Which of these statements do you most agree with?

[Femmebott]

The media indirectly and discreetly influences public opinion. (that is my thesis)
I actually think this one is more true: The media only reflects public opinion.
I need to pick one.
And do theses (if that is the correct plural) have to be positive? what if my thesis was:
The media does not influence public opinion, it is unbiased, and merely reflects public opinion. (which reinforces it)

Its a chicken/egg kind of question and I dont know which one is following which. Could someone help me out here?

[Profit]

Question: Are we talking about mass media (news, blogs, tv shows, movies, radio, books, magazines etc.) or do you have a more narrow definition for your research?

[Femmebott]

mostly news networks, newspapers

[Warrior]

I'd choose the first one, given the choice between the two. Personally, I think the first one is somewhat understated. I think the media's influence is much more direct and overt.

[Profit]

I'd choose the first one, given the choice between the two. Personally, I think the first one is somewhat understated. I think the media's influence is much more direct and overt.

I agree, especially the direct and overt part.

[Femmebott]

oh? do tell me how?

[phej]

The media indirectly and discreetly influences public opinion. (that is my thesis)
I actually think this one is more true: The media only reflects public opinion.
I need to pick one.
And do theses (if that is the correct plural) have to be positive? what if my thesis was:
The media does not influence public opinion, it is unbiased, and merely reflects public opinion. (which reinforces it)

Its a chicken/egg kind of question and I dont know which one is following which. Could someone help me out here?

The influence of the media on the public and the influence of the public on the media both happen. The two statements make the assumption that one or the other is passive. That's simply not true. A more interesting question to ask is what are the mechanisms of influence.

[Femmebott]

isnt there a top dog here? maybe i should say that the media has assisted political polarization rather than caused it

[Profit]

The influence of the media on the public and the influence of the public on the media both happen. The two statements make the assumption that one or the other is passive. That's simply not true. A more interesting question to ask is what are the mechanisms of influence.

I like this question. I think it gives you a more nuanced way of looking at the issue since you don't have to answer the chicken and egg question first and essentially use your research to argue why your choice is justified.

[deinotes]

isnt there a top dog here? maybe i should say that the media has assisted political polarization rather than caused it
I think it's both true depending on how you look at it.
Some media channels are not very biased and only report the current public opinion, while others are more like a propaganda outlet and are only designed to steer the public in a certain direction.

[Stickman]

Noam Chomsky had a lot to say about this subject. You can start by a comparison of media coverage of atrocities in Cambodia and East Timor in the 1980s like he did.

[NoOne]

there are all kinds of media, but it is truer that mainstream media caters to the mentally abreviated to begin with. So why would one care about their opinions?

And, what good is opinion anyway?

Sometimes I imagine that the compaint about opinion and media and all is generated from a real frustration that one has in realizing that they are not the ones driving the oxen over the clift.

[SeaCzar]

The so called "news" media are interested in one thing: $$$. Its all, and almost solely about money. The louder the news gets, and the more it is able to sensationalize any given subject, the better the sales/ratings. The better the ratings, the more $$$. Its that easy. The media do not give a rat crap about honest journalism.

[Evangelist]

I believe that the media is paid by advertisement and they pay heavily so that their message is heard. Have you ever noticed a picture of a man with an oxygen tank smoking a cigarette? How bout' a fat chick at McDonalds? Have you ever seen a shampoo commercial with a black women? Have you ever seen a commercial where the executive on the run is a black man? How about the surgeon shaking hands being a woman? Must I continue.......................

[Brasse]

I agree with both statements to a certain degree, but number one, unfortunately, feels like it is true more often than number two.

[CWC]

The media indirectly and discreetly influences public opinion. (that is my thesis)
I actually think this one is more true: The media only reflects public opinion.
I need to pick one.
And do theses (if that is the correct plural) have to be positive? what if my thesis was:
The media does not influence public opinion, it is unbiased, and merely reflects public opinion. (which reinforces it)

Its a chicken/egg kind of question and I dont know which one is following which. Could someone help me out here?

The one flaw present in your model,as I identify,is the oversimplification that stems from the lack of a specific.

