Download Media Influence on Voting: Understanding Bias and Regulation in News Coverage and more Study notes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!
What we’re gonna do today — and let me sort of kind of give you a game plan for this week here because we are a little bit behind. Some of the material we can cover a little bit more quickly than others. We will definitely finish up Chapter 4 today on the media and then we’re gonna move on and start talking about, in Chapter 5, the discussion about voting behavior and participation. But I think what we can do here, certainly by Wednesday we will actually be done with Chapter 5 and we’ll go ahead and start moving into Chapter 6 by Friday. So what I would encourage you to do is just to make sure that you write down — you should definitely be finishing your reading with Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, you should be reading some of that right now because we’re sure we’re gonna get into some of Chapter 5 today. There’s also in the reader some very useful discussions here about the role of voting behavior. Again, follow the syllabus because it’s got it in there in some of the different places here. But one of the things that I would like to make sure that you do have a good understanding of and particularly I just want to bring this to your attention is some of the material that we’re gonna be talking about today goes hand in hand with what’s on page 66 about voter turnout in America and different myths about voter turnout. So it’s very important that you read that very, very quickly. And then also on page 41 and the reading on page 55. It’s something called the strange disappearance of civic America and then perhaps we go alone, but does it really matter. There’s a few things I want to talk a little bit about that, too. So certainly by Wednesday — again, you may have a little bit of a heavier load, but Wednesday try to get as far as you can on the readings for Chapter 5, Chapter 5 in the associated
readings for that material. If you do that you’ll be in good shape in terms of where we are in the class. Did you guys have a good weekend? Good. It’s a nice day out here. I’m glad spring is getting here. But I tell you what, though, it’s gonna be so tempting some days. You’re gonna say, “Oh, it’s such a nice day,” and everything. And let me tell you something else for you, too. For those of you who are first year students or so forth? A word to the wise. What you’re gonna find out is, particularly after spring break, spring semester and all that, ooooh, it’s gonna be tough sometimes. If you stay on top of it, stick with it and everything, you won’t be disappointed hopefully at the end of the semester and you say, “Boy, I really wish I’d gotten a B instead of a C in this class. I shouldn’t have taken off during those beautiful days.” So, you know, just try to stay on top of it if you can and I think you’ll do well. Before we start today, then, talking — finishing up Chapter 4 on the media, can I answer any questions about anything at all? Do you feel like we have covered pretty well the whole idea about the liberal bias in the media? Do we have a liberal bias? Sometimes maybe yes, maybe no. I want you to understand the nuances in the argument here, okay? Ultimately the thing I wanted to leave off with you is this very important thing. Ultimately, how influential is the media in influencing our beliefs? Is the media influential in that regard? That’s right. Yes and no. And what do you mean by that, Elizabeth? [Inaudible student response] Exactly. So in issues for which you don’t have a strong opinion on, they can
A very important criteria, as you have here in your notes, is this idea of a high impact on the audience. And when I say high impact on the audience, this speaks to the whole idea of is this particular story relevant to your life. Does this story contain the presence of violence or conflict or disaster or scandal? That’s what I mean by high impact. So if you, for example, hear of some hurricane coming in would be a good example of — you know, this obviously has a high impact on the audience. So to the extent that a news item has — is likely to have a high impact on you is because it’s relevant to your life. There’s the presence of violence, conflict, disaster, scandal of some sort and then obviously that’s gonna be very high in terms of the ranking of what will be included in terms of news stories. Another one is — another criteria that’s often used is whether or not the story is local or national or nature as opposed to international. In our broadcast media here, we definitely are much more likely to talk about local or national issues much before we talk about international issues. So I think as an example I used there could be some major military coup going on down in Guatemala and you may not even know about it unless you happen to read the fifth or sixth page of the paper and you might see some little blurb of that incident somewhere in there. So oftentimes, both in terms of the news print and also in terms of broadcasting, they’re more likely to report local or national issues before they will do international. Which I know you know that and that does make a lot of sense. At the same time, let me tell you this as a useful piece of advice. I would always encourage you to get on the Internet and look at the different newspapers, the on-line
newspapers, in other countries, for example. In Great Britain or look at the British broadcasting corporation. Look at what other European or other nations are saying, Asian newspapers or others. See what they’re saying. Every now and then, for example, I like to get on the St. Petersburg Times Russia to see what it is that Russia’s reporting about us. Again, just different international countries and see what their broadcast and news media are saying in general about different types of American events. You will definitely get a very different perspective if you do that. Let me give you another one here. Familiarity. Do you know the people involved? Again, this sometimes goes with this first one here, but the idea is that — again, to the extent that you know the people who are involved. If it involves a major figure like President Bush, obviously that’s gonna get more — be more likely to be reported than some lesser figure such as a member of the Supreme Court. Again, that’s a criteria. And then lastly — kind of goes with this first one, too — timeliness. If you have a choice between writing some long-scale analysis of some government policies with respect to, say, acid rain versus something that’s going on right here, right now, and again it’s probably gonna have a high impact. Chances are if it’s more of a news- breaking story, it’s gonna be more likely to report it before something that has less of a timeliness or time sensitive kind of story. So again, just some criteria for selecting news stories. And I wanted to pull this information in with the whole idea about the role of gatekeeper of the media. Because it is a very important role and understanding it is part of that role. What are some of the criteria that journalists adhere as they report?
