write a speech on how media influences public opinion

8. Class 11 & 12 Speech Writing : ‘How Media Influences public  ‘Opinion’

Media has a strong hold on society. Write a speech in 150-200 words on: ‘How Media Influences public ‘Opinion’ to be delivered in the morning assembly.

Ans.                                         ‘How Media Influences public  ‘Opinion’

Good morning to all. Today I have got an opportunity to share my views with you on: ‘How Media influences public opinion’.

 The media nowadays is engaged in distorting critical facts, omitting vital stories and supporting people with the power to keep their secrets. On the other hand, it is also benefiting society by revealing stories, scams, etc, The influence of media is such that we know essentially nothing other than what we hear from them. Society absorbs whatever the media depicts. The media also sometimes respond to public demand and provides the information that the public craves for. Unfortunately, the public knows and desires more information about movie stars than they do about political development. The reason for this is that the public is more likely to watch shows with the kind of information.

A positive aspect of the media’s bias has been that it has facilitated change in people’s perception and exposed people to other cultures, made people aware of environmental needs and about the people far away.

The relationship of media content to audiences is not singular or one way.

One thing that can be done to rely on true information is to look for different sources. Just relying only on TV will not suffice. We, the public, should become more aware and smart to know the vitality of any issues or news.

Download the above Speech in PDF (Printable)

Related Posts

Influence Insider

How media influences public opinion.

As we know, media is a powerful tool for influencing how individuals perceive life experiences and develop beliefs and behaviors. This influence can be positive or negative depending on what messages people are exposed to.

Many things about our society have contributed to the growing divide in our country. Political ideologies are one of the main drivers of this division. People who subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes individualism over socialization and equality over inequality are increasingly outnumbered by people with opposite views.

Another area where media has strong impacts is through its coverage of important issues. An example of this is the constant barrage of news stories telling us whether something or someone is good or bad for our health and wellbeing.

Given all these effects, it is no wonder that some feel overwhelmed by the amount of content media offers. There’s just too much information!

This article will focus on three major ways that media influences public opinion . These are: direct effect, indirect effect, and internal effect.

How the media affects public opinion

The way the media covers stories can have a significant impact on how people perceive events . Stories that are biased or overemphasized contribute to creating an emotional response in readers, viewers, and listeners.

This effect is very powerful because we trust sources more than we trust each other.

We look up to journalists as experts who tell us what’s going on through their lens of knowledge. Plus, they get paid for it!

So when they report about something, you should believe them. It's their job to know if what happened is important or not, so why shouldn't you?

But while there is some value in having reporters spread positive information , there is also value in being aware of all of the ways the media influences public opinion . This is your responsibility as an informed citizen.

It's your duty to do your part in protecting our democracy by using media literacy skills to evaluate reports, assess biases, and determine the true importance of a story.

Message boards

There are many ways that media influences public opinion , including through message board websites. Users of these sites become very invested in their beliefs or biases they already have before going into such forums.

Message board users typically look at pre-existing material to determine what stance an article or argument will get posted as a comment. Material that is controversial will always be left for someone to reply to, thus creating more discussion around the topic.

The way that people respond to comments also contributes to how much attention each side gets. If you read one bad thing about a product, then the opposite side’s comments will mostly focus on why the bad review is wrong and/or poor quality merchandise.

Regularly visiting such sites can lead to developing strong emotional ties to certain products. This influence is not only felt by those who own them, but also by those who simply like their style.

Social media

With the explosion of social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, it is increasingly difficult to limit young people’s access to information. As we know, exposure to different messages can have an effect on someone’s perception of the world.

Social media has become one of the most important ways that children get messages about how to live their lives. Messages spread quickly within online communities so it is very easy to see what other people are doing and thinking.

Parents must be aware of this and make sure that they control which sites their kids use by creating limited accounts for them. This will help prevent false beliefs from developing.

It was found that before social media, only 10% of teens owned a smartphone. Now almost everyone does because it offers instant access to lots of information. Teens spend up to eight hours a day on average using smartphones, making it hard to avoid encountering propaganda.

On top of this, nearly half (46%) of all teenagers own at least one item with internet access, like a phone or computer. The vast majority of these teens (95%) say they use the internet for something more than just looking at pictures and videos; 64% report using the web for activities that require software, such as working, shopping, banking, and emailing.

If you want to protect your child from misinformation, teach them how to evaluate sources thoroughly and don’t let them watch television alone.

Recent events have shown how much influence the media has on public opinion. With the constant stream of information that people are exposed to, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction – or propaganda.

The media is a powerful tool in society. They promote an agenda, which is influenced by who is paying for advertising or what political party they belong to. Technology now makes it easy to compare different sources and get different perspectives ; you don’t need to trust just one source.

As we know, the media is not always truthful, honest, or pure. Due to this, the general public does not trust the media as much as before. People believe the media is trying to push its own agenda and product.

There was a time when only major newspapers had enough readers to make a difference with their editorial content. Now anyone with a smartphone has access to online journalism. This means that even if someone doesn’t like your candidate or team, they can find out more about him or her than originally planned!

Another problem is false balance. A company will pay for advertisement space or airtime in an effort to spread knowledge and inform the audience of both sides of an argument. But because of money involved, they may lean towards only promoting one side .

What people read

People are increasingly relying on media to inform their opinions. As technology advances, individuals have access to more sources of information than ever before.

This is good as it allows for greater knowledge diversity and options for information. It also gives you the opportunity to choose whether or not to trust what source of information you find credible and convincing.

However, this trend raises concerns about how much influence major media corporations will have over public opinion. More and more companies are offering services that allow for personalized content, which may be more influential than general, mass-appeal publications.

Major publishers make money off of advertising, so they want your attention longer term – not just for an hour while you browse through the website. This creates potential problems when their messages are not in agreement with yours.

What people watch

People spend lots of time watching media , so it has a substantial influence on how they perceive the world. If you want to change someone’s opinion about something, then you have to expose them to different perspectives.

People who are very invested in an ideology may not be open to other points of view. They may even begin to believe their own propaganda because that is all they hear.

On the contrary, individuals with diverse backgrounds can learn things from various sources.

These lessons can contradict their original beliefs, which helps them reevaluate what they thought was true before. This process is important for anyone looking to enhance their knowledge or achieve their personal goals.

The more aware you are of one area, the better you will be at your job. It is equally valuable whether you are trying to convince others of a particular argument or yourself of a certain theory.

Political campaigns

A lot of people use media to evaluate how politically active or informed you are. Whether it is looking at your YouTube subscriptions, what brands you purchase products from, how many times you visit popular political websites , or even going through your Instagram profile, there are always eyes watching!

Political advertisements can be expensive, which is another reason why politicians will spend money to make sure they have enough exposure for their campaign.

Businesses gain an understanding of what voters care about by observing what types of ads get attention and then creating ads with similar messages or concepts.

For example, most people know about the dangers of smoking due to extensive advertising, so cigarette companies invest in ads that appeal to emotions like fear or hope. They want to influence your opinion so that you either choose to smoke or not – very powerful.

Another way advertisers try to sway public opinions is by sponsoring events or sports teams. By investing in this, the advertiser supports the team or event, and people who see the advertisement may feel more inclined to show support as well.

Personal experiences

Recent studies show that it is not just what people are being told to believe by the media, but also how they perceive things due to their personal experiences.

This effect seems particularly strong when it comes to political issues.

It was mentioned earlier in this article how different media sources can offer contradictory information, making it difficult for individuals to form an opinion.

But beyond this, individual members of the public have differing perceptions based on their own life experiences.

These experiences influence whether someone is more likely to be influenced by positive or negative effects of a situation, or if they develop feelings towards certain people or groups.

For example, someone who has lived through similar situations as another person may make assumptions about them based on their personality.

Alternatively, someone might assess those people based on something they read about them in the news or heard from a friend.