The above premise that you've stated;that the media is an agent of supressive influences,where the raison d'etre of its influential power lies in it being the representative of the public's collection of opinions,and therefore,its media influence on the public is legitmate does not have a reference point,and as such,this premise can be the equivalent expression of A=B=C,whereby all 3 subjects encompasses a common property that defines A to be B,and the equal of C.
In other words,this premise that you've arrived at posits you to take on the position of drawing a line on a linear line.While you might think there are 2 entities here[the media and the public,they are essentially one entity since you have made them to hold a common charecteristic as I see it]
What's the differences?[Talking about similarities within a similarity?]

The solution here might be for you to draw a parallel distinction between the media and the public as two entirely seperated entity by redefining their references points and thus,establishing an intransitive relation between one and the another so as to allow room for the arguement of their descriptive differences.

[hubcap]

I believe the media directly influences public opinion.........intentionally.

[paleoeco]

I'm weighing in on the media influencing public opinion. Specifically, if I were to argue the point, I would proceed from the starting point that "the media influence public opinion by virtue of what stories they cover, and how they are covered/balanced".

[SShack]

Grrrrrr.

Media is plural. It is not one entity. It is a collection of businesses and individuals.

Both statements are wrong. A media outlet may attempt to influence public opinion, directly or indirectly. "The media" cannot. This is a generalization.

Imagine if you chose between one of these theses:
• Teachers are only interested in money and don't care about providing a quality education.
• Teachers only care about providing a quality education and don't care about money.
Both statements are wrong. Some teachers fit in thesis A. Some teachers fit in thesis B.

I just find it absolutely mystifying that people seem wholly incapable of understanding this truth about "the media." It is not some big organized thing.

[Ray9]

The media (print and television) has degenerated into an orwellian, left wing ivory tower of distortion and character assassination. This has been going on for years and it is the primary reason for the emergence of talk radio as the voice of the right. How many reports of horrible atrocities have been aired or written about from Iraq or Afganistan since Obama has been elected? We were getting about one a week while Bush was in office. The left wing media actually concocted phony stories and flooded the airwaves and news pages with them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Speaking of phony, left wing concocted character assassination, Keep your eye on Rush Limbaugh because he is about start litigation against all the left wing news outlets that attributed quotes to him that he never made.

[Mader]

I agree with hubcap, the media influences intentionally.

Remember, the media is not some behemoth, it is made up of individuals. These individuals have opinions and viewpoints. Being a writer means that you want to communicate with people, this means that you want people to like what you write, this means you want to have positive feedback from people, and you want postivie feedback from your friends. Humans tend to associate with people we agree with, so journalists write for their friends who they agree with already - it is a closed loop. When journalists interact with people they do not already agree with, they have choices to make, do I write just facts, do I write what this person says/believes even tho I think differently, do I please my editor, do I please my friends back home?

When you live in a very large city, you are surrounded by so many people it is difficult to understand that other people live, and think, very differently. When your job depends on making your editor happy, it is difficult and unpopular to go against the grain. This then reinforces itself week in and week out. THIS is why I distrust the MSM, not because they are evil people, but rather, bless their hearts, they are ignorant and in their own way, provincial.

[Profit]

The media (print and television) has degenerated into an orwellian, left wing ivory tower of distortion and character assassination. This has been going on for years and it is the primary reason for the emergence of talk radio as the voice of the right. How many reports of horrible atrocities have been aired or written about from Iraq or Afganistan since Obama has been elected? We were getting about one a week while Bush was in office. The left wing media actually concocted phony stories and flooded the airwaves and news pages with them.


First off please share with us the concocted stories that the left wing media flooded the airwaves with. I'm not saying you are wrong just give us the proof.

The media(s), right and left, started dropping the focus on Iraq and Afghanistan before Obama was elected. By time the summer of 2008 rolled around no one was talking about Iraq because of the spike in oil and housing market bust. These were followed by the financial crisis, the bailout and the presidential election. Now all anyone talks about is healthcare. US media(s) has a tendency to get tunnel vision quite frequently.

[Paul Siraisi]

(Minding SShack) Defining 'the media' roughly as entities that attract audiences by entertaining them with the facts and opinions that interest those audiences, it seems clear to me that the media operates as a distorting feedback mechanism. The industry (it!) picks out the most exciting parts of whatever knowlege and assumptions the audience brings to the table, and returns that stuff flavored with added excitement. Probably doesn't make us do much, except get stupider.