to change anytime within the near future. Due to the fact that powerful and dynamic firms control the lion’s share of the market, the possibility of other firms to break into this market and experience a level of success by attracting advertisers and engaging with a populace that is already grown accustomed to the news media as it exists today, cannot and should not be expected. Moreover, the increasing level of control that the United Kingdom government exerts over the way in which self censorship and a close consideration of the impact that any particular news item or story will have with regards to the current administration or with respect to the way in which the United Kingdom is viewed throughout the world, the level and extent to which the individual can expect a change of course with regards to the way in which media is represented is unlikely to say the least. However, rather than assuming that each and every tidbit of information that one is presented is false, the participant within the media should instead be fully cognizant and aware of what entities are representing the information and what possible gain they may have to present it in a biased manner. As has demonstrably been illustrated, even though it is extraordinarily difficult and requires painstaking separation of variables to accomplish, research and analysis of the impact of media upon public opinion does indeed exist and provides a powerful correlation between the way in which such public opinion is exhibited and the incessant creation of this public opinion by media companies. Sadly, due to the fact that this issue is so deep and so profound, one is ultimately left questioning whether or not public opinion itself exists or whether or not a culture of mediatization has somehow replaced it. Naturally, this particular question is beyond the scope of this analysis to answer; however, consideration of the ramifications of the information that this analysis has thus far represented allows the reader to tacitly assume that the impact of media and public opinion is a broad an infinitely complex relationship. Bibliography Berinsky, Adam and David R. Kinder, 2006. “Making Sense of Issues Through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis”. Journal of Politics, 68(3): 640-56. DellaVigna, Stefano and Ethan Kaplan, 2007. “The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3): 1187-1234. Druckman, James N. and Michael Parkin, 2005. “The Impact of Media Bias : How EditorialSlant Affects Voters”. Journal of Politics, 67(4): 1030-49. Morris, Jonathan S., 2007. “Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly , 88(3): 707-28. PAUN, S, & AZAROIU, G 2011, 'THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS',Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 6, 2, pp. 295-303, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 December 2013. Soroka, Stuart, 2006. “Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information”. Journal of Politics, 68(2): 372-85. Thomas, Roger, 2011. 'Media, cultural diversity and globalization: challenges and opportunities', Journal Of Cultural Diversity, 18, 2, pp. 48-54, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 December 2013. Zaller, John R., 1996. “The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited Idea”, in Diana Mutz, Paul Sniderman and Richard Brody(eds.),Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 17-78. ZAYANI, M 2011, 'MEDIA, CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND GLOBALIZATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES', Journal Of Cultural Diversity, 18, 2, pp. 48-54, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 December 2013. Read More