Media

How the media can manipulate us

 

– The impact of mass media on public opinion, the importance of objectivity,

transparency and public relations models –

 

Introduction

The media are powerful, especially in the Western world. The media can create huge changes (such as the collapse of governments, scandals, but also positive changes, as the recent television action in the Netherlands for the victims of the tsunami in South-East Asia) in society. In countries where dictators and other totalitarian governments rule the media is state-owned. The media, television, radio, newspapers, etc. are totally controlled by the people that are in power. In the ‘free’ world, countries where democracies exist have the media in general an excessive power which in some cases may have enormous consequences. Politicians and governments make rules and address information to journalists, but the media decides the relevance of it. In other words, is it news or not? The great and powerful role the media have in the modern society is something we should be aware of. Therefore we must look critical at the media and with what they provide us and how they influence the public opinion. I think that in some cases the objectivity and transparency of the media is at stake and the media bring not facts, but sometimes manipulate the news. In my view it is important that the media, especially the mass media like television, should provide diversity of content, universal access, etc. Most media systems are based on these principles. 

In this essay the topic is how the media sometimes manipulate the public. I will illustrate this by using a special case. The case is a documentary about an American news channel called FOX. I will headline some parts of the documentary how FOX brought news to the American citizens regarding the war on terrorism and the presidential elections in 2004. The importance of objectivity and transparency, the way of influencing the opinion of the public will also be discussed and moreover I will express my own opinion on this issue.

Case: OUTFOXED

FOX is, together with ABC, CBS, NBC, one of the big television channels in the USA. Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch owns FOX and other several other media, e.g. magazines and some daily newspapers. Millions of U.S. citizens watch FOX on daily basis. Because millions of Americans watch FOX to get their information, this channel has a lot of impact on how the public opinion is formed.

The documentary about FOX, called OUTFOXED (Outfoxed, VPRO, 2004) was broadcasted in the USA, but also on Dutch television. The documentary shows how FOX reports about several American issues, such as the war in Iraq, the presidential elections in 2004, etc. FOX News claims that it is objective and honest, or how the channel self puts it: fair and balanced. All the reports are, in my opinion, clearly in favor of the Bush administration. I will explain this by using some examples. FOX is pro Bush and in favor of the Republicans. This is a slight difference, because it might be that if there would be another Republican president in the White House, FOX would report negatively. However, this is not the case. FOX reports only positively about Republicans. People with another opinion or Democrats are not heard. If Democrats or other people, that look critically at the Bush administration (what the media, such as reporters, hosts of talks shows, etc., should do), are invited for the several talk shows, they hardly even talk or are allowed to express their views. The more pro Bush/Republicans, which are invited, get plenty of time to attack the people who have a different opinion and they can express their opinions and ideas. This is what the, so called FOX public, wants to hear and what the directors at FOX believe is right. FOX also claims that they pick persons on politics and on news value. It surprises me that all those persons are Republican, or at least in favor of the Bush government and never critically talk about the issues that might not be totally in favor of the political right wing in the USA. A good example is the O’Reilly Factor (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135164,00.html), a daily talk show on FOX. This is a talk show where the host, Bill O’Reilly, invites guests to talk about political issues and other issues that happen in society. He invited a person, Jeremy Glick, who according to O’Reilly accused the Bush administration of being involved in the attacks on the WTC on 9/11. This person was accused and even insulted by O’Reilly, without the chance to give his opinion or react on the questions and remarks O’Reilly made. During the show, O’Reilly told Glick to ‘shut up’, several times and accused him of being not a good American citizen. You may think this is not right, but it is the host of the show who decides how a conversation will go and when it is time to switch to another topic. But it gets worse. The next days and weeks after the interview, O’Reilly twisted the words of the person and confronted (pro Bush/Republican) people with the statements of Glick. People, who did not see the show when Glick was invited, may think that this is what he actually said. The question that rises is: Is this ethical and is this how you treat people? People who have a different opinion are not heard or are shut up on FOX. This is not objective, fair and balanced news, and the public only sees one side of the issue. FOX is a popular news channel and this highly influences the public opinion. However, McCombs argues that in general, strong links exist between increased salience and knowledge about an issue. This is not surprising, considering that information gain is not always correlated with opinion change. Different people can interpret the same information in different ways (M. McCombs, E. Einsiedel, D. Weaver, 1991). In other words, if people, for instance, only watch the news on FOX, they still may have a different opinion. However, people that are strongly Republican are supported by their opinion and people that are open to several opinions and views may tend to turn Republican by watching FOX. This is manipulation; only one side of the issues is shown.

