J201 Exam 1

anonymous source

-audience cannot trust source if do not know who it is -hard to hold news accountable -info could not be accurate -ex: 2004 pres campaign, CBS 60 min Bush military history -anon source could have political reason, alt motives -most news: 2 anon sources that say same thing

Why does Agenda setting happen? (psychology of agenda setting)

1. Accessibility -Recognize and understand it 2. Relevance -Via emotions: anxiety and fear -Has to matter to me!

Key Journalistic standards

1. Accuracy 2. Balance 3. Checks on pure profit maximization 4. Democratic accountability focus -Are elected officials doing what they promised? 5. Editorial separation -News is separate from opinion -Many news don't believe in this wall -Hostile media effect?

Hadley and Cantril - Radio Panics America (late 30s)

-"war of the worlds" - people thought it was real? -Panic was overstated -Unique broadcast: no commercial breaks -Only 1/3 of people who listened were actually scared

Communication Mediation Model

-See model C -Individual characteristics, political enviro, social structure context --> partisan media and conversation --> partisan participation, distrust -More engagement in extreme convo = more distrust

Cultural indicators project

Antecedents -National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1967) -George Gerbner's content analysis of prime time TV: By age of 12, child witnessed 8000 homicides and 100000 violent acts -Expand to gender roles, stereotypes, health, science, politics -Institutional analysis: how messages are produced and distributed -Message system analysis: what is recurring media content -Cultivation analysis: how TV exposure mold perceptions about the "real" world Watching TV -Passive -3 hrs on average in 80s -Routine and prime time shows -Important component of rating- what show is on before -Number of hours of per day watching tv: 7

Political knowledge

Argument: we cannot have democracy unless public is informed -Effects who participates -Makes us seem more extreme -Americans know less about what is happening the world -We are not learning any more with updated tech -2017: 33% cannot name one US gov branch, 37% cannot name rights guaranteed by 1st amendment -Conventional wisdom: more flow of info ensures widespread acquisition of knowledge - NOT TRUE

User and Gratifications approach

-"what people do with media rather than what media does to people" -Paradigm from content to audience -Channel proliferation -Recognition of importance of individual dif Theoretical assumptions -Individual dif lead people to select content -Individual dif influence message interpretation Differences with previous media effects research 1. Focus no longer on message/sender side of equation 2. Does not assume direct influence from content 3. Audience is no longer considered passive 4. Can't explain media effect unless first understand audience -Characteristics -Motivation -Content selection -Involvement with content Assumptions -Com as goal directed (purpose) -Social and psychological factors filter and mediate media-behavior relationships -Instead of being used by media, people select and use media to satisfy needs -Media compete with other forms (functional alternatives) to satisfy needs (But dependency can arise from patterns of use) Individual needs that media can satisfy 1. Cognitive needs -Acquiring info, knowledge, understanding 2. Affect needs -Emotion, pleasure, feelings 3. Personal integrative needs -Credibility, status, stability 4. Social integrative needs -Fam and friends 5. Tension release needs -Escape and diversion Main points -People are dif and these difference affect media use, message interpretation and effects -Audiences can be active and this impinges on their processing of info -Effects not necessarily uniform, but contingent on predispositions and use -Sometimes we are not active users

framing effect

-***defining scope of conflict -If you can control scope of conflict, more likely to win debate -framing effect: happens when frame causes one thing to be more salient

Trend of perceived media trust

-1 in 4/5 have confidence in TV news -General downward trend of confidence in newspapers (slight rise in 2012) Overall press performance -2/3 people think stories = inaccurate -Tend to favor one side -influenced by powerful people and orgs -Republicans are more likely than democrats to think media favors on side -Gap bigger than ever -2018: 86% Repubs, 52% Dems -How do we interpret this? 1. News is biased towards Dem? 2. Repub and Dem are consuming dif news? 3. Repub see more souces as Lberal 4. Repub fall for Fake news? -Liberal talk radio = not as popular

frame

-Can be construed as one of several potential dimensions on which one bases his/her evaluation of an object -Dimensions involve 1. substantively distinct considerations (emphasis frames) 2. or logically equivalent ones (equivalency frames) -leads to alternative representations of prob and can result in distinct evaluations and preferences -expression of idea construed as a potential dimension -Emphasis on certain part of issue -Central organizing idea about what issue is about -ex: abortion 1. pro life vs pro choice 2. limit scope of conflict Kahneman and Tversky's classic study -Equivalency framing effect -US preparing for disease -Gain frame vs loss form (200/600 saved vs 400/600 die) -Results 1. People risk averse when exposed to gains frame 2. Risk seeking when exposed to loss frame

