Gnovis   April 25, 2010
Byline: Rebecca Chalif
High Choice Media Environment

High Choice Media Environment

Today, it is clear that media consumers have far more news choices. Markus Prior emphasizes this drastic shift when he points out that in 1970, television provided a mere seven channels to the average household and that the three broadcast networks captured 80% of all viewing. In comparison, by 2005, 85% of households had access to cable or satellite television providing the average viewer with about 100 channels to choose from. However, this data does not take into consideration the massive proliferation of new media outlets on the Internet. Online, people can access a plethora of information, some of which may be affiliated with a major news organization, but much of which is citizen-produced content in the form of blogs and message boards. New media outlets such as these provide consumers with the broadest possible sampling of people’s opinions on almost any topic. The old media environment of limited choice seemed to encourage moderation and conformity. It was reasonable for citizens to read their daily newspaper and watch a one-hour evening news report- creating an environment where most citizens were exposed to the same news.

Today, new media sources such as cable television, talk radio, and the Internet, have begun to lure people away from the traditional mainstream media. This shift has led to an increase in “niche media”, where news outlets no longer attempt to catch the broadest possible audience by offending nobody, but rather, focus on a smaller, more targeted audience with perspectives that are likely to offend many.

Unencumbered by many of the constraints of objectivity and fairness, common to mainstream media organizations, some media outlets have moved more toward sensationalism and bias as a means of maintaining a large market share. The new media environment, consisting of countless possible outlets, as well as a much larger range of opinions, forces consumers to choose which of these outlets they will use for information gathering. As it is impossible to expose one’s self to all possible media sources, people must have some basis for distinguishing and choosing their preferred media outlets. This notion leads to an important element of this study—media selectivity and fragmentation.

Media Selectivity & Fragmentation

There are two types of media selectivity. The first is the selection of news content and the second is the selection of entertainment and other non-news content. This distinction is important, as it shows how the new, high-choice media environment can facilitate either an inundation of news content, or a complete avoidance of it. A citizen interested in the news now has the opportunity to access large amounts of information. These citizens gain a much more holistic understanding of a news story by following its coverage across a range of media outlets with different perspectives and contributions to the story. For example, a political “junkie” can follow any story, from the most hyper-local to the most international. They can see many journalistic perspectives on the issue at hand, as well as view the opinions of other citizens blogging or commenting on news stories. This scenario seems like an idyllic model for what Michael Schudson calls the “informed citizen”. He proposes that good citizens must be educated about the issues in order to properly “self-govern”.

However, one must also consider the possibility of the other extreme. A person with no interest in politics or news has other media options, in that they can avoid almost all political messages. Prior explains, “Since political knowledge is an important predictor of turnout and since exposure to political information motivates turnout, the shift from a low-choice to a high-choice media environment implies changes in electoral participation as well”. Highlighting this point, Mutz points out that the average size of the audience watching prime-time presidential addresses and news conferences has steadily decreased in the late 20th century.

Another measure of media fragmentation is selectivity based on political ideology. It is not surprising, that with so many options, a person’s media choices increasingly reflect their partisan considerations. Evidence suggests that people tend to seek out information consistent with their own beliefs. Accordingly, a more recent study showed that the stronger a person’s partisan affiliations, the more likely they are to select media outlets that confirmed their beliefs.  A study of self-reported media exposure during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns showed significant fragmentation of media use among Republicans and Democrats. Republicans gravitated toward talk radio, a medium known to have a conservative slant; while Democrats avoided talk radio and watched television newsmagazines and late-night entertainment, two predominantly liberal media outlets.

The results of media fragmentation based on political ideology can have many deleterious effects on our society and political system. If citizens can shield themselves from opinions that conflict with their own, they will receive a one-sided, partisan view of an issue. This can lead to greater problems among media consumers interested in politics, as there will be no common frame of reference about a topic. Citizens will lack information on broad issue topics, and ignore the opposing point of view on issues they consider important. When society is fragmented in this way, diverse groups will tend to polarize”

Television News

“Television is the most frequently used source of news for Americans”. Before the birth of the cable news network, people received news from nightly broadcasts on the three network news channels, CBS, ABC, and NBC. This media environment offered a relatively homogeneous news product across the networks, where tuning in to the nightly newscast a “social ritual”. In 1980, the television news environment changed drastically with the birth of CNN, followed by MSNBC and Fox News in 1996. Data from Jonathan Morris’ research in The Fox News Factor shows the migratory trend of TV news consumers. “In 1993, 60% of the American public reported watching network broadcast news on a regular basis. By April 2004, that number had been almost halved to 34%”. The data also shows that network audiences are increasingly older while Fox News and CNN audiences are increasingly polarized.

 “Today’s television news market is more heterogeneous than ever before. Thus, the probability that audiences are getting exposed to differing political messages increases”. A recent study from 2007 demonstrated that Fox News’ reputation for having a conservative bias was well deserved. They found that its news coverage showed a consistently pro-Republican slant. Further, Morris’ analysis shows that the Fox News audience is made up of a unique composition of viewers, and that they are exposed to different coverage than the CNN and network news watchers. The results also showed that Fox News watchers were less likely than CNN watchers to follow stories critical of President Bush and were more likely than non-watchers to underestimate the number of casualties from the Iraq war. Overall, he finds that both Fox News and CNN contain a partisan bias, but perhaps more importantly, he concludes that both audiences are moving farther from the ideological center.

Questions:

How does Rebecca Chalif’s view of the contemporary media environment differ from that described in the Ginsberg text?

What does Rebecca Chalif believe are the consequences of a high choice media environment for citizenship and partisanship?  Is she right?  Explain.