Tanya Grover December 10th, 2017 Methods Project The Mangled Media: American Perceptions of the Modern U.S. Media
Based on an inherent association with democracy, the free media is a powerful component of modern society in the United States; thus, understanding how people perceive the American media and the effectiveness of the media today are key to maintaining the system’s accuracy and integrity. This project will explore the range of citizen perceptions of the U.S. media today and attempt to identify a collective attitude towards this institutional feature of news communication and politics in regard to perceived trustworthiness and efficiency. This research question relates to the capstone project through a shared disciplinary focus on mass media systems—those of United States and Russia, respectively—in addition to exploring public opinion regarding said media systems. The capstone research is centered around Vladimir Putin’s techniques for mass media control in Russia and offers a more historical context by focusing on the country’s past of authoritarian governments and subsequent Russian culture. With a similar concentration on public perception but lacking a historical foundation, this project regarding the U.S. media aims to explore American public opinion by offering insight about how citizens of varying demographics perceive the media. Due to constantly advancing technology and an overall increase in media access and use, the media’s role in the U.S. today within major institutional sectors of society like politics and news communication is in a constantly shifting position, potentially allowing for precarious implications. Gaining insight about how citizens think and feel about such a vital element of the country’s democratic foundation will be valuable
1
for investigating the media’s future in the United States and potentially developing tactics for improving public opinion about the media if necessary. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS I used an online survey questionnaire to collect quantitative data. The survey consisted of four demographic questions followed by 12 questions focusing on respondents’ opinions of the media in the United States today. I created the survey with an online software called Qualtrics and distributed it via numerous online channels and social media outlets including Facebook, GroupMe, and Twitter in addition to basic text messaging and email. I collected responses for a period of four days, generating a total of 60 responses. The format for two of the 12 substantial questions involved a ranking system for listed media outlets the respondents found most used and most informational, respectively; the remaining 10 questions used a Likert-type scale, posing an opinion statement and offering a range of agreement levels about specific statements concerning the U.S. media. This survey is an ideal method for the research question at hand by eliciting a simple and convenient way for citizens of varying demographics to provide unbiased opinions about a topic the majority of the population was familiar with prior to the survey exposure. Furthermore, survey questionnaires generate data with high generalizability and provide the ability to compare responses within distinct demographics or other variables in order to determine significant patterns. To analyze the data from the survey questionnaire, I used descriptive statistics and created quantitative visuals. The descriptive statistics method involves written descriptions of the numerical data by explaining the significance of the quantitative results. Fortunately, the survey software I used, Qualtrics, provided an initial data report breaking down responses by question and offering basic bar charts to supplement the percentages. I was also able to add filters based
2
on specific questions, thus generating reports focusing on selected variables; this tactic allowed the ability to identify significant variables and compare responses based on said variables, ranging from a demographic to a specific response to one of the opinion statements. After running numerous reports and studying the results, I created three quantitative visuals in the forms of a clustered column bar chart, frequency chart, and cross-tabulation table. These quantitative graphs and charts provide a visually stimulating manner for readers to view and analyze the quantitative data, contributing to the comprehensibility of the data and sophistication of the project. Additionally, descriptive statistics offers a manner of data analysis that describes the results in layman’s terms, making the overall project more cohesive by avoiding the complexity and confusion associated with more technical methods like regression analysis.