the idea of helping the U.S. look more positive overall, okay? That’s interesting. Let me just tell you this again. This is a bit of a side point here. But do you remember we were talking about the different things about these kinds of criteria for selecting news stories? Let me just go back to the idea of there’s a great story that — for example, today in Iraq a power plant got repaired and electricity came back on for people in the town of Mosel, for example. Is that gonna make good copy? Probably not. That’s part of the problem here in some respects, is what makes for good copy? Some of these other types of factors that come into, in terms of ratings and issues, it’s a heck of a lot more likely to get a lot of good copy and much more likely to increase your ratings if you’re able to choose news footage of American military personnel shooting somebody in a mosque. Boy, that’s gonna get a lot of coverage, isn’t it? Whether there’s a bias may be a different issue altogether. But again, does it have a high impact on the audience? Is there the presence of conflict, disaster, violence and scandal? As opposed to something really good that’s going on over there such as building a power plant. And you might have maybe, you know, the mayor of Mosel pushing down the lever and all of a sudden the power comes back on. That’s a great thing. That’s part of why we’re over there, right? To help to bring stability and democracy over there. But again, is that the stuff you’re gonna get reported? On a day-to-day basis, probably not. So again, there’s a lot of very interesting issues. Let me tell you a little bit more in terms of government regulation in the media itself. Even though we are a free press — I mean, because we are a free press, there is
really sort of an arm’s length distance of the government regulating the media. The government looks at the media as potentially an ally but also potentially a foe. But it doesn’t do a heavy-handed regulation of the media. It’s regulated basically by a government agency known as the — very simple. What primary government agency regulates the media? It’s called the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. And their regulation of the media is actually pretty limited. They grant licenses to operate — for a station to operate on certain airways and so forth. And every now and then they actually become more visible. The one that I’m thinking of immediately was a year ago, The Super Bowl. The FCC had a big — you saw some news coverage about the FCC fining — was it CBS? Anyway, imposing some fines on the media because of this quote “wardrobe malfunction.” And so you see some of that. But by and largely, you don’t really have a whole lot of very strong, heavy-handed government regulation in the media. Let me tell you where FCC does play a role and this is something they had imposed called the Equal Time Rule. And the Equal Time Rule is not a very good way of putting what I want to say. It’s not a very good title for this. It really should be considered something called the Equal Rate Rule. Because what this really applies to are political advertisements. Now, the FCC will play a role here. Let me tell you how this Equal Time Rule works. Chris, for example, and I are running for office. We’re running for office, we’re competing for the same position, and let’s say we’re going into some particular local media outlet such as Springfield. If I — let’s say you and I are running for Congress,
the same level of money or cash on hand to pay for these things, that’s too bad. They’ve done their part, actually. Can you buy more slots? Absolutely. If I’m given the chance to run advertisements during these particular spots and I say no to that? Then they’re up for grabs. And if you want to go back and do it, you can. [Inaudible student response] They don’t have to necessarily seek me out necessarily first before they do it, but they have to provide that access to me. They cannot say, “We’re sorry, Dr. Scott, but you cannot advertise during this time because your opponent is doing it. And, by the way, we’re giving that person a better deal.” They have to be fair in their treatment and they have to — I think before you were to actually go and try to buy all that advertisement, I think if they saw that coming they’d first call me to say sure. That’s probably what they would do. But the idea of the Equal Time Rule is it doesn’t provide equal time to candidates. I want you to understand that. It’s a little bit of a misnomer. It’s really equal rate rules, is what it is, because it really doesn’t mean — like we have the same time slots allocated that we should be able to have available to us, that were fair in terms of how we treat the candidates. That’s what the Equal Time Rule is. That is actually administered by the Federal Communications Commission. Let me give you another one here. Now, this one actually is not used anymore. This is something that used to happen and Ronald Reagan got rid of this. And what the Fairness Doctrine says essentially is that if you are a broadcaster and I’m gonna