Humans as storytellers

-Cave paintings - walls -Traditionally - stories told by family, schools, groups -More tech = expansion of choice -inequality of info (some people choose not to watch politics) -Movies, games, SM, billboards -From intrapersonal modes of storytelling --> mass audiences -Biggest change in storytelling: SCALE

Agenda setting effect

-Concerned with the transfer of salience form one entity to another -More salience = more likely to think about it -Transfer from media to public -See model E One reason agenda setting happens -Pressures on reporters -Ex: pres election, journalists follow lead of most elite media -Fears of bias accusations McCombs and Shaw (1972) -Voters before 1968 election: identify and rank issues of importance -Content analysis of news -Results: almost identical agendas for both public and news media -Conclusion: transfer of salience that sets the agenda -Just a correlation study, need an experiment Iyengar and Kinder: experimental manipulation of public agenda -Manipulate versions of newscast and present to dif groups of viewers -Results: seeing lots of stories over time increases our belief that they are important

National TV Violence Studies (NTVS)

-Content analysis 1994-1997 -Def of violence: 1. an overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual use of such force 2. Intended to physically harm an animate being 3. Also indicated consequences of physical harm resulting from unseen violence -Nothing about blood/gore, does not have to be severs -Graphic violence: Amount of blood and gore as a result of violence 1. Low: blood fills thimble 2. Medium: cup 3. High: bucket -Sample -23 channels, 6am-11pm Findings -60% shows contain violence -Steady across 3 years -Types of violence Most common: -Natural means (bite, punch) -Firearms -Unconventional -Heavy weaponry -Bomb :Least common -Violence on TV in 1990s was not graphic -More than 80% had no blood 20 year update: UW and IN University 1. Stage one -Same sample -Same def of violence 2. Stage two -Modern update -Expand sample to netflix -Expand def to emotional violence

changes in com ecology

-Decline in newspapers -Decline in local news -New deserts -Rise of talk radio - suburban and rural -SM as organizing and information platform -Rise in political ads -Partisan news

What's new? in press

-Decline in traditional news media's gatekeeping role -Increase in number and types of media choices -Blurring of 1. Fact and opinion 2. News and entertainment 3. Producers and consumers 4. Interpersonal and mass media -Ex: comment on Fb -Central characteristics 1. Hyperreality a. Collapse of distinction between entertainment and news

Persuasion - Hovland Why we fight films (40s)

-Films to get support for war -Dehumanize enemy, nonhuman violence, white men between 18-30 -Experiments: pre and post-test with control groups -Important acquisition of knowledge (who is enemy and how is way going) -Limited changes in opinion -No changes in motivation

Penny press

-Revolution in mass production: Consumer markets, mass produced goods -Print: papermaking and high speed presses -1933: NY Sun New breed of newspaper Required new style of journalism that would attract new audiences Scandal and sensation Combat party press - whom are funded by party -Newspapers for profit, not politics -Made money from ads and large circulation -Advertising becomes more democratic -Want ads -Denied any authority or responsibility for exercising moral judgment in ads -Sold a product to a general readership, sold readership to advertisers -Shift to human interest, everyday life stories, trivial stories fair game -Rise of reporting on crime and "society" (wealthy) -Groundwork for objective reporting (Ads for everyone, tell stories for everyone)

Interpersonal com model - Schramm's interactive model

-See model B -Com is not complete until there is a response -Ex: dad: put away your clothes Not com until kids say "ok"

Hostile media effect

-Happens to partisans -Partisans = people who have strong opinions about an issue -Nonpartisan see stories as balanced -Interpret balanced story as hostile toward us Limitation 1. Reach: how far message will spread -If we don't think a lot of people will see it, don't see it as hostile -Only see it as hostile if we care and if we think it's going to be seen by many -Gunther and Liebhart 2006 study Effects of hostile media 1. More participation 2. More confrontation and corrective action 3. Leads to less political efficacy -Idea that your participation matters, so less participation 4. 3rd person perceptions in the direction of perceived bias (You think it is biased and you think everyone will believe it) Study: varied a news story people read, change who is ahead (Trump vs Hillary) -Trump losing: Trump supporters perceive bias -Hillary losing: Hillary supporter perceive bias (perceive less bias) -Republicans think more bias against their side more than Democrats -Republicans think article will convince people to vote more -Publics may be more biased than media and interpret content in a biased way -Stronger opinion/extreme issue position = more susceptible to viewing media as hostile relative hostile media perception -stories aren't balanced - they do favor one side -even favored side sees bias -Show readers slightly biased story -Side that its biased toward still think its biased against them -See less bias than other side, but still biased how to overcome 1. Motivated reasoning 2. High edu = more like to believe things aren't true (trained to argue)

