This week I would like to create a more open ended conversation around the interaction between public opinion and media. In our world of horse race focused media there is no doubt that public opinion is the source of our daily news coverage of the election. This is the case regardless of the fact that many are concerned about how well various polling agencies conduct their surveys and whether the polls are more important than, say, the issues (or the candidates) themselves. On the other hand polling is the best way for campaigns to know how they are doing and how to strategically move forward. Whether good or bad the polls often become THE story that the media focuses on during election time. For some great sites to use to follow polling you should check out realclearpolitics (click polls at the top), Gallup, and Pew (search through this site for an amazing amount of studies, trends and useful info). In terms of the election predictions (and predictions in general) by far the most nuanced and accessible evaluation of polling for projecting is done by Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight, now hosted by ESPN (for non-existant bonus points can anyone share why its called fivethirtyeight?). I read his blog daily during the election and think that the way that he and his colleagues evaluate all of the data is amazing and very useful.
Between elections, polling is used all the time but many argue that public opinion does not shape media coverage or political action, instead it is the other way around. Take a look at the video below, from 2000. Though it is a bit dated, the story is still absolutely applicable today.
Ultimately I would like you to discuss the relationship between public opinion and media today. Is it used well (if so please give some examples)? If not then why not? Is it helpful in understanding the election or would we be better off without polling or with less of it? More importantly how should public opinion polling be used by the media and by politicians? Any reactions to the sites/video above or other important uses/misuses of public opinion are welcome.
I feel like drawing any conclusions about public opinion and the media can be problematic mostly because public opinion on many issues remains quite stagnant or ambivalent. We talk a lot in our class about how people are willing to take media shortcuts to bolster their understanding of an issue because the costs of seeking out information for oneself can be quite high. However, in doing so, public opinion will become skewed because instead of developing unique opinions, people tend to feed off of shortcuts fed to them by major news media outlets that they use to stay in the loop.
For example, I read an article by Wilcox & Norrander in my public opinion class this quarter which examines the progression of public opinion on gay rights (very dynamic over time in support of the issue) versus abortion (stagnant, support dropping slightly). Typically, it is presumed that those in support of gay rights will also be in support of pro-choice freedom, so why the discrepancy in public opinion? While there are a variety of explanations (development of the idea that conception is the beginning of life, increasing prevalence of gays in society that fosters acceptance), the polls introduce tons of speculation. As a result, it's problematic to use public opinion polls as solid measures of anything, including elections.
I think this becomes even more apparent when you begin to consider how polls are written. Forced choice questions, loaded questions, questions written to prompt a particular response with the provided context, and just poorly-written surveys in general don't tell us much of anything (other than the fact that someone more qualified should have written the poll). However, media outlets will put out these surveys (without qualifying their issues) as fact, leading to misinformation and the appearance that certain candidates are ahead, behind, etc. without really having a proper basis to do so.
Ambivalence in public opinion is a real problem, and without focusing on polls so much, the appearance of divisions within society (or within elections) could be avoided and leave time for more coverage of substantive issues. Again, this answer is idealistic, but I can't help it.
Public opinion polls on a national level are used negatively by the media. The media uses public opinion to cover hotly debated issues such as gun control. After the Sandy Hook shooting, many politicians began to push for more gun control and the media could not get enough of public opinion polls. Many people on both sides are extremely passionate on the issues and it made great media coverage. The media highlighted how outraged the NRA and conservatives were on the issue of gun control. The media covered in great detail the divided the issue had become.
Public opinion loses influence and effectiveness on a national level. However on a state and local level, it becomes crucial. Incumbents want to be reelected by their constituents back home and challengers will rally more support if public opinion is against the incumbent. This adds pressure on incumbents to pay attention back home. Local media outlets should focus on public opinion polls. They can be used as a reminder for incumbents if they are losing touch with their constituents.
Generally the correlation between public opinion and the media is from the result of the media portraying a certain viewpoint that ultimately rubs off onto us about how we gauge a certain topic. In accordance to the gay rights specifically that Ashley mentioned, I believe simply that our society has grown to adapt more to gay rights because it has been thrown in front of us with athletes and such coming out so we have formed opinions to support it more and more with the more it is evident. Abortion really hasn't shed light through the media as much so that proves to be less dynamic in the public realm, not being also as a critical issue in society as gay rights.