present one side of a controversial issue, I am obliged to present the opposite side of that issue. That’s what the Fairness Doctrine — that was the intent of the Fairness Doctrine when they first put it in place. But basically it obliges broadcasters to present both sides. They don’t have it anymore. In 1986 a court held that the Federal Communications Commission did not have to enforce that and then Reagan vetoed — Congress tried to pull it back up again and Reagan vetoed it. But basically the idea is that if you’re presenting one side — at one point in time we had this in place. If you’re presenting one side of a controversial opinion, you’ve gotta find somebody who would be able to present the counter argument to that. Question? [Inaudible student response] Okay. Did that answer your question? [Inaudible student response] Why would that be bad? Well, I think it was perceived as being too much regulation by the media — I mean by the FCC. It’s the idea now that we have so many different broadcast channels and different opportunities there’s not really a need for one particular station to have to do that, present both sides. It was really perceived as being a little unfair, kind of heavy-handed regulation by the media on broadcast donors. Actually, interestingly enough, Regan — yeah, Reagan vetoed it. Reagan vetoed it. Because again, he was more concerned — he was more concerned about too much government regulation of private enterprise and this was a good example of government regulation of private enterprise. So it’s important to know what the Fairness Doctrine is but at the same time recognize that that’s no longer in place. The Equal Time Rule is
because many daily newspapers are disappearing. And so, again, that I think you see is some of the trend that we have or one of the trends we have in terms of ownership. Another thing that’s very important along these same lines is the escalating importance of ratings. Ratings seem to be driving everything and that has a major impact on how that affects news coverage, news content, news substance. Let me give you an example here. There’s a fellow I used to play softball with many, many years ago as a doctoral student at Syracuse. His name was Tom Patterson. He’s now at Harvard University and he’s a distinguished professor at Harvard University. He wrote a book a few years ago called Out of Order. He did a lot of his research on the impact of the media. Now, one of the things that he talks about in his book about this is that because of — what the media liked to do is to focus on these little sound bites that are the most interesting and again, may be taken out of context and may again not be very substantive in nature. I used the example, for example, of Bob Dole, for example — you know, falling down. That was the whole story. But a lot of these little sound bites or little news clips that really seem to play well or attract an audience, you might get somebody to — a politician might say something and they report on that. But again, it doesn’t really have a lot of substance to it. It may be taken out of context. I’m sorry. I’m getting confused here. Maybe taken out of context but at the same time it really doesn’t help inform us as a public. And that’s the concern that he had. Again, a lot of this — the whole idea of focusing on these little sound bites goes back to this idea of the importance of ratings. Let me give you another example of that, too, because of this pressure for good
ratings. You might have stories like “Sixty Minutes” or “Nightline,” or others that get rather sensationalistic in terms of their reporting. You know, “Dateline NBC.” And you hear a lot of things that are reported that are somewhat sensationalistic. They don’t have a whole lot of content to them and it’s really interesting. And I’ll give you a good example of that that comes to mind. Back during the time that Bill Clinton was in the process of being impeached, there was a lot of — the press were following Monica Lewinsky around, you know, all over the place. I remember one time watching about 35 minutes of “Nightline” saying that — that was devoted entirely to the fact that Monica Lewinsky went to go to the grand jury on a given day. There was nothing really talked about the nature of what she said. That hearing was closed. But here was Ted Koppel, a very respected journalist, devoting well over — you know, 30 minutes or so, the entire show, essentially to the fact of one little thing and that is Monica Lewinsky was in court today. I mean, that was the story for the whole 30 minutes, you know. But again, what does she say or what — I mean, that was never part of it. Again, because those were closed to the media. But again, I think that why they show a segment that had no substance on it? Because of the importance of ratings. They knew that, you know, people stay tuned to “Nightline” to see if there’s any kind of juicy tidbit of information that might come out from that, even though nothing was forthcoming. So even respected news shows like “Nightline” and “60 Minutes” and others, in some cases might begin to sound very sensationalistic because of that. You’re gonna see that continued especially to the extent that you have a corporate bias and corporate ownership and increasing
considered conventional. Boycotting something? Okay. Blowing up an abortion clinic? That’s an unconventional form of participation. Resorting to some kind of violence for protest would be considered unconventional. So the book talks about conventional forms and unconventional forms of participation, and it’s good to understand the difference between them. You know, malicious training or writing or looting, blocking entrances to government buildings. Those would be considered examples of unconventional forms of participation. Now, as you’ve already pointed out, when we think of participation in the process, voting is certainly the first thing that comes to mind. And what I’ve got up here in the PowerPoint, I say voting enfranchisement has been a gradual process. That’s a very fancy way of saying that over a period of our history, more and more people have gradually been able to have the right to vote. Not everyone can vote at the outset and it’s been a process over a period of time. Pamela? [Inaudible student response] It depends on what you’re boycotting. [Inaudible student response] I think it depends on what you’d be actually boycotting. For example, what I would consider civil protest would probably be more conventional than unconventional, actually. [Inaudible student response] I mean, if your behavior leads to some kind of violence, for example, of some sort, then that would be a little bit different.
