Like many young Americans I get the majority of my news from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. Beyond the mere humor, there is something else about the two programs that make political news easier to digest. While more serious cable news programs use paranoia and fear to drive home an often times bias political point of view, the two “fake” news programs on Comedy Central use calmness and decorum to satirically poke holes in the credibility of both politicians and other news sources. From watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, one can see just how absurd cable news programs on stations such as Fox News and MSNBC are, which begs the question wh y anyone would continue watching these programs? How do they maintain respectable ratings?
To answer this question I of course turn to the very serious news program that is the Colbert Report. On Mr. Colbert’s July 11th show he welcomed guest Michael Shermer (link to interview below).
Michael Shermer is a science writer and editor for Skeptic Magazine who new book Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How we construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths, helps to explain why people seek out information and opinions that they already agree with. As Mr. Shermer said in his interview, “Are brains are like lawyers who lawyer data to fit our beliefs” (Mr. Colbert asked if our brains are charging us by the hour). He continued to explain that we as politically-minded people “who will only find and remember the data that supports what we believe”. This is why conservatives will flock towards news programs such as Hannity, O’Reily and Beck, while liberals will seek out and watch Rachel Maddow’s news program on MSNBC. I think the notion that people only want to hear what they already believe explains the popularity of such right-leaning talk radio programs as Rush Limbaugh.
Mr. Shermer used an analogy to explain why the human brain does seek out information it is already sure of. He gave the example of a tribesman who was walking through the African desert 3.5 million years ago. While the tribesman is walking, he suddenly hears a rustling sound coming from some bushes. The tribesman has two choices. He can go towards the bushes, look around, and assess the situation (i.e. find out what is making the sound), or he can assume the sound is being made by a snake and blindly attack the bush. Mr. Shermer makes the point that humans do not like the feeling of taking time to assess the situation when they do not know for sure what the situation holds (i.e. is the snake in the bushes?). Thus Americans ensure themselves of what they want to think (snake is in the bushes) and look for news sources that reinforce these beliefs.
This analogy may not fit perfectly, but the general idea is understood. Americans like to hear what they already believe. Our last lecturer, Andrew Smith, also made this point when describing the research the Pew Research Center. To see how true this statement is, I decided to explore the comments on the webpages of Fox News and MSNBC to see how many of them are consistent with the deemed political views of the news organization. Do only conservatives really go on Fox News? Do any comment on the pages of MSNBC, and vice versa?
For this study I will look at an opinion pieces written by each news station in the past week and record how many liberal or conservative comments were posted. While this little study is by no means properly scientific (the sample size will be too small due to lack of time), I think the study will give a clearer view of who follows which news sources for politics.
The first piece I looked at was on Fox News’ opinion webpage titled “President Obama doesn’t know the First Thing about Economics” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/16/president-obama-doesnt-know-first-thing-about-economics/#comment). Going solely on the title, it is quite obviously an article written from a conservative point of view. At the time there were 24 comments on the article. 23 were supporting the conservative view, while only one, written by a man named Terry, supported President Obama. Terry was then berated in the next series of comments. Few of the comments were moderate in their criticism of Obama. And what I found even more interesting was that the criticism of Obama that the readers wrote about were often now about the economy (the subject of the article). Many of the commenters railed on Obama for not making his Harvard academic records public. Others railed on the mainstream media (they are protecting Obama says a reader whose account name is libh8r). Another comment even made fun of Al Gore for claiming he invented the internet (not related to the current economic situation in anyway). More and more comments keep coming in, and while a few support a liberal view, the vast majority seem to be coming from staunchly conservative readers.
The piece I looked at on MSNBC’s opinion webpage is a copy of Rupert Murdoch’s apology letter he sent out in the wake of the terrible phone hacking scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_scandal).
There are 7 comments underneath on MSNBC’s opinion webpage and all are mocking the conservative media mogul. The comments also take shots at our News Corp leaders such as Roger Ailes. One comment by James Mc even references that the current budget situation would be solved if Murdoch was put in jail and Fox News cancelled. All in all, the comments are very liberal.
So I guess this little study proved what Mr. Smith and Mr. Shermer had already said. Are minds are thus wired to pick out the information that already best suits us. People do not like to have their ideals challenged. We do not want to be unsure of what they believe. Going back to the analogy, we do not like not knowing what is making the rustling sound in the bush.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrian-
ReplyDeleteGreat insights! I really enjoyed reading your interpretation of the book introduced on the Colbert Report, as well as your investigation of the political bias of news outlets. It is interesting to consider the lens that people wear, which influences their perceptions on life and interpretations of experiences. I agree with the theoretical framework you presented. I believe that the lenses we wear shape how we seek for things that reinforce our beliefs and viewpoints. We are human and, by nature, want to make sense of the world; that is why I believe we will seek out news outlets that support our viewpoints. No one want to experience any form of cognitive dissonance. The next thing I question is whether this is a problem or if it is just inevitable. Could the media ever by completely unbiased? I don't think so. Moreover, people have the right to choose wear they consume their news; therefore, it would be difficult to change rights, motivation, and human nature.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteAs a conservative, it would be extremely stressful for me to have to watch Rachel Madoff give me the morning news and not be able to punch her in the face. I mean issue a rebuttal. I would gladly listen to watch she had to say if I could get my two cents in as well. And even as a conservative I still get fed up with the stories on FOX.
Do you not enjoy our witty political banter? Just because a conversation challenges one’s ideology doesn’t mean he will try to avoid it. Discussion and argument are the driving forces for advancing ideology. Every political argument is an opportunity to win over your opponent. I mean it’s not gone happen all at once, but if you can slowly chip away at some ones’ arguments and the logic behind them, it becomes more and more likely they will change their beliefs. Smart people will seek out information to support their argument. REALLY smart people will seek out their opponent’s arguments and undermine them.
The problem with news networks like FOX and MSNBC is that they have already made up their mind about who they are broadcasting to. They market themselves to certain people that support the same ideology. They aren't going to rock their consumer base if they are making profits.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteAsking why people watch FOX is like asking 'Mr. Owl, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsies pop?' the world may never know....
That being said.
As a conservative, it would be extremely stressful for me to have to watch Rachel Madoff give me the morning news and not be able to punch her in the face. I mean issue a rebuttal. I would gladly listen to what she had to say if I could get my two cents in as well. And even as a conservative I still get fed up with the stories on FOX.
Do you not enjoy our witty political banter? Just because a conversation challenges one’s ideology doesn’t mean he will try to avoid it. Discussion and argument are the driving forces for advancing ideology. Every political argument is an opportunity to win over your opponent. I mean it’s not gone happen all at once, but if you can slowly chip away at some ones’ arguments and the logic behind them, it becomes more and more likely they will change their beliefs. Smart people will seek out information to support their argument. REALLY smart people will seek out their opponent’s arguments and undermine them.
The problem with news networks like FOX and MSNBC is that they have already made up their mind about who they are broadcasting to. They market themselves to certain people that support the same ideology. They aren't going to rock their consumer base if they are making profits. And in their marketing quest they have made themselves flat out offensive to anyone who disagrees.