Ageing demographic read newspapers. Tell the character of an area by the number of each paper stacked in the shop or stocked in the supermarket. Older readers = parents of younger folk that mostly hold at least sympathy with the way they're brought up and the views they've been exposed to. Therefore the influence of the printed press is now mostly indirect in terms of numbers exposed to actual hard copy but still significant especially during election run ups as it is able to manipulate what the older generations talk about. Ally this to lunchtime radio news and online news feeds that tend to react to paper media revelations. Who decides to out a peer/ celeb/ politico? What agenda? Watch out for the Osbone/ Johnson seeded stories. Wait for Corbyn to be exposed as a Chinese/ Russian/ North Korean spy, Andy Burnham to be honey trapped and further attempts to tarnish the glorious legacy of the Saxe- Coburg- Gothas Windsors.
I very much doubt a green voter would be reading the daily mail, so it deffinitely relates some how
It's surprising how many people read a paper you would not expect them to, I saw an article just after the election and a reasonable number of the Guardian's readers claimed to be Conservative voters, and likewise a fair chunk of Mail readers were Labour.
The answer to this lies in the readers disposition to Confirmation Bias. Some readers will be more likely to be influenced than others depending on a number of factors such as accessibility to other sources of information, personal experience and even any basic awareness of the fact that their views are being deliberately influenced.
We see it all the time on here on threads from whether Church is a crap striker or not, through to how much bin men get paid, whether the public sector needs putting back in its box, if George Osborne has met any of his own targets and all the other political stuff...
We all have Confirmation Bias to one extent or another because we all have theories and views as to why stuff happens. We are all hard wired take more note of 'evidence' that seemingly supports these views, than that that doesn't. We even go as far as to disregard completely or at least downplay proven, empirical, hard facts if they don't fit our existing theories i.e. Church plays international football...oh...er...maybe not the best example, but you get the picture.
The newspapers know this and have been trading on this for decades. My dad gets ALL his political views confirmed to him from reading a certain newspaper. Even when I point out the "fact" he is using to back up his opinion or view is utterly wrong, overly simplistic, out of date, not news but an opinion, etc, etc, he refuses to accept this because it's a challenge to his Confirmation Bias.
Basically the most successful news media outlets are those that are the best at feeding back the existing views of their readers and they remain hugely influential IMO.
I'm surprised that anyone would tell their own father that his view and the fact it is based upon is utterly wrong but I'm not surprised that he refuses to accept it when you do.
The answer to this lies in the readers disposition to Confirmation Bias. Some readers will be more likely to be influenced than others depending on a number of factors such as accessibility to other sources of information, personal experience and even any basic awareness of the fact that their views are being deliberately influenced.
We see it all the time on here on threads from whether Church is a crap striker or not, through to how much bin men get paid, whether the public sector needs putting back in its box, if George Osborne has met any of his own targets and all the other political stuff...
We all have Confirmation Bias to one extent or another because we all have theories and views as to why stuff happens. We are all hard wired take more note of 'evidence' that seemingly supports these views, than that that doesn't. We even go as far as to disregard completely or at least downplay proven, empirical, hard facts if they don't fit our existing theories i.e. Church plays international football...oh...er...maybe not the best example, but you get the picture.
The newspapers know this and have been trading on this for decades. My dad gets ALL his political views confirmed to him from reading a certain newspaper. Even when I point out the "fact" he is using to back up his opinion or view is utterly wrong, overly simplistic, out of date, not news but an opinion, etc, etc, he refuses to accept this because it's a challenge to his Confirmation Bias.
Basically the most successful news media outlets are those that are the best at feeding back the existing views of their readers and they remain hugely influential IMO.
I'm surprised that anyone would tell their own father that his view and the fact it is based upon is utterly wrong but I'm not surprised that he refuses to accept it when you do.
The answer to this lies in the readers disposition to Confirmation Bias. Some readers will be more likely to be influenced than others depending on a number of factors such as accessibility to other sources of information, personal experience and even any basic awareness of the fact that their views are being deliberately influenced.
We see it all the time on here on threads from whether Church is a crap striker or not, through to how much bin men get paid, whether the public sector needs putting back in its box, if George Osborne has met any of his own targets and all the other political stuff...