[Inaudible student response] Well, I would actually say if you — okay. That’s a very good example. I won’t use the term boycott. But let’s say, for example, that you march around with a sign at an abortion clinic. You’re across the street and you’re saying — you see this happening sometimes where there will be people who are protesting the operations of that abortion clinic. Now, their protesting — is that considered conventional or unconventional in that situation? That would actually be considered conventional if they’re just simply holding up signs. What if they’re actually preventing — well, let’s say they come across the street and they’re preventing women from entering into the clinic. Then you cross the line as you cross the street, in this case, from conventional to unconventional. Shooting an abortion provider because you disagree with his practice. That would be unconventional. So I think that’s really where you — that’s the distinction between conventional and unconventional. Now, in terms of voting enfranchisement, I’m gonna talk a little bit about this and how this has been a gradual process. As you know, now everyone could vote when we first became a nation. And what we’ve really seen over the past 150 years, it’s been a gradual extension of the right to vote. During our founding, not everyone could vote. Really, who could vote back then? You had to be — in other words, back in the early days of the — you know, once we first became our own nation and we drafted our Constitution, what did you have to be? White male landowner. Okay. And you had to have property, you paid taxes. And many people feared — this is interesting about the feeling of the majority. Many people feared opening up voting to the common man. I
If that’s not amazing enough, Indians did not have the right to vote until 1924. The Indian Citizenship Act established Indians as citizens of the U.S. and gave them the right to vote. Before then they did not have the right to vote. The citizenship requirements for some immigrants were easier to achieve than the citizenship requirements for Indians, at least up until 1924. Think about where we were at that time, you know. And I’m not an expert on Native American policy, but -- [Inaudible student response] Well, because they were a separate nation. Separate tribes belonged to separate nations like the Iroquois Nation, the Iroquois Confederacy, so they were really considered as citizens of a different nation. That was part of the rationale for why. They really weren’t citizens of the U.S. We had given them the reservations, had given them the land, and they were really a part of a separate nation. So really even if they were on U.S. soil overall, in the State of Oklahoma, New York, or wherever it may be, they really weren’t U.S. citizens per se. Again, what we’re seeing over time is gradually an expansion of more and more people having the right to vote. Another major milestone was 1965 when Congress passed and Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This was a landmark piece of legislation. Because what it did was it put into practice the commitments made from the 15 th^ Amendment back in 1870. If you look at 1870 versus 1965, almost a span of 100 years, even though African American males had the right to vote in 1870, African Americans as a group did not often vote or enjoy the privileges of voting really until about 1965. Because there were ways in which whites tried to keep African Americans
from voting, okay? One of which was something called a literacy test. And this you saw quite often in the South. And the way it would work is if you would — there would be something called poll taxes and literacy tests, and literacy tests were this way. Before you were allowed to vote, if you were African American you had to take a test to see whether — so they might give you a passage of information. “Read this passage and tell us what it means. Because, after all, if you cannot read this, you’re not literate and you shouldn’t be able to vote,” according to the idea. So many local jurisdictions used literacy tests as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. And they were very effective. And let me give you another one: poll taxes. P-o-l-l, poll taxes were another way. Because they would impose very high taxes on — if you’re gonna come vote, it’s gonna cost you $5.00. Well, you know, that’s what you made the last in your job and you can’t give the whole week’s worth of salary. So poll tax in order to vote. So many of them did not vote because of poll taxes. Going back to the literacy, I think it was Frederick Douglas may have been the person who was given a literacy test. He was educated, had a Ph.D. He was forced to undergo a literacy test when I was voting. I think this was in Alabama. He passed the literacy test with flying colors and they said, “Sorry, but you’ve got to now take a second literacy test.” They gave him a more difficult literacy test and he passed that one with flying colors. They said, “Whoa, you’re not finished yet. We have yet a third literacy test.” This time he failed. You know why he failed that third literacy test? Because it was in Mandarin Chinese. True story. Just to show you some examples that some
