Media Part II

Agenda Setting News not so great at telling what to think But powerful at telling people what to think about Increased media attention to an issue increases importance placed on it Can trump personal experiences

Agenda Setting Health care- in 90s-78% of people satisfied with their care, but large majorities think there is a health care crisis Crime- In 90s- Crime decreased, crime coverage increased, 50% of public thinks crime is increasing Fear of crime- Not related to victimhood, knowing a crime victim, strongly related to how much TV you watch

Agenda Setting Hypothesis- those problems receive prominent attention on the national news become the problems the viewing public regard as the nations most important Implicit- More coverage-> more importance Other factors may make story prominent too

Vivid Cases Does telling of the story have an impact? Presentation of vivid story (With human interest story) or pallid story (statistics) Expectation- Vividness will be more likely to set the agenda Mixed results In most cases, vivid no more effective, if not less In stories with race, strong negative impact on agenda setting if person portrayed is black

Lead Stories Another facet of presentation Expectation- First story will be viewed as more important than later stories We all have expectations about where stories go in broadcast/paper Mostly confirmed This varies by medium- E.G. On internet, less of an agenda setting effect

Agenda Setting Health care 80%- My Doctor Usually Explains things to me 50%- Doctors Usually Explain things to their patients 65%- Doctors are too interested in making money 25%- My doctor is too interested in making money Crime- In 90s- Crime decreased, crime coverage increased, 50% of public thinks crime is increasing Fear of crime- Not related to victimhood, knowing a crime victim, strongly related to how much TV you watch

Agenda Setting-Importance Perceptions of national problems more politically important than perceptions of personal problems Problem- Media Coverage can lead to misperceptions Problem- Possible manipulation Upside- Allow people to consider more than own experiences Upside- Can highlight significant problems

Priming Def: The standards citizens use to judge a president [or other figure] may be substantially by which stores newscasts choose to cover, and consequently, which considerations are made generally accessible Coverage does not necessarily change overall evaluation, changes criteria of evaluation Overall evaluation may go up or down depending on how president is viewed as doing on a specific domain

Priming Example- George Bush and Gulf War As war coverage increases, so does approval As economic coverage increases, decreases Irony- Economy not so bad as media portrayals

Framing Because frames permeate public discussions of politics, they in effect teach ordinary citizens how to think about and understand complex social problems... Elites wage a war of frames because they know that if their frame becomes the dominant way of thinking about a problem, then the battle of public opinion has been won”- Nelson and Kinder 1996

Framing Sniderman’s Value Pluralism Model- People have a number of values that they hold strongly but that are incompatible with one another Issues can tap any of a number of these values Framing can determine which values are deemed relevant for evaluating the issue

Klan Rally Experiment Tolerance is a tricky issue Especially the issue of tolerating intolerance Two sets of values Free Speech Free Speech Public Safety Public Safety Which values applied make difference for whether people support right to march

Framing Effects Sexual Psychopaths Military in Iraq Health Care Abortion

Who is Susceptible to Media Effects? Those who are exposed Moderate exposure Moderate exposure Those who are moderately aware Those who are trusting of the media Political moderates?

Media and Elections Intense Coverage Horse Race Journalism Public Dissatisfaction

Discussion Questions How would you define bias? How would you measure bias? How has it been measured before? Are conservatives always portrayed more negatively than liberals? Are there examples of liberals being portrayed negatively?

Discussion Questions Given the proliferation of news sources available, are concerns about bias overblown? How much latitude do the media have in choosing which stories get coverage and how they will be covered?

Media Bias The Problem- disconnect with reality Perception- Liberal bias Racial Bias? Class bias? Audience bias

News Norms Impartiality Equal Time ConflictNovelty

Media Types Newspapers Broadcast Media RadioNarrowcasting?CableInternet

Internet And Politics Wide range of viewpoints Interactive Paradox- Loss of civil society? Reinforcement of views More of the Same?

Media and Government Key Source of Coverage Local- little attention National- considerable attention Beats Press Conferences/Briefings/Speeches LeaksInvestigations

Parties Defined Organized Groups Edmund Burke- A body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest, upon some particular principle on which they are agreed Anthony Downs- A team of men seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining office in a duly constituted election

Parties vs. Interest Groups Diverse Coalitions Multiple Issues Greater Electoral Involvement

Some traits of Parties Coalitions ever changing Inclusive vs. Exclusive 2 Party System High hurdles for inclusion of 3 rd parties Public funding issues “Can’t Win Syndrome” Single Member Districts and Strategic voting

Parties- History Early leaders strongly opposed Madison and Factions Washington- “Warn against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally” Hamilton vs. Jefferson/Madison Origins in congress

Parties- History Electoral Involvement to increase chances Democratic-Republicans vs. federalists Early Democratic Dominance Minor parties- Anti Masonic, “Know nothings,” Free Soil, etc. Republicans as an overnight sensation

Machine Politics Parties very involved in day to day lives Patronage Social Welfare Largely Urban Largely Democratic Largely Corrupt High turnout/involvement

Progressives limit the machines Australian Ballot Civil Service Reform Government Provision of Social Welfare But- Decreased turnout

Great Depression Rise of Democratic Party Wide support- urban blacks, urban whites, rural whites, etc. United around new deal

60’s Realignment 1840s on- Democrats largely represent the south Post new deal- Uneasy coalition Like 2 separate parties Democrats become more supportive of Civil Rights Many southerners defect to the republican party

Coalitions Today Democrats Racial and Ethnic Minorities Women Blue Collar/Unions Social Liberals Republicans Slight edge among whites MenBusinesspeople Social Conservatives

Instability- Reagan Democrats 1980 Election Reagan Splits Democrats Union and blue collar workers Support Dems on Economics Support Dems on Economics Socially conservative Socially conservative Carter- Poor economic performance Reagan- Focuses on Social Issues, swings former democratic voters

Contemporary Instability Republicans Libertarian Faction Libertarian Faction Evangelical Faction Evangelical FactionDemocrats DLC DLC More liberal wings More liberal wings Holding on to black voters Holding on to black voters

Parties in Government Provides accountability Provides division that cuts across geography Provides policy proposals Provides Discipline Provide Moderation?

Parties in Government Congress Committee assignments/Leadership Party line voting Defections

The Presidency 2 Party System Tension- Representing Party vs. Representing Nation Works with his party in congress Most public face of his party Midterm Elections Coattail effects

Parties in the Electorate Party Identification- longstanding alignment with a particular party Sources Early Socialization Family Family Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Religious Group Religious Group Economic Factors Economic Factors Events Events Running tabs of issues? Short term fluctuations?

Trends Decline? 50s- High Identification (80%) Rise of “Independent” voters in 70s Independents make up 40% of electorate Independents make up 40% of electorate But- Many independents behaved as partisans In 90s- Increased Identification, increased importance

Parties in the Electorate FunctionsHeuristic Issue Ownership Democrats better on Social Welfare issues Democrats better on Social Welfare issues Republicans better on taxes, military Republicans better on taxes, military Information Filter

Electoral Function of Parties Early Task of parties- Elect Favorable individuals Parties control Important Resources MoneyServices Polling Polling Advertising Advertising Volunteers VolunteersPublicity

Electoral Functions of Parties Present a “team” image Presidents campaign for congressional candidates Coattail effect Mobilization

Importance of Parties to Candidates Party power through resources The rise of candidate centered campaigns? Independent fundraising Ability to purchase services elsewhere Mobilization Party support still critical