Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

EVERY ELECTION CYCLE, most voters in the United States are asked to make a choice between political candidates they have likely never met in person. Even in campaigns for smaller state and local elections, political campaigns are almost entirely mediated. Voters depend on a wide variety of programming from newspapers, radio, television, and the internet for information about elections and candidates. There is very little direct contact with the candidates themselves. Likewise, political candidates must rely on media to create awareness of their policies and personal attributes.

Whether a political message has been paid for, as in the case of advertising, or whether it was earned, as in the case of news coverage, there has been much speculation and research devoted to what effect or influence the media have on both the American political process and on the voting public. This includes how different technologies have changed the political landscape, and whether or not there is a bias to mediated messages.

Effects of Political Campaign Media

In the 1920s, researchers came to believe that the media had a direct and profound influence on those who were exposed. This model of mediated communication, often referred to as the “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” principle, supposed that the media had an extremely powerful influence on the attitudes and beliefs of average citizens. It was assumed that whatever the media reported, the public would immediately accept and internalize.

The early 1940s produced a less dramatic view of media effects. In the limited effects model, theorists posited that people are actually very selective about media content to which they decide to grant their attention. Moreover, people are likely to seek information that reinforces their own social and political opinions, and tend to reject messages that contradict their own beliefs or attitudes.

A similar theory of social influence suggested that media messages are interceded by a person's interaction within a particular community. In other words, people's friends and families play a role in determining how people feel about the messages they encounter from the media. Theories such as selective exposure and social influence suggest that the media do not have as powerful and direct an effect as originally posited.

Contemporary studies about the influence of the media provide some important insights into how news about political campaigns works in society. One of the most popular contemporary theories about media effects is agenda setting; that the media affect people's political priorities.

When a news source draws attention to a social problem or political issue, citizens are more likely to regard those topics as important. Simply put, the media may not be able to tell people what to think, but they are able tell people what to think about. Similarly, priming is a media theory that suggests that when a political issue is given this increased attention, people will begin to evaluate authority figures such as government officials and political candidates on how well they are dealing with that political issue. The way a reporter or news organization decides to frame a story is also of significance. Theories regarding framing suggest that political news can be framed in a variety of ways, with a chosen frame having a significant influence on how people understand and interpret the news.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading