Disadvantages Of Narrowcasting

The article begins by explaining the main purpose for the research inquiry. If this recent election has proven anything, it is that there is vast wealth of election coverage. Citizens can now access political information, and news coverage from almost anywhere through a variety of mediums. This increased access has opened a new dimension. Partisan media effects have been researched in the past. However, this article points out that there is a lack of inquiry on the timing of partisan media influence during the election cycle.

It is important that news broadcasting networks do not let personal bias effect the story that’s being told to its audience. People who watch the news, opinions are heavily influenced by the information given to them. Viewers think their opinion is original but are unaware that the information they receive is biased and is meant to influence and form their opinions about a certain topic or argument. Many believe that the news is unbiased and factual because journalist or experts are providing them with evidence.When, in fact, these news outlets are filled with producers, reporters, and writers, who share the same viewpoints. This is groupthink and groupthink is very prominent in news broadcasting networks. Groupthink is when a group of people who share the same ideologies make decisions as a group. In an interview with Fox Business’s John Stossel, Bernie Goldberg explains that groupthink effects the viewer because like-minded people at news networks only show the audience one-side of an argument or story because of their personal opinions on a the topic. This means that news

In “There Is No Significant Media Bias”, Paul Farhi argues that political news is actually tilted towards the center, “Because that's where the people are, and that's where the [advertising] money is.” Critics such are Farhi are wrong in the sense that media bias affect certain groups of people more disproportionately than others. “There Is No Significant Media Bias” was created in 2012, a time when political scene was much milder and social media didn't have as much influence as it has currently. In 2016 alone, the popularity of fake news on Facebook has already jumped past the viewership of mainstream news media (Lee). The media scene has done miracles for conservative news outlets, as previously stated with the popularity boom of websites such as Breitbart. Even MSNBC, the news channel that has traditionally been trusted for progressive news, has come out with an ad stating, “People might accuse us of leaning too far to the right”, shifting towards more right-leaning TV programming (Christopher). If there were no significant media, there would be no budding movement in media and consumer trends that leans particularly strong to one ideology over another. Clearly, this is not the

Hosts, reporters, and commentators dug at President Trump and his administration in almost every single story aired over the course of an hour and a half. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow eluded that Trump’s alleged ties with Russia “will come out soon,” but she omitted the word alleged, a move that could trigger a slander lawsuit. This framing by both MSNBC and Fox advance a political agenda. If a media consumer were to watch only one of these outlets, that consumer would hear only one view on the world. I believe these partisan outlets can cause closed-mindedness and advocate against those with different beliefs to work together.

Another way media frames political issues is inserting media’s own position on the issue. The media’s position tends to be more liberal and promotes more democratic policies and issues. This bias coverage stems from a long growing relationship between the media and liberal forces (Ginsberg, Lowi & Weir, 1999). However, any bias can distort new coverage and influence audiences in that direction.

Today's media has displayed countless ways they show media bias. Many channels have depicted a different side to one story and base information on a political party in which the channel supports. Each news source has one goal, and that is to state what will make the chosen party to have a good platform for the public to see. In the series of events that have occurred recently one can see how different news sources have pushed for what each channel believes is the main point needed to be crossed and have shared beliefs in either a liberal or conservative way.

A liberal is a person that believes that the government should provide equality for all, while a conservative is a person that believes in limited government and that the government should provide the necessary freedom for people to pursue their own goals. Over time, it has been argued, mostly by conservatives, that there is a liberal bias in the media. Liberals have combated this idea with the belief that conservative media is devoted to making efforts to invoke fear and division in the general public. Though liberals make a fine counter-argument, it is easier to observe that the media is liberal-biased. The liberal versus conservative debate can be compared to facts versus values. Another reason for bias within the media is that a significant percentage of minorities, or smaller groups within the population that are often thought to be poorer, politically identify themselves as liberals. To make these minorities feel like the government is on their side as well as everyone else’s, the media must accommodate the needs of these minorities. Because of this, the media becomes liberal-biased.

Narrowcasting is targeted media programing at specific populations within society. Within the realm of cable news, MSNBC and Fox News are the most notable for engaging in this niche in journalism. They divide viewers by ideology, with Fox emphasizing the conservative

Television has been influential in America’s elections since the 1960’s, and as TV continues to grow, so will the influence it has over the people. Many people believe whatever comes on their television screen, and don’t think twice to counteract the information. As America continues to televise presidential elections and politics pertaining to that, the elections will be frequently unfair and biased, the candidates won’t be able to completely focus on what’s important, like their imagine instead of their ideas. Television may give more substantial access to millions of more people, but that could change that end result of the presidency for better, or for worse.

There has not been a critical election in recent years because mass media has created a less passionate partisan atmosphere. Candidate-centered politics allows candidates to reach out directly to voters through televised campaign ads and relay their opinions on public issues. Thus, a candidate’s message may reach a broader audience, including those of the opposite party, because anyone could see a campaign ad on a television, as opposed to going to a political rally of solely Republicans or Democrats. These candidates do not require as much help from their party’s members to recruit voters with political rallies or door-to-door recruitment; however, political rallies and door-to-door recruitment have a natural tendency to excite and unite parties more than television campaign ads that voters watch from their living-room sofa. Candidate-centered

Robert J. Samuelson’s essay, “Picking Sides for the News,” details the problem of citizens only hearing the news that they want to hear through statistics. Samuelson begins his essay by giving the reader the opinion of Americans in regards to news being reported. He goes on to say that Americans are increasingly choosing to listen to news based on “partisanship,” meaning conservatives listen to Republican news and liberals listen to Democratic news. Samuelson highlights the fact that most Americans are starting to not believe what they hear in the news, partisan growth resulting because of the distrust. Samuelson concludes his essay by describing why the reader should care. He believes the reader should care because the media’s bias’ are shaping

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

In the reading “How the Mass Media Divide Us’, professor Diana Mutz argues that the mass media, in an effort to increase audience size, actually divides Americans by entertaining them with television “shout shows” that are built on bitter debate, intense disagreement, and irate confrontations. Mutz believes that this causes Americans to embrace more extreme political views. Uncivil discourse increases polarization by helping partisans think even less of their opponents. A study conducted by Mutz concluded that watching civil versions of political exchanges can lead to decreased levels of polarization. In a civil setting, where differences of opinion are conveyed in a manner which supports mutual respect, viewers are able to see differences

As the United States continues forth as a democratic state, the question remains over how important are televised presidential debates, especially when they no longer foster a productive learning environment for viewers. The positive effects of televised presidential debates as in close running with the negative effects of televised presidential debates. Gathering up all the data from the different sources and interpreting what it could mean is not extremely strenuous. Knowing that voters are affected by the debates in different manners, breaking down voters into groups to analyze the direction each group is going in can help ascertain how televised presidential debates will affect future outcomes. Voters who are politically active are polarized by the presidential debates, especially when the debates are watched on split screen coverage. Because split screen coverage is a relatively new way for networks to broadcast the presidential debates, it is easy to assert that voters will only become more polarized as this trend continues.

On the contrary, a biased media has increased its effects on American citizens from a voting stand point. It is no surprise that the media plays a major and powerful role in the lives of millions of American citizens every day. These same Americans sit before the television and computer screens and partake in ongoing debates as it relates to political values, parties, and various other pieces of data. It was seen in most recent election experiences that the media can be biased towards both liberals and conservatives. Frontline reported that by comparison, only 11 percent of the primary coverage