CYNICISM ON MEDIA IN THE GLOBAL ERA: Reassessment of the Findings of American and Turkish Media Effects on Social and Political Decision Making

Prof. Dr. Veysel BATMAZ, Istanbul University, Faculty of Communication

Recently much has been said on media being the primary vehicle of globalization, almost wiping out widely accepted old functions which was said to be the main apparatus of democratization and development by the modernization theorists. Where did these old guys go? Why the sacred missions of media of paving the way to democratization and fostering the developmental progress have been abandoned? Or were they disguised in the bushes of almighty word of the World: Global?


Although these four catch words of our times, (globalization, democratization, development and modernization) would mean the same thing for the neo-liberal ideologists, with ever evolving chaotic and contradictory nature of the world events, economical crises and political disputes and wars, resurrection of all sorts of old traditions and religious fundamentalism and the newly formed elected or forced dictatorships at the local or regional levels, democratization and modernization functions of media, placed at the core of this “inexplicable” and surrealistic occurrences, have been much debated even among the proponents of globalization and thus became separable from the process of widely acclaimed goals of it.

In the “global era” it is now seen as obvious that media do not necessarily play a dominant role in establishing, reinforcing or perpetuating democracy or (developmental-) modernization as it was suggested by the pioneers of modernization theory, but have become merely a gun-machine of globalization whatever it goes with it. But one must be very cautious about asserting this idea without considering the double edged media effects of our time, so it goes. In a nutshell, it is seen nowadays that, media has a great impact of globalization or even the sole carrier of it, but in very shaky and questionable ways.

The question arises then, whether the globalization process under the clashes of opposite currents of social, political and economical developments, such as social unrest, dictatorial political hegemony and economic slowdowns provides democratic media, or it creates the media which consequently create skeptical, cynical, unbalanced and irritated publics to struggle against the sacred goals of democracy and global unification. If considered recently, the North African movements give hints to the second assertion. Are not they the “tweeter” or “Google” revolutions? The mainstream media, even, provoked the unrest of the masses to overthrow the so called dictators but replace them in traditional ways of ideological power institutions like Moslem Brothers of Egypt, very apart from the democratic processes of Western world.

In this article, looking at two separate but complimentary research findings, one from the US and the other from Turkey, the cynicism of the public on the media and its consequences on election results and public/political decision making process is assessed while the exaggerated power of media on politics and democracy is questioned. The result is that media is very weak and they help to produce opposite election outcomes than it is assumed and effect negatively public’s political decision making process. The more cynic the public is towards the news media, the less effects exerted by the media coverage is upon the voting which is very contradicting with the main assertions of the modernization theorists when they have underpinned their linear explanation of how media fosters democracy and development.

THE GLOBAL MEDIA

The up-to-date picture of the “global” world as we live in today depicted by Arif Dirlik, presents many contradictory world events which cannot be easily categorized in a linear and causal model of progress as modernization theorists had once offered to us:

“… economic and political globalization that is taken generally to point to unprecedented global integration, and the resurgence of religions or, more broadly, traditionalisms, that create new political and cultural fractures, or reopen old ones. Most discussions of global developments privilege one or the other of these phenomena. We are all familiar with the by now prolific literature on globalization offering visions (or threats) of impending global integration and homogenization, in which the divisiveness introduced by religious revivals appears merely as a legacy of the past that is likely to be bridged as an irresistible globalization reshapes the world. On the other side are analyses in which religious revivals are everything, not as remnants of the past but as products of modernity, pointing to multiple modernities or “clashes of civilizations” as the human fate for the foreseeable future. Emphasis on one or the other precludes recognition that integration and fragmentation-or homogenization and heterogenization-may be contradictory aspects of the same processes that are restructuring the globe.”

The role of the media in this fractured but at the same time integrated world eminently asks a more in-depth and dialectical analyses and empirical findings to decipher its carrier and fostering function of democracy, within the framework of two concepts of today’s world, as modernization and modernity. These two concepts originated from same word draws the same scenery but with opposite lines and in a very different picture. As seen above, the modernization concept promotes the unavoidable willingness towards and righteousness of the modern world, i.e., the Westernized society which is supplied as a remedy of backwardness and poor level of individual lives, whereas the modernity concept is the critical stand with which modern world is seen as not a solution but a problem of people who are dominated by the modernized nations themselves.

