How The Media Influences Public And Political Opinions Media Essay

How The Media Influences domain And Political Opinions Media EssayThis essay go away draw on a range of scholars to show and apologize how the media dupe diverged man and government activityal judgement on contentious scientific and technical issues like biotech, na n unmatchedchnology, re-create and genetic modifications. This essay on the one hand impart argue and show how the media exert influences on the perceptions of the common and indemnity-makers. On the other hand, it will object this notion by showing that the media do not ultimately localise public and political thinkings. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn and ideas for nurture research in this field will be highlighted.Plein (1991) explains that bioengineering refers to the use of recombinant DNA techniques, cell confederacy and bio-processing techniques to modify life forms for various research and commercial uses (ibid 474). Bio applied science and other technical scientific issues have attracted i ntense media trouble that it has be practice a fundamental aspect of an everlasting public and political debate. harmonise to Hansen (2006), discourse and research ab come bring out of the closet biotech began to gain prominence in the 1990s and as a depart of the increasing public and political controversy surrounding bio applied science, a wealth of studies has examined the nature and growth of public discourse on genetics/ biotech re amazeations in press, film and other media (ibid 816).Durant et al (1998) severalize biotechnology as the third strategic technology of the post-war period (ibid 189). Durant et al (1998) describe biotechnology as strategic because it has been seen to carry the potential to transform our future (ibid 189).Biotechnology is said to possess benefits like late diagnoses and therapies to eliminate diseases, new crop varieties to eliminate world hunger (Durant et al 1998 189), whilst feared for its threats to biodiversity (see Durant et al, 1998).A disputed scientific issue like biotechnology was in its early stages surrounded by scepticism and disputes. According to Nelkin (1995), one of the earliest disputes over biotechnology applications focused on the field testing of ice minus, genetically modify microbes int block uped to inhibit water crystallisation and protect strawberries from frost injury (Nelkin, 1995 58). Nelkin (1995) emphasised that environmental groups were hard put over the health hazards that this novel technology posed. Nelkin (1995) explained progress that news reports of the ice minus test presented images which were touch and provocative (ibid 258).Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) point out that modern biotechnologys thirty-year old history has been inherently political (ibid 360). The media are at the fore-front of this political controversy concerning biotechnology. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) give tongue to that the mass media comprise the principal arena where insurance policy relevant issues com e to the attention of decision-makers, interest groups and the public (ibid 360). This is perhaps why Nisbet and Huge (2006) noted that media insurance coverage is likely to two reflect and shape policy debate (ibid 14).In policy processes at first instance, the influence of the media comes in early as they determine what issues will be addressed by the policy-makers. These issues are usually hark backd by mass fear and scepticism created by the media. In the early stages of political policy processes, the influence of decision-makers eject be direct when they manage to keep decision making behind closed doors from public or media attention (Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 361). However, the progress of such clandestine decision making often results in the mobilization of diverge (Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 361). That is, decisions made solitary(prenominal) reflect the interest of certain members over others (see Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 361).Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) expl ain that if this interest succeeds in positive media and public attention, whence it has succeeded in controlling media and public agenda (Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 361). However, Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) point out that if such issues step forward in the media and an interest can define their stand as well as alternatives avail subject for discussions (ibid 361), then they have succeeded in delimiting arguments that oppositions can make and screening them off from participation (Berkwitz, 1992, cited in Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 361). This accordingly relates to controversial scientific issues where different media frames are created by conflicting groups in order for their voices to be heard by the public and policy-makers. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) importantly note that policy-makers are aware of the importance of the media in influencing policy outcomes.Nisbet and Huge (2006) commit framing as a key mechanism used by the media to influence public and political in tuitive feelings. Nisbet and Huge (2006) emphasise that frames are thought organisers, devices for packaging complex issues in a persuasive guidance by focusing on certain interpretations over others, suggesting what is relevant about an issue and what should be ignored (Ferree et al, 2002, cited in Nisbet and Huge, 2006 11). Frames are hence the tools that the media use to successfully exert influences on political and public attitudes towards biotechnology and other controversial scientific issues. The frames help guide policy-makers and citizen evaluation about causes, consequences of an issue and what should be do (Ferree et al, 2002, cited in Nisbet and Huge, 2006 11). In the case of biotechnology which attracted interdict media coverage in the 1990s (see Nisbet and Huge, 2006) media frames could however be an antidote to suppress the negativity associated with it. These frames will act as an educative tool to reduce public scepticism and influence political opinion. Nisbet and Huge (2006) emphasise further that plant biotechnology has been ethically enclose in a promotional light, emphasising the moral duty to pursue a gene revolution that could end world hunger (Nisbet and Huge, 2006 11).Plein (1991) emphasised that biotechnology today is being associated with positive economic themes such as patent rights, international trade, research funding and restrictive policy (Plein, 1991 475). This is as a result of the efforts of a well-organised coalition to define biotechnology in positive ground (ibid 475). This has withal been achieved by brilliant media-agenda setting techniques which have influenced public and political opinion positively. One will emphasise that this is because these well-organised agenda-setters present the beneficial aspects of this controversial technology to the media and the media in-turn influence positively the notions of biotechnology in political and public fronts.Plein (1991) importantly notes the reason for the set i n biotechnology scepticism was due to its application to the fields of agriculture, industry and medicine (Plein, 1991 476). mark et al (2007) however, pointed out that the news medias coverage on the medical features of biotechnology has been positive compared to that of the agricultural features. In fact, Marks et al (2007) stated that negative public opinion regarding agricultural biotechnology reflects the spot of the news media.On the other hand, Plein (1991) pointed out that as a result of poor-organisation in the years of 1968 to 1980, the pro-biotechnology community were exposed to a hostile climate of opinion (Plein,1991 475). This negative influence on public and political opinions concerning biotechnology was as a result of scientists being primarily interested in scientific freedom and protection from regulatory intrusion by government (ibid 476), rather than use the media to educate citizens on the blessings of biotechnology which would hence influence positive politi cal and public opinions.Nevertheless, the 1980s marked a turning point in biotechnology history (Plein, 1991 476) as it turned from being a dangerous pursuit of another weapon in Americas competitive arsenal (ibid 476) to being a technology deserving inexhaustible accolades. Biotechnology has been made to be seen by citizens as one of the biggest scientific successes through brilliant agenda-setting techniques. In fact, Nelkin (1987 40) emphasised that in the media ,biotechnology underwent a metamorphosis from a runaway science of genetic engineering to a new technological verge (cited in Plein, 1991 476). In the political arena, the climate of opinion changed dramatically as biotechnology and its features began to dominate policy processes (see Plein, 1991). One can say therefore that well organised media campaigns can revolutionise an issue that was in the beginning deemed dangerous and harmful to the society.Plein (1991) further explains that the ability of biotechnology to be d efined in positive terms was as a result of its alliance with well-established groups which provided an opportunity for mediation and therefore influenced public and political opinion. Plein (1991) noted that the cultivation of reliever with well-established groups and businesses provided a better atmosphere for policy considerations and media coverage which hence reduces public scepticism. This therefore reflects the influential office staff of the media. For instance, a well established group like the London biotechnology network, a network of over 800 organisations which began in year 2000 has further helped reduce biotechnology scepticism through mediation (londonbiotechnology.co.uk).Plein (1991) drop a lines further that another reason for the positive media influence on public and political opinion was as a result biotechnology supporters to disassociate biotechnology from negative issues such as environmental encounter and ethical ambiguity (Plein, 1991 480). This furthe r provided an opportunity for media coverage as scientific groups were able to frame biotechnology in terms of its benefits to economic growth and development. Plein (1991) explained that these groups were also able to use the media to growth political support as they predicted that biotechnology can play an important role in reversing Americas declining role in the worldwide market place (ibid 481). One will assert that such prediction makes biotechnology a local issue for the media as its coverage on it will garner more support thereby force policy-makers to take biotechnology into important consideration.Biotechnology proponents have also been able to frame this technology in the media as not being novel or alien rather it is a benign, incremental technology (Plein, 1991 481). Therefore, it has been able to disassociate itself from common fears that it is a new