Media's Effects on Political Voters
Voter predispositions, political naivety and persuasive advertising: voting is no longer based on policy and beliefs
The effect that the media has on voters can be extremely diverse. From entirely formulating an opinion to strengthening an existing one, the media has the ability to do both but not to every type of individual. In order to understand how various citizens are influenced by media messages, Philip Converse et al. (1966) separated voters into three distinct groups: those with the highest levels of political awareness and understanding, those with the lowest levels and those of moderate understanding. In alignment with this, Graber (1984) theorised that a voter’s predispositions are the vital determinant when examining how effectively the media’s messages can sway opinions. It is therefore voters’ prior knowledge and understanding of political happenings that formulates the foundation for their decisions and thus their naivety of such happenings that allows them to be swayed by media messages.
Extending on Converse’s theory, he states that ‘those with the highest levels of existing political awareness are the most likely to watch TV news coverage of political ad campaigns’ (1966 cited in Denemark 2002, p. 663). However these individuals are actually the least likely to be impacted by these media messages due to their strong predispositions and resilient political beliefs (Denemark 2002, p. 664) leading them to use ‘selective perception’ (Erikson et al. 1991). Selective perception according to Erikson (1991) is essentially when the viewers pay attention to the messages that support their party or candidate and ignore or avoid opposing adverts as a way to reinforce their original decision. This is supported by Bryant and Heath’s model of ‘uses and gratifications’ (1992, p. 282), which states that individuals only, ‘pay attention to messages about things that are needed or gratifying’ and essentially disregard any ideals to the contrary. In accordance
The effect that the media has on voters can be extremely diverse. From entirely formulating an opinion to strengthening an existing one, the media has the ability to do both but not to every type of individual. In order to understand how various citizens are influenced by media messages, Philip Converse et al. (1966) separated voters into three distinct groups: those with the highest levels of political awareness and understanding, those with the lowest levels and those of moderate understanding. In alignment with this, Graber (1984) theorised that a voter’s predispositions are the vital determinant when examining how effectively the media’s messages can sway opinions. It is therefore voters’ prior knowledge and understanding of political happenings that formulates the foundation for their decisions and thus their naivety of such happenings that allows them to be swayed by media messages.
Extending on Converse’s theory, he states that ‘those with the highest levels of existing political awareness are the most likely to watch TV news coverage of political ad campaigns’ (1966 cited in Denemark 2002, p. 663). However these individuals are actually the least likely to be impacted by these media messages due to their strong predispositions and resilient political beliefs (Denemark 2002, p. 664) leading them to use ‘selective perception’ (Erikson et al. 1991). Selective perception according to Erikson (1991) is essentially when the viewers pay attention to the messages that support their party or candidate and ignore or avoid opposing adverts as a way to reinforce their original decision. This is supported by Bryant and Heath’s model of ‘uses and gratifications’ (1992, p. 282), which states that individuals only, ‘pay attention to messages about things that are needed or gratifying’ and essentially disregard any ideals to the contrary. In accordance