So there are two levels when we look at the media per se in the contemporary world:

At the first level, globalization is forcing both, integration of all sorts of people and nations into a modern and highly developed one escaping from the reactionary binds of tradition, but also calling for regional, local and individual differences besides emergence of old historical traditions against the high level of democratization and modernization. Even this picture if it depicts the right “truth” is lessening the role of the media upon people on the content-wise as had been promoted by the modernization theorists.

At the second level, in a global world, in its global mass media, modernization and modernity are used as if they have the same meaning or goal, as opposed to the literature of modernity is shouting for the death of modernization. In this sense media is being discussed as the resurgent agent of the social unrest of the masses who are rebellious against their dictators but calls for more tradition than modern structures of government. So it seems there is a gap between the old function of media in modernization as the engine behind the modern individual tendencies of abstract “freedom and liberty” notions and in this recent ways of usage, as demanding “freedom with bread” with traditional aspirations on top, mainly in religious colors.

How is this to be explained? When it is looked shallowly, both theories seem to be supported by their acceptance of the importance of media in the democratic revolution or in modernity. Media acted both as a vehicle spreading democratic values and become the web of the organizational structures. So the surfacing of the function of media in a global process marks a seminal distinction of content versus operation. While both fractured-marginal and centralized-mainstream versions of media are seen from different angles as distrusted sources of information, the web of old and new media play an important role to organize against to this “not trusted” content.

Then, the exploratory question on media in globalization must be answered in two folds: What is the status of their content and how this content operates the world views, ideologies or perceptional background to live and react in a global world?

THE GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

For a long time, especially before the globalization and in the era of the Cold War, modernization have been the main concept of explanation of the difference between old modes of production and the new ones and the media are the basic and essential power dominating the process.

Although the current scene of the world is depicted as conflicting currents in a river of modernity, the modernization theorists had claimed the opposite fifty years ago. The media for them was the main stream of democracy, nationalism and cultural base for welfare of the masses. According to them, media would play indispensable roles on three main spheres of the modern (i.e. the Western) world:

For economic development, mass media promote the global diffusion of many technical and social innovations that are essential to modernization. In literacy and cultural development, mass media can teach literacy and other essential skills and techniques. They encourage a ‘state of mind’ favorable to modernity, e.g. the imagination of an alternative way of life beyond the traditional way. For national development, mass media could support common identities in new nations (then, colonies) and support attention to democratic policies (operationally, elections).
 

This first order claims of modernization then under the name of Westernization has evolved into two more waves in the coming years: (1) modernization as Western cultural and economic imperialism or dominance which was represented in A. G. Gunter’s “dependency theories,” (2) as the clash of Western and non-Western cultures of the world of Fukuyama or Huntington paradigms. This theme of the combination of unification (dependency) and fragmentation (clash of civilization) in society in the global era, then evolved in a unprecedented media formations such as, technologically speaking, the “new” media in which computer networks and mobile telephones as important tools for “modern” life. They combine and apart at the same time. They enable “scale reduction” and “scale extension”, a unitary and a fragmented world and, finally, a world that is both social and individualized which is described as network individualism. In McLuhan’s words, the world while progressing to the digital and higher technology is turning back to the “middle ages” and becoming the global village.
 

So, firstly, while the content of media is becoming individual, the operation if it requires network externalities which must be webbed each individual to the other through a terminal.
 

Secondly, while people are connected in a very individualized web of isolated discourse, the developments in the technological course paved the ways in which modernization and developmental interpretations of the world have gradually been proliferated and had started to unlink the interrelations of media role in democratic process and modernization. So came some counter arguments to the marketplace of modernization theories.
 

First, the link between economic development and democratic decision making had been broken. For example Arat, in the wake of digital revolution, in 1988, have found “tremendous variation in the relationship between democracies and development and suggested the theoretically unfulfilling conclusion that ‘the countries with more democratic political systems happen to be the ones that are more economically developed.’” Also, twenty years after, in 2007, O’Neill and Black have gathered empirical data that support Arat and argued that “the degree of democracy is not only a function of development, but also of income inequality. Low levels of income inequality facilitate democratization, just as high levels of GDP do. But the effect of income inequality varies as GDP rises. Generally, we argue that the negative effect of income inequality on democratization will decrease as income rises.”
 