In regards to the elections and polling, it is more of the same whereas the more politicians get their word out to the public, the more the public will follow in turn towards whatever their promoting. I think it's harder for people to form a basis of their opinion without the help of the media and polling and etc. which causes more ambivalence, especially with matters that don't directly affect those people. There just needs to be more of a factual basis for people to rightfully engage in useful polling to hopefully create a general chain reaction for people to properly form a meaningful public opinion.
I believe in a general aspect, the media and public opinion is used well, but depends who you're asking. If we take the case of the Arab Spring, specifically the Egyptian Revolution, then yeah it was used well only because people WANTED to send their message out and it was ultimately the only way to do so. When we look at the media sometimes, they have a different agenda going on. They want to gain an audience, but the only way to do so is by framing the events in a way that will catch a viewer to check them out. Although I must say it's a good strategy, I believe that it shifts the whole purpose of opinion and media. People nowadays just say whatever is on their mind, rather than stating factual evidence and real issues. I do not want to say that this affects everyone, but with the way it's going now, it will really affect the next generation. It's hard to say how should public opinion polling should go because it relies on the the politicians and their purposes. If people are consistent with being more factual than opionated, then we wouldn't have this problem....
I generally have mixed feelings about public opinion polls. Public opinion polls seem like important pieces of information yet I feel like they can be easily manipulated depending on who was polled and what/how questions were asked. However that being said, there is a strong correlation between people's opinions and what is shown in the media. The examples in the video, although dated, show the trends and how public opinion follows media coverage. I do not doubt that still happens today. Public opinion ebbs and flows with popularity of news stories. Also public opinion polls generally do not help me understand an election. They merely state who is ahead in the race on that particular day. While that information is important, it does not further my understanding of an election.
I agree that public opinion polls can be easily manipulated and misrepresented, but I think they are extremely important in context. They can help understand a situation and further a story beyond what the media presents and what the government accepts. Gun control for example: the majority of people support background checks, but the majority of politicians do nothing about that. Public opinion polls in the case help to further the understanding of the failure between what the people want and what their “representatives” are doing for them. The public opinion polls help shed light on the NRA and their overreaching political hand. This is of course a specific example and each poll is a case to case basis. In the specific case of election I do believe they can be overdone and misused and do not do as much to tell the reality of a situation because of the nature of how fast it all changes. Public opinion polls in election can be very useful for the candidates as far as targeting audiences and knowing where candidates stand, but as for its use to the general public I can’t think of a simple answer. Why would the public need to know what other people think? Should that affect their position?
In order for a watchdog media to effectively inform their consumers, they need to have data. It is certainly a source of legitimate debate whether or not the data being presented is skewed by the consumer cohorts who prefer a particular news source. Thankfully, institutions like PEW Research Center exist to provide an accurate image of the American public through random digit dialing. Author Justin Lewis examines policy support for gun support or increased minimum wage. He notes that there is a mismatch between the people and their representatives. Public opinion polls are not some magic bullet to create pure democracy and I believe most political scientists would agree that it takes more than just polls to mobilize change within an established government.
I like how Lewis referenced “telling a story” as a way to consider public opinion. While the media reports the polls, they also tell dynamic stories. This sense of story telling is then tied up with the data. Perhaps there is a relation between a media focused on economic crisis and a particular social policy for example. Public opinion is very valuable for informing citizens within a democracy, but should never just be used without asking “why” or including current events that may be correlated to such opinions. Media would do well to ask “why is this happening?” when presenting data of public opinion polls to their consumers, although doing so may not always receive a rich flow of answers.
Based on Sarah's response, I agree that public opinion polls can be easily manipulated based off the way the question is asked, and the way the data is interpreted. Consequently, I think that public opinion is a poor way to represent certain positions of a body of people.The video alludes to the idea that public opinion can follow news coverage, however I also believe that the opposite is true as well. The media, especially currently with the division in cable news, caters to its viewers. If CNN, based on public opinion, knows the majority of people support same-sex marriage (this is just an example), the content and tone in which they will report that issue will reflect the data represented in those polls considering they desire the best possible ratings. This can result in a never-ending cycle; public opinion influences media coverage, media coverage influences public opinion.
