Media’s impact on public policy: implications for

civil society

The Players:

•the media

•the public

•policy people

The Players:• media: different platforms, premier

outlets public: general public, specific civil

society and other interest groups, individuals.

policy people: the makers and the implementers.

Qtn: who drives the process?

1. Liberal democratic modelMEDIA COVERAGE

PUBLIC OPINION

GOVTRESPONDS

2. Muckraker modelPUBLIC OPINION

MEDIA COVERAGE

GOVTRESPONDS

3. Bypassing Civil Society

GOVTRESPONDS

MEDIA COVERAGE

= “PUBLIC OPINION”

4. Manipulation model

MEDIA COVERAGE

GOVTINITIATES

PUBLIC OPINION

Summing up:

• Policy people both infer Public Opinion from media, and they use media to promote their policies.

• Often it is a collaboration of media and politicians that leads to policy changes.

• But civil society also has a real role to play in the public sphere, as in the first model.

• In practice, many situations combine aspects of all four models.

• Media is assumed to be a factor in all of them.

Other issues 1:

• Usually, enthusiastic, one-sided and simplistic treatment in the media = rapid policy change; complexity and debate leads to slower policy action.

• Effect on politicians & policy often is a transition:

mobilisation -> action -> maintenance -> fade

(as the media intensity declines).

Other issues 2:• Some media platforms are more influential than

others: eg. the impact of TV is said to be greater on dramatic and short-term events. But often TV takes its cue from print.

• Intermedia agenda-setting power. For example, some titles are more influential than others in setting what’s “the story”.

• Note: power of international media and cultural imperialism.

Effects theory & Public Opinion

             Knowledge and information             Beliefs (about reality)             Values (about goodness)             Norms (about behaviour)  => attitudes, which in turn => contextualise and

colour specific opinions on specific issues.  

• Thus, Public Opinion = a set of attitudes that are based on knowledge, beliefs, values, norms.

  Influence: Theory 1 1. Very Indirect effects (“Tertiary-level effects”): Media creates new publics, causes changes in

politics, alters people’s time allocation. A “media dense” environment will have greater

effect in this area, even on identities Obviously much less the case in most of Africa. Density also has implications for the other kinds

of effects … but, effects often go far wider than audiences

Influence: Theory 2a2. Most Direct effects (“Primary effects”): Works on short-term attitudes and opinions:  A. Stimulus-response (S-R) theory: This is an overly-powerful view. But true that S-R exists

in affective responses: fear, tears, identification, anger, laughter, arousal. Suicides, fashions, riots.

Less-powerful view: S-R is recognised as being modified by: psycho variables, socio variables, 2 step diffusion.

This “weaker effects” view has some validity too.

Influence: Theory 2b2. Most Direct effects (“Primary effects”) cntd:  B. Uses and gratifications theory:

Audiences act on media; make PO. But: People do change through media exposure, Messages are not open-ended, There are unobvious effects (=consumerism), Reinforcement, rather than change, effect.

Still: U&G valid ‘cos audiences not purely passive

Influence: Theory 3

3. Direct, but deeper, effects or influence (“Secondary effects”):

 Works on beliefs, values, norms, worldviews

(the foundation on which attitudes and opinions are formed).

More longterm, & relatively powerful: Agenda-setting effects Paradigmatic effects.

Influence: Theory 3a

3. Direct, but deeper, effects or influence (“Secondary effects”):

 A. Agenda-setting effects: Defines what is NB. Affects not what you think,

but what you think about. Plays to advantage of specific forces.

Influence: Theory 3b

3. Direct, but deeper, effects or influence (“Secondary effects”):

B. Paradigmatic effects: How you think about the agenda: i.e. “framing” what has been “primed”.                                                            This effect defines reality and norms. What is normal, praiseworthy, acceptable.

And deviant, disgusting, unacceptable.

Influence: summing up

What theories we’ve covered: Stimulus-response effects Modified S-R Uses and gratifications Agenda-setting Paradigms

Hegemony: integrated theoryRefers to the power of dominant forces in making media

effects: a. “Hegemonic decoding”: this is a reinforcing influence

that operates at the secondary level. You accept the media’s agenda, the paradigm and the attitude-opinion effects.

b. “Negotiated decoding”: You accept the paradigm, maybe even agenda, you stop at the attitudinal stuff. Why? Situated and Mediated meaning levels

c. “Oppositional decoding”: a “weak effects” approach. Implies a resistance orientation.

  Media creating “PO”: Very notion itself of Public Opinion can be argued to

be an effect of media coverage. A construct that masks real power – that of media,

their owners and their sources (such as government or public relations companies).

 Self-fulfilling: policy people – who influence so much

media coverage – gain their own understanding of Public Opinion from the self-same media.

  Policy impact: Civil society has a major role re: media: Affecting the circuit of policy making, via

media and bypassing media, and upon media (affecting its interests & operations).

On influencing the decoding by audiences: the setting of media agendas and framing

On influencing audience decoding via work on knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

  The end Media, public, policy people

= a dynamic triangle!!