Whether these assessments are accurate or not doesn’t matter much because people bring into play all sorts of other factors when trying to determine who they feel will help them achieve their goals.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

The Power of Media: How It Shapes Public Opinion and Society

by English Plus | Apr 7, 2023 | General Spotlights , Social Spotlights

• ·         Agenda Setting
• ·         Selective Reporting
• ·         Framing
• ·         Opinion Leaders
• ·         Social Media

The Impact of Media on Society

The role of the media in shaping public opinion.

From the time we wake up to the time we go to bed, we are constantly bombarded with news from the media, whether it be through television, newspapers, or social media. As a result, the media plays a crucial role in shaping our opinions on various topics, from politics to entertainment and beyond.

In this article, we will explore the ways in which the media influences public opinion and the impact it has on society as a whole.

· Agenda Setting

One of the most significant ways the media shapes public opinion is through agenda-setting. This is the process by which the media decides which topics and issues to cover and how they are presented to the public. Essentially, the media has the power to frame the conversation around certain topics, which can ultimately influence how people think about them.

For example, during election seasons, the media may focus heavily on certain candidates or issues, leading the public to form opinions based on what they see and hear. In this way, the media has the power to sway public opinion in favor of one candidate or political party over another.

· Selective Reporting

Another way the media can shape public opinion is through selective reporting. This is the process by which the media chooses which stories to report on and which to ignore. By selectively reporting on certain stories and ignoring others, the media can influence how the public perceives a particular issue.

For example, if the media only reports on negative news about a particular group or organization, the public may develop a negative perception of that group or organization, even if there is positive news that is not being reported. In this way, the media has the power to shape public opinion by selectively reporting on certain stories.

· Framing

Framing is the way in which the media presents information to the public. By framing information in a certain way, the media can influence how people interpret it. For example, if the media presents a story about a politician in a negative light, the public may view that politician negatively, even if there are positive aspects to their character or policy positions.

On the other hand, if the media presents a story in a positive light, the public may view the subject of the story in a more positive light. In this way, the media has the power to frame the conversation around certain topics, which can ultimately influence how people think about them.

· Opinion Leaders

Opinion leaders are individuals or groups that have a significant impact on public opinion. The media can play a role in shaping public opinion by highlighting the opinions of opinion leaders. For example, if a celebrity or influential public figure expresses an opinion on a particular topic, the media may give that opinion more weight and influence how the public thinks about the issue.

· Social Media

Social media has become an increasingly powerful tool for shaping public opinion. Through platforms like Twitter and Facebook, individuals can share their opinions and perspectives with a global audience. Social media also allows for the rapid dissemination of information, making it easier for individuals and groups to influence public opinion on a particular issue.

However, social media also has its downsides. With the rise of fake news and misinformation, it can be difficult to discern what is true and what is not. This can lead to the spread of false information and conspiracy theories , which can ultimately shape public opinion in dangerous ways.

The media’s influence on public opinion can have a significant impact on society. For example, media coverage of police shootings and racial inequality has led to a growing awareness of these issues and a call for change. Similarly, media coverage of environmental issues has led to increased awareness and action to address climate change .

However, the media can also have a negative impact on society . For example, sensationalized reporting can lead to a distorted perception of reality , leading to fear, anxiety, and even panic among the public. This can be particularly problematic in times of crisis, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or pandemics, where the media’s coverage can exacerbate the situation and cause harm to individuals and communities.

Moreover, the media’s influence on public opinion can also have political implications. In democracies, the media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing political outcomes. Media coverage of political campaigns, for example, can affect voters’ perceptions of candidates and their positions, ultimately influencing the election results.

However, the media’s influence on politics can also be problematic, particularly when it comes to issues of bias and partisanship. In recent years, the media has been criticized for promoting certain political agendas or ideologies and for perpetuating a polarized political environment.

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion on a wide range of issues, from politics to social and environmental issues. Through agenda setting, selective reporting, framing, opinion leaders, and social media, the media has the power to influence how people think and feel about certain topics.

However, the media’s influence on public opinion is not without its drawbacks. Sensationalized reporting, fake news, and biased reporting can distort reality and perpetuate negative stereotypes and misconceptions. Moreover, the media’s influence on politics can be problematic, particularly when it comes to issues of bias and partisanship.

As media consumers, it is important to be aware of the media’s influence on our opinions and to critically evaluate the information we receive. By doing so, we can ensure that our opinions are based on accurate information and that we are not being unduly influenced by media bias or sensationalism.

• Media : Forms of communication that reach large audiences, such as television, newspapers, and the internet.
• Public Opinion : Views held by a group of people about a particular issue, product, or person.
• Society : A group of individuals living in a particular geographic area who share a common culture and institutions.
• Agenda Setting : The process by which the media decides which topics and issues to cover and how they are presented to the public.
• Selective Reporting : The process by which the media chooses which stories to report on and which to ignore.
• Framing : The way in which the media presents information to the public.
• Opinion Leaders : Individuals or groups that have a significant impact on public opinion.
• Social Media : Online platforms that allow users to create, share, and exchange information and ideas with others.
• Misinformation : False or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally or deliberately.
• Fake News : Deliberately misleading or fabricated news stories.
• Sensationalized Reporting : Reporting that exaggerates or sensationalizes the facts in order to attract attention or increase viewership.
• Bias : Prejudice or favoritism towards a particular group or ideology.
• Partisanship : Strong support for a particular political party or ideology.
• Polarization : The process by which individuals and groups become more ideologically divided and less willing to compromise.
• Democracy : A system of government in which power is held by the people, usually through elected representatives.
• Natural Disasters : Events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods that are caused by natural forces.
• Terrorism : The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
• Pandemics : An outbreak of a disease that spreads across a large geographic area and affects a large number of people.
• Environmental Issues : Problems related to the natural world, such as climate change , pollution, and habitat destruction.

Election Results : The outcome of an election, usually determined by the number of votes cast for each candidate or political party.

Get Vocabulary Voyages E-Book for Free!

Build your vocabulary today in the context of 40 beautiful stories about profound words with interactive elements, QR codes, exercises and more, for FREE ! You will get the FULL E-Book not just a preview!

I will also be sending you the weekly digest to share with you the latest content I add here on the website.

So what are you waiting for? Sign up today and get your weekly dose of English Plus content!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at anytime.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Stay Informed: Top News Stories You Can’t Miss – Anpip Social Media - […] For more detailed information, you can read about The Power of Media: How It Shapes Public Opinion. […]
• Leadership in Media: Shaping Perspectives - […] https://englishpluspodcast.com/the-power-of-media-how-it-shapes-public-opinion-and-society/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Submit Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

English Plus

You may also like.

Social Entrepreneurship: Heroes of Change – Building a Better World, One Idea at a Time

by English Plus | May 15, 2024

Discover the power of social entrepreneurship to tackle pressing social and environmental challenges. Learn how innovative changemakers are building businesses that do good and make a difference.

Parenting Around the World: Why There’s No One “Right” Way

by English Plus | Apr 26, 2024

Ever wondered if your parenting style is the norm? Discover how diverse cultures shape child-rearing, from discipline to independence, and why understanding these differences matters.

Intersectionality: Why Everyone Needs This Tool for Social Justice

by English Plus | Apr 12, 2024

What is intersectionality, and why does it matter for building a fairer world? Learn how your unique experiences shape your view of social issues.

Recent Posts

The Enduring Charm of ‘Stellaluna’ by Janell Cannon: A Tale of Belonging and Friendship

Jun 6, 2024 | Great Stories

Discover the enchanting story of ‘Stellaluna’ by Janell Cannon. Learn about the book’s themes of belonging and friendship and its lasting impact on readers of all ages.

Ultimate Mythic Monsters and Creatures Quiz

Jun 5, 2024 | Trivia

Challenge yourself with our Ultimate Mythic Monsters and Creatures Quiz. Discover fascinating facts about mythical creatures from various cultures. Perfect for mythology enthusiasts!