Additionally, public opinion can cause mass conformity in contrast to people forming opinions to themselves. If people look at the Republican Primary polls in 2012, and see that Romney has been overwhelmingly in the lead from the start, they will most likely hop on board because it is the easy thing to do. If people had to watch the debates and hear what each candidate has to say without a preconceived notion of who is popular, their support may fall toward a completely different candidate. In this sense, public opinion does a huge disservice toward democracy and the process of elections, especially higher profile national elections.
I feel like the media uses public opinion polls to frame issues in certain ways in order to get more viewers. The media looks at the polls and reports in the way in which most people will agree because they want their viewers to continue watching. Also, I feel like public opinion polls do not really help me understand elections better, because most people just go with the candidates which they know the best. There are lots of people who do not have as much media exposure and are therefore low in the polls. Because they are low in the polls the media covers them even less, and it is going in circles which perpetuates the big names candidates with the most money.
It is difficult to evaluate the relationship between public opinion and the media for many reasons. As we talked about in class, many people who are moderately interested in politics and follow the news regularly are easily swayed by the media, thus changing public opinion. However, it was also mentioned in class that many people in polls do not tell the truth, and their answers reflect more of their ideal opinions than their actual ones, and people often answer according to the current norms of society. This idea is exemplified in the data we reviewed about American public opinion on gay marriage over the years. In 2013, polls taken by every major news station revealed that the majority of the public favored gay marriage, but that has not always been the case. Just 18 years ago in 1996, under 20% of the population supported gay marriage and almost 70% opposed. 18 years is an extremely short period of time for the majority of the public to change their intrinsic values, which makes me believe that people answer polls according to what’s trending in the media instead of basing polls on their values and beliefs. I agree with Ashley in that polls are also inaccurate because many times they are written in a way that frames the issue on one side or another or prompts a specific response. One example of this was on our very own campus last week with the “DePaul Divest” campaign. One of the questions was framed in a way that prompted voters of a poll to think that DePaul itself was supporting human rights violations. The question was framed something like this (not word for word): “The companies DePaul invests in companies that provide weapons and services that further human rights violations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you believe DePaul should stop supporting these companies that further human rights violations in the Middle East?”Clearly the voter is going to answer yes because of the previous sentence that loaded the question. When we look at results of polls, many times we don’t know the questions that were answered so we don’t know the degree of subjectivity or framing in the questions. These are a few reasons why it is difficult to evaluate relationship between public opinion and the media, because each side is so complex. Are we really seeing actual public opinion from polls? And does the media actually evaluate public opinion accurately? I believe the answers are both no.
The Divest question is a perfect example of how some polls aren't accurate as a result of the purposely misleading phrasing within the question; however it's also important to note that the divest question was not for public opinion, but it was an actual vote, which could result in action from the university, which makes it so much worse and unethical on so many levels. I'm really glad you brought it up in this discussion, given I'm sure this class has some very strong contrasting opinions. This should prompt some really great discussion.
I agree with what Matthew was talking about in how media uses opinion polls to frame issues in certain ways for the viewers, but I want to take it a step further and say that I believe they do it to sway votes. They receive the polling data after a report and then they look at what events happen and how they are reported between then and the next poll to get an idea of what kind of stories will make an impact with the voters.
I strongly believe that polling should be irrelevant when you look at the sample size that is pulled and the area where the sample size is taken from. These media outlets can make it seem as if there is a big change in the polls because of an event and in turn can convince more out there that they should change their vote because it will look like this even has made others change their vote.
I think the relationship between the media and the public is pretty difficult to analyze for several reasons because I feel that the media uses the public’s opinion and manipulates it in a way to make it fit their story line that they are running on a politician or an issue. For example, those who are somewhat into politics can be easily manipulated by the media into believing one story over the other. Also the media uses public polling to frame certain policies or issues to please their viewers and or to gain more viewers for better rating.