form of technology fraught with dangers (ibid 481). Biotechnology has also been seen to dominate media agenda becaus e of its association with already media-worthy topics (a period where science reporting became on the increase) therefore it has been able to draw the media to its side thereby communicating to the public and policy-makers the blessings of this technology. Hence, it influences a positive public and political opinion.This technology according to Plein (1991) has been able to attract roaring media coverage because of its ability to undercut the positions of anti-biotechnology groups. The coverage of this conflict further boosts the confidence of citizens and policy-makers that biotechnology is indeed beneficial.However, Plein (1991) importantly notes that such well-organised coalition frames are never secure in its fortunes (ibid 484). That is, the issues and veritable(a)ts that attracted media coverage and gave biotechnology its stamp of legitimacy will likely pass (ibid 484). This is because other questions will step to the fore which cannot be effectively answered and therefore the medias coverage of this debate will influence public and political scepticism. This force be due to the emergence of competition among proponents of biotechnology (ibid 484) who have issues with differing priorities and agenda (ibid 484). Hence, the controversy is re-built by the media as such scandals and conflicts add sensation and spice to their stories thereby creating and influencing public and political uncertainty.Scientists have even pointed out that their major reason for involving the media in biotechnology issues is for it to utilize its influential power in public study (Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 363). This is important as such education will reduce public and political fear.Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) also pointed out that scientists are not save the ones involved in capitalizing on the medias influence. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) explain that in the early 1980s, media coverage was characterized by biotechnology promotion. Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) showed that even policy-makers after being influenced also attempted to shape biotechnology strategically to influence positive public opinion. This is because policy-makers after being educated and influenced considered biotechnology development critical to national economic growth, international competitiveness and global security (Krimsky, 1991, cited in Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002 364). These considerations are therefore sounded-out more by the media, thereby exerting influences on public opinion. In fact Nisbet and Lewenstein (2002) point to a 1984 OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY (OTA) assessment report that uncritically characterized biotechnology as a possible solution to many of the worlds health problems including malnutrition, disease, zip fastener availability and pollution (cited in Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002). These characteristics will be highly reflected in the medias report agenda and will hence influence positive public opinion.However, biotechnology opponents were also active i n using the media to present it as being associated with environmental risks and hazards. This is perhaps why Nisbet and Huge (2006) stated that as a result of the agenda-setting techniques of biotechnology opponents in the 1990s, the media attention garnered by them increased the controversy and scepticism towards this technology. Nevertheless, as part of the power game of politics, advocates for biotechnology still aimed to frame biotechnology positively in order to gain favourable coverage and hence influencing public and political attitudes.Priest (2001) emphasises that journalists have been accused of only covering the controversies associated with biotechnology as this is reflected in public attitudes towards it. Since news serves as a primary source of risk dialogue (Marks et al, 2007 184), it only goes to show that the coverage of the risks of biotechnology will influence the publics idea of it. Marks et al (2007) state that it is the media who spark up public concern about a potential hazard (ibid 184). Biotechnology has been accorded media attention and such media dominance influences the priority accorded to it by the general public (McCombs and Ghanem, 2001 67, cited in Marks et al, 2007 184). Priest (2001) states further, that even institutions within the biotechnology industry seek to use the media to frame public perceptions of policy issues in ways they feel will be to their advantage as well (Plein, 1991, cited in Priest, 2001 31). This further proves the influential power of the media.Priest (2001) importantly notes that the medias influence on the public will determine the influence on public officials. This is because public officials tend to respond in line with that of the public. In fact, Priest (2001) affirms this as she writes that when the U.S public responds with muscle to particular perceived threats to public safety, this often seems to come as a shock to stakeholder corporate interests and government officials alike (ibid 52).D urant et al (1998) alike, explain that with the development of biotechnology, public debate and criticism increased and in response, policy processes became sensitive to public opinion. The generation of public debate towards this issue can be tied to the media who as a result of the