Mythical Beasts: Exploring the Legends and Symbolism of Ancient and Modern Creatures

Jun 5, 2024 | Myths and Legends

Embark on a captivating journey into the world of mythical beasts in our audio mini-series, “Mythical Beasts.” Explore the legends, symbolism, and cultural significance of these creatures from ancient civilizations to contemporary lore. Delve into the rich tapestry of folklore, discover the origins of dragons, griffins, sea monsters, and more, and uncover how these creatures continue to capture our imagination in modern times. Join us as we unravel the mysteries and delve into the captivating realm of mythical beasts.

English in Context | Mental Health Awareness in the Digital Age

Jun 5, 2024 | English in Context

Explore the impact of the digital age on mental health, uncovering the challenges and solutions for mental well-being in an increasingly online world. Learn advanced English vocabulary in this comprehensive article.

How Simple Rituals Can Bring Control and Order to Chaotic Situations

Jun 5, 2024 | Know Yourself

Discover how simple rituals can provide a sense of control and order in chaotic situations. Learn about the psychological benefits and practical applications of rituals in daily life.

Ancient Romans and Their Unique Hygiene Practices: Using Urine as Mouthwash

Jun 5, 2024 | Flash Facts

Discover the fascinating history of ancient Roman hygiene practices, including the surprising use of urine as mouthwash. Learn about the methods, reasons, and cultural context behind this unusual practice.

• Crossword Puzzles in Context (176)
• Common Mistakes in English (5)
• Cultural English (7)
• English For Specific Purposes (3)
• Focus on Business (8)
• Focus on Grammar (8)
• Focus on Literature (7)
• Focus on Skills (7)
• Focus on Speaking (7)
• Focus on Vocabulary (8)
• Focus on Writing (7)
• Grammar And Vocabulary (6)
• Idiomatic Expressions (8)
• Listening and Speaking (3)
• Reading and Writing (3)
• Common Mistakes in English (14)
• Countries (15)
• Grammar (18)
• History (16)
• Literature (18)
• Science (19)
• Trivia (18)
• Vocabulary (17)
• English Expressions (43)
• English Usage (14)
• Flash Facts (43)
• Great Stories (18)
• Immortal People (17)
• Know Yourself (43)
• Poetry Shorts (32)
• Proverbs (79)
• Quotes (78)
• Spotlights Shorts (32)
• Word Power Shorts (43)
• A Very Short History of the World (16)
• Beyond Earth (2)
• Big Ideas Explained (13)
• Business Spotlights (42)
• Career Insights (28)
• Creative Writing Tips (21)
• Cultural Insights (28)
• Did You Know (26)
• English Plus Multimedia (4)
• Fact or Fiction (22)
• Frequently Asked Questions (24)
• General Spotlights (10)
• Gods and Heroes (33)
• Grammar Galaxy (2)
• Health and Fitness (32)
• Her Story (2)
• History Spotlights (45)
• Lessons from Everything (1)
• Letter from the Editor (1)
• Lifelines (7)
• Literary Echoes (40)
• Magazine Series (1)
• Mysteries Revealed (25)
• Planet Earth (21)
• Curriculum Development (4)
• Education Policy (4)
• Education Spotlights (36)
• Educational Technology (10)
• Higher Education (1)
• Language Learning Strategies (5)
• Learning and the Brain (12)
• Parent and Community (13)
• Teacher Development (3)
• Teaching Strategies (1)
• Podcasting (2)
• Polyglot (1)
• Arts and Literature (6)
• Danny's Poetry (3)
• Immortal Books (8)
• Immortals (6)
• Ink & Ashes (1)
• Literary Spotlights (1)
• Myths and Legends (8)
• NonFiction (1)
• Poet Diary (1)
• Poetry for Everyone (6)
• Project Orpheus (1)
• Short Stories (2)
• Short Stories for Everyone (5)
• Writing Tips and Techniques (9)
• Science Spotlights (51)
• Short Introductions (183)
• Social Spotlights (50)
• The Journey Within (59)
• Top Ten (12)
• War and Peace (29)
• 101 Series (1)
• Ask Danny (1)
• Bonus Episodes (1)
• Business English (44)
• Common Mistakes (7)
• Discussions (5)
• Down to Business (3)
• Education for All (1)
• English Express (21)
• English in Context (1)
• English Plus in Action (1)
• English Plus Show (1)
• Fantastic Guest (4)
• Grammar (41)
• History (22)
• Know Thyself (2)
• Let's Talk Literature (5)
• Magazine Spotlights (1)
• Mythology (20)
• Our Story (1)
• Poetry (33)
• Pronunciation (4)
• Real Conversations (7)
• Science (20)
• Society and Culture (9)
• Stories (32)
• Technology (1)
• The Daily Digest (17)
• The Universe (1)
• Vocabulary Building (114)
• Vocabulary in Context (2)
• Vocabulary Voyages (3)
• Word Power (87)
• Writing (4)
• Featured Articles (10)
• Red Dead Redemption (1)
• The Last of Us (2)
• The Odyssey (1)
• Old Audio Series (6)
• Premium Episodes (4)
• Premium Series (6)

Pin It on Pinterest

Insert/edit link.

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

Search here

01-Jul-2023 , Updated on 7/1/2023 9:09:24 AM

How does the media shape the public opinion and influence society

Playing text to speech

• The media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing society through various means.
• News outlets have the power to select, frame, and prioritize information, influencing what people perceive as important or relevant.
• Media organizations often have their own biases, which can affect the presentation and interpretation of news stories, potentially swaying public opinion.
• Journalists and media professionals act as gatekeepers, deciding which stories to cover and how to present them, thus influencing what the public sees and understands.
• The media can set the agenda by highlighting certain issues and ignoring others, shaping public discussions and policy priorities.
• Media coverage of political events and candidates can significantly impact public opinion and electoral outcomes.
• Media platforms, such as social media, provide opportunities for individuals to share their opinions and influence others, creating echo chambers or amplifying certain narratives.
• Advertising and commercial interests in the media can shape public opinion by promoting certain products, lifestyles, or ideologies

The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and influencing society at large. With the advent of the digital age , the power and reach of the media have expanded exponentially, making it more influential than ever before. Through various channels such as television, newspapers, radio, and most importantly, the internet, the media has the ability to shape public discourse, shape perceptions, and ultimately influence the behavior and beliefs of individuals. This view aims to explore the mechanisms through which the media exerts its influence and the implications it has on society.

• Agenda Setting

One of the primary ways in which the media shapes public opinion is through agenda setting. Media outlets have the power to determine which stories are covered and how they are presented. By selecting certain topics and giving them prominence, the media sets the agenda for public discussion. This influences what issues are considered important and worthy of attention by the general public . The media's ability to frame these issues also impacts how they are perceived, shaping public opinion in the process.

Media framing refers to the way in which news stories are presented, emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying others. The choice of language, imagery, and narrative structure can significantly influence the way in which an issue is understood and interpreted by the audience. For example, a news report that frames an event as a terrorist attack may elicit fear and prompt calls for heightened security measures, while framing it as an act of political protest may generate sympathy and support for the cause. By framing issues in a particular manner, the media can sway public opinion and shape societal attitudes.

• Selective Reporting and Bias

The media's role in shaping public opinion is also influenced by selective reporting and bias. Journalists and media outlets have the power to choose which stories to cover and how to present them. This selectivity can lead to an imbalance in the information available to the public, influencing their perceptions and opinions. Moreover, media bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can affect the way in which news is reported, leading to the presentation of a particular narrative that aligns with the ideological leanings of the media outlet. Such biases can reinforce preexisting beliefs and opinions , polarizing society and hindering informed discourse.

• Influence on Public Discourse and Debate

The media not only shapes public opinion but also plays a crucial role in facilitating public discourse and debate. Through news programs, talk shows, and social media platforms, the media provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and opinions. However, the way in which these discussions are conducted can be influenced by the media's editorial choices and the desire for ratings and viewership . Sensationalism and the focus on controversial or divisive issues often dominate media coverage, potentially overshadowing more nuanced and constructive discussions. This can have a profound impact on the nature of public discourse and the formation of societal attitudes.

