The authors of Public Opinion define Attribution Theories as, “how people’s inferences about the reasons behind other people’s behaviors or attitudes affect their own agreement with these behaviors or attitudes,” (p. 168). An example of attribution theories as discussed in Public Opinion is the idea that information obtained from a news story has a higher propensity to be believed than information obtained from an advertisement—even if the information obtained from both sources is the same (p. 169). In other words, how a person thinks of the source of information—of its credibility and underlying motive—will affect whether or not the person perceives the information to be true.
With this in mind, reflect back on the 2008 presidential election.
Visit http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/filter/party and browse some of the democratic and republican advertisements by clicking on the boxes across the bottom of the screen.
Would you agree or disagree with the book’s argument? Would you perceive information from a news story (i.e. cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com) as more credible or believable than the advertisements you just viewed? Pick one or two advertisements and reflect on the source of the information and the motive of the advertisement(s) in your argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I tend to view news as more credible than advertisements even if the same information is being presented. Advertisements make me very skeptical because they are simply trying to endorse/sell a product, whether it’s a campaign or selling general merchandise.
ReplyDeleteI chose to evaluate the “Low Road” advertisement on the The Living Room Candidate website. This ad, approved by Barack Obama, depicts John McCain as not caring about the everyday American and accuses him of playing politics. These ads just turn me off, and I know there were a lot of them during the past election by both parties. They depict one person as the bad guy, when in all reality they are both qualified for the job. I guess I would trust the news more on this subject more because they are supposedly unbiased. They just give you the facts, which is what I’d rather hear.
An example that doesn’t have to do with a campaign but rather general merchandise could be all the weight-loss supplements that are advertised. The fact that there are so many of them available makes me skeptical as to which one actually works the best without causing health problems in the process. I don’t trust a lot of advertisements because some do not seem to have the customer in mind. They are aimed at selling the product instead of taking into consideration how it will affect the consumer. I would much rather hear which product is better on the news, even if it is the same information, simply because we look to the news as being a reliable source. I hope they wouldn't lead us a stray.
I think that the American people in general believe news sources more than they do advertisements for the simple fact that they trust the journalist is reporting the facts and not a one sided argument (which advertisements often do). Therefor I would have to agree with the book on this. As a journalist I believe we have ethical code to report the story as it is rather than just one side of the story.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the political advertisements we see that many of them site news outlets (Washington post etc) has their source. However this information is taken out of context to lean to one side or another. This is something that will happen when you are trying to sell a product/candidate/persuade popular opinion.
I think that most people do believe that news stories are more credible than advertisements on television or the web. The reasoning for this is because there is more time to explain things on the news and it is more personal. More of the American public feel that they can relate to the news story rather than the advertisement. I agree with the book in saying that news is more credible than advertisements because they have more time to explain things and show all sides of an argument. I also believe that news stories have many more facts than opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the advertisement for Barack Obama I noticed that the motive was to get people to be able to relate to him and persuade people to agree with his ideas and decisions. He never once did mention John McCain's name, and I thought this was respectful and smart of Obama to do. The ad was approved by Barack Obama himself, so I think this gives it credibility also.
For me, media uses advertisements as a way to pursuade people to believe what the media wants people to believe without giving facts from both sides.
ReplyDeleteAs for news story, journalists are more likely to present facts from both sides, since news reporting has been around longer then media advertising it is more likely to be seen as more credible.
From both democratic and republican side, they both had advertisements which were putting the other party down, which is why I dislike advertisements, it is not giving people the whole picture, or the advertisement went a different direction then what the public wants to hear.
For example, the McCain ad about global warming, from the activity last week, we know that global warming is not a high priorty/concern of the American public. But McCain still had an ad about it talking about how to grow the economy and save the environment. If the republican party studied more into the public opinion they could have made another ad which could have talked about something the public is more interested in.
So I agree with the text, I also view news as more credible than advertisements, just because today the world of media has changed its purpose.
I think that people are more likely to believe news stories than they are to believe information they hear in an advertisement. People tend to be more skeptical of information in advertisements and therefore, evaluate it more critically than they do information they receive through news sources.
ReplyDeleteIn the Obama commercial "Maverick No More" numerous popular Democrats "testify" to the fact that electing McCain as President would only give the U.S. four more years of Bush. I think people tended to believe these testimonies and gave them similar amount of credit as fact because of who was giving the information.
In the Obama commercial "Low Road," numerous news sources were quoted claiming that McCain's attacks against Obama were false. If you slow the commercial down, you can read that the news sources are: MSNBC, FactCheck.Org, USA Today Editorial, New York Times Editorial, and Time. When you actually look at the sources, you see that two of them are from editorials, meaning they are opinions of the writer and not necessarily fact. While editorials are opinions and not facts because the news sources were flashed quickly across the screen, it is very likely that people were only able to read the first part of the source name if at all. However, I think that people gave this commercial a lot of credit because it appeared to come from multiple, respected news sources.
I find an advertisement very difficult to put faith in. The entire point of it is to change or reinforce the viewers perspective of an issue, topic, person or product. News on the other hand is supposed to remain unbiased. (It doesn't hurt that I am going into journalism either!)
ReplyDeleteThe 2013 ad by John McCain speaks volumes to this. The ad shows how amazing the country could be in 2013 with better energy, improved foreign policy and better homeland security. All of these claims are made by a campaign to elect McCain which of course would promote the idea that he would make the world a better place to live.
On the other hand, if a respected news station would have said (without a doubt) that by the time 2013 rolled around we would be living in a better place if McCain was elected I would have been persuaded to vote for him without much other information.
I think almost everyone believes news stations as being credible and providing us with accurate information. News reporters go out to get the truth to stories, not to fabricate some made up story. Most people believe what reporters are telling them because they know the reporters have researched the topic and are familiar with it.
ReplyDeleteAdvertisements on the other hand, are not always trusted. Advertisements are used to sell products, so people believe that companies will use whatever tactic works to persuade the consumer to purchase that product. The ad may or may not be truthful, but people are not always willing to trust the ad because they know it may not be credible.
The ad I chose to evaluate was the "Three Times" ad by Barack Obama. This ad was saying how McCain would raise taxes for the middle class and give money to the upper class. I don't like these ads because they are just bashing one candidate. I do not pay much attention to these ads because I don't feel they mean that much. I would just rather have the facts about what one candidate plans to do, rather than focusing on what the opponent plans to do.
I do think that people in believe news sources much more than they do advertisements for the fundamental reason of them having a profit to make. People trust journalist’s reporting for the facts and not just to be biased to one viewpoint. I do believe that the book has some validity here because that’s how I have always been; besides thinking both sources are invalid for truth. My example of this is that McCain had given a speech about global warming that I personally thought was a great choice because I am concerned with this, but for the U.S. population it was nothing. This is in part why he lost. He didn’t know publics opinion of what is really significant. Also the whole premise of Obama’s campaign had been about “change” when he really didn’t have a concrete game plan for the change. He researched that the public opinion is basically anything but the same is better so he ran with it. Appealing to the masses opinion will win the majority of the time as it did for the Obama campaign.
ReplyDelete