Recently, an article by Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University caught my interest. Iyengar is a widely respected communication and political science researcher considered to be a world leader in academic research of the relationships between politics and media, so when I see a publication with his name on it, my interest is usually piqued.
The paper is an update to research conducted by Ansolabehere and Iyengar in 1993, analyzing the tension created between journalists and candidates caused by "clearly defined and conflicting objectives"(Iyengar, 2011, p.1). In the earlier study, Iyengar suggested that candidates were winning the game by suckering the press into spending precious air-time covering outrageous, inaccurate, distorted and outright libelous paid advertising. Rather than successfully debunking and scandalizing false advertising, the news media were actually complicit in spreading the vitriolic content to a wider audience resulting in a greater incidence of intended effects.
Since that study, Iyengar (2011) notes that journalistic campaign coverage has evolved into less actual reporting and more use of strategists, analysts and consultants to report on candidates strategies and tactics rather than policies, positions and issues. The pressure of media ownership, marketing and the competition for sponsorship dollars further complicates the ability of journalists to be unbiased sources of information for the public - even when their intent is sincere. The media act as handicappers covering horse races, focusing on opinion polls, gaffes, political ads, donors and dollars; relegating only a few seconds of air-time to the candidates and their issue positions (Kaid, 2008). This trend, Iyengar (2011) calls "interpretive journalism". Iyengar further notes evidence that candidates are learning to accept the media condition and apply creative solutions to "accomplish and end-run" (p.4). Studying the 2008 Obama campaign has shown researchers that video sharing and social media have become effective methods of bypassing the media and taking the candidate message directly to the public.
Iyengar (2011) concludes with the suggestion that such new forms of unmediated communication between candidates and the body politic give reason to hope of a better way of informing and engaging voters rather than depending upon journalists more motivated towards entertainment than issues. Though voters are much more able to proactively seek and find information via the internet, how many of them will take time away from their otherwise busy lives to research each candidate, their positions and their track records? Of course, some will, but who with what frequency and how thoroughly? There is as much, or more misinformation promulgated through email and the internet concerning political races, candidates and policies as there is conveyed through television advertising. Much of it is even more slanderous, libelous and opinion framed as to imply fact.
In many ways the jury is still out on how political information is received and interpreted through the internet. Discussion groups, for example have been studied extensively. The behavior of participants has been observed and the how the social structures form has been studied. Himelboim (2009) found that over long periods, participants will not directly benefit from the freedom of open and voluntary social interaction, rather, they will “create highly hierarchical social structures that counteract some of the key conditions for civil society…individuals are free to join a discussion, but within it, they are highly unequal in their ability to benefit" (Himelboim, 2009, p. 17). Another micro-segment of digital information study deals strictly with the theory that free and open access to information will promote more knowledgeable citizens who will then become more civically engaged. However, individuals may be influenced by personal bias in the information they acquire and how they interpret it. Professor Paul Jones (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), director of iblio.org, suggests the abundance of internet information allows greater selectivity of information by consumers. “The trend is for opposing groups to isolate themselves behind virtual electronic walls. Folks don’t want to interact with every stranger, but to keep in contact with their tribes" (Kammer, 2008). Such digital isolation may fulfill the need to reduce uncertainty by strongly reinforcing existing beliefs, and if accessibility of information is linked in any way to improved civic knowledge, it is not visible from current statistics (PEW, 2007).
Rather than a ray of hope that Iyengar sees in digital media communication, I see it as dangerous. Perhaps the journalists have not yet learned how to be modern fact-checkers and watchdogs, but it seems a better option than completely free and unfiltered information streaming from the internet directly to the voter who will likely choose the source, tone and content that most closely fits with their ideology, thus reinforcing and validating their beliefs with absolutely no regard for the integrity or journalistic ethics of the author or publisher of the information.
References
Himelboim, I. (2009). Civil society and online political forums: Network analysis of 6 years of political and philosophical discussions in newsgroups. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, , 1-27. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=45286716&site=ehost-live
Iyengar, S. (2011). The media game: New moves, old strategies. The Forum, 9(1, Art. 1), 1-1-6.
Kaid, L. L. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of political communication research. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kammer, J. (2008). Are online campaign efforts effective? Retrieved, 2010, from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/09/20080709pop-campaign0709.html
Public knowledge of current affairs little changed by news and information revolutions: Summary of findings - pew research center for the people & the press. (2007). Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
No comments:
Post a Comment