Changing Minds or Changing Channels Critique - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction

With the US presidential elections over, talks of polarization have once again hit the headlines. In as much many people believe that the polarization has increased, others hold the belief that this is a mere misconception propagated by the media. Besides, Arceneaux and Johnson (pg 3, 2013) note that politicians and pundits alike have expressed their concerns about the public polarization fuelled by US media houses such as MSNBC and Fox News. In addition, these media have made it difficult to attain mutual consensus across the population masses, especially on the public policy issues. Moreover, the media has been taunted as an agent for allaying fear across the population divide, further contributing to the establishment of ideologically motivated segregation not only on political issues but also on religious, cultural, and economic factors.

Political Scientists Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson wrote a book to analyze the credibility behind the claims from different quarters that earmarked the media as the main propagator of this polarization. In the book “Changing Minds or Changing Channels” Partisan News in an Age of Choice”, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) dissect this topic by including a broad spectrum of ideas that should be considered in scrutinizing the depth of the issue at hand. Consequently, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) develop their book based on a platform that the partisan news programs are neither as influential nor as polarizing as people have labeled them. This paper will give a summary of chapter readings in this book, hence prove that in this era where the viewers have a consortium of channels to watch, it is irrelevant to blame partisan news channels for polarization whereas the viewers contend with the bigger problem of viewership choice.

Analysis of selected readings

The book “Changing minds or changing channels?” is a representation of a study that analyses the effects that the media has had on the public opinion of the Americans. At the beginning, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 17, 2013) put up a review of the debate about the minimal effects of the shifting interests against the hypodermic model of the strong and persuasive effects. The main factor to note in the opening stages of this book is that the image portrayed of the media mainly originates from the opinions of leaders. Besides, one can note the emphasis that Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) put in justifying the position that the media effects have gradually transformed over the last decades, more so in the increasing divergence in the public opinion, hence breeding partisanship across a wider spectrum of issues. The motivation of the authors in this book is retrieved from the ideological polarization among the elites that marked the partisan divergence of the1970s.

Evidently, this book picks its theme from two different standpoints. To begin with, the first point is withdrawn from the claim that ideological sorting and mass polarization have increased upon the expansion of cable television. For instance, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 64, 2013) note that partisanship has been depicted in news talk shows that have adopted either right wing or left wing political ideologies, an example being the right wing’s O’Reilly Factor on Fox News against the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC that epitomizes the left wing political ideology. Besides, this expansion stretches to include the new trends of news broadcasting such as social media and online through channels such as YouTube and websites.

Far from the above point, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 3, 2013) developed their argument from the idea that the expansion of media has availed platforms for the upsurge of new junkies who have more partisan political information. As Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) explain in page 48, news media have an obligation to remain neutral, regardless of the prevalent political inclinations. However, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) noted in page 6 that the expansion of the media has diluted the neutrality of the Fourth estate, a factor that is reflected in the choice of more partisan new channels.

In page 53, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) introduce a turning point, perhaps to support the earlier observation in reference to the study Markus Prior in page 7, which illustrated the alternative sources to pursue personal interests or entertainment for individuals not interested in politics. The choice to avoid the news in its totality formed the basis of this argument. Arceneaux and Johnson (page 72, 2013) out rightly demonstrate how the choice to avoid news, coupled with the selective exposure to partisan news, is reflected in observational studies that aim at establishing the media as a causal effect of the partisan conflict in the USA. In this book, therefore, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 12, 2013) argue that people can learn about the behaviors of the real world, which accrue from experiments that obligate the media content exposure.

The observation by Arceneaux and Johnson (2013), therefore, follows the argument that people have a preconceived mindset that makes them get angry about the news coverage in the media. The feeling that people have towards their least favorable cable news channel is likened to the anger, mistrust and dislike that these people exhibit towards the political leaders who subscribe to the ideas that are seemingly propagated by these channels.

Therefore, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) highlight their intention to find the most appropriate remedy to the preconceived polarization that is depicted towards the cable news channel. Consequently, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) devised and conducted a series of randomized experiments. Some of these experiments allowed the subject-controlled exposures to news programs and entertainment channels. Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) went deeper to obtain experiments from researches surrounding medical trials, with the bid to establish whether the subjects of the experiments exhibited preferences to entertainment over news media or vice versa. The core purpose of the experiments, as Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) narrate in page 27, was to examine the effects that the exposure to news shows have on individuals who do not views these programs.

To facilitate the study, the authors acquired a sample of 1,700, consisting of a blend of people from different settings (Arceneaux and Johnson, page 16, 2013). The subjects were not determined by gender, rather by age, occupation, as university students, volunteered adults who were surveyed on the online panel, and temporary office workers from diverse sets were included in the study. In more detail, these studies involved a scrutiny of the persuasive effects that these news talk shows commanded across the viewer segments, hence linking this to the claims of partisan polarization. As part of analyzing the polarization cause, the studies examined the reaction and behavior of people when subjected to opposing views, which do not conform to their political opinion. More effects thereafter were examined, such as the perceptions of the incivility and media bias, agenda setting, framing, and priming effects.