Media content patterns

-Issue of blood/gore -Dexter vs law and order -Assumption: TV is more violent and graphic than ever How we test this? -Content analysis: random sample of TV shows, use def of violence, count occurrences -Careful def is key 1. Cartoons? 2. Violence committed by animals? (Does it matter if kids can imitate or if kids are scared?) 3. Consequences of violence in absence of actual violence (Ex: image of dead body you didn't see die) 4. Threats?

Evidence for conservative bias

-Liberals use more media/news sources -Overall broadcast enviro = more conservative 1. Broadcast news = more Liberal 2. Primetime = more Conservative 3. Radio = more conservative Why? 1. Media owned by media giants 2. 7 American companies dominate media industry 3. Ex: want to use military jets in film, have to get permission from military, movie has to make military look more favorable 4. CBS, Disney, NBC - competitors but all connected

storytelling systems: TV transformed cultural process

-Made a centralized, standardized system -Coordinated by ad market (Much more direct ads now) -Cultivation Operates outside of politics Does not privilege the impact of one specific show or its production quality or audience interpretations -A message system that exposes a community to an aggregate and repetitive system of images that a community can adopt over time -TV is... 1. Pervasive (almost everyone has it) 2. Accessible (easy to understand) 3. Coherent -Tells stories that make society seem the same -Helps socialize -Creates stereotypes Today: TV tells largest number of stories to largest number of people most of the time

Limited Media Effect Paradigm

-Media might persuade that some issues are more important than others -Media decides what is important, what we think about

Public beliefs about the press

-Most people think media is too liberal or conservative -"journalists are liberals" Non-intentional? Or political goals to shape public opinion?

why does amount of violence in media matter?

-Murder/mass shootings - no evidence -Illegal violence/crimes - few studies, small correlations -Aggressive behaviors -Desensitization -Hostile emotions -World is mean/violent (cultivation theory) -Violent thoughts -Fear/anxiety/worry

Colonial Press

-News from Europe -Official decrees -Literary comment -Humor -Led to political satire -Became polarized

Agenda setting

-News media affects what we think is important -Changes how urgent topics are -Cohen: press doesn't tell us what to think, but what to think about -Transfer of salience from one entity to another

news deserts

-Place with no local newspaper -Newspaper provide most thorough info -New deserts = more polarized -Do not have access to debates -Either drop out of politics or find own source that conform to opinion -Replace newspaper with SM, TV, radio -More partisan voting -More dislike of other side

Party press

-Polarized -Federalist vs Democratic-Republican newspapers -Party organ characterized by partisan bitterness -Heavily subsidized distribution via postal service : gov ads -First amendment: freedom of press -Vs Alien Sedition Act -Contradictions -Nasty polarization is not new

Agenda building

-Powerful political and social actors and their agents -Sociological factors related to news orgs -Professional norms -Ideological factors (owners and practitioners) -Competing media sources

Mass communication

-Reach mass audiences, not individual -Mediated 1. Print, radio, TV, computer, games, mobiles, etc 2. Consequences: Socialization **how does SM fundamentally change mass com? -Reverse flow of info -News orgs live in fear of click, viralness -SM can have mass scale if go viral (ex: fake Trump protests) -We consume a lot of it! -Mediation becomes part of our experience of "real" things" -Powerful forces shape out perceptions of experience

Commercial press

-Results from tech development in mass production and rise of ad industry and incorporation of human interest stories as legit content -Telegraph (1844) linked cities in national network, provide news instantly -Telegraphic columns: leading feature -Associated Press (AP) dominant player in news production (Reporters around the world, sell stories) -Ad industry = main funding -Political autonomy based on market dependence -Shy away from reporting badly about advertisers (Ex: ABC not report bad about Disney) -At the basis of objectivity 1. Reduction to faccts 2. Enhanced by professionalization 3. Yellow press vs objective press -Emergence of broadcast tech 1. Radio 1930s 2. TV 1940s 3. Became main source of news 4. Push towards abbreviated news a. Shorter sound bites (12-5 sec) b. Consequence: lose info -Cable news in 1980 (CNN), then FOX and MSNBC 1. Produce info cheaply = have people argue 2. Fills time!

