CNN Influence Public Opinion - Literature review Example

Table of Contents 1.0.Introduction 1 2.0.Definition of Public Opinion 3 3.0.Researches on Public Opinion 4 4.0.The Impact of Media on Public Opinion 6 5.0.Public Opinion and Online Media 8 6.0.Public Opinion and Credibility 10 Literature Review 1.0. Introduction The literature field on public opinion research has been dominated by different strands including the existing relationship between public opinion, electoral politics and mass communication. However, looking at studies from scholars such as McCombs (2013), the literature on public opinion and public policies has help in defining the importance of public opinion. However, we note paucity of information regarding what constitute general importance of public opinion. To conceptualise the statement, the link between public policy and people is linked with public opinion but public policy is a terminology that has continued to vary. Beginning with recent studies such as Mughal and Ahamd (2011), public opinion influences policies in two different ways. First, public opinion is important when people attempt to influence policy-makers through dissatisfaction rather than a public groundswell for positive action. Secondly, public opinion helps in advancing progressive policies which in essence, helps people deviate from dissatisfying existing policies. Public opinions have been found to influence institutional policies. This is what McCombs (2013) terms as ‘dynamic and cyclical importance of public opinion” (p. 104). What the author opines by ‘dynamic and cyclical’ is that provided a policy decision is made, there is possibility for public opinion to accept it. As people see general policies becoming more specific and implications of the policies becoming clearer, public opinion usually change. The general importance of public opinion stretches beyond policy and practice as opined by Bardes and Oldendick (2012), tenets of Arab public opinion and Gulf War as suggested by Telhami (1993) or the relationship between public opinion and advocacy for social change by Hanitzsch et al. (2014). Instead, experts, elitist, or otherwise look at public opinion as social aspect and theoretical model that analyse what is just, fail and moral (O'Connor et al. 2010). 2.0. Definition of Public Opinion In his research, The Illusion of Public Opinion, Bishop George defines public opinion as ‘what the polls says” (Bishop 2004, p. 23). His argument shows that the scope of public opinion is what the polls are able to produce at a given time provided that such polls reflect on issues. This position has however been criticized by other authors and a good case is the research by Zaller John when he wrote about The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Unlike George (2004), Zaller (1992) argues that public opinion is the expression people give when they differ on the attention to public exposure and politic. The definition Zaller (1992) presents shows that what we see as public opinion is merely people’s critical reaction to political communication. From the perspective of the researches, definition of public opinion rests on individuals. It means individuals are unlikely to process true attitudes in the usual sense of the term on most social or political issues instead, a series of considerations that they think define their political futures. Policy representation has been a prominent theme in understanding the definition of public opinion from the perspective of Western studies. The small body of research that directly addressed this definition is however, we find, critical. Nacos et al. (2000) use a policy consistency approach and define public policy as a process where agents distribute survey questions to understand proximate policy changes required. The contribution of Machiavelli in different Western thoughts; including political theories and the meaning of public policy refine the extent to which we borrow from other Western scholars. Machiavelli defines public opinion as people’s voice that attempts to reduce the freedom enjoyed by republican government so that opinion holders can redress the political shortcomings (Watts and Dodds 2007). The definition of public opinion from the perspective of Machiavelli shows that election is the most direct way of understanding opinions public has about policies or regime. In which case, it agrees with Western scholars such as Entman (2004) who admits that the criterion that public policy will be adjusted to reflect public opinion is the way policy makers consider interests of the electorates. With the sources of Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward Kuwait notwithstanding, his (Saddam) calculations of risks and chances for success have been taken by Western scholars in defining the extent of public opinion. Proponents of this belief have shown that public opinion is the situation where leaders make attempts to ‘manufacture consent’ through strategic appeals to public (Telhami 1993). Relating this definition to Saddam’s approach in understanding public opinion, the Iraqi leader was driven by public opinion, anti-British or anti-Americanism sentiments in shaping Arab-Israeli peace process. 