These paved the new ways to word many questions about the old assumptions about the linear modality of modern or Western development which creates democracy and welfare for masses with the sole impact of media.
The new paradigm called into the question that formation of publics and the decision making process operated by the Fourth Estate (the press and the media) as the fundamental proposition of modernization theory that development in economies by the lead of media leads to democracy has been in need of revision.
Another area of questions arises when the issue becomes democratization of media (fragmentation) when globalization builds up a centralized system of information dissemination (unification). It seems, a separation between globalization of the world and democratization of the nations immerges. It is obvious that without the information technologies which the media is a part of it, globalization cannot be lived as it is lived today. But the counter effects are in need of more exploration to decipher the separation of globalization and democracy.

As Marc Raboy, in his article “Media and Democratization in the Information Society”, puts it:

“Privatization and liberalization carried the promise of more channels, but this has not resulted in a broader and more pluralistic media. The breakdown of state monopolies on broadcasting has had a positive impact in many developing countries, but in many others the state monopolies have merely been replaced by private ones with equally suspect aims. The decline of public broadcasting is a major concern even in the developed countries of Europe. Alternative or community media hold out great promise but are chronically under-resourced and otherwise marginalized. Consolidation of ownership and control, and the rise of massive global multimedia conglomerates with influence over practically all aspects of cultural and political life is another area of concern for its restrictive influence on pluralism and local content.”

With all the rosy promises of globalization and modernization, the fulfillments of the masses and their self-claimed democratic aspirations have been more distant than ever and the gap is more difficult to close by the media which is accepted as the main vehicle of globalization.
 

Since this is a bold and can be looked as short-sided assertion, what is the empirical support for this conclusion.

CYNICAL APPROACH TO MEDIA

When any medium is seen as producing conflicting tendencies and outcomes, it is always seen as not trusted or mistrusted and not worth to attend to or empty and useless. In short, audiences and attendees see the medium from the angle of cynicism. In fact many research assert, such as Gerbner’s, that only long-term cultivation can be done by the mass media, being the television core of it. The mainstream media depicts a scary-world disproportionately distant world to real life. The short-term effect or directing the decision making process of individual minds on a periodical basis of mainstream media is very unlikely and political decision making is almost improbable.
 

To see this general assumption, Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen H. Jamieson had conducted a serial of field experiments, between 1993-95, on how people digest news stories and media content when it comes to make up their mind on a social issue or political election. Their work is called a new theory of media effects which echoes the Elizabeth Noelle Neumann’s “Spiral of Silence”, the “Spiral of Cynicism”.
 

Also, the writer of this article, without knowing what Cappella and Jamieson had done, conducted a complementary research on Turkish press coverage of political communication campaign of 1999 elections. A simple correlation analysis had been done by the different topics of political coverage of TV and the Press and the votes that parties gained at the end of the elections.

For both of the research, the details will not be given here. Only related results will be reported.
 

The Cappella and Jamieson research had focused on the retrieval of the content of the TV and the Press on “Health Reform” coverage and “Philadelphia Mayoral Campaign.” So, in their research, both a public issue attitude formation and political decision making process has been explored and cynical positions of audiences and attendees of the media towards the politicians and media has been examined cognitively, whereas, in Batmaz study, only the final decision making has been correlated to the coverage of the content behaviorally.
But this different end results made a good combination of how cognitive processes fostered by the media have resulted in political behavior. So cynicism towards the media, which is the main reason why media is not fostering democratic ideals and instead creating pessimistic world views in modernization would end up a very intriguing consequence which has demolished the modernization and democratization functions of media. Thus, we are only left by the globalization impact of media which has been creating the opposite currents in the modern and Western-centered dominated world.
 

In Cappella ad Jamieson study derived from Watzlawick, et al, the content of news media has been divided into two main components: (1) Commanding content which is described as “Strategic news” in Cappella and Jamieson words, which is the content giving directions what to do and what to think for the readers and listeners; (2) Report content which is described as “Issue news” by Cappella and Jamieson. I have longed called these two diverse content types in news media as (1) Manipulating content, and (2) Comforting content. “Manipulating content” would be very similar to Watzlawick’s and Cappella/Jamieson’s notions, but “comforting content” would cover their meaning as well as becoming distorting the real world as in the Gerbnerian sense and manipulating people for that “the real world is a threat to you but you are ‘ok’ within your own life as long as you do not mingle in any oppositional act.”
 