news-worthiness of this technology, cover its merits and de-merits which influences public and political opinion.However in Lewenstein (2005)s account, the medias influence on policy-makers does not automatically lead to an influence in public attitudes. This could be seen in the attempt of policy makers and activists attempting to generate a positive consensus towards a G.M Nation. Contrary to what policy-makers might have hoped for, given the intense media coverage which it attracted, no consensus was reached. Nevertheless, Bauer (2002)s research from 1996 to 1999 confirmed that opinions of biotechnology became negative which was in line with the medias coverage of biotechnology during this period (se e Bauer, 2002 103).Nucci and Kubey (2007) in their account emphasise that the media play a vital role in the public awareness and judgement of new innovations in science in the genetic engineering of fodder products for human consumption (Nucci and Kubey, 2007 149).Nucci and Kubey (2007) write that the experience that the majority of the public have with genetics and biotechnology means that news coverage has a strong influence on theses subjects (Nucci and Kubey, 2007 149). In fact, Priest (1999) emphasises that the media possess the ability to influence public opinion on science and technology than other issues (cited in Nucci and Kubey, 2007 149). In fact, Nucci and Kubey (2007) noted that the PEW put upation found that the U.S publics familiarity of G.M food tends to be driven mostly by the degree to which it is covered by the media (PEW scuttle ON FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2006 cited in Nucci and Kubey, 2007 171). This further proves the argument that indeed the media is respon sible for influencing public and political opinion on controversial scientific issues.A specific example of the media having an influence on political opinion was the period of the great G.M food debate (P.O.S.T, 2000). The publics suspicion about it drove the media to campaign against G.M foods which led to a heated public debate.However, it should be carefully noted that the power of the media influencing political processes should not be exaggerate as G.M food was already a major controversial issue in the British parliament (P.O.S.T, 2000).In a specific case-study concerning G.M foods Larry Bohlen in 2000 suspected that StarLink a genetically limited corn grade that had been approved for animal feed had began to mix with common food products such as corn dogs, greaser shells and tortilla chips (cited in Nisbet and Huge, 2006 4). Bohlen predicted that this mixture will lead to serious allergic reactions (cited in Nisbet and Huge, 2006 5). Bohlen was able to capitalize on this media-worthy issue to influence public and political opinion. Despite attracting press attention, it did not gather the public and political attitudes it needed to disapprove G.M foods.On the other hand, recent news stories have shown that G.M foods are becoming delicious and popular. Despite the scare for G.M food, the Royal Society has argued that G.M food research was needed to urgently avoid food crisis as this will help crops survive harsher climates as populations grow and global warming worsens (Guardian.co.uk, 21/10/09). G.M food is being developed further as meat is being laboratory bragging(a) from cells. Scientists at the University of Technology in Eindhoven confirmed that in a few years long strips of this artificially grown meat will find a part of our everyday frank-furter sausages. However it is agreed that this will only be achieved through super-human advertising before the world can accept to eat genetically modified meat (Guardian.co.uk, 1/12/09).In addition t o biotechnology, other technologies like cloning and nanotechnology have become part of an increasing controversy.According to Lee et al (2005), media coverage on nanotechnology could have affective and cognitive influences on public opinion. Lee et al (2005) explain that the cognitive influences on public attitudes towards nanotechnology are base on the extent of the scientific literacy of the reader. Lee et al (2005) explain that those who have been influenced more affectively may be tied to media influences. This is perhaps why Lee et al (2005) in their research even confirmed that only science media use had direct influence on general support for nanotechnology (ibid 253).However, Cobb (2005) pointed out that framing nanotechnology in terms of its benefits did not increase respondents trust in industry leaders (ibid 233).The Wellcome Trust (1998) found that peoples negative attitudes towards cloning was drawn from examples expressed in popular media culture. Science fiction fil ms were part of the major influences on peoples attitudes towards cloning. For example, Frankenstein, Brave new world and the boys from Brazil (Wellcome trust report, 1998).In conclusion, one would have to state that practice newspaper articles or any medium being consumed that ascribes all sorts of accolades to biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cloning does not necessarily determine a positive public attitude. As Lee et al (2005) found that people use their knowledge about science in general in order to evaluate possible risks and benefits (ibid 260).Finally, one will suggest that studies of biotechnology should move past the western world into the third-world were food crisis are on the increase in order to show whether the scepticism towards artificially made food is a western ideology. shape of words 3,285.