Indeed, it was established that there exist real ideological and demographic differences between the audiences of different cable news channels, with these differences founded on the opposing political views. Besides, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 43, 2013) explained that viewers of partisan cable news channels are more polarized, as the overall results prove that the persuasiveness that the media commands. In addition, the experiments revealed that majority of the conservative watch Fox News, in comparison to the liberals. However, the main dilemma behind this finding lies in the ability, or otherwise, of such cable news channels as Fox News to make a viewer more conservative. This is the point in which the choice of the viewer is put to test.

It is interesting to note that certain cable news channels such as Fox News and MSNBC attract massive attention. However, it is even more disheartening to learn that the audiences of these cable news channels are smaller than those watching broadcast news, as assert. For instance, in page 4, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) highlight the differences between the viewership in Fox’s Bill O’Reilly Show, which attracts an average 3 million viewers, arguing that CBS News alone attracts a viewership of approximately 10million a week.

It would be compelling, therefore, to imagine the exact numbers if these findings could be mapped through generalization to include all the 130 million people eligible for voting in the US. However, this is not the case, as Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) explain in page 43. Instead, they recognize that not all people watch the cable news channels, and look into the influence that such channels would have on people who do not watch them.

Primarily, the core question has been the ability of the partisan cable news channels such as Fox News and MSNBC to influence the opinions of the viewers on certain issues of public concern such as terrorism, the economy, and healthcare. To throw a dice into the study, the researchers considered the role that these partisan channels have in persuading the opinions of viewers towards the performance of President Obama (Arceneaux and Johnson, page 80, 2013). One trend is visible, that of the media being a key protagonist in determining the most important political issues within the US. However, in the presence of other cable news channels such as entertainment, music, car and house shows, the traditional ability of the media to determine the political issues that command the ability to polarize the society is put under the radar.

The media is one of the indicators that depict the democracy attached to countries such as the US. Freedom of speech, just like the freedom of choice, is the cornerstone of the budding cable television network industry in the US. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the presence of freedom to choose from a wide variety of cable television channels culminates into polarization depending on the number of the cable television channels available. As is the case in page 25, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) explain that people with the freedom to select what they watch are less likely to be influenced by the political gimmick that characterizes either conservative or liberal cable television networks such as Fox News and MSNBC.

Judging from the above findings, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) explained that there are several reasons behind this observation. First, many people involved in the study, as presented by Arceneaux and Johnson (page 64, 2013), did not watch the news programs. Secondly, the reason behind this observation could be retrieved from the participants’ reactions upon being asked about the programs that they prefer to be assigned to watch (Arceneaux and Johnson, page 66, 2013).

The results of these researches can be generalized to the larger US population. In the first instance, many people in the US do not prefer to watch the news programs. As an alternative, people have unconventional sources of entertainment that persuade their viewership. From the second instance, it can be valid to argue that the television channels viewed by people are largely determined by habit. The preference of people to the most appropriate channels is often shaped by habit. The above reasons, moreover, can be extrapolated to reflect the relevance of politically themed cable television networks in diverse population settings of the United States.

As portrayed in the book, the media is considered only as an agent of polarization from the context of it being used political tool, with many people overlooking the role that the media plays in providing alternative information related to entertainment, sports, business, religion, just to mention but a few social functions. An interesting pattern is revealed upon separating the viewers into either news seekers or entertainment seekers.

News seekers are people who prefer to watch news programs, while the entertainment seekers refer to the other proportion that prefers other programs other than the new programs. Much to the disappointment of the entertainment seekers, the research subjected them to a partisan news program. Results, as indicated in page 87 by Arceneaux and Johnson (2013), show that the entertainment seekers were highly influenced by the partisan programs when compared to the news seekers subjected to watch similar shows. It means therefore, that the habits of watching television for entertainment purposes has overshadowed the perceptions that people have towards partisan political news shows.

Presumably, news seekers appear to be more aware of the debates that define the current political environment. Depending on the ideological side on which the viewers stand, they have their own opinions on such political debates. This makes the new information from these debates less intriguing, thereby commanding lesser ability to alter the thinking of such viewers, contrary to the entertainment seekers.

From the analysis of the arguments enshrined in the presentations of Arceneaux and Johnson (2013), it is inevitable that the book gives a comprehensive analysis of the perceptions that the public has towards news channels. Through this analysis, a good case arises, that these factors put together have influenced the exaggerations depicted in other studies about the societal impact of the cable news channels, more so in relation to polarization. The studies have generalized the findings from the small proportion of people who watch cable news to the entire American population.