3.0. Researches on Public Opinion Researches on public opinion are multifaceted. Gallup and Newport (2011) assess the historical overview of public opinion by relating the propaganda and public opinions that were fanned in the first and second world wars. According to the authors, the scope of public opinion was aimed at progressing agendas between the citizens and the federal government. On the other hand, developments of public opinions between 1930s and 1980s were marked by emerging conservative ideologies where there were cases opinions tilted liberal policy innovations. Additionally, Western studies that have attempted to measure public opinion were interested in understanding the connectedness the regime had with war and policies (Benelli 2003). The most noteworthy is the Gallup’s discussions which indicated that scholars were interested in supporting interventionist policies especially in the years before Pearl Harbor (Entman 2004). From the other perspective, historical overview of public opinion indicates that public opinion is a principal function of representative democracy so that it further acts as a mechanism through which public policies are regularly and reliably connected (Entman 2004). Shapiro and Jacobs (2013) have been regarded as Western scholars advocating about public policy change and opinion. In their assessment of factors that have motivated researches on public opinion, they opine that journalism should contribute in systematic explanation of the roles played by public opinion. Unlike Entman (2004) who sees public opinion as a tool that changes policies, Shapiro and Jacobs (2013) link elements of policy change to journalism so that social agenda advocacy should be seen to be embracing an interventionist role. Developments of public opinion in the period before and after first and second world wars were linked with anti-American sentiments, to be specific, those that emanated from Arab publics. Nisbet and Myers (2011) have particularly researched on this matter by connecting it with political identity in Middle East. The central position the authors hold is that public opinion is rested on political identities to an extent that these identities shape our political location, socially constructed schemas, race, gender, religion and class. Researches on public opinion have been seen from theoretical models. Benelli (2003) suggests that a theoretical model of political linkages between policy-makers and public is two-fold. First, there is coercive model where public opinion applies pressure, either electoral or real to force lawmakers to enact the desired policies. Non-coercive model on the other hand, provides an explanation on how public policies reflect public opinion without a direct threat to the policy makers. While the theoretical models help in defining the scope of our topic, there is need to assess the role of class in limiting the impacts of public opinion by also observing that policy making have been dominated by powerful elites. Public opinion and war have also been important topics when understanding the significance of public opinion on pluralistic States. Roberts et al. (2002) examined the relationship by adopting national surveys to make a comparison on policy outcomes and public opinion as a way of measuring public opinion. Wanta et al. (2004) used a case study on the relationship between Gulf War and public opinion. Both studies included interviews with congress members, samples of constituents in 116 congressional districts and non-incumbent members. It is from their studies that the accurate measurements of public opinion through polls have been recent phenomenon. Elmo Rope and Gallup George started with statistical techniques in the 1930s but there have been different approaches that have been developed to measure the process. It has to be noted that strategies for measurement have not been static and as Roberts et al. (2002) suggested, Gallup had to change how to interview the targeted population after making a prediction that Harry Truman would be defeated by Thomas Dewey. 4.0. The Impact of Media on Public Opinion The impact of media on public opinion is widely recognized by different studies, yet few know the degree to which this occurs. Once acclaimed as the watchdog of political processes and democracy, there are a number of riveting researches and articles that explicitly show that the extent to which media impact public opinion has now taken a different dimension. To begin with, there was media report in United States where an email was uncovered and released by House Judiciary Committee that Tim Griffin, once the right-hand man for Karl Rove gloated that there was no U.S national press that had picked up a BBC TV story reporting that the team led by Rove developed an elaborate scheme to challenge the votes of thousands of African American in the 2004 election (Shapiro and Jacobs 2013). A similar case is the Arab TV news and the public opinion regarding the United States. According to Nisbet and Myers (2011) Arab transnational TV channel such as Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera have been focusing on international politics with an attempt of changing people’s minds about US political agendas and policies. A case in hand is the Al-Jazeera’s editorial choices in terms of focus on images and victims highlighting the consequences of Muslims of Israel or American actions in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq. These levels of reporting managed to manipulate public opinion regarding certain issues. According to Shapiro and Jacobs (2013), Karl Rove case and Al-Jazeera’s reporting attempt to tilt public’s opinion from ‘Western notion of objectivity’ to an extent that media is seen to be making attempts to present information from minority or Muslim or Arab perspective that if scrutinized, challenges what the news organisations views as a dominant Western perspective that have been embodied in news broadcasts. Another case where media influence public opinion was CNN and the business of state-sponsored TV news. Studies such as Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argued that CNN have been compromising its journalism in Middle-East countries including Gulf States. A good case in hand was its attempts to blur the existing line between the editorial and advertisement. Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) report that CNN International (CNNi) failed to broadcast an award winning documentary (iRevoultion) which was highly critical of regime in Bahrain. The refusal to air the documentary was an attempt to silence public opinion; which would have been different had it been aired. Within this context, the impact of media on public opinion saw George Bush and President Barrack Obama choosing a given media house that could air contents in their favour. George Bush opted for Al-Arabiya with multiple addresses and interviews during his tenure, ahead of other media houses including the United States’ own Al-Hurra network (Tan and Weaver 2009). Entman (2004) adds that the decision by Bush to opt for Al-Arabiya was to avoid of some agendas and topics that could tilt public opinion against his government. On the same note, instead of opting for Al-Jazeera as a widely watched Arab TV network or even the U.S sponsored Arab TV network Al-Hurra, the first post-inaugural interviews were on Al-Arabiya. One of the reasons why TV network is preferred over the other is due to creations of a vivid, emotional informational context in which public engagements with international affairs is enhanced. 5.0. Public Opinion and Online Media The use of online media or social media has become instrumental in understanding public opinion or spreading political dissent in the Arab word. Organized activist movements have been transformed by recent online media behaviors enabling researchers to understand the extent to which public opinion from Arabic world is influenced. Bardes and Oldendick (2012) noted that social media in the Arab World have been providing a special insight into the role of online communication so as to understand opinions members of public have concerning the Gulf States. Featuring instances as diverse as neo-patrimonial public opinions and politics in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, social media have been platforms through which people express their opinions when they want to transform religious, political and social identities especially with the increased digital activism. This interpretation is in line with Bardes and Oldendick (2012) general conclusion that the new media disseminate information not available through mainstream media with an attempt to shift and alter policies. This observation has been true for the war on Iraq which has been largely influenced by public opinion aired through public opinion. Mughal and Ahamd (2011) cited the case of racial profiling as well as the conflicts between the Israelites and the Palestinians which was largely influenced by public opinion from online media. Additional noteworthy patterns emerged when Stimson (2015) studied Arabic students’ social media usages and how their opinions and views shaped policy makers approach in moderating Arabic countries as Authoritarian regimes. Within this context, the rise of transnational online media in the Arabic world and the corresponding growth of Arabic nationalist political identities have made it possible for users to air their opinions thus altering oppressive state-centric political identities. With the contribution from different inter-disciplinary experts and scholars, the impacts of social media on public opinion have been changing power dynamics in Arabic World (Stimson 2015). In so doing, authors have been offering original perspectives and case studies on the short and long term implications of internet usage in the Arab countries and how airing of opinion through such platforms have necessitated changes in some policies. Assessing recent opinions from Arabic students using social media including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn Erikson and Tedin (2015) conclude that opinions from these sources have necessitated dynamics of politics in Iran and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The challenge in understanding ways in which the use of social media have impacted Arabic public opinion on America is that most previous empirical researches have been examining the relationship between Arabic social media use and public opinion on only single, cross-sectional surveys that manages to tap a given opinion at single point in time (Mughal and Ahamd 2011; McCombs 2013). Mughal and Ahamd (2011) researched widely on the relationship between social media and public opinion on anti-American sentiments from Arabic world. The conclusion drawn from the study showed that social media have been influencing the nature and extent to which political identities are created in Arabic world. That is, political parties or groups seen to be against anti-American sentiments were unlikely to favor through electoral processes. According to McCombs (2013), public opinion expressed through online media have been threatening the support and legitimacy of Arabic autocratic states thus creating policies that soften their relationship with Western countries or allowing greater repression to sustain power. 