3
Based on the results of the survey questionnaire, Americans have a skewed view of the media regarding the country’s level of press freedom and generally do not find the media trustworthy in news content nor effective as a political check on the U.S. government. Majority opinions about press freedom in the United States are contradictory and respondents reported an overwhelming belief in media bias, media inaccuracy in news, and media inefficiency in monitoring of politics. While the majority of respondents believe the U.S. has a high level of 4
press freedom in comparison to other developed countries, a large portion also think American citizens can face political or social consequences for expressing freedom of speech or the press (see Figure 1); even further, this year the United States was actually ranked 43 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders, 2017), with most global powers, developed countries, and even some lesser developed countries holding lower rankings and higher levels of press freedom. Thirty-one (51.67%) respondents and 25 (41.67%) respondents answered respectively “agree” and “strongly agree” to believing media bias exists in the United States; similarly, 25 (41.67%) and 28 (46.67%) respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed to being certain everything media outlets report is true. Opinions regarding whether or not the media effectively keeps the government in check are more varied, but the majority of respondents (20 or 33.33%) selected “disagree.” These results from varying demographics reveal U.S. citizens have higher expectations of the media than how media outlets perform in reality. As a developed country and global power known for promoting democracy, citizen perceptions suggest the American media is not entirely effective in a free media’s essential role within the news communication and political sectors. The survey reveals perceptions of the media tend to vary across generations, specifically between the 18-24 and 55-64 age groups, as the survey generated the most responses from these two categories. These age groups differ in preferred media outlets and perceived informational value of distinct media outlets, but respondents’ opinions of the U.S. media are not entirely opposing with only certain areas of differentiation. Thirty-one respondents or 91.18% of the 1824 age group category use social media more than any other media outlet, with Internet the second most used at 79.41% with 27 respondents; unsurprisingly, respondents from the 55-64 age group use television and newspapers most frequently (47.37% or 9 respondents and 42.11%
5
or 8 respondents, respectively). While respondents 55-64 years old consider television the most informational media outlet in addition to the most used (72.22% or 13), respondents 18-24 years old found the Internet to be more informational (64.71% or 22), even though this age group uses social media more frequently. In general, respondents from the respective generations concur in the media influencing personal political opinions or decisions (61.76% or 21 respondents 18-24 and 63.16% or 12 respondents 55-64 agreed) but reported differing opinions about the media’s effectiveness in keeping the government in check (see Figure 2) and the high level of press freedom in the United States. Respondents from different age groups indicated similar perceptions about media issues concerning trust and efficiency, demonstrating the distinguishable impact the media has cultivated across generations with typically differing opinions and lifestyles. However, certain discrepancies about the media’s role in government and the status of media freedom in the U.S. suggests demographic factors may influence these ideas. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS The initial aim of this project intended to explore and ultimately identify a collective public opinion of U.S. media today, but after collecting a range of responses from the survey questionnaire and dissecting the qualitative data from the interviews, the question worth studying has altered to reflect a more specific inquiry. The revised research question concerns the investigation of the relationship between political affiliation and media perceptions. The qualitative data implications describe how opinions about trustworthiness and efficiency of the media differ, but a general misconception about press freedom in the U.S. exists regardless of liberal or conservative ideologies. The emphasis of political affiliation as a variable has shifted from the quantitative data concentration on differences in opinion between age groups after identifying a more significant correlation for the latter. Analysis of the interview transcripts also
6