I think it's half and half. I think that public opinion can be, and at times is shaped by the media. There are definitely times when John Stewart literally defines the publics view on things through his rhetoric and the way he shapes the arguement. But, I also think that there are times when the media is so clearly wrong and attempting to be infortainment that viewers, readers, listeners get tired of it, call their bluff or simply say, "enough is enough." Take the mayalsian airline flight. Everyone became incredibly tired of it incredibly quickly. I'm not even talking about CNN, but the basic idea that though something is mysterious or there are elements left untruned, the public is more aware of their surroundings than to give into the temptation of soap opera media.
From a political standpoint, the polling is the most important part of a campaign. First and foremost, there is nothing that gives a candidate more direction than polling. The entire premise of a campaign is to win voters over with their message, and with polling, you can see which parts are working and which aren't. Polling doesn't just mean, "Do you like Mitt Romney? Are you going to vote? Are you a democrat? Have you enjoyed the ads?" Real polls are very in depth, and have a small sample of people, maybe 1000-2000, that's it, so that they cn go through a myriad of questions to get a full scope of what is important. Without polls and public opinion, campaigns would be a jello-like mess of "hopefully this works, oh maybe not, let me try this, op, that was n't right," You can't create a message unless you know what people want to hear, and with 6-12 month campaigns, you have the flexibility to mold the message to what the polls say.
I don't think it should be used by the media, because it will only create news people A. Already know about and B. sensationalize it to keep it relevant. It's a journalists job to find out what is important and report it back to us. Media and news is about learning, growing, becoming more rounding individuals by being given information and news that we would otherwise be completely unaware because either A. We're not in the congo, B. We aren't able to sit an interview high-brow people just because we want answers and C. a vast majority of people don't go out of a 50 mile radius in their day to day lives, and without informed and responsible journalists, we wouldn't have a well rounded view of our world.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think about public opinion is ambivalence, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is expected that when a person can only experience so many things that not every issue is going to matter. And even on the issues that are personal to someone should not imply complete comprehension of those complex issues. Therefore, public opinion, as we discussed in class, is the most fluctuating thing to pay attention to and the most fluid thing to base decisions off of. While it is initially very frustrating to know that issues are prioritized based on what that looks like, it is also one of the only things that allows for some flexibility in politics. As people continue to experience different things, ideally their minds will change and broaden. The only thing that wedges a huge gap in that theory is the video above that says that as much as we like to think that personal morals, attitudes, and experiences shape our public opinion, the media is the most effective in bringing certain issues to the forefront. Ultimately, I think it depends on what the issue is. For something global warming as discussed in the video, it is difficult to have a direct and impactful connection to recycling when people are not constantly seeing the garbage "continent" floating in the ocean. However, when it comes down to something like same sex marriage or pot, it is something that is directly about the individual experience and so they drive it to the media. We are an individualism based society, which isn't always a good thing, but it is what we respond to the most. When it's a person's personal story, it's impactful. But when issues are discussed in terms of systems, no one really pays attention.
Public Opinion is not always a bad thing but it can sway people to believe things that aren't necessarily true.When looking at the relationship between public opinion and the media we sure of facts. Looking into the divest campaign I found that there was a lot of propaganda that was going around and many groups framed the issue to sway voters to have false intentions. Although Public opinion can have a negative aspects I believe that public opinion can be a good thing on the grounds that it can give those and also offer different perspectives to an issue. But,I question if we really have public opinion due to the fact things are so easily swayed these days.
In response to the first question—“Is the relationship between public opinion and media used well?”—the answer is it depends. From the privatized media’s perspective, the relationship is used well. As illustrated in the video above, a statistical analysis of media coverage and public opinion trends over a period of time indicated a strong correlation between what/how much the media covered a particular issue and what/how strongly Americans felt about a particular issue. Moreover, public opinion polls are informative and simplistic in the sense that they can condense what/how Americans around the nation feel about a particular issue in the form of a bar, line, or pie chart. This not only is a simple, informative way of covering an issue, but also an appealing way, which in turn makes public opinion polls a great way to attract more viewers. Thus, achieving any media organization’s main goal, to attain more views and make more money. From a political candidate’s perspective, the relationship depends on how the relationship reflects their performance. Bush enjoyed public opinion polls following the events on 9/11 as they illustrated near absolute public support; however did not toward the end of his term where the polls indicated the opposite.