We all have Confirmation Bias to one extent or another because we all have theories and views as to why stuff happens. We are all hard wired take more note of 'evidence' that seemingly supports these views, than that that doesn't. We even go as far as to disregard completely or at least downplay proven, empirical, hard facts if they don't fit our existing theories i.e. Church plays international football...oh...er...maybe not the best example, but you get the picture.
The newspapers know this and have been trading on this for decades. My dad gets ALL his political views confirmed to him from reading a certain newspaper. Even when I point out the "fact" he is using to back up his opinion or view is utterly wrong, overly simplistic, out of date, not news but an opinion, etc, etc, he refuses to accept this because it's a challenge to his Confirmation Bias.
Basically the most successful news media outlets are those that are the best at feeding back the existing views of their readers and they remain hugely influential IMO.
I'm surprised that anyone would tell their own father that his view and the fact it is based upon is utterly wrong but I'm not surprised that he refuses to accept it when you do.
Why?
I'll second that 'why?'.
I've always positively encouraged my sons to question and challenge my views - and have on many occasions changed my opinion based on what they had to say.
The answer to this lies in the readers disposition to Confirmation Bias. Some readers will be more likely to be influenced than others depending on a number of factors such as accessibility to other sources of information, personal experience and even any basic awareness of the fact that their views are being deliberately influenced.
We see it all the time on here on threads from whether Church is a crap striker or not, through to how much bin men get paid, whether the public sector needs putting back in its box, if George Osborne has met any of his own targets and all the other political stuff...
We all have Confirmation Bias to one extent or another because we all have theories and views as to why stuff happens. We are all hard wired take more note of 'evidence' that seemingly supports these views, than that that doesn't. We even go as far as to disregard completely or at least downplay proven, empirical, hard facts if they don't fit our existing theories i.e. Church plays international football...oh...er...maybe not the best example, but you get the picture.
The newspapers know this and have been trading on this for decades. My dad gets ALL his political views confirmed to him from reading a certain newspaper. Even when I point out the "fact" he is using to back up his opinion or view is utterly wrong, overly simplistic, out of date, not news but an opinion, etc, etc, he refuses to accept this because it's a challenge to his Confirmation Bias.
Basically the most successful news media outlets are those that are the best at feeding back the existing views of their readers and they remain hugely influential IMO.
I'm surprised that anyone would tell their own father that his view and the fact it is based upon is utterly wrong but I'm not surprised that he refuses to accept it when you do.
Why?
I'll second that 'why?'.
I've always positively encouraged my sons to question and challenge my views - and have on many occasions changed my opinion based on what they had to say.
I'll third that, why shouldn't I point out that his view is based on incorrect/incomplete/out of date information?
You know neither me nor my father and I've long since given up trying to have a sensible discussion with him about many subjects because he doesn't like it when I or anyone else tbh (however patiently and tactfully) point out his view is based on what he's read in The Mail...and it's basically bullshit to be frank. That does not stop him asking for my 'opinion', when actually what he wants is further validation for what he's read and accepted as the truth. I do not believe he is alone in preferring to have his confirmation bias reinforced than actually have his views discussed properly.
I do try to avoid such situations for everyone's sake but if YOU were asked a direct question, because for example you were known to have direct experience of the subject, would you lie to them knowing you were only reinforcing what you know to be incorrect?
Never see a newspaper unless I drop in on the old man. You can probably guess his political leanings when I say he takes three papers EVERY day, The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail...
Yes that has made for some lively conversations over the years, mostly one way as I have learnt to swtich off and bite my tongue, he has no outrage thermostat to regulate his blood pressure and I couldn't handle the guilt.
Up there for another lecture on Saturday, happy days.
You have to question the Mail's purpose. It deals in outrage and scaremongering. It's editor and such luminaries as Melanie Phillips have never been held accountable for the panic around MMR and the loss of herd immunity that resulted. It seems an entirely negative publication. However proof positive of the influence of the press.