• Social Media and Filter Bubbles

The rise of social media has further transformed the media landscape and its impact on public opinion. Online platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become significant sources of news and information for many individuals. However, these platforms often employ algorithms that personalize content based on user preferences , creating filter bubbles. In these bubbles, individuals are primarily exposed to information that aligns with their existing beliefs and perspectives, limiting their exposure to diverse viewpoints. This can reinforce existing biases and contribute to the polarization of society.

The media's influence on public opinion and its ability to shape society cannot be underestimated. Through agenda setting, framing, selective reporting, and bias, the media has the power to shape public discourse and influence individual beliefs and behaviors. The rise of social media has further amplified this influence, creating echo chambers that limit exposure to diverse perspectives. As consumers of media, it is important for individuals to be aware of these mechanisms and to engage in critical thinking when consuming news and information.

To mitigate the potential negative effects of media influence , it is crucial for media consumers to seek out diverse sources of information and to actively engage in fact-checking and verification. Developing media literacy skills can help individuals analyze and evaluate the information they encounter, enabling them to make informed judgments.

Furthermore, promoting media diversity and supporting independent journalism can contribute to a more balanced and inclusive media landscape. By encouraging a plurality of voices and perspectives, society can counteract the biases and agendas that may be present in mainstream media.

Media organizations also have a responsibility to uphold ethical standards and maintain a commitment to objective and accurate reporting. Journalists should strive to present information in a balanced and unbiased manner, avoiding sensationalism and focusing on providing the public with comprehensive and factual news coverage.

Lastly, individuals should be proactive participants in public discourse , engaging in respectful and informed discussions on various platforms. By actively contributing to the exchange of ideas, individuals can counteract the negative aspects of media influence and promote a more constructive and inclusive societal dialogue.

In conclusion, the media has a profound impact on public opinion and society as a whole. Through agenda setting, framing, selective reporting, and bias, the media shapes public discourse , influences perceptions, and impacts individual beliefs and behaviors. In the digital age, the rise of social media has further amplified the media's influence, creating filter bubbles that limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. 

• Add Solution
• Add Comment
• Report Abouse

Join Our Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive emails about new views posts, releases and updates .

Copyright 2010 - 2024 MindStick Software Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Cookie Policy

Join MindStick Community

Join MindStick Community to start earning points, likes, voting and commenting.

You have need to login or register to see users list.

Join MindStick Community to start earning points, likes, voting, watch user profile and commenting.

Confirmation

Are you sure you want to delete this record?

Your account has been temporarily locked.

Please click here to re-verify your account.

Notification

Congratulation.

Using Media to Influence Public Opinion

After the tumultuous Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford engaged the media to positively influence public opinion about the presidency.

Social Studies, U.S. History

Gerald R. Ford became the 38th President of the United States after Richard Nixon resigned due to his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Ford set out almost im mediately to rebuild the public ’s broken image of the presidency.

Gerald and Betty Ford reached the American people through media such as television, newspapers, and radio. President Ford granted the media access to his day-to-day activities. Betty Ford also stepped into the public arena, lending her voice to causes such as the Equal Rights Amendment.

Gerald and Betty Ford’s increased visibility, as they opened up their life through media, began to restore the public’s trust in the presidency.

• After assuming the presidency upon Richard Nixon’s resignation, Gerald R. Ford amassed a 71 percent approval rating.
• Betty Ford held press conferences and answered questions about women in politics, abortion rights, and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
• In September of 1974, Betty Ford was diagnosed with breast cancer and disclosed her medical condition to the world—an act that broke social conventions of the time.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

POLSC101: Introduction to Political Science

How mass media forms public opinion.

As described in the last section, the "media" is considered an important agent of political socialization, as it can teach people certain political beliefs or values. Besides the socializing role, the media also serves as a "watchdog", drawing attention to government corruption or mistakes, which promotes government transparency and accountability. The media can also serve an agenda-setting role. By covering some news stories and not others, the media has the power to shape what people will think or talk about. Similarly, by "framing" a story from a particular perspective, the media often influences both public opinion and influence government leaders.

Media can have an important effect on public opinion in several ways.

Learning Objectives

Explain the different ways that the mass media forms public opinion

• Mass media frame the details of the story.
• Mass media communicate the social desirability of certain ideas.
• Mass media sets the news agenda, which shapes the public's views on what is newsworthy and important.
• Increasing scandal coverage, as well as profit-motivated sensationalist media coverage, has resulted in young people holding more negative, distrustful views of government than previous generations.
• framing: the construction and presentation of a fact or issue "framed" from a particular perspective
• mass media: The mass media are media technologies like broadcast media and print media that are designed to reach a large audience by mass communication.

Mass media effects on public opinion

• Setting the news agenda, which shapes the public's views on what is newsworthy and important
• Framing the details of a story
• Communicating the social desirability of certain kinds of ideas

The formation of public opinion starts with agenda-setting by major media outlets throughout the world. This agenda-setting dictates what is newsworthy and how and when it will be reported. The media agenda is set by a variety of different environmental and network factors that determines which stories will be newsworthy.

Another key component in the formation of public opinion is framing. Framing is when a story or piece of news is portrayed in a particular way and is meant to sway the consumers' attitude one way or the other. Most political issues are heavily framed in order to persuade voters to vote for a particular candidate. For example, if Candidate X once voted on a bill that raised income taxes on the middle class, a framing headline would read "Candidate X Doesn't Care About the Middle Class". This puts Candidate X in a negative frame to the newsreader.

Social desirability is another key component of the formation of public opinion. Social desirability is the idea that people in general will form their opinions based on what they believe is the popular opinion. Based on media agenda setting and media framing, most often a particular opinion gets repeated throughout various news mediums and social networking sites until it creates a false vision where the perceived truth is actually very far away from the actual truth.

Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and political media. Additionally, mass media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds of people. Since the 1950s, television has been the main medium for molding public opinion, though the internet is becoming increasingly important in this realm.

Can ❤️s change minds? How social media influences public opinion and news circulation

Assistant Professor of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

Disclosure statement

Study 1 was approved by University College Dublin Office of Research Ethics (reference numbers: HS-E-20-110-Samahita and HS-E-20-134-Samahita) and funded by University College Dublin, Collegio Carlo Alberto, and the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance. Data for Study 2 was accessed through the Academic Research Twitter API. The author has no direct relevant material or financial interest that relate to the research described.

View all partners

Social media use has been shown to decrease mental health and well-being, and to increase levels of political polarization .

But social media also provides many benefits, including facilitating access to information, enabling connections with friends, serving as an outlet for expressing opinions and allowing news to be shared freely.

To maximize the benefits of social media while minimizing its harms, we need to better understand the different ways in which it affects us. Social science can contribute to this understanding. I recently conducted two studies with colleagues to investigate and disentangle some of the complex effects of social media.

Social media likes and public policy

In a recently published article , my co-researchers (Pierluigi Conzo, Laura K. Taylor, Margaret Samahita and Andrea Gallice) and I examined how social media endorsements, such as likes and retweets, can influence people’s opinions on policy issues.

We conducted an experimental survey in 2020 with respondents from the United States, Italy and Ireland. In the study, we showed participants social media posts about COVID-19 and the tension between economic activity and public health. Pro-economy posts prioritized economic activities over the elimination of COVID-19. For instance, they advocated for reopening businesses despite potential health risks.

Pro-public health posts, on the other hand, prioritized the elimination of COVID-19 over economic activities. For example, they supported the extension of lockdown measures despite the associated economic costs.

We then manipulated the perceived level of support within these social media posts. One group of participants viewed pro-economy posts with a high number of likes and pro-public health posts with a low number of likes, while another group viewed the reverse.

After participants viewed the posts, we asked whether they agreed with various pandemic-related policies, such as restrictions on gatherings and border closures.

Overall, we found that the perceived level of support of the social media posts did not affect participants’ views — with one exception. Participants who reported using Facebook or Twitter for more than one hour a day did appear to be influenced. For these respondents, the perceived endorsements in the posts affected their policy preferences.

