Ratings vs Truth, the Role of the Media in Elections

Once upon a time (before 1980), over 50 companies (many family owned businesses) owned 90% if the US media--newspapers, books, magazines, radio and TV stations. They made money selling advertising and subscriptions, as well as books. Media companies, often making over 10% in profits each year, were typically attractive investments.1 

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) was established as part of the Communications Act of 1934 and is directly responsible to Congress. It replaced the Federal Radio Commission and, among its many purposes: 

"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act." 2

Things remained pretty much the same for 50 years, until the Reagan Administration began deregulation rules in 1981. Television licenses were extended from three to 5 years and the number of stations any entity could own rose from 7 to 12. That meant one company could control a market for a longer period of time and buy additional media in that area. Guidelines on how much hourly advertising could be aired were eliminated. In 1987, the "Fairness Doctrine" requiring reasonable attempts to cover contrasting points of view, was abolished.3

A complete overhaul was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The goal of the new law was to allow anyone to enter the communications industry and to allow any communications business to compete in any market. 4 What it really did was create a concentration of ownership. The fifty media companies in the 1930's dropped to 10 in 1996, and to 5 in 2005. 

With the advent of new technologies, specifically the Internet & streaming content, media companies have been driven by convergence. This means the melding of media with digital technology as well as different types of media companies with each other. For instance, Comcast acquired NBC Universal, thus combining theme parks & a broadcast network with a cable business. This convergence has also meant a huge percent of media is now publicly traded on the stock market. The family-owned business of the past, profiting the family, now must show a profit to appease shareholders.5

What does all this have to do with ratings and elections? 40 years ago the broadcast media worked under different rules and the goals of different owners. CBS was owned by cigar magnate William Paley, the "Tiffany" network that hosted Amos & Andy, the Ed Sullivan Show, MASH, and All in the Family. Its news division boasted Walter Cronkite, the "most trusted man in America." Like special sales at the grocery story, the news branch of the networks was considered a "loss leader"--not meant to make a profit.

In recent years, this has all changed. Media has always been able to influence the viewer, but different rules now affect the behavior of what we see and hear--and who says it. And news programs are no longer considered loss leaders but face ratings reviews as well. The news cast "talking heads" (reporters) are not only told what to say, but how to say it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk.6 They no longer report, but editorialize, not just on the air, but in Tweets and Facebook postings (http://deadline.com/2015/11/cnn-suspends-correspondent-after-tweet-house-vote-syrian-refugees-1201630862/).7

With ratings paramount (higher ratings means media companies can charge higher ad revenues) and stock value at risk, today's news editors weigh the value of the news against what will actually "sell" the news--what will get the most viewers to their media. The proliferation of social media and blogs (such as this one) also means many more pieces of information, sometimes confused as news, are written by people who have no background in journalism. Lacking appropriate research, many of these stories are biased and ground in misinformation. And because of this lack of integrity and truth, we are raising a generation of citizens who don't know the difference.

When it comes to politics, things get trickier because now it's the actual leadership of the country that's affected. For instance, in a 24 hour period last year, CNN mentioned ISIS 61 times, Iran 35 times, John Kerry 18 times, and Donald Trump 239 times.8 Fox News mentioned Trump 25 times more than all the other GOP candidates combined.9 In fact, Fox News has given Trump over $30 million in free airtime.10 Why have they done this? Because apparently Trump increases their ratings and thus their bottom lines.

Does that mean the American public really supports Trump, hence the high profile in the news? Or is it the level of antics of the candidate that intrigues people into watching? Or perhaps a bit of media manipulation? With so much money at stake--and every election this fall--can we buy into this manipulation by continuing to watch, or seek out changes and break up the media stranglehold?