demanded a greater focus on media bias in the context of the interviewees’ specific outlet preferences, as an individual’s unique media intake inherently influences respective opinions regarding the media. The media bias in the United States today renders difficulty in media analysis without consideration of political opinions; therefore, identifying the distinction between these opinions can shed light on the media’s current role in politics. Furthermore, the investigation of the collective (mis)perception of American press freedom reveals a powerful illusion suggesting the need for major reform in both consumer demands and media actions. For qualitative data collection, I conducted two intensive interviews and one focus group. The 20-minute interviews and 45-minute focus group consisted of the same set of 10 questions about the U.S. media, many deriving from the preliminary survey questionnaire with an aim to probe deeper. I separately interviewed a 52-year-old African-American female (Interviewee 1) via FaceTime and a 48-year-old Caucasian male (Interviewee 2) via phone call; meanwhile, the focus group involved in-person interactions with participants including a 59-year-old Caucasian male (Interviewee 3), 53-year-old Caucasian female (Interviewee 4), and 19-year-old Caucasian female (Interviewee 5). I recruited all five participants based on personal connections due to locational convenience, and to assist future data analysis, I recorded each proceeding on the iPhone voice recording application. The first interview and focus group took place on Nov. 25 in a residential home in St. Louis, MO, while the second interview occurred on Nov. 28 on the University of Kansas campus in Lawrence, KS, after further qualitative data became necessary to generate an objective conclusion. The inclusion of qualitative research in this project contributes to the credibility of the research question and the subsequent answers revealed by offering invaluable insight only achievable by analyzing human testimonies. Furthermore, the
7
combination of the one-on-one interviews and three-person focus group provide a reliable supplementary system permitting multi-person inquiry in two different social settings. I used grounded theory to analyze qualitative data from the interviews and focus group. Based on the definition of grounded theory, I was able to construct a theory about the U.S. media through systematic inductive reasoning rooted in personal observations of the two procedures. To execute this qualitative data analysis method, I first listened to the recordings while using targeted transcription to produce verbatim transcripts of key comments and conversations. I then studied these segments of the testimonies, utilizing thematic coding to identify common themes and an overall pattern in opinion regarding U.S. media. Finally, I used the thematic categories and procedure observations to develop a collective assertion about American perception of the media in the United States today, grounding this claim in the raw, detailed data at hand. The use of grounded theory as a qualitative data analysis method in addition to employing the simple technique of thematic coding ensured the interviews and focus group data were organized and objective for a researcher to make reliable conclusions. With these methods, I was able to identify similarities and differences in opinions between interviewees and subsequently make assumptions based on the ideologies of these five members of the target audience. Americans think the United States has a higher level of press freedom than the country has in actuality. However, citizens also simultaneously believe in an existing possibility (or in some cases, plausibility) for Americans to face political or social backlash for asserting freedom of expression. All five interviewees expressed surprise when informed about the United States’ 43 out of 180 ranking for the Reporters Without Borders 2017 World Press Freedom Index, citing personal expectations for the country to be significantly higher on the list. The majority of interviewees attributed this misconception to the country’s reputation and perceived popular
8
opinion of being “the best country in the world” (Interviewee 5, personal communication, November 25, 2017), a country commonly associated with phrases like the “land of the free,” freedom of speech, and democracy; further, this idea of American superiority inclusive of press freedom might be grounded in cultural perpetuation, because Americans are “brought up believing in a strong transparency between the press and the government” (Interviewee 2, personal communication, November 28, 2017). Regardless of the collective belief in a misconstrued idea of press freedom in the United States, interviewees agreed about existing consequences for showing unfiltered freedom of expression in the press or speech, mentioning a range of potential penalties including jeopardizing current careers or future job prospects, social media trolling, and in some cases, legal persecution. The perceived inconclusive and paradoxical construct of press freedom in the U.S. across significant demographic and psychographic factors (age, gender, race, and political affiliation) signifies further research is warranted concerning the accurate status of media freedom today and these conflicting consumer opinions. Additionally, the sociocultural lens integral to American citizens’ ideologies creates a bias about freedom of expression in the United States, contributing to the overall complex public opinion about the modern media. Political affiliation is a strong determining factor in personal selection of media outlets, networks, and publications, and subsequently influences an individual’s perception of the media regarding trustworthiness as a disseminator of news and effectiveness as a political watchdog. Further, the lack of difficulty in spotting political bias in the media indicates this obvious distinction plays a role in citizens’ media choices, thus influencing not only political beliefs and decisions, but also opinions of the media. One interviewee discussed difficulty in listening to a reporter knowingly biased to the opposite end of the political spectrum and therefore tends to
9