Participants that viewed pro-economy posts with high number of likes were less likely to favour pandemic-related restrictions, such as prohibiting gatherings. Those that viewed pro-public health posts with high number of likes were more likely to favour restrictions.

Social media metrics can be an important mechanism through which online influence occurs. Though not all users pay attention to these metrics, those that do can change their opinions as a result.

Active social media users in our survey were also more likely to report being politically engaged. They were more likely to have voted and discussed policy issues with friends and family (both online and offline) more frequently. These perceived metrics could, therefore, also have effects on politics and policy decisions.

Twitter’s retweet change and news sharing

In October 2020, a few weeks before the U.S. presidential election, Twitter changed the functionality of its retweet button . The modified button prompted users to share a quote tweet instead, encouraging them to add their own commentary.

Twitter hoped that this change would encourage users to reflect on the content they were sharing and to slow down the spread of misinformation and false news.

In a recent working paper , my co-researcher Daniel Ershov and I investigated how Twitter’s change to its user interface affected the spread of information on the platform.

We collected Twitter data for popular U.S. news outlets and examined what happened to their retweets after the change was implemented. Our study revealed that this change had significant effects on news diffusion: on average, retweets for news media outlets fell by over 15 per cent.

We then investigated whether the change affected all news media outlets to the same extent. We specifically examined whether media outlets where misinformation is more common were affected more by the change. We discovered this was not the case: the effect on these outlets was not greater than for outlets of higher journalistic quality (and if anything, the effects were slightly smaller).

A similar comparison revealed that left-wing news outlets were affected significantly more than right-wing outlets. The average drop in retweets for liberal outlets was more than 20 per cent, but the drop for conservative outlets was only five per cent. This occurred because conservative users changed their behaviour significantly less than liberal users.

Lastly, we also found that Twitter’s policy affected visits to the websites of the news outlets affected, suggesting that the new policy had broad effects on the diffusion of news.

Understanding social media

These two studies underscore that seemingly simple features can have complex effects on user attitudes and media diffusion. Disentangling the specific features that make up social media and estimating their individual effects is key to understanding how social media affects us.

Like Instagram, Meta’s new Threads platform allows users to hide the number of likes on posts. X, formerly Twitter, has just rolled out a similar feature by allowing paid users to hide their likes. These decisions can have important implications for political discourse within the new social network.

At the same time, subtle changes to platforms’ design can have unintended consequences which depend on how users respond to these policies. Social scientists can play an important role in furthering our understanding of these nuanced effects of social media.

• Social media
• Public perception
• social media politics
• Social media likes
• Social media apps
• Social media use
• Listen to this article
• X (formerly Twitter)

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. the power of media in shaping public opinion, 2. uncovering the influence on public perception, 3. the role of dramatic headlines and news stories, 4. how online platforms shape public opinion, 5. how media frames issues and shapes public perception, 6. how marketing techniques influence public opinion, 7. the medias control over information flow, 8. the impact of corporate influence on public perception, 9. empowering the public to navigate and analyze media messages.

1. Media has always played a significant role in shaping public opinion. Whether through newspapers, television, or social media platforms , the power of media in influencing how people perceive events and issues cannot be underestimated. In today's digital age, where information is readily accessible and shared at an unprecedented speed, it is crucial to understand the impact media can have on public perception.

2. One way media shapes public opinion is through agenda setting. By determining what stories to cover and how to present them, media outlets have the power to prioritize certain issues over others, thereby influencing what the public deems important. For example, during an election season, media coverage can heavily influence voter opinions by focusing on specific candidates or policy issues.

3. Another powerful tool media employs is framing. Through the use of language, visuals, and storytelling techniques, media outlets can shape the way an issue is perceived by the public. For instance, a news story on immigration can be framed as a national security threat or a humanitarian crisis, leading to vastly different public reactions and opinions.

4. Social media platforms have further amplified the power of media in shaping public opinion . With millions of users sharing and consuming information daily, these platforms have become a breeding ground for the spread of both accurate and misleading information. The viral nature of social media can quickly influence public perception , as seen in the case of the "fake news" phenomenon during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

5. It is essential for individuals to be critical consumers of media and to actively seek out diverse sources of information. By exposing themselves to different perspectives and fact-checking information, individuals can guard against falling victim to media bias or manipulation. Additionally, media literacy education plays a vital role in empowering individuals to navigate the complex media landscape and make informed decisions.

6. Case studies have highlighted the profound impact of media on public opinion . For example, the media coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement has brought attention to systemic racism and police brutality, leading to widespread public support for social justice reforms. Similarly, media coverage of climate change has played a crucial role in raising awareness and driving public demand for action on environmental issues .

7. Tips for media consumers include diversifying news sources, fact-checking information before sharing, and being aware of personal biases. By actively engaging with the media and critically analyzing the information presented, individuals can contribute to a more informed and balanced public discourse.

8. In conclusion, media wields immense power in shaping public opinion. Through agenda setting, framing, and the influence of social media , media outlets have the ability to shape how individuals perceive and understand the world around them. However, individuals also have a responsibility to be critical consumers of media, seeking out diverse perspectives and fact-checking information to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the issues at hand.

The Power of Media in Shaping Public Opinion - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. The Power of Media Bias

Media bias is a topic that has gained significant attention in recent years, as the influence of media on public perception becomes increasingly evident. The way in which information is presented and framed by media outlets has the power to shape public opinion, often without individuals even realizing it. This section will delve into the various ways in which media bias can influence public perception, providing examples, tips, and case studies to shed light on this important issue.

2. Selective Storytelling

One of the most common forms of media bias is selective storytelling, where certain stories or perspectives are given more prominence while others are downplayed or ignored altogether. This can lead to a skewed representation of reality and create a narrative that aligns with the agenda or biases of the media outlet. For example, during political campaigns, media outlets may focus on scandals or controversies surrounding one candidate while downplaying positive achievements or policy proposals. By selectively highlighting certain aspects, the media can sway public opinion in favor of a particular candidate or party.

3. Framing and Language

Another powerful tool used by the media to influence public perception is the framing of news stories and the use of language. The way in which a story is framed can significantly impact how it is perceived by the audience. For instance, a news article discussing an increase in crime rates can be framed as a result of ineffective government policies, leading the public to demand stricter law enforcement measures. On the other hand, the same story could be framed as a consequence of socioeconomic factors, prompting calls for better education and social programs. The language used in news reporting, such as the choice of adjectives or descriptive terms, can also subtly shape public perception. A study conducted by linguist George Lakoff found that the use of language can evoke certain emotions and biases, ultimately influencing how individuals interpret and respond to news stories.

4. Omission and Misrepresentation

Media bias is not only evident in what is reported but also in what is omitted or misrepresented. News outlets may choose to omit certain facts or perspectives that do not align with their agenda or narrative. This can lead to a distorted understanding of events or issues, as crucial information is withheld from the public. Similarly, misrepresentation of facts or data can manipulate public perception. A classic example is the controversy surrounding the Iraq War, where media outlets relied on faulty intelligence and misleading information to build public support for military intervention. The consequences of such bias can be far-reaching, with potential implications for public policy and international relations.

5. Tips for Identifying Media Bias

In a media landscape filled with bias, it is crucial for individuals to be aware and critical consumers of news. Here are a few tips to help identify media bias:

- Diversify your news sources: Consuming news from a variety of sources, including those with different political leanings, can provide a more balanced perspective.

- Fact-check and verify information: Cross-referencing information and verifying facts with multiple sources can help identify potential biases or inaccuracies.

- Be aware of loaded language: Pay attention to the language used in news reporting, as certain words or phrases can reveal underlying biases or agendas.

- Consider the omission of information: If a news story seems one-sided or lacks important details, it may be worth seeking out alternative sources to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

6. Case Study: The 2016 US Presidential Election

The 2016 US presidential election serves as a notable case study on media bias and its impact on public perception . Throughout the election cycle, various media outlets were accused of favoring one candidate over the other. For instance, a study conducted by Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center found that coverage of Donald Trump during the primary elections was predominantly negative across major news outlets, while coverage of Hillary Clinton was more balanced. This biased coverage had the potential to shape public opinion and influence voter decisions.