Dozens of people on my Facebook feed will quite happily post an article from the Guardian or similar with a click-bait headline that is usually an out-of-context extrapolation of the actual article or is a statement that isn't even supported by any evidence in the article itself (For example, the wonderfully inflammatory headline "The Tories’ plan for poor people: stop them breeding" which on closer inspection of the article is merely a wild speculation using the slippery slope logical fallacy).
The inflammatory headline is obvious clickbait. In fact the print and online editions will often have completely different headlines because the online one will need to be much more sensational to attract people to the website and that delicious ad revenue.
The effect this has on social media though is even if only 1 in 100 of the people who see the headline actually click through to the article, the other 99 will have at least seen the headline and it seeps into their memory by osmosis. How many times have you recalled a particularly eye-catching fact or stat but not been able to recall where you have read it? I've seen and heard people repeat a stat or fact because the headline came up on their newsfeed, except it was from Buzzfeed or the Onion or another parody/joke website, which proves the point - you don't even need to write a particularly well sourced or accurate article as long as the headline sticks in people's memories.
I don't believe that the media in this country affects how people vote directly - I do not accept the idea that the Tories won because more papers supported them; as others have pointed out, people tend to read the newspapers that confirm their bias. But papers do help shape the agenda, hence why people get worked up on immigration, the EU, cuts, austerity etc. because their newspaper of choice gets them worked up by distorting the issue. Once the agenda is set, people then vote for the party which they feel will deal with the issues that are important to them.
I buy the times on Sunday mainly for the sport, property and driving supplements, but read the telegraph, mail and Independent on line most days. I also read a few international papers on line such as Bangkok post, today (Singapore) Oakland tribune
Comments
Therefore the influence of the printed press is now mostly indirect in terms of numbers exposed to actual hard copy but still significant especially during election run ups as it is able to manipulate what the older generations talk about.
Ally this to lunchtime radio news and online news feeds that tend to react to paper media revelations.
Who decides to out a peer/ celeb/ politico? What agenda?
Watch out for the Osbone/ Johnson seeded stories. Wait for Corbyn to be exposed as a Chinese/ Russian/ North Korean spy, Andy Burnham to be honey trapped and further attempts to tarnish the glorious legacy of the
Saxe- Coburg- GothasWindsors.I've always positively encouraged my sons to question and challenge my views - and have on many occasions changed my opinion based on what they had to say.
; )
You know neither me nor my father and I've long since given up trying to have a sensible discussion with him about many subjects because he doesn't like it when I or anyone else tbh (however patiently and tactfully) point out his view is based on what he's read in The Mail...and it's basically bullshit to be frank. That does not stop him asking for my 'opinion', when actually what he wants is further validation for what he's read and accepted as the truth. I do not believe he is alone in preferring to have his confirmation bias reinforced than actually have his views discussed properly.
I do try to avoid such situations for everyone's sake but if YOU were asked a direct question, because for example you were known to have direct experience of the subject, would you lie to them knowing you were only reinforcing what you know to be incorrect?
Yes that has made for some lively conversations over the years, mostly one way as I have learnt to swtich off and bite my tongue, he has no outrage thermostat to regulate his blood pressure and I couldn't handle the guilt.
Up there for another lecture on Saturday, happy days.
Bitch slapped 52 year old.
The inflammatory headline is obvious clickbait. In fact the print and online editions will often have completely different headlines because the online one will need to be much more sensational to attract people to the website and that delicious ad revenue.
The effect this has on social media though is even if only 1 in 100 of the people who see the headline actually click through to the article, the other 99 will have at least seen the headline and it seeps into their memory by osmosis. How many times have you recalled a particularly eye-catching fact or stat but not been able to recall where you have read it? I've seen and heard people repeat a stat or fact because the headline came up on their newsfeed, except it was from Buzzfeed or the Onion or another parody/joke website, which proves the point - you don't even need to write a particularly well sourced or accurate article as long as the headline sticks in people's memories.
I don't believe that the media in this country affects how people vote directly - I do not accept the idea that the Tories won because more papers supported them; as others have pointed out, people tend to read the newspapers that confirm their bias. But papers do help shape the agenda, hence why people get worked up on immigration, the EU, cuts, austerity etc. because their newspaper of choice gets them worked up by distorting the issue. Once the agenda is set, people then vote for the party which they feel will deal with the issues that are important to them.