6.0. Public Opinion and Credibility The evaluation of credibility in the media is often much more complicated compared with current media contexts as a result of what McCombs (2013) terms as ‘the multiplicity that have been embedded in the numerous layers of media dissemination of content’ (p. 32). The relationship between the credibility of the media and the process of forming public opinion has been discussed in the three approaches of communication. The first approach assesses the credibility of the media is supported by scholars such as Hanitzsch et al (2014). The second approach is the message or content credibility with scholars such as O'Connor et al. (2010) pushing this agenda. The last approach is the source credibility as argued by McCombs (2013). Beginning with media credibility, there has been cases where public have been lured to change an opinion regarding some issues yet the content of the information, either from television, newspapers, blog or Internet was in doubt. This argument can be related to the case of The New York Times reports in the wake of 9/11 (McCombs 2013). During the period, The New York Times reported that the proportion of Americans who had very favorable feelings toward Muslims before and 9/11 never went beyond 5%. However, opinion polls that were later conducted indicated the rating to be somewhere around 25-30%. When media compromise their credibility on matters of national interest as this then the perception of U.S. public is seen as one which have negative opinions on issues important to Arab Americans. Previous researchers examined media source credibility but their reviews relied on existing source credibility measures of traditional Internet or news media giving consideration to media users’ perspectives (Entman 2004; Benelli 2003). What we have currently is the process where media index their coverage to accommodate elite rhetoric. Furthermore, ‘gatekeeper’ literatures (Entman 2004) show that journalists shape news by determining the content that suit ‘elite rhetoric.’ This is an indication that media has the power to promote un-preventative sample of elite rhetoric. This potential for bias does not only change public opinion wrongly but increases prominence of more-partisan ‘new media’ outlets. One famous example of such bias was the coverage of the so called “the war in Afghanistan’ or ‘U.S. war on terror’. In both cases, reports suggest that media credibility was tested particularly that of Al-Jazeera which covered the events from a different angles and yet showed viewed only one angle of the events (Entman 2004). Furthermore, CNN was forced to buy footage from Al-Jazeera when it reportedly aimed misleading information about U.S attacks in Arabian countries. In as much there have been widely held belief in the media’s intention to inform, they have dented their credibility to a certain level thus failing to act consistently to remedy the information inequalities they air to tilt public opinion about certain issues and policies. It is for this reason that some public opinions held may not reflect the state of affair but misleads from media that attend to exacerbate the prevailing trend. References Bardes, B.A. and Oldendick, R.W., 2012. Public opinion: Measuring the American mind. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Benelli, E., 2003. The role of the media in steering public opinion on healthcare issues. Health policy, 63(2), pp.179-186. Bishop, G.F., 2004. The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Entman, R.M., 2004. Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. University of Chicago Press. Erikson, R.S. and Tedin, K.L., 2015. American public opinion: Its origins, content and impact. Routledge. Gallup, A.M. and Newport, F., 2011. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F. and Lauerer, C., 2014. Setting the agenda, influencing public opinion, and advocating for social change. Journalism Studies. McCombs, M., 2013. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. John Wiley & Sons. Mughal, J.R.D. and Ahamd, M., 2011. Public Opinion and Media. Public Opinion and Media (August 30, 2011). Nacos, B., Shapiro, R.Y. and Isernia, P. eds., 2000. Decisionmaking in a glass house: Mass media, public opinion, and American and European foreign policy in the 21st century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Nisbet, E.C. and Myers, T.A., 2011. Anti-American sentiment as a media effect? Arab media, political identity, and public opinion in the Middle East. Communication Research, 38(5), pp.684-709. O'Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B.R. and Smith, N.A., 2010. From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series. ICWSM, 11(122-129), pp.1-2. Roberts, J.V., Stalans, L.J., Indermaur, D. and Hough, M., 2002. Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. Oxford University Press. Scheufele, D.A. and Tewksbury, D., 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), pp.9-20. Shapiro, R.Y. and Jacobs, L.R. eds., 2013. The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media. OUP Oxford. Stimson, J.A., 2015. Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. Cambridge University Press. Tan, Y. and Weaver, D.H., 2009. Local media, public opinion, and state legislative policies: Agenda setting at the state level. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Telhami, S., 1993. Arab public opinion and the Gulf War. Political Science Quarterly, 108(3), pp.437-452. Wanta, W., Golan, G. and Lee, C., 2004. Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), pp.364-377. Watts, D.J. and Dodds, P.S., 2007. Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of consumer research, 34(4), pp.441-458. Zaller, J., 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge university press. Read More