Media bias plays a significant role in shaping public perception . Through selective storytelling, framing, language use, omission, and misrepresentation, media outlets can sway public opinion in favor of certain narratives or agendas. It is crucial for individuals to be critical consumers of news, diversify their sources, fact-check information, and be aware of potential biases. By doing so, we can strive for a more informed and objective understanding of the world around us.

Uncovering the Influence on Public Perception - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. Sensationalism: The Role of Dramatic Headlines and News Stories

In today's fast-paced world , where news is constantly being shared and consumed, it is no surprise that sensationalism has become a common tactic used by media outlets to grab attention and increase viewership. Sensationalism refers to the use of exaggerated, shocking, or emotional language in headlines and news stories to evoke strong reactions from the audience. While it may be tempting to blame the media entirely for this phenomenon, it is important to understand the underlying factors that contribute to the prevalence of sensationalism and its impact on public perception .

2. The Power of Dramatic Headlines

Dramatic headlines are designed to pique the curiosity of readers and entice them to click on an article or tune into a news segment. They often employ sensational language and hyperbole to create a sense of urgency or fear. For example, a headline like "Breaking News: Deadly Virus Outbreak Sweeping the Nation!" is more likely to grab attention than a more neutral headline like "New Virus Strain Discovered." The use of dramatic headlines can lead to increased engagement and shares on social media platforms, boosting the reach and influence of a particular story.

3. The Impact on Public Perception

The use of sensationalism in news stories has the potential to shape public perception by influencing the way people understand and interpret events. When news outlets prioritize sensational stories over more nuanced reporting, it can lead to a distorted understanding of complex issues. For instance, a news story that focuses solely on the violent aspects of a protest may overshadow the underlying causes and peaceful demonstrations, leading to a negative perception of the entire movement. This can perpetuate stereotypes, fuel polarization, and hinder meaningful dialogue on important topics.

4. Tips for Identifying Sensationalism

As consumers of news, it is crucial to be aware of the tactics used by media outlets to sensationalize stories. Here are a few tips to help identify sensationalism:

- Look beyond the headline: Read the full article to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Headlines are often crafted to grab attention but may not accurately represent the content of the article.

- Seek multiple perspectives: Engage with diverse sources of news to get a balanced view of an issue. Avoid relying solely on one outlet, as each may have its own biases and agenda.

- Fact-check: Verify the information presented in news stories by cross-referencing with reputable sources. Misinformation and exaggeration are common in sensationalized news.

5. Case Studies: Sensationalism in Action

Numerous case studies highlight the impact of sensationalism on public perception. One notable example is the coverage of mass shootings. Media outlets often focus on the perpetrator, providing extensive coverage of their personal history and motives. This can inadvertently glorify the shooter and inspire copycats, while overshadowing the victims and the broader issue of gun control. The sensationalized coverage may contribute to a sense of fear and insecurity among the public, amplifying the perception that such incidents are more prevalent than they actually are.

Sensationalism plays a significant role in shaping public perception by utilizing dramatic headlines and news stories. While it may attract attention and increase viewership, it can also distort reality and hinder meaningful dialogue on important issues. As responsible consumers of news, it is crucial to be discerning and critical, seeking out reliable sources and multiple perspectives to gain a more accurate understanding of the world around us.

The Role of Dramatic Headlines and News Stories - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. The Influence of Social Media: How Online Platforms Shape Public Opinion

In today's digital age, social media has become an integral part of our lives, shaping the way we communicate, gather information, and form opinions. Online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have revolutionized the way we consume news and engage in discussions, leading to a significant impact on public opinion. In this section, we will explore the various ways in which social media influences and shapes public perception .

2. Amplification of Voices

One of the most significant influences of social media on public opinion is its ability to amplify voices that may have previously been marginalized or unheard. With just a few clicks, individuals can share their thoughts, experiences, and perspectives with a global audience. This democratization of information allows for a diverse range of opinions to be expressed, challenging traditional power structures and providing a platform for underrepresented communities.

3. Viral Spread of Information

Social media platforms have the power to make information go viral within seconds. Whether it's a breaking news story, a video clip, or a catchy meme, content can quickly spread across networks, reaching millions of users in a short amount of time. This rapid dissemination of information can shape public opinion by influencing what topics are discussed, what narratives are emphasized, and what issues gain prominence.

4. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles

While social media offers a platform for diverse voices, it also has the potential to create echo chambers and filter bubbles. Algorithms used by platforms prioritize content based on users' past behaviors and preferences, resulting in a personalized feed that reinforces existing beliefs and perspectives. This can lead to a narrowing of viewpoints and a limited exposure to alternative or conflicting opinions, ultimately shaping public opinion within specific ideological boundaries.

5. Influencer Culture

The rise of social media influencers has further contributed to the shaping of public opinion. These individuals, with their large followings and persuasive abilities, have the power to sway public opinion on various topics. From endorsing products to promoting social causes, influencers can influence their followers' perceptions and behaviors, often blurring the line between genuine advocacy and paid endorsements.

6. Case Study: Arab Spring

The Arab Spring serves as a powerful example of how social media can shape public opinion and drive political change. During the uprisings in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, social media platforms played a crucial role in mobilizing and organizing protests. Activists used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to share information, rally support, and challenge existing power structures. The widespread use of social media allowed for a rapid dissemination of news and updates, galvanizing public opinion and ultimately leading to significant political transformations.

7. Tips for navigating Social media Influence

In a world where social media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion, it is essential to approach online platforms with a critical mindset. Here are a few tips for navigating social media influence :

- Diversify your sources: Seek out information from a wide range of perspectives to avoid falling into echo chambers or filter bubbles.

- Fact-check before sharing: Verify the accuracy of information before sharing it with others to prevent the spread of misinformation.

- Engage in civil discourse: Foster healthy discussions and debates with others, even if they hold different opinions. This can help broaden your understanding and challenge your own beliefs.

- Be mindful of influencers: Recognize the influence of social media influencers and critically evaluate their messages before accepting them as truth.

As social media continues to evolve and shape public opinion, it is crucial for individuals to be aware of its influence and actively engage in responsible consumption and participation. By understanding the power dynamics at play and critically evaluating the information presented, we can navigate the online landscape more effectively and form well-informed opinions.

How Online Platforms Shape Public Opinion - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. The power of the media in shaping public opinion cannot be underestimated. One crucial aspect of this influence is the way media frames issues, which can significantly impact how the public perceives and understands them. Framing refers to the way in which media outlets select, emphasize, and present certain aspects of an issue, while downplaying or ignoring others. By doing so, the media not only influences what issues receive attention but also shapes the public's understanding and interpretation of those issues.

2. One common framing technique is known as "priming." Priming involves highlighting certain aspects of an issue to influence how the public evaluates it. For example, in the aftermath of a tragic event, media outlets may focus on the perpetrator's background, mental health, or personal struggles, which can lead the public to view the incident through the lens of an individual's personal issues rather than addressing broader societal factors. This framing can impact public opinion on policies related to mental health, gun control, or crime prevention.

3. Another framing technique is "agenda setting," which involves determining which issues are considered important and worthy of public attention. By giving extensive coverage to certain topics while neglecting others, the media can shape public perception of what issues are most pressing. For instance, during election seasons, media outlets often prioritize coverage of political scandals or controversial statements, which can overshadow discussions on substantive policy issues. As a result, public discourse becomes focused on sensationalism rather than in-depth analysis.

4. The media's framing of an issue can also influence the public's cognitive accessibility and interpretation of information. This is particularly evident in the case of "episodic framing" versus "thematic framing." Episodic framing presents issues through individual stories or anecdotes, highlighting specific events or personal experiences. Thematic framing, on the other hand, focuses on broader societal trends, systemic problems, or policy implications. By emphasizing episodic frames, the media can evoke emotional responses from the public, which may overshadow the need for systematic change.

