Political Persuasion by Media

mzungu · 19-01-2018 11:49pm #1

On the question of what impact TV has on viewers (especially as regards politics), John Zaller (1996) points out that in the US neither Democrat nor Republican voters realise their their respective campaigns largely cancel each other out, as opposed to either side ever actually winning in any grander sense.

I'm inclined to believe he may have a point. I suppose the only way we would know would be if one decided to drop the big bucks advertising campaign and see how they fared at the next election.

Thoughts?

Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. Political persuasion and attitude change, 17.

Black Swan · 25-01-2018 9:45am

Yes, both Democrats and Republican forms of campaigning for the presidency were cancelled out. Pseudo-reality TV Celebrity Apprentice Trump overwhelmed the traditional forms of media campaigning leading up to the November 2016 election, with a populist spin that was not original to Trump. William Ivy Hair wrote about an earlier populist with The Kingfish and His Realm. It was a biography of former Louisiana governor and US Senator Huey Long. To paraphrase Long: Good news is the best news, bad news is second best, but no news is bad news for a politician. Both Long and Trump have mastered this media campaigning maxim. Furthermore, after being sworn-in, Trump has continued to dominate the media with both good and bad news, almost daily. Rare is a day without a Trump news media item, normally at the top of the hour.

mzungu · 30-01-2018 7:25pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, both Democrats and Republican forms of campaigning for the presidency were cancelled out. Pseudo-reality TV Celebrity Apprentice Trump overwhelmed the traditional forms of media campaigning leading up to the November 2016 election, with a populist spin that was not original to Trump. William Ivy Hair wrote about an earlier populist with The Kingfish and His Realm. It was a biography of former Louisiana governor and US Senator Huey Long. To paraphrase Long: Good news is the best news, bad news is second best, but no news is bad news for a politician. Both Long and Trump have mastered this media campaigning maxim. Furthermore, after being sworn-in, Trump has continued to dominate the media with both good and bad news, almost daily. Rare is a day without a Trump news media item, normally at the top of the hour.

Which begs the question, is the media and society playing his game? Something tells me he enjoys even the most negative of coverage, because attention (the publics) is the name of the game. Look at Davos, only one name on the lips of everybody, but what exactly was provided that warranted all the hype? When the cult of celebrity meets politics you know that things will stoop to the lowest common denominator. I often think if the media coverage stopped altogether it would probably provoke real anger among the current US president.

Fathom · 31-01-2018 1:28am

mzungu wrote: »

When the cult of celebrity meets politics you know that things will stoop to the lowest common denominator.

Key observation. Today's politics.

Black Swan · 31-01-2018 4:20am

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow, Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, Spring 2017, pp. 211-236, suggest "people are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks."

Fathom · 31-01-2018 11:25pm

Black Swan wrote: »

especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks."

News media comparison: Fox & Friends vs. CNN?

mzungu · 01-02-2018 10:59pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow, Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, Spring 2017, pp. 211-236, suggest "people are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks."

Fathom wrote: »

News media comparison: Fox & Friends vs. CNN?

Another way perhaps? Enikolopov, Petrova & Zhuravskaya's (2011) study of the 1999 parliamentary elections in Russia found that independent TV decreased the aggregate vote for the government party and increased the combined vote of the major opposition parties by 6.3 percentage points. A route we may wish to take in future?

Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2011). Media and political persuasion: Evidence from Russia. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3253-85.

Black Swan · 02-02-2018 4:33am

Explaining the Donald Trump phenomena with the news media: D Kellner (2016), American nightmare: Donald Trump, media spectacle, and authoritarian populism.

Fathom · 02-02-2018 5:09pm

mzungu wrote: »

...is the media and society playing his game? Something tells me he enjoys even the most negative of coverage, because attention (the publics) is the name of the game.

Celebrity Apprentice. Now Celebrity Apprentice President. Entertainment rules!

Black Swan · 03-02-2018 8:23am

Questions to what extent Trump's "fake news" presidential attack of anything reported that does not favour him challenges the independence of the news media?

Fathom · 07-02-2018 8:21pm

Spinning spin-language? Fake news. Alternative facts. Etc.

mzungu · 07-02-2018 11:35pm

Fathom wrote: »

Spinning spin-language? Fake news. Alternative facts. Etc.

Black Swan wrote: »

Questions to what extent Trump's "fake news" presidential attack of anything reported that does not favour him challenges the independence of the news media?

I think - and he is not the only one that does this - that excessive muddying of the waters will not challenge independent journalism, it will however make the real facts harder to spot amidst the spin.

Fathom · 09-02-2018 9:33pm

mzungu wrote: »

I think - and he is not the only one that does this - that excessive muddying of the waters will not challenge independent journalism, it will however make the real facts harder to spot amidst the spin.

Fact checking sites muddied too. If unfavorable. Called fake. Or partisan.

mzungu · 09-02-2018 10:06pm

Fathom wrote: »

Fact checking sites muddied too. If unfavorable. Called fake. Or partisan.

Always worth checking who financially supports some "fact checking" websites also. On some, shall we say, controversial social issues, the "facts" as represented may show a bias towards where the money is coming from.

Fathom · 15-02-2018 3:02am

"Money talks, and (media) walks."

Political Persuasion by Media

Comments