Shannon Weaver's Mass Com Model

-See model A -Assumes communicators = isolated individuals ex: What about football star with a social media agent? -Makes no allowance for different purposes Ex: one message for 2 different audiences -Makes no allowance for differing interpretations Ex: inside jokes, bubbler vs water fountain -Makes no allowance for unequal power relations -assumes one-way flow

cultivation

-See model D -TV cultivates attitudes about outside world -The Mean World Syndrome -New directions: video games -**just as prevalent in video games -Play more VG = more likely to think you will be assaulted by weapon -Media cultivate in viewer interpretations of the world in line with Tv world -Heavy dose of TV violence = mean world syndrome -Among heavy TV users political attitudes tend to converge -New interactive setting may enhance cultivation of attitudes -Do we continue to have a centralized story-telling system?

Media's reality

-See model F -Both media's reality and reality affect public perception of reality and public agenda

Voting Behavior - The People's Choice Lazarsfeld

-Study of how media influence electoral process -Political predispositions and media effects -Finding: media mostly reinforced people's beliefs, very limited conversion -Selective exposure -Two step flow of com -News --> activists --> friends

Assimilation bias

-Tendency to interpret, favor, recall info that confirms what we already believe -Ex: trump impeachment process 1. Anti-Trump: only remember bas things - crime, bribes 2. Pro-Trump: interpret it as trump asking a favor 3. even if reading same article! -Ex poll of who won presidential debate 1. Conservative website: 74% Trump won 2. National poll: 27% Trump won

Grandoise and Milyo: Evidence for Liberal Bias

-Very difficult to measure bias - best objective attempt -How often do lawmakers quote various think tanks? -How often do news orgs quote those same think tanks? -Think tanks = body of experts providing advice on politics -Results 1. Tend to be more liberal lawmakers quoted by media 2. Evidence of liberal media -Critiques 1. If scholars can set aside biases, why not journalists? 2. Definition of think tank is generous 3. What is lawmakers quote sources they think will be persuasive? a. This is dif than quoting as representation of their beliefs 4. How to decide what is moderate? Think tanks themselves might be skewed, or not extreme enough

The Mean World Syndrome

-Violence on Tv effect our attitudes about the world -Students: think violent is down -Most people: think violence is up The TV World -Characters: young, energetic, appealing -Old people: rare, sick or dying -Women: 1/3 or less of lead (except daytime serials) -Violent crime: involved more than half of characters -For every male victim of violence, 17 female -Villains: disproportionately male, lower class, foreign -Lower class and nonwhite people = invisible -Stereotypes The world of the heavy TV viewer -Overestimate crime stats -Underestimate number of old people, think they are in worse health conditions -Believe in more traditional roles for females -Stronger orientation -Believe luxury items more easily available -Less likely to have knowledge about enviro issues -Erroneous and unhealthy views of nutrition Real world -Crimes rates fallen since early 1990s (violent and property) -Public perception: does not agree, believe they will be involved in violence more if watch more TV Heavy TV viewing and mainstreaming of attitudes -More TV = less willing to sacrifice for enviro -More income = less experience = less in touch with reality Global attitudes -Australians exposed to US TV perceive Australia as more dangerous -S Koreans/Japanese exposure to US TV = more liberal views about women

Personalization "myth"

-We feel like out news is personal -NOT TRUE -Lots of people reading same story -Still led back to big news stories

Presumed media influence

-We think media affects other more than us -Powerful media and personal immunity Third person perceptions -Liberals presume Fox affects its watchers -Conservative think Liberal brainwashed to like Obama -"Commercials only affect others" -Why does this happen? 1. Ego enhancement/biased optimism 2. Differential media "theories" -Consequences 1. Prefer strong media censorship -Third person effects: Behavioral outcomes grouped into two categories 1. Prevention a. Willlingness to censor media 2. Corrective action a. Offline (Attend rally, public protest, petition) b. Online (Express political views, post comments, send campaign info) Poll about winning/losing -People became more likely to vote when they thought story was more biased toward their side Presumed influence (al Gunther SJMC) - model G