The media should be viewed as a tool capable of both harm and help when it comes to political campaigns, and for this reason things like public opinion get taken far out of context. The majority of the processes by which public opinion is quantified and then turned into a statistic is dubious, being largely built upon the outcome of polling. Polls are great source of information when done correctly but it also leads to sizable amounts of speculation. This speculation process is where the media then begins to distort the public's narrative in regards to the story and allows for commentators to insert their own personal subjective speculation upon the race in a forum that will be seen as factual by uninformed viewers. For this reason poll data should be shown raw and without being contextualized into a narrative by the media, and within a more time appropriate manner.
I feel like drawing any conclusions about public opinion and the media can be problematic mostly because public opinion on many issues remains quite stagnant or ambivalent. We talk a lot in our class about how people are willing to take media shortcuts to bolster their understanding of an issue because the costs of seeking out information for oneself can be quite high. However, in doing so, public opinion will become skewed because instead of developing unique opinions, people tend to feed off of shortcuts fed to them by major news media outlets that they use to stay in the loop.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I read an article by Wilcox & Norrander in my public opinion class this quarter which examines the progression of public opinion on gay rights (very dynamic over time in support of the issue) versus abortion (stagnant, support dropping slightly). Typically, it is presumed that those in support of gay rights will also be in support of pro-choice freedom, so why the discrepancy in public opinion? While there are a variety of explanations (development of the idea that conception is the beginning of life, increasing prevalence of gays in society that fosters acceptance), the polls introduce tons of speculation. As a result, it's problematic to use public opinion polls as solid measures of anything, including elections.
I think this becomes even more apparent when you begin to consider how polls are written. Forced choice questions, loaded questions, questions written to prompt a particular response with the provided context, and just poorly-written surveys in general don't tell us much of anything (other than the fact that someone more qualified should have written the poll). However, media outlets will put out these surveys (without qualifying their issues) as fact, leading to misinformation and the appearance that certain candidates are ahead, behind, etc. without really having a proper basis to do so.
Ambivalence in public opinion is a real problem, and without focusing on polls so much, the appearance of divisions within society (or within elections) could be avoided and leave time for more coverage of substantive issues. Again, this answer is idealistic, but I can't help it.
Ashley Surinak
Public opinion polls on a national level are used negatively by the media. The media uses public opinion to cover hotly debated issues such as gun control. After the Sandy Hook shooting, many politicians began to push for more gun control and the media could not get enough of public opinion polls. Many people on both sides are extremely passionate on the issues and it made great media coverage. The media highlighted how outraged the NRA and conservatives were on the issue of gun control. The media covered in great detail the divided the issue had become.
ReplyDeletePublic opinion loses influence and effectiveness on a national level. However on a state and local level, it becomes crucial. Incumbents want to be reelected by their constituents back home and challengers will rally more support if public opinion is against the incumbent. This adds pressure on incumbents to pay attention back home. Local media outlets should focus on public opinion polls. They can be used as a reminder for incumbents if they are losing touch with their constituents.
Generally the correlation between public opinion and the media is from the result of the media portraying a certain viewpoint that ultimately rubs off onto us about how we gauge a certain topic. In accordance to the gay rights specifically that Ashley mentioned, I believe simply that our society has grown to adapt more to gay rights because it has been thrown in front of us with athletes and such coming out so we have formed opinions to support it more and more with the more it is evident. Abortion really hasn't shed light through the media as much so that proves to be less dynamic in the public realm, not being also as a critical issue in society as gay rights.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the elections and polling, it is more of the same whereas the more politicians get their word out to the public, the more the public will follow in turn towards whatever their promoting. I think it's harder for people to form a basis of their opinion without the help of the media and polling and etc. which causes more ambivalence, especially with matters that don't directly affect those people. There just needs to be more of a factual basis for people to rightfully engage in useful polling to hopefully create a general chain reaction for people to properly form a meaningful public opinion.
