Ah, the wonders of social media. What was once Myspace has propelled to Twitter and Facebook, connecting people all around the world millions of times a day. A particular interest of those on social media today seems to be politics, especially given that this is an election year. While social media and media coverage of the election make people more politically aware, it also leads people to incorrect conclusions—giving people the delusion that they are political experts, based on the media agenda. When people respond to this assessment by saying, “The media doesn’t have an agenda, people do,” I have to say the media is people. It is not this abstract all-knowing entity that we rely on for news; it is an outlet controlled by people. Therefore, while social media networks and the national media in general can connect people to important information, they can sometimes do more harm than good.
Schneider, Gruman and Coutts make note of the fact that media coverage of politics and news can actually change peoples’ attitudes, whether the information is correct or not (2012). In a study by Ran, Yamamoto and Xu, it was hypothesized that those who partake in “media multitasking” while consuming news information are more likely to believe that they are very politically aware when they are not (2015). In this case, media multitasking means using a form of media while also doing something else—whether it be social, mobile, televised, or the like. For example, think of the last time you watched television or listened to music. Were you also texting or looking something up on your cell phone? If you are like many people, you probably were. This study also touches on the fact that people often jump from one media task to another, or back and forth while performing some other activity, adding to the phenomenon (Ran et al., 2015). The study concluded that media multitasking while receiving political news does lead to lower knowledge of actual political facts; people also seemed to perceive that they were more politically knowledgeable than they actually were (Ran et al., 2015).
This study, as well as the lesson readings, deeply connect to what is occurring in our country today. Recaps of presidential debates and campaign rallies are shown everywhere. They are on the news, on Twitter and on peoples’ Facebook newsfeeds. People make posts on social media about how awful this or that candidate is, or “vote for her, not for him,” and so on. How far will people be willing to let this continue before it stops? Yes, modern technology and social media have been a great success in many ways, but a great failure in others. It has brought people all around the world together, but it has also escalated conflict and helped create a generation of people who think they know everything. The Ran study suggests people try to not multitask with their media resources, and instead focus on “cognitive attention to details” in order to gain more factual knowledge (2015). In fact, some people may come off social media altogether.
This media-fueled generation has led many to give up on social media in order to get some peace, demonstrating the aforementioned ideas that it can do harm. Recently, a young man decided to permanently delete his Facebook page after one too many posts about the presidential election, organic and non-GMO foods, and government conspiracies. This was not the first time he deleted it; he had gotten rid of it a year prior, and had only had a new one for four months before he was sick of it again. He finds his days very peaceful, not checking status updates and not having to be involved in the biggest part of the media-consuming culture.
Unfortunately, though, social media and other forms of media technology are here to stay. People continue to think they know more than they actually do, partially due to the vast amount of information available through the media and the internet. However, people should learn to use it responsibly; for example, before setting up any social media account, people could be shown results from studies like the one mentioned above. Users could be aware of the damage media can cause, and perhaps this awareness could help improve the technological culture in which we live.
References:
Ran, W., Yamamoto, M., & Xu, S. (2015). Media multitasking during political news consumption: A relationship with subjective and factual political knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior. 56. 352-359.
Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.M. (2012). Applied social psychology:
Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Getting information from social media or any media is a double edge sword. While it is true that there needs to be some way to get information about what is happening in the world and media is the most common avenue for that information the audience needs to be reminded that not everything that is said is accurate. Another problem is media bias, news organizations have to select which stories to cover out of the hundreds from around the world and how they plan to word the stories they cover. Unfortunately, recent events have shown how the wording and events covered in social and television media can have serious negative consequences. Society has become dependent on all forms of media for accurate information in the quickest, shortest way possible. Instead of looking into what is going on we want to hear the news in less than 20 minutes and believe we are well informed. Instead what is being reported is only a small amount of the events of the day. The news that is covered is what will get a viewer’s interest, raise their ratings and improve the advertising dollars.
I would love to say the solution to this problem would be as simple as forcing the media to held responsible for the news that is covered, the effects it may cause and force them to become unbiased and honest. Unfortunately, sensationalism sells and that is what communication companies depend on in order to make a profit. Instead, there needs to be more education directed towards society about looking into what is heard to find out the accuracy of the information. This is something that could even start in grades as early as kindergarten, teaching children at a level they can understand could be the start of having a better informed society. Parents can learn through their children and their assignments, as well as, becoming better informed.
The one part that cannot be changed is that people will continue to hear what they want that will reinforce their beliefs. This is what groups, or people, who want to further a cause will use in order to get what they believe more cemented into others minds. For example, the recent story that has been on television and Facebook about heartburn medication causing dementia has never shown how this belief came about, the questions are not being asked, such as, is the connection between the medication and dementia or heartburn and dementia or is it just a coincidence? Questions like these needs to be asked of any story in order to become fully informed.
Awareness of potential damage is unfortunately not something that can be put on the box as a requirement before purchase. It would be difficult to change the paradigm that you so clearly describe above, but simply abstaining from the inevitable march of progress isn’t going to solve anyone’s problems.
Let’s consider the paradigm from the angle of an intervention; an intervention carried out by way of social media (oh, the irony, right???)
First, it becomes necessary to identify the problem. In this case there are a myriad of problems. People aren’t paying close enough attention to what’s being said, or are getting only the soundbites of a candidate whose name rhymes with Ronald Frump, rather than the entirety of what’s being said by everyone else, and more. Once the issues have been identified, we can start to clear the bench to deal with them.
Next, we need to develop a target audience. Who, in the case of the study you cited, was the primary demographic involved in the issues found? Young white women? Middle aged Asian men? Gender/Race/Age immaterial groups who share something (anything) as a common interest? Finding these individuals and bearing down on what commonalities they hold with one another will be critical in message delivery.
Now that we’ve got the problem and the audience for intervention delivery express figured out, what are we going to do? We’re going on a social media blitzkrieg, baby! Consider, without entering a conversation on policy or personal preference, the success that the oldest candidate for president in 2016 has had with the youngest voting block. The outreach on social media sites like reddit have allowed the campaign to effectively permeate social media without appearing over-branded, over-rehearsed, or overdone (generally; they might be a bit over-zealous, but that’s a topic for another day). Finding ways to get our message into the smartphones of millenials will be critical if we want to have a similar amount of effect in the long term. Then, if we properly follow and adhere to the tenets of agenda setting (Schneider et al, 2012), we’ll be able to influence the target groups to react positively in correlation to our suggestions.
Several key concepts from the book come into play here, during the implementation. Framing, or the perspective setting for how a story will be told (Schneider et al, 2012), is critical; we have to frame it so that the target audience will not feel as though they are being told off or otherwise castigated, but so that they will feel like we’re on their side. Add in a catchy tune that has a matching phrase or slogan, and we’ve taken advantage of the availability heuristic to ensure that everyone who sees our ad will remember it (Schneider et al, 2012).
So, barring some adjustments made for the sake of staying dialed, we’ve basically managed to discuss a non-specific way to influence people to be more aware of the dangers that the media and the internet can pose to the weak-minded and the impressionable. That way may be taking advantage of the same system, but it only exacerbates the problem if we, in our intervention strategy, also decide that it’s time to influence political policy or start selling a product. Which, of course, would never, ever happen.
Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. 8th Ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.