emphasis framing

-Which considerations get emphasis from frame? -Examples 1. Death tax vs estate tax 2. Pro life vs prochoice -Frames change over time 1. Ex: abortion a. repub: murder b. dem: not consistent 2. ex: tax a. repub: increase tax cuts b. dem: raise taxes on wealthy -frame attention over time 1. abortion: republicans get more attention because they are attempting to change current politic 2. taxes: depends on which party is president framing can effect policy outcomes: the death penalty -sentence, death row, executions decrease at same time -frames about death penalty change -newer frame: innocent frame -DNA evidence gains popularity -"we are killing innocent people" -Causes change in politics

bias

-distortion from reality that can be shaped by variety of factors that be hard to distinguish -ex: journalist, corporate, company major types 1. political -political preferences of journalist, owners, editors, market 2. structural -organizational pressures that affect decisions of what to cover (criteria of newsworthiness) -how to report it (standard operating procedures to acquire, convert, present a story) -journalists work in an org that emphasizes routines and procedures for covering news elements of newsworthiness -importance does not drive news: 1. timely 2. proximal 3. conflict 4. effect audience (why weather is often on news) 5. understandable (if too complicated = not reported) beat reporting -specialized reporting -beats change over time -newspaper have most beats -groups that don't have beats - ignored deadline pressures -if sources don't call back = lower quality -so call sources that they know will call back - so some sources/perspectives are overrepresented indexing -reporting opinions expressed by political elites -narrow range of Republicans/Democratic -ex: abortion - only talk about two perspectives problems with studying 1. hard to define 2. hard to distinguish between structure and political bias, then separate these form influence of reality economic forces, gov pressures 3. hard to measure

Knowledge gap

-more info in a system = people with high socioeconomic status acquire more info faster (increase knowledge gap) Why does it exist? 1. Com skills -Most people better at visual then reading -Ex: newspaper tells us info = richer will know more -Tv also tells us info -->everyone understands, but you learn less (might retain better tho) 2. Relevant social contacts -people that care/know about political = know more 3. stored info -TV might be retained more 4. Selective exposure, acceptance and retention -We pick news that is ideologically compatible to us **study -Same headlines, dif news sites -Fox, CNN, NPR, nothing -Conservative: Fox, Liberal: not Fox -Interpretations 1. Liberals want wide range, Conservatives do not? 2. Fox is only biased news? -Selective exposure applies to nonpolitical topics -Packers, Viking, Bears scandal story study -Know sites are less credible but still believe it -We still accept and retain info Initial evidence -Newspaper strike in MN -HS students answer less questions right than college -Both have access - only college edu benefit from info Arthur Lupia: questions we ask about political knowledge is dumb -We don't need to know about filibusters to be good citizens -Facts vs principals of governing -Measure of knowledge: 1. Reasoned choice (Make same choice after getting all info) -How to makes reasoned choice? 1. Heuristics -Info shortcut -Ex: vote for politician in your party even if you don't know them 2. Penalty for lying -less likely to lie if have penalty for lying -News media should punish politicians for lying -Are we making reasoned choices? -Can we trust news media to police politicians and help us make reasoned choices?

slant

-news slant is not political bias -everything has slant, not everything has political bias -more or less favorable coverage for an individual or group, which could be due to reality as well as bias

New directions in framing

1. Frames compete -Druckman -If hear both frames, bounce back to original opinion, effects go away -Counter frames wipe out original frame 2. Frames compete in different enviros -Contributions to original predispositions a. Fam socializations b. Genetics (introvert vs extrovert) c. Religious d. Schooling -*****new media... a. Not powerful in framing initial attitude b. More powerful in changing our mind c. Biggest culprit when people change mind -Polarized Ex: WI People tend to side with frame in their political party, even if they know argument is not strong -Non-polarized Moderate -When 2 frames, stronger one wins -Ex: Badgers v Michigan flag, Badgers v Kent State -Framing affects work more/better in less polarized enviros 3. Liberals and conservatives prefer dif kinds of frames -Liberals: Policy (consequentialist) -Conservatives: Symbolic (Who we are as a people, Absolutist, Bigger picture, Black and white) 4. Who can frame? -Credibility 5. Messenger of frame -Study: reporter in front of green screen -CNN, FOX, N/A - exact same words -L watch CNN - balanced -L watch Fox - biased -C watch Fox - balanced -C watch CNN - biased

