Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder found, not surprisingly, that agenda-setting exists in television news. Though the book was published in 1987, their findings hold true today. Through manipulations of newscasts in highly controlled experiments, Iyengar and Kinder found that:
Agenda-setting is successful in telling what people to think about, and reinforces beliefs already widely held. Agenda-setting can last for a time after consumption of the information, but also depends on the topic highlighted for staying power. Sometimes so-called “vivid cases” (that is, visual, personal, emotional) are ineffective due to some peoples’ perception of melodrama, but again, is highly dependent on topic and personal experience. Obviously, those with less education and little political inclination are the most effected by agenda-setting.
Priming refers to what comes first to mind when making a judgment about something or someone. Television news affects priming by highlighting specific qualities about, say, a presidential candidate, and because of the mere emphasis on the quality and its recency, it comes to mind first.
I don’t find any of this original; perhaps the idea of agenda-setting was more radical in the 1980s, or perhaps I’ve been overly-exposed to the concept in academia. I did find, however, a few poignant assertions I’d like to share with you.
The FCC defined broadcasting in 1949 as “the development of an informed public opinion through the dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day” (122). On this, television news has utterly failed. Any educated, or at least analytical, person can tell you that television news is biased, in poor taste, and is not actually news. What is portrayed on the evening news or one of the 24-hour news networks is entertainment-based, and designed to scare. Honestly, who the hell cares if some people are injuring themselves on escalators because they’re wearing Crocs (they’re hideous and a crime against humanity anyway). There are better things to report on, like the thousands upon thousands who are dying in the civil war we’ve involved ourselves in in Iraq.
But obviously we can’t report on what’s actually happening around the world, because American “television news conveys representations of American society and politics that: (1) are unusually nation-centered in general and president-centered in particular; (2) are posed so authoritatively so as to discourage the citizen’s engagement in national life; (3) trivialize and demean elections; and (4) undermine the authority of political institutions” (124). Without accurate portrayals of what’s going on in the world, or real news in general, we have much to worry about for our national security.
“The quack, the charlatan, the jingo, and the terrorist [emphasis added] can flourish only where the audience is deprived of independent access to information” (3).
Uht-ohs!
1 comment:
Like your take on their book. I agree that these ideas do not seem ground-breaking but they were in the late 1980s. A lot of new media studies research followed this book.
What I think is interesting for those of us who grew up (or are still maturing) with the Internet and new media is that we tend to acknowledge television news biases right away. I don't know if we are more cynical or don't less trusting, but we seem to take television news with a grain of salt, knowing full well that it is dramtically sensationalized and tend to never stop questioning what is reported.
Post a Comment