Public+Opinion+on+News+Media

By: Kailey Aleto
 * __ "Dissonance, Media Illiteracy, and Public Opinion on News Media” __**** : **  ** Do respondents have any reason to lie? **



Danes S. Claussen provides an extensive analysis of the public’s continuously evolving attitude toward news media in his article, “Cognitive Dissonance, Media Illiteracy, and Public Opinion on News Media”. “During the past several decades, the U.S. newspaper industry (through its trade organizations), individual newspaper groups, and individual newspapers have commissioned study after study comparing and contrasting the American public’s attitudes toward and behaviors with newspapers versus television” (Claussen, 2004). Claussen’s purpose when reviewing self-reports of media consumption was to answer researchers’ most conservative rhetorical question: Do respondents have any reason to “lie” (intentionally or not) on a given question when surveying public opinion on news media? According to L. Festinger’s overview of the cognitive dissonance theory there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions, in other words consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Past industry and academic studies suggest, “the U.S. public seem to engage in a significant amount of discrepancy between attitudes and behaviors toward media content” (Claussen, 2004). When the factors regarding attitudes toward media content disagree with the public’s image of itself, this inconsistency occurs by altering memories and exaggerating facts so that they can accommodate for their behavior; therefore, solving the dissonance between their attitudes and behaviors (Claussen, 2004).

Studies and surveys about newspapers versus television are mentioned by Claussen dating back to 1982, when The Newspaper Readership Project’s conducted a major survey with results that were “not encouraging for newspapers,” to a decade later in 2001 when the Ford Foundation found Americans claiming that they “like their local newspapers” (Claussen 2004). The Newspaper Readership Project’s attempted to assess the public perception by surveying “Americans”. This concluded with “80% of Americans agreeing that television made news ‘easier to understand,’ and 30% saying that they could obtain all the news they needed from television” (Claussen, 2004). Claussen’s perception of the surveys was that, “newspapers harshest critics were their most loyal readers and the better educated Americans.” Over the next couple of years several surveys and polls were conducted and Americans ranked “newspapers and television similarly for ‘credibility’ and ‘trustworthiness’” (Claussen, 2004). By the 1980’s academic research had proven that newspapers led to better understanding and memory of political and government news and issues, but Americans viewers were dissonantly claiming to consume news more ‘frequently’ from television because of convenience (Claussen, 2004). Within the decade covered by Claussen public’s opinion of news media conveyed qualities of the cognitive dissonance theory after analyzing the results collectively from a media literate perspective.

“A probable explanation for the relatively fast change in public’s relative attitudes toward television and newspapers emerges from comparing and contrasting public opinion toward each medium, relative changes in public esteem between news media, and it’s changing quality” (Claussen, 2004). Rather than simply admitting that watching television is intellectually easier and cheaper than a subscription, as Claussen describes, the U.S. public justified its increased relative preference for television by resolving its cognitive dissonance problem. Claussen struggled differentiating between this and the high level of media illiteracy, in other words that newspapers largely drive television; or that talk shows are not news broadcasts; or that editorial pages are supposed to be opinionated.

Claussen’s persuasive analysis concludes by allowing the reader to draw the line between cognitive dissonance and media illiteracy or to what extent they overlap one another because both media outlets are guilty on several accounts. For instance, the public complains about journalists unfamiliar with their hometowns, and it is the constant stream of ever-changing young faces on small-market television stations that is easiest to spot (Claussen, 2004). Although, newspapers of course, are not without blame because like television no relationship exists between the amount of crime news covered and the relative amount of crime in a newspaper’s circulation area (Claussen, 2004). Implications of cognitive dissonance are recognizable and applicable in the real-life situations presented in Claussen’s analysis furthering the development and realism of the theory. Many younger Americans, who are mainly college students, have not grown up reading newspapers avidly, but today are approaching them with an open mind and liking what they see (Claussen, 2004). Increasing newspaper preference is ironic considering the lack of education dedicated to media literacy, but simultaneously beneficial for future generations choice of media consumption and how it’s applied on a daily basis.

[|Cognitive Dissonance, Media Illieracy, and Public Opinion on News Media.pdf]