Modes of communication

1. Interpersonal com -2 people have convo 2. Mediated com -2 people com with each other on telephone or messenger 3. Mass com i. An anchor talks to camera and voice/image transmitted to large number

Issue and trait ownership in messages

1. Issue ownership -Perception of public that one party is better than the other at handling certain issues a. Republicans: crime, tax, national security b. Democrats: healthcare, education, economy -SO: Trump tweets about national security and Warren tweets about education -Very difficult for opposite side to steal an issue -Ex: liberal identify as veteran 2. Trait ownership -Public assigns value to each party based on traits -Democrats: compassion -Republicans: strength -*****Hard for parties to steal issues, much easier to steal traits -Ex: Bush: compassionate conservative

Societal functions of journalism

1. Keep those in power accountable -Most important -Informed of what gov is doing -How that affects you 2. Enhance citizenship/self gov -Know more = coordinate action with others 3. Entman: provide knowledge on a. Policy issues b. Actions of those power c. Ideology (perspectives that shape decisions) d. Self intent (your stakes on issues) Curran: traditional functions 1. Inform 2. Scrutinize -Leaders at all levels of gov 3. Debate -Should NY reveal more info about whistleblower? 4. Represent -Platform for open debate/voice of the people -Media is not alone - other intermediaries of cicil societies: Parties, NGOs -Multiplicity in media (civic, social, core) -Media is not only actor but they have bigger scale

Characteristics of Agenda

1. Limited -What is happening NOW -About 8 stories on cover 2. Skewed -International affairs, defense 3. Changes to agenda are explosive -Ex: 911- peak in defense -Effects can be long lasting 4. Fluid -Ex: economy one month, dissatisfaction with gov the next -2019: healthcare and economy

Challenges to agenda setting function of press

1. New media enviro -Twitter, FB, blogs, news aggregators, online news Agenda uptake -Stuff we talk about on twitter affects news media -Traditional setting = still happening -BUT more of a two-way street-->agenda uptake -Our response effects media -Media responsive to other entities Niche news -More biases -Ex: fox News for conservatives -Report about topic, cause media to report on it 2. Issue publics -We show an interest --> media reports on it 3. Partisanship -Affects opinion, analysis, "fake news"

Limits to agenda setting function in the news

1. Obtrusiveness of issue (Economy is always thought about) 2. Political convo (Friend: that issue is not important) 3. Personal goals and motivations 4. Decline in true of news -70s - very trusting of media -Now - 1/3 trust media

Action coordination Mechanisms

1. Power Ex: prof tells us to write paper, we take action to write paper because he has power to punish our grades 2. Market Ex: Netflix show drops (market), people watch (action) -Drop at certain time to make money 3. Common understanding Ex: traffic merging -Common understanding on how to behave -Journalism majorly effects this -Ex: media facilitates 2 party system -All 3 interact with each other -Authoritarian political systems = more power -Democracy = more common understanding -Force and markets still used -Not enough to sustain a democratic system of gov -Ex: common understanding of how money works -Pres trump violates common understanding in HOR requests to give over info

Journalism obligations

1. Report verifiable truth -What sources tell them, may not be actual truth 2. what should be objective: the journalist or the method the journalist uses? -If method objective - other people can use same method -Always going to be slant from truth and what we see, but at least method is same -Journal should set aside bias too -Ex: use objective method of interview, but ask biased questions -Impossible to be fully objective but need to strive for it 3. Is fairness or balance a good substitute for truth? -Ask follow up questions -Use other sources -Reports from both sides Advantages of balance 1. See both sides 2. More perspectives = larger audience 3. Seem more credible Disadvantages 1. Give "bad side" a platform to speak/too much coverage 2. Can lead us to believe that perspectives have equal weight a. Ex: global warming

Problems of democracy

1. Scope -People who have power want as much power as possible -Solution: have more people that elect more people in power -More levels of gov -Makes it difficult for one person to have too much power, power is spread out 2. Expertise -Most people do not know much -Solution: republican democracy: elect more knowledgeable people 3. Time -Direct democracy: Everyone vote on everything (Pre-internet = this is impossible) -Deliberative democracy: Spend time debating everything -We have representative democracy

SPJ Code of Ethics

1. Seek truth and report it -Accuse someone in power of something horrible -Do not think of consequences, just report -Some exceptions: suicide, military forces, movies reviews before release 2. Minimize harm -When choose not to report 3. Act independently -Not working for party, interest groups -Tricky for ads 4. be accountable and transparent -tell audience source if possible -run corrections