I believe in a general aspect, the media and public opinion is used well, but depends who you're asking. If we take the case of the Arab Spring, specifically the Egyptian Revolution, then yeah it was used well only because people WANTED to send their message out and it was ultimately the only way to do so. When we look at the media sometimes, they have a different agenda going on. They want to gain an audience, but the only way to do so is by framing the events in a way that will catch a viewer to check them out. Although I must say it's a good strategy, I believe that it shifts the whole purpose of opinion and media. People nowadays just say whatever is on their mind, rather than stating factual evidence and real issues. I do not want to say that this affects everyone, but with the way it's going now, it will really affect the next generation.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say how should public opinion polling should go because it relies on the the politicians and their purposes. If people are consistent with being more factual than opionated, then we wouldn't have this problem....
I generally have mixed feelings about public opinion polls. Public opinion polls seem like important pieces of information yet I feel like they can be easily manipulated depending on who was polled and what/how questions were asked. However that being said, there is a strong correlation between people's opinions and what is shown in the media. The examples in the video, although dated, show the trends and how public opinion follows media coverage. I do not doubt that still happens today. Public opinion ebbs and flows with popularity of news stories. Also public opinion polls generally do not help me understand an election. They merely state who is ahead in the race on that particular day. While that information is important, it does not further my understanding of an election.
ReplyDeleteI agree that public opinion polls can be easily manipulated and misrepresented, but I think they are extremely important in context. They can help understand a situation and further a story beyond what the media presents and what the government accepts. Gun control for example: the majority of people support background checks, but the majority of politicians do nothing about that. Public opinion polls in the case help to further the understanding of the failure between what the people want and what their “representatives” are doing for them. The public opinion polls help shed light on the NRA and their overreaching political hand. This is of course a specific example and each poll is a case to case basis. In the specific case of election I do believe they can be overdone and misused and do not do as much to tell the reality of a situation because of the nature of how fast it all changes. Public opinion polls in election can be very useful for the candidates as far as targeting audiences and knowing where candidates stand, but as for its use to the general public I can’t think of a simple answer. Why would the public need to know what other people think? Should that affect their position?
DeleteIn order for a watchdog media to effectively inform their consumers, they need to have data. It is certainly a source of legitimate debate whether or not the data being presented is skewed by the consumer cohorts who prefer a particular news source. Thankfully, institutions like PEW Research Center exist to provide an accurate image of the American public through random digit dialing. Author Justin Lewis examines policy support for gun support or increased minimum wage. He notes that there is a mismatch between the people and their representatives. Public opinion polls are not some magic bullet to create pure democracy and I believe most political scientists would agree that it takes more than just polls to mobilize change within an established government.
ReplyDeleteI like how Lewis referenced “telling a story” as a way to consider public opinion. While the media reports the polls, they also tell dynamic stories. This sense of story telling is then tied up with the data. Perhaps there is a relation between a media focused on economic crisis and a particular social policy for example. Public opinion is very valuable for informing citizens within a democracy, but should never just be used without asking “why” or including current events that may be correlated to such opinions. Media would do well to ask “why is this happening?” when presenting data of public opinion polls to their consumers, although doing so may not always receive a rich flow of answers.
Austin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased on Sarah's response, I agree that public opinion polls can be easily manipulated based off the way the question is asked, and the way the data is interpreted. Consequently, I think that public opinion is a poor way to represent certain positions of a body of people.The video alludes to the idea that public opinion can follow news coverage, however I also believe that the opposite is true as well. The media, especially currently with the division in cable news, caters to its viewers. If CNN, based on public opinion, knows the majority of people support same-sex marriage (this is just an example), the content and tone in which they will report that issue will reflect the data represented in those polls considering they desire the best possible ratings. This can result in a never-ending cycle; public opinion influences media coverage, media coverage influences public opinion.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, public opinion can cause mass conformity in contrast to people forming opinions to themselves. If people look at the Republican Primary polls in 2012, and see that Romney has been overwhelmingly in the lead from the start, they will most likely hop on board because it is the easy thing to do. If people had to watch the debates and hear what each candidate has to say without a preconceived notion of who is popular, their support may fall toward a completely different candidate. In this sense, public opinion does a huge disservice toward democracy and the process of elections, especially higher profile national elections.