Cappella and Jamiason then compared these two different types of content in terms of cognitive processes like “recalling,” “argument quality” and “attribution of importance” in a social issue and political campaign.

The general impact of both television and press are very minimal, most of them are negatively correlated in all dimensions of individual cognitive processes in order to produce a viable political or social decision making:

In Health Care Reform news, (Table 8.3) the TV has in between -.14 and -.03; Press has .00 and -08 and Radio has -10 and -.04 correlations coefficients (beta weights), whereas in the political decision making process, Mayoral Campaign, (Table 8.4) TV has in between -.09 and -.04; Press has -.01 and -.04 and Radio has -.01 and -.05 correlation coefficients. The other independent variables are more robust in explaining the issue related attitudes and political decision making.
 

The Batmaz study shows the same weights (Table: 8.5): Overall media coverage has mostly negative correlations with political behavior of voting. The importance of these two separate findings are, one has been gathered in a core country of globalization where all sorts of related levels has been established (the USA) and the other has been occurred in a peripheral country which has been the so called “the victim” of globalization (TURKEY).

CONCLUSION

The media, across the world have minimal or no impact on any kind of decision making process or attitude formation in social and political issues individually, targeted or sporadic and in the core or in the periphery. Two complimentary empirical studies which have been presented here have substantial support for this assertion. One has measured the cognitive phase of the decision making and the other looked at the behavioral outcome. The results are coincided conclusively.
 

Instead, Cappella and Jamieson have showed in their detailed study in a very precise method that, the media is producing cynicism towards itself and political formations. [In this article I did not included the detailed discussions made by the authors of this hypothesis.] So it seems that media has long lost its democratization power if there has been any and the only functions left for the media is to make life to been seen more global just portraying similar content all over the world.
 

In the last analysis, although not conclusively, in modernization theories as well as in the modernity approach to globalization, heavy weight given to media to make life and social structures more modern or more democratic have little support or not at all. It can be stated that the media play a very trivial role in shaping the instant cognitive and behavioral outcomes but a very high impact on rooting the cynical sentiments towards the outside environment of oneself and towards the media itself. Politics, social issues and political candidates, regardless of how much or how positively they are covered get little attention in short periods of time but in a longer range, cultivation can be maintained through media. What else is media doing to the global multitudes is another question which cannot be answered easily through the eye-glasses of ready perceptions and prescriptions made by the media itself.
 

References (in the order of appearance in the text)

Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society, Macmillan, 1958.
Seymour M. Lipset, “Some Social Requisites of Democracy,” American Political Science Review, 53, no. 1, 1959.
Walt Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, 1960.
Wilbur Schramm, Mass Media and National Development, The role of information in developing countries, University of Illinois Press, 1964
Herbert I. Schiller, Communication and Dominance, M.E. Sharpe, 1976.
Arif Dirlik, “Modernity in Question?: Culture and Religion in an Age of Global Modernity,” Paper presented at the inaugural seminar for the new Department of Cultural and Religious Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 8 October 2004.
J.A.G.M. van Dijk, “Communication Networks and Modernization,” Communication Research, 1993 20(3), pp: 384 407
J. Meyrowitz, J. Maguire, “Media, Place and multiculturalism,” Society, 1993, 30(5),pp: 41-8 and D. McQuail, Mass Communication Theory, 4th Edition, Sage Publications. 2000.
Zehra F. Arat, “Democracy and Economic Development: Modernization Theory Revisited.” Comparative Politics, 1988, 21, p: 21-36.
Daniel O'Neill and Black, Ryan. “A Modernization Theory: Economic Growth, Income Equality and Democratization” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, Apr 12, 2007.
Marc Raboy, “Media and Democratization in the Information Society,” pdf file
George Gerbner, Against the Mainstream: The Selected Works, (Ed: Michael Morgan), Lang, 2002
Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen H. Jamieson, The Spiral of Cynicism, The Oxford Univ. Press, 1997
Veysel Batmaz, “The Effects of Turkish News Media on Politics and Elections: More Coverage, Less Gains,” Presented in CSIS in Washington D.C.- 21 November 2002

[This article has been first presented at the Ural State University, Faculty of Journalism, Ekaterinburg, 15 April 2011. This version is not for citation.]