Graber's 4 functions of journalism

1. Surveillance -Newsworthiness -Required for agenda setting -Report more about issues, more likely to think issue matters -Ex: depending on what is most salient in media, depends on what is most salient in mind, leads to decision making -Gov, culture, religion, food 2. Interpretation -Defines what the news means -Required for framing: Media has to interpret news in certain way -Required for ideological bias -Surveillance bias: only report president rating when it's high (Framing is much more common) 3. Socialization -Required for cultivation and mean world syndrome -Tell us who should be equal -Tell us if world is violent 4. Manipulation -Not automatically bad -Media uses unique knowledge to inform us about something that might have consequence -Required for investigative reporting -Required for corporate/commercial bias -Ex: warren fired for being pregnant as teacher, News: no documentation, so did not occur, Manipulation to raise Q about Warren's truth Media fulfills these functions by providing us with news? -What is new? -foremost value of news - as a utility to empower the informed -Public trust to teach us about the world -Can be entertaining

Different outlets contribute differently to these functions

1. Traditional journalism -Uphold most/all standards -Watchdog, make profit, give people useful info about how to make decisions -Newspapers (local and national), NBC news -Target people who care about politics, more edu -Neutral, fact oriented 2. Advocacy -Some standards upheld -Want to be accurate, but not balanced -Gain trust of audience, persuade -Documentary films, Fox -Advancing particular policy solution 3. Tabloid -Profit -Less concern with standards -Less price to pay if not accurate -Commercial considerations 4. Entertainment -Learn about politics through it -Soft news: Entertainment Tonight, Oprah, Today Show -profit -Distraction Very difficult to find news liable for inaccuracy, why? -Had to act with malice (have to prove they knew they were lying in court) -Report on similar things, different takes on them -Have to be different to distinguish selves and get people to read -News (journalists/editors) vs editorials (opinions about stories in news)

Media violence research

1. Understand/describe media context patterns -Ex: how violent are VG today? 2. Understand how media violence affects audiences 3. Develop strategies to protect audiences -Esp. children/other vulnerable pops

Dealing with trauma caused by violence in entertainment/news

1. Young children (2-7) -Concrete thinkers -Affected by things they can say/hear -Sacred of strange/moving suddenly -Focused on looks not behavior -Darkness -Fantasy/reality distinctions -Things that aren't real - scary -"Don't worry just pretend" = does not work 2. Other children 8+ -Fantasy/reailty advances -Personal injury, bad things happening to kids -Scared of news -Scared more in general -More likely to understand news Topics scaring kids -Natural disasters Very visual - young kids scared -Stanger violence Abstract - older kids scared more Parkland shooting fear response in children -Kids <7 noncognitive coping strategies a. Snuggling, distraction b. Resist urge to explain -Kids 8+ a. Cognitive strategies b. Explain c. Focus on preparedness

Spiral of silence

Conformity and group pressure -Elevator experiment: Do not want to stand out/go against majority Conform to group behavior Theoretical argument -Noelle Neumann: members of a group engage in constant evaluation of prevailing climate of opinion in the group -To avoid social isolation that could result from expressing a contrary opinion to majority -Fear of isolation is so strong, person willing to silence their opinion, express an opinion they do not really share, modify initial opinion in order to maintain fluid social ties Main findings -People more willing to express opinions when they think others hold similar opinions - this empirical relation is significant but small -If minority opinion perceived to b on the rise, being minority does not inhibit expression -People's reservation to express true opinions is heightened for controversial topics -Cultural norm regarding group affiliation moderate opinion expression Individual differences: More likely to stay silent if... 1. Willing to self censor 2. Shy 3. Social anxiety 4. Low self esteem 5. Com apprehension 6. Low political efficacy 7. Low knowledge levels 8. Less interest in public affairs 9. Topic less salient 10. Less confidence in being correct 11. Female 12. Older 13. Lower SES (poor) After a presidential election -Partisans more likely to talk about differences when surrounded by same views -Ex: pro-Trump more likely to talk about differences when in pro-Trump county (vise versa) -Perception of community partisanship align with actual vote returns Social Media -SM user more likely than other net users to say they know the views of those around them (Snowden) -Twitter knows more than FB -People less likely to join in convo about gov surveillance on SM than at family dinner -SM = less similar views -Family dinner = more similar views -We would rather be shamed by people we don't know than by BFFs Issues for further consideration -Public opinion as social control or public opinion as expression of rationality -How good are we at "deciphering" the climate of opinion? Not good! -Role of media in estimations of public opinion -We have more control over friend/fam 1. More homogeneous 2. More confident in attitude -than classmates/co-workers 1. less polarized attitudes developed -new media - always thought to kill old media but never happens