Steven
I feel like the media uses public opinion polls to frame issues in certain ways in order to get more viewers. The media looks at the polls and reports in the way in which most people will agree because they want their viewers to continue watching. Also, I feel like public opinion polls do not really help me understand elections better, because most people just go with the candidates which they know the best. There are lots of people who do not have as much media exposure and are therefore low in the polls. Because they are low in the polls the media covers them even less, and it is going in circles which perpetuates the big names candidates with the most money.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to evaluate the relationship between public opinion and the media for many reasons. As we talked about in class, many people who are moderately interested in politics and follow the news regularly are easily swayed by the media, thus changing public opinion. However, it was also mentioned in class that many people in polls do not tell the truth, and their answers reflect more of their ideal opinions than their actual ones, and people often answer according to the current norms of society. This idea is exemplified in the data we reviewed about American public opinion on gay marriage over the years. In 2013, polls taken by every major news station revealed that the majority of the public favored gay marriage, but that has not always been the case. Just 18 years ago in 1996, under 20% of the population supported gay marriage and almost 70% opposed. 18 years is an extremely short period of time for the majority of the public to change their intrinsic values, which makes me believe that people answer polls according to what’s trending in the media instead of basing polls on their values and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley in that polls are also inaccurate because many times they are written in a way that frames the issue on one side or another or prompts a specific response. One example of this was on our very own campus last week with the “DePaul Divest” campaign. One of the questions was framed in a way that prompted voters of a poll to think that DePaul itself was supporting human rights violations. The question was framed something like this (not word for word): “The companies DePaul invests in companies that provide weapons and services that further human rights violations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you believe DePaul should stop supporting these companies that further human rights violations in the Middle East?”Clearly the voter is going to answer yes because of the previous sentence that loaded the question. When we look at results of polls, many times we don’t know the questions that were answered so we don’t know the degree of subjectivity or framing in the questions.
These are a few reasons why it is difficult to evaluate relationship between public opinion and the media, because each side is so complex. Are we really seeing actual public opinion from polls? And does the media actually evaluate public opinion accurately? I believe the answers are both no.
The Divest question is a perfect example of how some polls aren't accurate as a result of the purposely misleading phrasing within the question; however it's also important to note that the divest question was not for public opinion, but it was an actual vote, which could result in action from the university, which makes it so much worse and unethical on so many levels. I'm really glad you brought it up in this discussion, given I'm sure this class has some very strong contrasting opinions. This should prompt some really great discussion.
DeleteI agree with what Matthew was talking about in how media uses opinion polls to frame issues in certain ways for the viewers, but I want to take it a step further and say that I believe they do it to sway votes. They receive the polling data after a report and then they look at what events happen and how they are reported between then and the next poll to get an idea of what kind of stories will make an impact with the voters.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that polling should be irrelevant when you look at the sample size that is pulled and the area where the sample size is taken from. These media outlets can make it seem as if there is a big change in the polls because of an event and in turn can convince more out there that they should change their vote because it will look like this even has made others change their vote.
I think the relationship between the media and the public is pretty difficult to analyze for several reasons because I feel that the media uses the public’s opinion and manipulates it in a way to make it fit their story line that they are running on a politician or an issue. For example, those who are somewhat into politics can be easily manipulated by the media into believing one story over the other. Also the media uses public polling to frame certain policies or issues to please their viewers and or to gain more viewers for better rating.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think it's half and half. I think that public opinion can be, and at times is shaped by the media. There are definitely times when John Stewart literally defines the publics view on things through his rhetoric and the way he shapes the arguement. But, I also think that there are times when the media is so clearly wrong and attempting to be infortainment that viewers, readers, listeners get tired of it, call their bluff or simply say, "enough is enough." Take the mayalsian airline flight. Everyone became incredibly tired of it incredibly quickly. I'm not even talking about CNN, but the basic idea that though something is mysterious or there are elements left untruned, the public is more aware of their surroundings than to give into the temptation of soap opera media.