On the other hand, the study conducted by Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) brings together a random group and forces each member of the group to watch the partisan news. By so doing, the research is including many people who typically do not watch the partisan news out of their own volition. Conversely, if these people are removed from the environment that subjects them to forceful watching of the partisan news, there is an observation that points to the significant drop in the effectiveness of the apparent persuasive function of these media.

Judging from the issues as articulated by Arceneaux and Johnson (2013), cable news is portrayed as an agent of polarization across the US public, though the reality is that cable news are merely delivering products that appeal to the opposing views of the American public. This is not to say, however, that the partisan new has no effects on the perceptions and thinking of the viewers. Arceneaux and Johnson (page 89, 2013) relay their belief that the effects of the partisan news appears to smaller than the hypothesis provided for by other scholars. To back this argument, in page 64, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) introduced the scientific aspect of stimuli, hence explaining that people are governed more by their individual perceptions, not by the absorption of things they hear from such partisan news.

Furthermore, it is evident that the effects of the media are minimal in the choices that people make regarding their viewership. Along their arguments, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) in page 69 explain that their findings do not necessarily mean that the media does not have any effects on the shaping the opinions of viewers. Therefore, the polarization narrative peddled against the media only focuses on the four top-rated partisan news programs that attract barely three percent of the television audience in the US. From the study page 85, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) established that the 3% partisan news viewers in the US is entirely composed of the people that are identified with strong partisan viewpoints. In simple terms, most Americans choose to watch other programs, other than the partisan news channels.

Conclusion

The attitudes that people exhibit towards the media are largely based on the role that the media plays in the sensitization of the public on matters of governance and political responsibility. In the chapter readings, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) conclude that partisan polarization is substantially limited by the influences that the direct partisan media have on the viewers. Therefore, there exists polarization in the United States, but not in the large proportions that are purported by researchers. Besides, if the United States had only the partisan media as the available television choices, the mass polarization would have been worse. Therefore, the changes in mass media are not the solution to the existing public polarization in the US. In conclusion, it is irrelevant to blame cable news channels for polarization whereas the viewers contend with the bigger problem of viewership choice.

Evidently, this book picks its theme from two different standpoints. To begin with, the first point is withdrawn from the claim that ideological sorting and mass polarization have increased upon the expansion of cable television. For instance, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 64, 2013) note that partisanship has been depicted in news talk shows that have adopted either right wing or left wing political ideologies, an example being the right wing’s O’Reilly Factor on Fox News against the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC that epitomizes the left wing political ideology. Besides, this expansion stretches to include the new trends of news broadcasting such as social media and online through channels such as YouTube and websites.

Far from the above point, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 3, 2013) developed their argument from the idea that the expansion of media has availed platforms for the upsurge of new junkies who have more partisan political information. As Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) explain in page 48, news media have an obligation to remain neutral, regardless of the prevalent political inclinations. However, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) noted in page 6 that the expansion of the media has diluted the neutrality of the Fourth estate, a factor that is reflected in the choice of more partisan new channels.

In page 53, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) introduce a turning point, perhaps to support the earlier observation in reference to the study Markus Prior in page 7, which illustrated the alternative sources to pursue personal interests or entertainment for individuals not interested in politics. The choice to avoid the news in its totality formed the basis of this argument. Arceneaux and Johnson (page 72, 2013) out rightly demonstrate how the choice to avoid news, coupled with the selective exposure to partisan news, is reflected in observational studies that aim at establishing the media as a causal effect of the partisan conflict in the USA. In this book, therefore, Arceneaux and Johnson (page 12, 2013) argue that people can learn about the behaviors of the real world, which accrue from experiments that obligate the media content exposure.

The observation by Arceneaux and Johnson (2013), therefore, follows the argument that people have a preconceived mindset that makes them get angry about the news coverage in the media. The feeling that people have towards their least favorable cable news channel is likened to the anger, mistrust and dislike that these people exhibit towards the political leaders who subscribe to the ideas that are seemingly propagated by these channels.

Therefore, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) highlight their intention to find the most appropriate remedy to the preconceived polarization that is depicted towards the cable news channel. Consequently, Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) devised and conducted a series of randomized experiments. Some of these experiments allowed the subject-controlled exposures to news programs and entertainment channels. Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) went deeper to obtain experiments from researches surrounding medical trials, with the bid to establish whether the subjects of the experiments exhibited preferences to entertainment over news media or vice versa. The core purpose of the experiments, as Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) narrate in page 27, was to examine the effects that the exposure to news shows have on individuals who do not views these programs.

To facilitate the study, the authors acquired a sample of 1,700, consisting of a blend of people from different settings (Arceneaux and Johnson, page 16, 2013). The subjects were not determined by gender, rather by age, occupation, as university students, volunteered adults who were surveyed on the online panel, and temporary office workers from diverse sets were included in the study. In more detail, these studies involved a scrutiny of the persuasive effects that these news talk shows commanded across the viewer segments, hence linking this to the claims of partisan polarization. Read More