resort to networks in line with personal ideals (Interviewee 4, personal communication, November 25, 2017), while another interviewee described relying on primarily written media publications because these news outlets offer “more accountability and objectivity than news reported over airwaves” (Interviewee 2, personal communication, November 28, 2017). Two interviewees self-identified as politically left-leaning individuals shared feelings on the media’s relentless attempts to keep the government accountable and expressed general satisfaction with recent investigative and expository coverage of U.S. politics, while another left-leaning interviewee believed the media today is too polarized with too many sources, stating, “with more sources comes more distrust, which results in fewer checks and balances” (Interviewee 1, personal communication, November 25, 2017); interestingly, a right-leaning interviewee agreed about the media’s inefficiency as a political watchdog, claiming the media often identifies and pursues problems in the government most interesting or beneficial to said media outlet, but overlooks many of the important issues (Interviewee 2, personal communication, November 28, 2017). In regard to the media’s reputation during the past year, interviewees expressed ranging opinions expectedly aligned with personal political beliefs, one interviewee stating, “Trump has highlighted problems in the press that have not previously been recognized” (Interviewee 2, personal communication, November 28, 2017), whereas another interviewee has gained more respect for the media as truths emerge about a variety of domestic and global issues, although his perception of media freedom in the U.S. has become more questionable as a result of current President Trump’s attack on the media as “enemy of the American people” and perpetuator of fake news (Interviewee 3, personal communication, November 25, 2017). The seemingly inability for the existence of an unbiased media elicits an overall public opinion regarding the media inherently determined by an individual’s political affiliation and subsequent media outlet
10
choices. Because of this phenomenon, American perceptions of the U.S. media today will continue to reflect citizens’ opinions concerning other political and social issues rather than indicating an accurate representation of the modern media paradigm. DISCUSSION The construct of political authority and the implications of political authority figures in the United States have evolved in tandem with the media as technology continues to advance. According to the media-derived authority theory, although authority figures usually portray some inherent qualities appealing to the public as an effective leader, in the U.S. today these individuals gain and maintain authority primarily through media perpetuation. In the technological era defining today’s political climate, the cultural construct of authority requires analysis within the context of the media, because the media has emerged as a central method for authority figures to enhance the public’s perception of said figures’ power and alleged abilities (Herbst, 2003). The increasing entanglement of political authority and the media is deep-rooted, arguably insinuating the concept of authority is merely “a quality of communications, rather than of persons…and the authority of a person [indicates] he possesses the capacity to issue authoritative communications” (Herbst, 2003, p. 487). The implication of this modern unique relationship between the media and authority is the media’s role as double-agent for political authority representation in society, where citizens “come to know authority” through the media (Herbst, 2003, p. 500) yet authority is also “embedded in the forms, channels, and signals associated with communication” (Herbst, 2003, p. 487). Analyzing the modern U.S. political climate with media-derived authority theory suggests authority figure Donald Trump gained political authority through media communications ranging back to the leader’s days as a businessman and public figure, while the same communications exposed the American public to
11
this authority as it expanded to incorporate presidency. Essentially, citizens understand authority through the same medium in which authority figures express and maintain said authority; as the media continues to evolve, so will this intertwined phenomenon, increasing the need for citizens to be educated and aware about political authority in this mediated age. Changing opinions about the U.S. media from the government and consumers alike within the past year have steadily indicated influence in the global community. Specifically, current President Donald Trump’s public treatment and outlook of the media have resulted in international conflict, or at very least, global attention. Trump’s many actions and statements (whether spoken or Tweeted) over the past 12 months concerning the media provide plenty of supporting data, but one example includes the frequent bashing of allegedly left-leaning news sources like CNN and the New York Times as perpetuators of “fake news” and subsequent praise of more conservative outlets such as Fox News (Boot, 2017). These actions have showed relevance on a global scale, most recently with countries like Egypt and Libya verbalizing uncertainty in CNN International’s credibility and accuracy concerning the media company’s efforts to cover the Sinai tragedy occurring on Nov. 24 in Egypt and the outlet’s reports about slave auctions in Libya (Boot, 2017); these countries’ displays of distrust in CNN as a credible news source are likely direct results of Trump’s relentless discrediting attempts, causing potentially damaging consequences such as inability for media coverage or the public’s disbelief about an important human rights issue. Furthermore, Trump’s “war on the mainstream media” (Boot, 2017) has resonated with global leaders of unfavorable association, including China, where in early November the state-owned, highly nationalistic, Communist propaganda outlet Global Times praised President Trump and criticized the “fake” American media for disseminating “absurd reports” about the U.S. leader (Tan, 2017). The United States has never