From a political standpoint, the polling is the most important part of a campaign. First and foremost, there is nothing that gives a candidate more direction than polling. The entire premise of a campaign is to win voters over with their message, and with polling, you can see which parts are working and which aren't. Polling doesn't just mean, "Do you like Mitt Romney? Are you going to vote? Are you a democrat? Have you enjoyed the ads?" Real polls are very in depth, and have a small sample of people, maybe 1000-2000, that's it, so that they cn go through a myriad of questions to get a full scope of what is important. Without polls and public opinion, campaigns would be a jello-like mess of "hopefully this works, oh maybe not, let me try this, op, that was n't right," You can't create a message unless you know what people want to hear, and with 6-12 month campaigns, you have the flexibility to mold the message to what the polls say.
I don't think it should be used by the media, because it will only create news people A. Already know about and B. sensationalize it to keep it relevant. It's a journalists job to find out what is important and report it back to us. Media and news is about learning, growing, becoming more rounding individuals by being given information and news that we would otherwise be completely unaware because either A. We're not in the congo, B. We aren't able to sit an interview high-brow people just because we want answers and C. a vast majority of people don't go out of a 50 mile radius in their day to day lives, and without informed and responsible journalists, we wouldn't have a well rounded view of our world.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think about public opinion is ambivalence, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is expected that when a person can only experience so many things that not every issue is going to matter. And even on the issues that are personal to someone should not imply complete comprehension of those complex issues. Therefore, public opinion, as we discussed in class, is the most fluctuating thing to pay attention to and the most fluid thing to base decisions off of. While it is initially very frustrating to know that issues are prioritized based on what that looks like, it is also one of the only things that allows for some flexibility in politics. As people continue to experience different things, ideally their minds will change and broaden. The only thing that wedges a huge gap in that theory is the video above that says that as much as we like to think that personal morals, attitudes, and experiences shape our public opinion, the media is the most effective in bringing certain issues to the forefront. Ultimately, I think it depends on what the issue is. For something global warming as discussed in the video, it is difficult to have a direct and impactful connection to recycling when people are not constantly seeing the garbage "continent" floating in the ocean. However, when it comes down to something like same sex marriage or pot, it is something that is directly about the individual experience and so they drive it to the media. We are an individualism based society, which isn't always a good thing, but it is what we respond to the most. When it's a person's personal story, it's impactful. But when issues are discussed in terms of systems, no one really pays attention.
ReplyDeletePublic Opinion is not always a bad thing but it can sway people to believe things that aren't necessarily true.When looking at the relationship between public opinion and the media we sure of facts. Looking into the divest campaign I found that there was a lot of propaganda that was going around and many groups framed the issue to sway voters to have false intentions. Although Public opinion can have a negative aspects I believe that public opinion can be a good thing on the grounds that it can give those and also offer different perspectives to an issue. But,I question if we really have public opinion due to the fact things are so easily swayed these days.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question—“Is the relationship between public opinion and media used well?”—the answer is it depends. From the privatized media’s perspective, the relationship is used well. As illustrated in the video above, a statistical analysis of media coverage and public opinion trends over a period of time indicated a strong correlation between what/how much the media covered a particular issue and what/how strongly Americans felt about a particular issue. Moreover, public opinion polls are informative and simplistic in the sense that they can condense what/how Americans around the nation feel about a particular issue in the form of a bar, line, or pie chart. This not only is a simple, informative way of covering an issue, but also an appealing way, which in turn makes public opinion polls a great way to attract more viewers. Thus, achieving any media organization’s main goal, to attain more views and make more money. From a political candidate’s perspective, the relationship depends on how the relationship reflects their performance. Bush enjoyed public opinion polls following the events on 9/11 as they illustrated near absolute public support; however did not toward the end of his term where the polls indicated the opposite.
ReplyDeleteThe media should be viewed as a tool capable of both harm and help when it comes to political campaigns, and for this reason things like public opinion get taken far out of context. The majority of the processes by which public opinion is quantified and then turned into a statistic is dubious, being largely built upon the outcome of polling. Polls are great source of information when done correctly but it also leads to sizable amounts of speculation. This speculation process is where the media then begins to distort the public's narrative in regards to the story and allows for commentators to insert their own personal subjective speculation upon the race in a forum that will be seen as factual by uninformed viewers. For this reason poll data should be shown raw and without being contextualized into a narrative by the media, and within a more time appropriate manner.
ReplyDelete