Another example is the way how FOX tried to justify the war against Iraq after the 9/11 attacks by showing opinion polls. People were asked questions if there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda, if there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and if an invasion of Iraq was justified. Of the people who watched FOX 33% thought there were WMD in Iraq, of the people who watched other channels 11% believed there might be weapons of mass destruction. 67% of the people who watched FOX believed that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Queda, of the people that watched other news channels, this was only 16%. 35% of FOX viewers also thought that an invasion of Iraq was justified against 5%, which were against. In my opinion this shows that people who watch FOX are manipulated. People that check different sources and, in that case, most likely see both sides of issues are more skeptic about, for example if an invasion of Iraq is justified or not. In this case the media dependency theory is relevant. This theory states that the more dependent an individual is on the media for having his or her needs fulfilled, the more important the media will be to that person (S. Ball-Rokeach, M. DeFleur, 1976). According to former congress member R. Sanders is FOX a part of the Republican party. Murdoch is a strong Republican and several Republican politicians and a cousin of president Bush are frequently asked in talk shows. The question that then rises is: Should there not be equality for both parties?

Also during the election time in 2004, in my opinion, FOX tried to manipulate the U.S. citizens. On the FOX News channel, but also on other channels, where discussions held about the elections and which candidate was the best to lead the USA. Only after discussions on FOX, the hosts mostly ended with the words: ‘Just 3.5 months before you can vote for Bush’ or ‘just 5 weeks until Bush is re-elected.’ FOX strongly influenced to vote the Americans for Bush, before the elections were even held; they gave assumptions to the people that Bush would win. I think this can in some way influence average Americans. The average U.S. citizens, who just take the news as it comes, would probably not vote for Kerry, the candidate of the Democrats. They did not even bother to vote, because Bush would win, so it would not make a difference.

Creating news and forming opinions

FOX is smart and creative in selling the news and knows exactly how to report about certain issues. According to Jeff Cohen, a former producer of FOX, the channel gives blurry commentary on news facts. In other words, there is no transparency, talk shows of FOX also twist the words of guest they invite, as mentioned above. FOX creates news, if there is no actual news. If president Bush does something, which is not even newsworthy, FOX makes news of it and broadcasts it. Further is the channel also creative with the sources, because as a (critical) viewer you think where do they get all that information, even before you think it might be true or not. FOX uses frequently ‘some people say…’ when it presents the news. Who those ‘people’ are is not clear. News techniques say there is no journalism at FOX.

In my opinion major television channels have also a certain responsibility. They should bring the news objective, so that people can form their own opinion. They should not be pushed in a certain direction. Television channels, but also other media, should show all the facts, both sides of the issues and not one side what might be in favor of one party, like FOX does. The case of FOX can also be linked to the spiral of silence theory. The spiral of silence theory predicts that people will be more likely to publicly state their opinions if they believe their opinions are in the majority or are becoming more widespread (E. Noelle-Neumann, 1984). Likewise, because of a fear of isolation, they will be less likely to expose their opinions publicly if they feel that their opinions are losing ground (M. McCombs, E. Einsiedel, D. Weaver, 1991).       

Another question that rises is: Who inspects the media? In other words, is there an organization that inspects the media if they are objective and transparent and are actually present ‘facts and figures?’ An option is that some television channels only can broadcast if they meet certain requirements set by the government. This does not mean that the government checks what the channels broadcast, because interference of the state does not work, but another organization could inspect channels such as FOX.      

Opinion versus manipulation and theories

According to former producers of FOX, the channel is forming statements and opinions instead of gathering news, what news channels primarily should do. But there is a difference between opinions and manipulation. Opinions are based on beliefs about the world around us. They may concern beliefs about perceived problems, about events, about other people. Our beliefs are our assumptions about what is factually true (M. McCombs, E. Einsiedel, D. Weaver, 1991). In democracies opinions can and must be expressed, even opinions and ideas that might be in the minority. Opinions that do not fit the frame of FOX are just ignored. Opinions and ideas are good, but what if those opinions are just not opinions or statements anymore, but become manipulated by just showing one side of the issue? FOX does not gather news, but forms statements. FOX makes only statements instead of presenting ‘facts and figures.’ This is making your own news, like FOX does most of the time. According to Price there is a tendency among some individuals to project opinions onto others. This has been called the looking glass phenomenon. Its complement is pluralistic ignorance, a tendency not to know at all what opinions others hold. Both tendencies, of course, limit the likelihood that a spiral of silence will occur (V. Price, D. Roberts, 1987). O’Reilly projects opinions onto others. The spiral of silence will occur, especially in countries with totalitarian governments. 