mediated society

Democracy in US = mediated -Choose leaders -Some rights/freedoms -Power rest with people Mediated how? -Where we are getting our info a. Dif perspectives b. Dif platforms -What happens in politics and society is not independent of what happens in news media, social media, interpersonal com -What happens in country is filtered -Goal of filters? -Living in mediated society 1. Professionalization of human com 2. Rise of mass scale 3. Medialization 4. Personalization of media?

other knowledge gaps

Gender gap -Men know more than women on politics -Not true! -Men less likely to admit they don't know -Men guess, so happen to answer more questions right -Gap disappears when asked to guess Mode gaps -Newspapers have more gaps -TV narrows gaps -Rich/edu still benefit more -BUT everyone learns less -Knowledge gap less, but knowledge in general less

Wisconsin Media Diet

MSN/MKE, outstate cities, small towns/rural suburbs News consumption: local news -Repub candidates place emphasis on local TV coverage over local newspaper -TV more popular in suburbs, less popular in MKE (which is more liberal) News consumption: international -most popular: MSN/MKE -least popular: rural Fox News -Not dominant in rural areas - counters stereotype -MSN/MKE use Fox least (but not by a lot) -No one uses Fox more than anything else Conservative radio -Also not dominant in rural areas -most pop: suburbs Discussion Networks -Suburbs talk with friends most -Rural talk with friends least -rural talk with coworkers least -MSN/MKE talk with those that disagree the most -rural talk with those that disagree the least -Talk with family and friends amplifies partisan differences -Talk with coworkers attenuates (reduces force of) partisan differences Conclusions -Polarization is conditional and dependent on: 1. Issue preferences across econ and social 2. Geography 3. Diversity of media use 4. Diversity of talk networks -Pro-civil society building view vary and are most prevalent in those living and selecting diverse info ecologies WI media: number one news source: Local TV!! More than 80 hrs of conservative talk radio per day broadcast in WI The more WI use media that challenges their POV, the more likely they are to split their ticket when they vote People who live in SUBURBS talk the most about politics with other people like them Cities: around lots of people who are dif than them MSN/MKE use the NY times the most

Effects of Mass Com (Early beliefs)

Powerful have always worried about mass com -China 213 BC - destruction of books not related to agriculture, medicine, prophecy -Printing press: index of prohibited books by church -Hollywood directors and writer blacklisted in 40s Magic bullet/hypodermic needle theories -Early 20th c -Assumed powerful media effects -Media infused people with messages they cannot resist -Context 1. Urbanization and industrialization: mass migration 2. World wars - propaganda Payne Fund Studies (1930s) -Effects of movies on children -Attitude towards Chinese -Terrible study methods

subject vs citizen

Subject: Little decision making Best quality is loyalty Deferential to authorities Little need for info No need for opinion formation Citizen Some input Independent thinking Challenges authority Need for info Need for opinion formation

Key roles in journalism

a. Publisher b. Business staff c. Managing editor d. Editors (theme/copy) e. Reporters f. Ombudperson g. Opinion writers/columnists

Media effects

cognitive affective (emotions) physiological attitudinal behavioral response to media content -Early studies: little support for magic bullet notions of media effects. Limited effects! -Led to limited effects view

Truth about press

journalists tend to claim they are moderate -More tend to be liberal than conservative -Why? 1. More liberal media in general? 2. Major in journalism - more liberal? 3. Big cities - more liberal? Journalist bias on certain topics/policies -More left on enviro and social issues -More right on economy and trade **essay question: by what standard do we compare bias to? Grandoise and Milyo: Evidence for Liberal Bias Framing: Evidence for Balanced -Both republicans and democrats likely to get frames into news -Dif frames for republicans and democrats Evidence for conservative bias ideological bias - concluding thoughts -journalists: generally moderate, but more liberal than conservative -systematic analysis: little to no general ideological bias -platform matters (cable is more biased than network) -conservative media's volume is greater than liberal media -conservatives discuss liberal media bias more than liberals discuss conservative media bias strategies 1. multiple sources 2. diverse sources 3. points of view 4. drop double standard 5. critique lack of context