Do Our Media Choices Today Simply Reflect Our Political Identities?
--Guest post by Sarah Merritt, American University doctoral student.
Do people seek news and information through environments on the Web that strongly align with their political identity? Do we always selectively expose ourselves to ideologically like-minded news coverage and selectively avoid information that does not align with our preexisting attitudes?
Understanding the nature of political communication effects and impacts depends in part on the answer to these questions.
In a much discussed 2008 paper by political scientists Lance Bennett and Shanto Iyengar, they argue that in today’s media system of many choices, audiences no longer have a shared context for receiving and interpreting news and information.
They argue that given the strong tendency to selectively seek out like-minded content, our news and online information choices have become synonymous with our political identities. This tendency towards selectivity in turn creates strong incentives for media organizations like Fox News or MSNBC to increasingly tailor and market their content to an ideologically motivated audience. The result is that most forms of news use today serve to reinforce, strengthen and make more ideologically consistent our viewpoints and policy preferences, rather than provide challenging information that might moderate them.
Bennett and Iyengar also suggest a second dimension to this selectively. While motivated news audiences are selecting themselves into ideologically-like minded content sources, those with less interest in public affairs are avoiding news all together, choosing instead to engage with entertainment media and other diversionary content.
In a 2010 response paper, communication researchers Lance Holbert and Kelly Garrett counter that it simply isn’t clear whether people tend to choose the type of information environment that reinforces their preexisting perspectives and strongly avoid information that counters their pre-existing attitudes. Citing a series of studies, the authors assert that while it is true that people are attracted to information with which they agree, they do not necessarily avoid information with which they disagree.
If this avoidance occurs, the process is de facto, driven by the fact that people are simply habitually seeking out ideologically like-minded sources. They also suggest that entertainment media is not without political content or effects, pointing to outlets ranging from the Daily Show and guest appearances on late night comedy programs to the political messages embedded in TV dramas and films.
The relationship between individual media choices, identity, perceptions and decisions will be a topic examined across this semester as part of our doctoral seminar at American University. The debate between these two groups of scholars centers on whether or not existing theories and methods in the field of political communication can adequately account for the changing nature of the news media, campaigns and their influence, or whether or not new theories and methods need to be developed.
--Guest post by Sarah Merritt, a doctoral student at American University’s School of Communication. Read other posts by AU doctoral students and find out more about the doctoral program in Communication at American University.
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. [PDF]
Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K., & Gleason, L. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15-34. [Abstract]
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Is it "perverseness," the "death drive," or something else?
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
It's up to us humans to re-humanize our world. An economy that prioritizes growth and profits over humanity has led to digital platforms that "strip the topsoil" of human behavior, whole industries, and the planet, giving less and less back. And only we can save us.
- It's an all-hands-on-deck moment in the arc of civilization.
- Everyone has a choice: Do you want to try to earn enough money to insulate yourself from the world you're creating— or do you want to make the world a place you don't have to insulate yourself from?
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.