Another theory, the use and gratifications approach theory can also be applied to the case of FOX. The uses and gratifications approach theory attempts to explain the uses and functions of the media for individuals, groups, and society in general. As mentioned above, people that are strongly Republican or support the Bush administration see their opinions and views supported by FOX. Blumler and Katz argue that the uses and gratification theory suggests that media users play an active role in choosing and using the media. Users take an active part in the communication process and are goal oriented in their media use (J. Blumler, E. Katz, 1974). The theorists say that a media user seeks out a media source that best fulfills the needs of the user. Uses and gratifications assume that the user has alternate choices to satisfy their need (J. Blumler, E. Katz, 1974). A medium will be used more when the existing motives to use the medium leads to more satisfaction (E. Griffin, 2000).

In my opinion, FOX is basically making ‘propaganda’ for the Republican party, and not just a news channel. If you look at models of public relations (PR) that Grunig describes, you see that FOX is practicing the press agentry model. Asymmetrical communication is imbalanced and symmetrical communication is balanced. Although FOX claims it is fair and balanced. Grunig and Hunt described the press agentry model as one-way asymmetrical and the public information as one-way symmetrical communication (J. Grunig, 1992). In other words, press agentry involves sending out information into society. In the case of FOX it is even worse. FOX does not send out information, but sends out statements and manipulates the public and dialogues can only take place if it fits in the frame and ideas of the people at FOX. This is one sided and not ethical. According to Grunig, the two-way symmetrical model is the most ethical approach of PR and ethical PR is most effective in meeting organizational goals. In other words, to have a constructive and open dialogue is ethical and will also help to convince people and gain support. The media, in my opinion, should be reliable and should, to a certain stage, be held accountable for what they serve the public.

Conclusion

The media are powerful and may have a huge influence on how the public forms opinions, and can create huge changes in society. The case of FOX shows that people can be manipulated and just simply believe what the television channels show them. The example of the elections is in this case significant. The media have sometimes an excessive power on society, which might have enormous consequences. In the Western world, the media can publish and broadcast (almost) everything and provide diversity of content, universal access, etc. In modern societies media systems are based on these principles. In the Western society, most media show the issues they present objectively and try to show both side of the issues. The case of FOX shows that this is sometimes not the case. I think we should not take for granted that the media are always objective, transparent and reliable. We must be aware and look critical at what the media serve us. The case of FOX also shows that some television channels try to manipulate people to influence the public or make propaganda. I think that people should not be dependent on the media, although media is important to gather information, but people should look critical and check more different sources. The media should be ethical and transparent, such as in organizations, according to the two-way symmetrical model of public relations. 

References

• Ball-Rokeach, S.J., DeFleur, M.L., 1976. A dependency model or mass-media effects. White Plains, New York: Longman
• Ball-Rokeach, S.J., DeFleur, M. L., 1989. Theories of mass communication. 5th ed. White Plains, New York: Longman
• Blumler J.G., Katz, E., 1974. The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage
• McCombs, M., Einsiedel, E. and Weaver, D., 1991. Contemporary public opinion; Issues and the News. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Griffin, E., 1997. A first look at communication theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 338, 377
• Griffin, E., 2000. A first look at communication theory. 4th ed. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill, p. 310, 364
• Grunig, J.E., 1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Chapter 11
• Noelle-Neumann, E., 1984. The spiral of silence. In: McCombs, M., Einsiedel, E. and Weaver, D., 1991. Contemporary public opinion; Issues and the News. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., p. 77
• OUTFOXED, 2004. TV, VPRO, Nederland 3, 30 October 2004. USA: Carolina Productions Inc
• Price, V., Roberts, D., 1987. Public opinion process. In: McCombs, M., Einsiedel, E. and Weaver, D., 1991. Contemporary public opinion; Issues and the News. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., p. 77
• http://www.foxnews.com (7 January 2005)
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135164,00.html (7 January 2005)

 © Marco van den Doel, 2005/2009 (revised)