5. Case studies have further demonstrated the powerful impact of framing on public perception. One notable example is the media's framing of immigration. Studies have shown that when media outlets use language that portrays immigrants as a threat or focuses on crime committed by immigrants, it can lead to increased public support for restrictive immigration policies. Conversely, when the media frames immigration as a humanitarian issue and highlights the contributions of immigrants to society, public opinion tends to shift towards more inclusive and compassionate policies.

6. As consumers of media, it is crucial to be aware of framing techniques and critically evaluate the information presented to us. Here are a few tips to navigate media framing effectively:

- Diversify your media sources: Expose yourself to a variety of media outlets with different perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of an issue.

- Look for multiple frames: Compare how different outlets frame the same issue to identify biases and consider alternative viewpoints.

- Analyze language and visuals: Pay attention to the language used and visual representations presented in media coverage, as they can shape your perception and emotional response to an issue.

- Seek out in-depth analysis: Look for sources that provide nuanced and contextual information rather than relying solely on headline news or soundbites.

By being mindful of media framing and actively seeking diverse perspectives, we can better understand how issues are presented to us and form more informed opinions.

How Media Frames Issues and Shapes Public Perception - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. Advertising has long played a significant role in shaping public opinion. Through various marketing techniques, companies and organizations have the power to influence how we perceive products, services, and even social issues. In this section, we will explore the different ways in which advertising can sway public opinion and examine some notable examples, tips, and case studies.

2. Emotional appeal is one of the most powerful tools in advertising. By tapping into our emotions, advertisers can create a strong connection between their brand and the consumer. Take, for example, the iconic Coca-Cola Christmas advertisements. Year after year, these heartwarming commercials evoke feelings of joy, togetherness, and nostalgia, ultimately influencing our perception of the brand and associating it with positive emotions.

3. Another technique commonly used in advertising is the use of celebrity endorsements. When a well-known figure promotes a product or service, it can greatly impact public opinion. One case study that exemplifies this is Nike's partnership with basketball superstar Michael Jordan. Through their collaboration, Nike not only boosted their brand image but also influenced public perception of Jordan as an athlete and a cultural icon.

4. Advertising also plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion on social issues. Brands often align themselves with certain causes or movements to appeal to consumers who are passionate about those issues. For instance, Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign aimed to challenge conventional beauty standards by featuring women of diverse body types and ethnicities. By championing this message, Dove successfully influenced public opinion on body image and self-acceptance.

5. In the digital age, targeted advertising has become increasingly prevalent. Online platforms collect vast amounts of data about users' preferences, behaviors, and demographics, allowing advertisers to deliver tailored messages. This personalized approach can have a profound impact on public opinion, as individuals are more likely to engage with content that aligns with their interests and beliefs.

6. It's important to note that while advertising can shape public opinion, it is not without its ethical considerations. Misleading or deceptive advertising can lead to a negative backlash and damage a brand's reputation. Consumers are becoming more discerning and expect transparency from companies. Therefore, it is crucial for advertisers to be honest, authentic, and responsible in their messaging.

7. As consumers, it is essential to be aware of the influence that advertising has on public opinion. By critically analyzing the messages presented to us, we can make more informed decisions and resist being swayed by marketing techniques. Being media literate and understanding the tactics used in advertising can empower us to navigate the ever-expanding landscape of persuasive messaging.

Advertising plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion. Through emotional appeal, celebrity endorsements, alignment with social issues, targeted advertising, and more, marketers have the power to influence our perceptions and beliefs. However, as consumers, it is essential to be mindful of these techniques and critically evaluate the messages presented to us. By doing so, we can ensure that our opinions are informed and not solely influenced by advertising tactics.

How Marketing Techniques Influence Public Opinion - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception, as it holds significant power in controlling the flow of information. This control, often referred to as gatekeeping, allows media outlets to influence what stories are covered, how they are presented, and ultimately what information reaches the general public. While media gatekeeping can have its benefits, such as ensuring accuracy and relevance, it also raises concerns about potential bias and manipulation. In this section, we will explore the concept of gatekeeping and its impact on the information we consume.

2. One of the ways in which media gatekeeping manifests is through story selection. Media outlets have limited time and resources , leading them to choose which stories to cover and which ones to ignore. This decision-making process can be influenced by various factors, including the outlet's agenda, public interest, and commercial considerations. For example, during an election season, media outlets may prioritize political news over other stories, potentially leaving important social issues overlooked.

3. Another aspect of gatekeeping is framing, which refers to how a story is presented to the audience. The media has the power to shape narratives by highlighting certain aspects of a story while downplaying or omitting others. This can significantly influence public perception and opinion on a given topic. For instance, consider how the media's framing of protests can impact public support or opposition. By focusing on instances of violence or looting, the media can create a negative narrative surrounding the entire movement, overshadowing the underlying issues being protested.

4. The advent of social media has brought about new gatekeepers in the form of algorithms and content moderation policies. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have algorithms that determine which posts are shown to users, based on factors such as engagement and relevance. While this can help tailor content to individual preferences, it also means that users may be exposed to a limited range of viewpoints and information. Additionally, content moderation policies can lead to the suppression of certain voices or perspectives, potentially stifling free speech and diversity of thought.

5. Case studies provide valuable insights into the impact of media gatekeeping. One notable example is the coverage of the Iraq War in 2003. Many media outlets uncritically amplified the U.S. Government's claims about weapons of mass destruction, which later turned out to be false. This case highlights the potential dangers of media gatekeeping when it comes to issues of national security and war, as the public's understanding and support can be manipulated based on the information they receive.

6. As consumers of media, it is essential to be aware of the potential biases and limitations imposed by gatekeeping. Here are a few tips to navigate the media landscape more effectively:

- Diversify your sources: Seek out news from multiple outlets with different perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of an issue.

- Fact-check and verify: cross-reference information from different sources to ensure accuracy and reduce the risk of misinformation.

- Be critical: Question the framing and narratives presented by the media. Consider the potential motivations and biases behind the chosen coverage.

- Engage in media literacy: Educate yourself and others about media literacy, including understanding how media gatekeeping works and its potential implications.

Media gatekeeping plays a significant role in shaping public perception by controlling the flow of information. While it can ensure accuracy and relevance, it also raises concerns about bias and manipulation. Understanding the concept of gatekeeping and being critical consumers of media can help us navigate the complex landscape of information and form well-informed opinions.

The Medias Control over Information Flow - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. The Impact of Media Ownership on Public Perception

It is no secret that media plays a significant role in shaping public perception. However, what many people may not realize is the extent to which corporate influence can sway the narratives presented to the public. Media ownership, or rather the consolidation of media outlets under a few powerful corporations, has a profound impact on the information we consume and the opinions we form. In this section, we will explore the implications of media ownership on public perception and delve into some examples and case studies to illustrate the extent of corporate influence.

2. Control over News Coverage

One of the most notable effects of media ownership is the control it gives corporations over news coverage. When a handful of corporations own the majority of media outlets, they have the power to dictate what stories are covered, how they are framed, and which perspectives are included or excluded. This can result in biased reporting that aligns with the interests of the owners, rather than providing a balanced and objective view of events.

For example, in 2016, Sinclair Broadcast Group, a media conglomerate with a conservative bias, required its local news stations to air a segment that echoed President Trump's views on "fake news." This forced narrative undoubtedly influenced the public perception of the credibility of news outlets, as well as the public's trust in the media as a whole.

3. Agenda Setting and Framing

Media ownership also allows corporations to set the agenda and frame the discussions surrounding important issues. By controlling the platforms through which information is disseminated, they can prioritize certain topics, downplay others, and shape public discourse accordingly. This control over the narrative can have a profound impact on public perception and the formation of opinions.