12
before been in a position with a president publicizing such a negative perception and aggressive behavior toward the free media, signaling the need for major reflection about how this unconventional phenomenon will continue to affect democracy in the U.S. moving forward. Moreover, controversies about Trump’s role in Russian involvement in American politics through media infiltration denote even greater concerns for the U.S. media and an independent media’s essential role as a news disseminator and political watchdog in a functioning democratic nation. CONCLUSION While reflecting upon the primary research process, a greater emphasis on respondent randomization for the survey questionnaire and random sampling for focus group participants would enhance the data collection method. The conclusions deriving from the interviews and focus group data—although still qualified to make general statements about American citizens— do not hold a theoretically ideal level of credibility due to this lack of randomization. The survey was distributed via social media and online communications inherently offering greater opportunities for people of the 18-24 age group to respond, based on the personal network of a social media user also from this age group. The focus group consisted of three members of the researcher’s immediate family, representing a potential ideological bias in addition to cultivating a liberal bias; for this reason, a second intensive interview took place three days after the two initial processes, after becoming evident the opinions of a self-identifying right-leaning individual were necessary to ensure the analysis would not be skewed to a political bias. If the focus group participants were initially chosen randomly, the second interview would not have transpired and perhaps the focus group results would offer greater insight due to a different social dynamic between participants. Because the majority of the interviewees are left-leaning
13
individuals and three of said participants are members of the same immediate family, these variables offer potential for inconclusive representations of the accurate American public opinion; however, the addition of the second interview ensures an adequate balance, and the 60 survey respondents assumedly representing both sides of the political spectrum add to the data’s credibility. In the future, the primary research collection methods will demonstrate a greater concentration on requiring respondent and participant randomization. The primary data collection methods could be further improved by increasing specificity within the research question and the questions forming the survey questionnaire and focus group outline. While the initial research question proposed the exploration of citizen perceptions of the American media today, this inquiry proves too vague in retrospect, as do some of the questions the survey respondents and interviewees answered. A more specific and thus more easily measurable research question might initially identify a variable to investigate within the broad query, such as posing varying opinions between demographic groups like age or political affiliation; instead, this idea developed eventually following the collection of qualitative data. Similarly, some questions from the survey and focus group could be tailored with more specific literary or verbal cues in order to eliminate confusion and ensure accuracy within answers. For example, after receiving voluntary feedback from the survey questionnaire, one respondent expressed distress about a question concerning media bias, wishing for an additional venue on the survey to clarify her opinion about this topic not necessarily encompassed within the five answers the Likert scale provided; a comparable situation occurred during the qualitative data collection, resulting in both one-on-one interviewees and all three focus group participants conveying confusion and misinterpreting the intended meaning of one question regarding press freedom. For this project, the high involvement of the researcher guaranteed the ability for
14
clarifying any question causing a misunderstanding, eliciting a minor if existing impact on the primary data results and conclusions. However, in the future, the researcher’s immersion in the project may not be as central; therefore, ensuring the extreme specificity of the research question and data collection questions by incorporating more detailed descriptions and intensely analyzing the questions before distribution will be essential.
15
References Boot, M. (2017, November 29). Trump Is Commander-in-Chief of the War on Mainstream Media. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com Herbst, S. (2003). Political Authority in a Mediated Age. Theory and Society, 32(4), 481-503. Tan, H. (2017, November 9). China state-controlled media sides with Trump over American ‘fake’ media. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com
16