Unlike George (2004), Zaller (1992) argues that public opinion is the expression people give when they differ on the attention to public exposure and politic. The definition Zaller (1992) presents shows that what we see as public opinion is merely people’s critical reaction to political communication. From the perspective of the researches, definition of public opinion rests on individuals. It means individuals are unlikely to process true attitudes in the usual sense of the term on most social or political issues instead, a series of considerations that they think define their political futures.

Policy representation has been a prominent theme in understanding the definition of public opinion from the perspective of Western studies. The small body of research that directly addressed this definition is however, we find, critical. Nacos et al. (2000) use a policy consistency approach and define public policy as a process where agents distribute survey questions to understand proximate policy changes required. The contribution of Machiavelli in different Western thoughts; including political theories and the meaning of public policy refine the extent to which we borrow from other Western scholars.

Machiavelli defines public opinion as people’s voice that attempts to reduce the freedom enjoyed by republican government so that opinion holders can redress the political shortcomings (Watts and Dodds 2007). The definition of public opinion from the perspective of Machiavelli shows that election is the most direct way of understanding opinions public has about policies or regime. In which case, it agrees with Western scholars such as Entman (2004) who admits that the criterion that public policy will be adjusted to reflect public opinion is the way policy makers consider interests of the electorates.

With the sources of Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward Kuwait notwithstanding, his (Saddam) calculations of risks and chances for success have been taken by Western scholars in defining the extent of public opinion. Proponents of this belief have shown that public opinion is the situation where leaders make attempts to ‘manufacture consent’ through strategic appeals to public (Telhami 1993). Relating this definition to Saddam’s approach in understanding public opinion, the Iraqi leader was driven by public opinion, anti-British or anti-Americanism sentiments in shaping Arab-Israeli peace process. 3.0.

Researches on Public Opinion Researches on public opinion are multifaceted. Gallup and Newport (2011) assess the historical overview of public opinion by relating the propaganda and public opinions that were fanned in the first and second world wars. According to the authors, the scope of public opinion was aimed at progressing agendas between the citizens and the federal government. On the other hand, developments of public opinions between 1930s and 1980s were marked by emerging conservative ideologies where there were cases opinions tilted liberal policy innovations.

Additionally, Western studies that have attempted to measure public opinion were interested in understanding the connectedness the regime had with war and policies (Benelli 2003). The most noteworthy is the Gallup’s discussions which indicated that scholars were interested in supporting interventionist policies especially in the years before Pearl Harbor (Entman 2004). From the other perspective, historical overview of public opinion indicates that public opinion is a principal function of representative democracy so that it further acts as a mechanism through which public policies are regularly and reliably connected (Entman 2004).

Shapiro and Jacobs (2013) have been regarded as Western scholars advocating about public policy change and opinion. In their assessment of factors that have motivated researches on public opinion, they opine that journalism should contribute in systematic explanation of the roles played by public opinion. Unlike Entman (2004) who sees public opinion as a tool that changes policies, Shapiro and Jacobs (2013) link elements of policy change to journalism so that social agenda advocacy should be seen to be embracing an interventionist role.

Read More