Sources:
1. Shirley Biagi, Media/Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media, 2015, Cengage Learning, pg 13.
2. Text of the Act, from criminalgovernment.com. 
3. Media Regulation Timeline, http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
4. Text of the Act, from https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996.
5. Biagi, Media/Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media, pg. 12-13.
6. YouTube video, courtesy of RT TV.
7. http://deadline.com/2015/11/cnn-suspends-correspondent-after-tweet-house-vote-syrian-refugees-1201630862/ 
8. Independent Journal Review, http://ijr.com/2015/07/366095-cnn-loves-it-some-trump-guess-how-many-times-the-network-mentioned-his-name-in-24-hours/. 
9. FoxNews, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/11/edge-trump-gets-25-times-more-media-mentions-than-gop-field-combined.html
10. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/12/fox-news-has-given-donald-trump-nearly-30-milli/207912

The Rage of Republicans

When Donald Trump says, "Mexicans are rapists," why do his listeners cheer? When he yells, "I love the poorly educated!" why does the audience roar approval? When he remarks, "Russia is not going into the Ukraine," his enthusiasts nod, despite the fact that Russia is already there. Who are these people attending his rallies, clapping at his comments, and yelling their support?

I've looked at rally photos and I see mostly white people, the majority men. I read comments of supporters and hear more about "making America great again" and boos when Trump mentions Obama's name. Trump followers seem to be angry people, intent on avoiding any factual evidence that the man they praise is less worthy than they think.

What are these people seeing when they look at this man? Is it simply a matter of identity--they voted Republican last time & will always voted Republican--or does their anger come from recent experience? I hear conservatives talk about feelings and not facts. They feel unsafe, they feel misused, they feel unsupported. This despite the fact that the US still has the best economy in the world, the lowest unemployment rate, cheap imports...

I keep coming back to fear. Are people so desperate for their lives to change, to feel less fearful, they will ignore red flags and surrender themselves, blindly, behind the whims of a megalomaniac? The media feeds this fear every day and is accountable for grave injury to the American psyche. I wonder about any parallels in this country, at this time, with how some Italians felt when Mussolini came to power.

Facts Don't Matter

In Politics, Facts Don't Matter. That seems to be the consensus of various studies done in recent years over a variety of topics. From climate change to the actions of political figures, the way you traditionally vote (the Party you usually vote for) is more important than any fact or scientific research. 1

This is apparently true regardless of your education level. College graduates are just as likely to be unpersuaded by "facts" as are high school drop outs. 2  Is this due to a proliferation of information, a reluctance to believe any source, voter discontent, news propaganda by the media, lack of information, or simply the inability to change? 

A study at Yale University suggests "that despite being provided with a fact that should change your belief on a subject, your political views distort the truth. Your mind already has an answer established so you are looking for proof that supports it, which is literally working backward in the scientific world." 3 An example is that 51% of greenhouse gases is caused by livestock and their products. Yet we'd rather have more extreme weather (among other issues) than give up one day of meat (i.e., "meatless Monday"). 4

Despite getting peer reviewed after many tests, scientist's data is relegated behind politicians often off-the-cuff remarks. Scientists have to prove their theories while politicians merely have to act like they know what they're talking about.

Or is it an instinctive resistance to change? Psychologists call it "confirmation bias."5  The brain responds to opinions in such a way to keep you feeling safe. Even in a thoughtful exchange where facts are laid out in a non-confrontational way, the other person remains unmoved. The reason is that, as we grow, we develop opinions, ideas and concepts based on our life experiences. Once it's added to our belief system, it's very hard to change.

Can this bias be overcome? Yes, over time and perhaps with experience. The key is to understand the underlying feelings behind someone's bias. The next step is to build trust. Make information easy to understand by using stories and stirring emotions. This is what marketers do to sell products to you. It takes time and patience--other topics we need to work on.


Sources
1. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fclimate%2F2016%2F02%2F23%2F3752548%2Fclimate-denial-linked-to-politics%2F
2. http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2016/05/24/in-politics-why-facts-dont-always-matter/
3. http://www.care2.com/causes/new-study-says-facts-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-politics.html#ixzz49xvXV05G
4. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
5. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm
6. http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/post/facts-dont-matter/