Reshaping Attitudes: Mass Media Changes Along with the News

April 2, 2008

Power of the press

This year’s campaigns are being more widely covered by the media than in any other election in U.S. history. Studies and reports continue to show that more people are tuning in and turning on their televisions, radios, and computers to receive, view, and respond to news about the race and the candidates.

The cable news MSNBC reported that, in February, more than 8 million people tuned in to watch a debate between U.S. senators and Democrat presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; the usual audience for the same time period is only one-tenth that number. Foreign news agencies are also offering unprecedented, in-depth coverage of the elections to their own and U.S. expatriate markets.

According to a recent national survey, current public interest in the campaigns is vastly outpacing comparable periods in previous presidential elections run-ups. What is fueling this phenomenal interest is the subject to debate. Some experts chalk up the increased public interest in the election to media coverage that is more sensational and dramatic than in past campaign periods. Others contend that the news media’s interest in the issues of race and gender because of the Clinton-Obama contest has generated greater levels of interest among a broader number of audiences.

According to historian and author Lee Edwards (a Hoover media fellow), the influence of mass media within any country—the United States included—cannot be discounted. In an article written for Hoover Digest, Edwards explains the mass media have become an “essential component of national power, as important to a nation’s viability as natural resources, population, economic strength, military might, and political will.”

Likewise, in an article published in the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review, author and international affairs expert Robert D. Kaplan notes journalists and news show executives, because they control the “spin” and have ultimate authority over which stories are presented to the public, possess immense influence and power in today’s society—more than the politicians they often cover.

Turn on and tune in

In the United States and other industrialized nations, the pervasiveness of digital information has made media more accessible now than ever before. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (the president's principal adviser on telecommunications and information policy) reports the number of people using broadband Internet connections grew 1,100 percent between 2000 and 2006. Broadcast news now cycles endlessly on a variety of 24-hour news channels; talk radio continues to be a rallying point for millions of Americans; and the Internet has spawned an entirely new culture of sites called “blogs” (web logs) that allow anyone— from professors to athlete, scholars to politicians, stay-at-home moms to celebrities —to post information on myriad subjects.

Compared to only a few years ago, capturing and distributing audio and video files has become relatively simple and inexpensive. Video-hosting websites, such as YouTube, allow people to broadcast amateur videos to a worldwide audience. As a result, once-unknown individuals and groups have been able to reach vast audiences and rocket to fame (or infamy) virtually overnight. Video clips of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s fiery and controversial sermons have been extensively broadcast on YouTube, which led to Obama publicly addressing his relationship with the pastor. Activist organizations and individuals, taking advantage of the anonymity of the Internet, often use digital media to coordinate their efforts or broadcast their messages to supporters and the public at large. Audio or video clips routinely appear on sympathizers’ websites with messages from Osama bin Laden and like-minded extremists warning Westerners, non-Muslims, and noncompliant Muslims of impending doom.

Print media are increasingly following the digital trend. Many of the world’s largest and best-known newspapers and magazines have created online presences, and almost as many use bloggers to scour the net and report on news that the print venue does not allow. Each year, the number of people who read their morning news from a monitor rather than the newspaper increases. A national report released in late 2007 showed that newspaper subscriptions fell 2.6 percent during the previous six-month period. Data released by Nielsen/Net Ratings show that the number of visitors to online newspaper sites has increased from 41 million visitors in one month in 2004 to more than 63 million one month at the end of 2007.

Pressing issues

While print media becomes less utilized, alternate/new media outlets are gaining wider audiences. Coverage of the 2008 presidential primaries illustrates this shift; more people than ever are relying on nontraditional forms of media for news and information about the race and the candidates. A recent nationwide study found that 26 percent of Americans receive information about the 2008 presidential campaign via the Internet on a regular basis, nearly twice that of the previous (2004) election.

Political candidates increasingly turn to alternative means to reach out to supporters and potential voters. All three top presidential hopefuls have created “MySpace” pages, where supporters can become virtual “friends” of the candidates, follow the campaign trail, download digital campaign images and slogans, and post and receive messages from the candidates and other friends. These sites garner thousands of hits every day.

Many of these new media outlets, especially blogs, openly espouse a particular political view, and attract readers who share similar views.

In contrast, traditional media outlets have generally touted their offerings—editorial content aside—as unbiased, balanced, and fair, a claim often challenged by politicians, pundits, and academics who question the objectivity of any given news source. Accusations of unfairness, interest pandering, preferential politics, and flat-out personal bias are plentiful. Charges that mainstream media reflect a liberal or conservative slant are common among academics and politicians.

Thomas Sowell, a Hoover senior fellow, agrees that many journalists are guilty of “filtering and spinning the news” according their own political agendas or that of the candidates they support. Such bias, according to Sowell, hurts the public that depends on “journalists to tell them the truth as they see it and to offer their honest opinion as to what it means.”

Hoover senior fellow Morris Fiorina points out that bias in the media is to be expected because the experiences of journalists are limited to surroundings that are not representative of mainstream America. Thus, according to Fiorina, those providing the information cannot help but offer skewed observations.

Critical mass media

In today’s media-saturated worlds, news outlets constantly vie for market attention. In an article written for the Hoover Digest, American legal history scholar and Hoover media fellow Morton Keller states “journalism is by nature contentious and opinionated. Gossip, sensationalism, and exposure are inescapable tools in the business of inducing readers to read (or viewers to view) media output.”

Hoover research fellow and former journalist Robert Zelnick chalks up frivolity in today’s news to an overriding shift in priorities. Zelnick believes many news outlets are forced to rely on “the shock value of things” to constantly feed the never-ending news cycle. To this end, news producers have a “tremendous need to break new information when there's no new information to break.”

Zelnick argues that the news consumer is not a helpless bystander but rather is in control and, ultimately, responsible for media content. During a conversation with host Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge, Zelnick remarked, “I think that the discipline that has to be exerted on the market has to be exerted by individuals who care about news. They have to seek out the better programming, they have to seek out the more erudite coverage, and that's the only type of noise that has any resonance in the rooms where decisions are made.” —Michelle Bussenius, Editor