Take, for instance, the case of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire. Murdoch's ownership of influential outlets like Fox News and The Sun has allowed him to shape public opinion on a range of issues, from climate

The Impact of Corporate Influence on Public Perception - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

1. Understanding Media Literacy: A Key to Navigating Media Messages

In today's digital age, where information is readily available at our fingertips, media literacy has become an essential skill for individuals to navigate and analyze the flood of media messages we encounter daily. Media literacy empowers the public to critically evaluate and interpret media content, enabling them to make informed decisions and form well-rounded opinions. By developing media literacy skills, individuals can better understand the intentions and biases behind media messages, ultimately shaping their own perceptions and viewpoints.

2. Recognizing Biases and Agenda Setting

One of the fundamental aspects of media literacy is the ability to recognize biases in media messages. Media outlets, whether consciously or not, often have their own agendas, which can influence the way information is presented. By analyzing the sources of information and considering alternative viewpoints, individuals can be more aware of potential biases and make more informed decisions.

For example, during political campaigns, media coverage can heavily influence public perception of candidates. By understanding the biases of different news outlets and seeking out a variety of sources, individuals can gain a more well-rounded perspective and avoid being swayed solely by one-sided narratives.

3. Fact-Checking and Verifying Information

In an era of fake news and misinformation, media literacy also involves the ability to fact-check and verify information. With the ease of sharing information online, it is important to critically evaluate sources to ensure accuracy and reliability . Fact-checking websites such as Snopes and Politifact can be valuable tools in determining the credibility of claims made in media messages.

Case Study: The Spread of Misinformation

A notable example of the impact of misinformation is the anti-vaccination movement. False claims linking vaccines to autism gained traction through social media platforms, leading to a decrease in vaccination rates and subsequent outbreaks of preventable diseases. By critically evaluating the sources of information and fact-checking claims, individuals can avoid falling victim to such misinformation and make informed decisions about their health.

4. Analyzing Media Techniques and Manipulation

Media literacy also involves understanding the techniques used by media outlets to manipulate public perception. Techniques such as framing, selective reporting, and emotional appeal can shape the way information is presented and influence public opinion . By being aware of these techniques, individuals can critically assess media messages and separate facts from manipulation.

Tip: Look Beyond Headlines

Headlines often serve as clickbait, designed to grab attention and generate website traffic. However, they may not always accurately represent the content of the article. Before forming an opinion based solely on a headline, it is crucial to read the full article and consider different perspectives.

Media literacy plays a vital role in empowering the public to navigate and analyze media messages. By recognizing biases, fact-checking information, and analyzing media techniques, individuals can develop a critical mindset and make well-informed decisions. In an era where media influences public perception, media literacy is an essential skill to ensure that individuals are not simply passive consumers, but active participants in shaping their own opinions.

Empowering the Public to Navigate and Analyze Media Messages - Opinion Shaping: How Media Influences Public Perception

Read Other Blogs

Business risk sensitivity is the degree to which a business is affected by changes in various risk...

Counterparty risk is a crucial aspect of Over-the-Counter (OTC) options trading that requires...

Cost value is a concept that measures how much value a product or service provides to its customers...

Advocacy marketing is a strategy that leverages the power of your existing customers to promote...

Sales enablement is the process of providing the sales team with the resources, tools, training,...

In today's digital landscape, mobile devices have become an integral part of our daily lives. From...

In the realm of brand development and marketing, embracing the full spectrum of human cognitive...

When it comes to investing for retirement, one of the most popular options is a 401(k) plan. A...

Medical travel, also known as medical tourism or health tourism, is the phenomenon of people...

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

8 How the News Media Persuades: Framing Effects and Beyond

Thomas J. Leeper, London School of Economics and Political Science

Rune Slothuus, Professor, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University

• Published: 06 November 2019
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Framing research has greatly advanced our understanding of how mass communication shapes public opinion and political behavior. However, the dominance of the framing concept has limited integration across different theoretical approaches and concepts like priming, belief change, and persuasion, leading to theoretical confusion and empirical sloppiness. This chapter proposes a way to integrate various approaches to media effects and obtain more coherent, cumulative knowledge on how mass communication shapes political opinion. First, it distinguishes framing from other concepts, most notably persuasion, using the expectancy-value model as a common framework. Second, it discusses the implications of this more rigorous conceptualization for research design and offers an example of an experiment disentangling emphasis framing and persuasive information. Third, it highlights promising avenues for mass communication research emphasizing competition, dynamics over time, and struggle between political parties as key features of democratic politics.

A quarter century ago, Mutz, Sniderman, and Brody ( 1996 , 1) called for the creation of “political persuasion” as a distinctive field of study, arguing that, “even today, despite all the notable studies that have been accomplished, it is difficult to point to a body of cumulative studies establishing who can be talked out of what political positions and how.” Much was at stake, they asserted, because a fundamental premise of democratic politics is the ubiquitous attempts by political entrepreneurs and citizens alike to influence the preferences and behaviors of others through communication: “Politics, at its core, is about persuasion.”

Even though it is debatable how distinct the study of political persuasion is from work on attitude change in general (Fabrigar and Petty 1999 ), democratic politics has several important features that scholars need to take into account to adequately understand how and under what conditions mass communication will influence political opinion and behavior. Most notably, political communication usually takes place in competitive environments where multiple actors try to push their message (Chong and Druckman 2007b ; Sniderman and Theriault 2004 ). Politics, moreover, is inherently dynamic, with competing communications being delivered over time, and the timing of messages and their effects can be pivotal (e.g., around elections and major policy decisions) (de Vreese and Semetko 2004 ; Druckman and Leeper 2012 ). Likewise, competition in the realm of politics primarily takes place as a partisan struggle between political parties (e.g., in elections and as key sources in the news) with citizen audiences sensitive to the partisan sources of messages (Slothuus and de Vreese 2010 ).

How far have we come toward establishing a field of political persuasion research? In one sense, not very far. Still today it is difficult to see an integrated, cumulative body of research on “who can be talked out of what political positions and how.” In another sense, however, research on mass communication effects on political opinion and behavior has made remarkable progress over the past decades, just under a different name: framing research. Over the past decades, there has been a dramatic growth in published studies on framing (Scheufele and Iyengar 2017 ), and this research has brought us a long way in understanding how citizens’ political opinions and behaviors are affected by the way communicators choose to frame—that is, selectively present and interpret—political issues and events. Furthermore, this work has illuminated how framing effects are conditioned by factors like the type of frame, the source promoting the frame, audience characteristics, context and timing of delivering the frame (e.g., one-sided framing versus competing frames), and more (for comprehensive reviews, see Busby, Flynn, and Druckman 2018 ; Chong and Druckman 2007a ; de Vreese and Lecheler 2012 ; Lecheler and de Vreese 2018 ; Nelson, Bryner, and Carnahan 2011 ).

The success of framing research is impressive and has helped us advance a much deeper understanding of how political communication through the news media shapes public opinion and political behavior. However, a downside of the dominance of the framing concept in literature on mass communication and political opinion is a limited integration across different theoretical approaches and related communication concepts. Worse, the same labels—especially “framing”—have been subject to considerable conceptual slippage (Caciattore, Scheufele, and Iyengar 2016 ), leading to theoretical confusion and empirical sloppiness. Yet, as we will argue in this chapter, this confusion is unnecessary as a reasonably coherent theory of mass communication effects that entails simply the transmission of information and the emphasis upon distinct considerations can encompass nearly all of the processes that have been called framing, priming, belief change, and persuasion. Furthermore, we suggest that taking conceptual distinctions seriously—and developing empirical designs accordingly—will deepen our understanding of precisely how and why news media work to influence opinion. In fact, following one such more rigorous approach, we find that much of the apparent extant experimental evidence for framing is evidence for information-driven persuasion rather than emphasis framing.

Our aim with this chapter is to propose some steps toward better integration between various approaches to media effects and more cumulative development of knowledge on how mass communication shapes political opinion. We proceed in three steps. First, we review the usage of the framing concept and explain how it can be distinguished from other concepts, most notably persuasion. This leads us to elaborate the expectancy-value model as a common framework for how to integrate various types of communication effects. In this model, opinions reflect a mix of durable balances of affective and/or cognitive considerations that can be temporarily or permanently adjusted by exposure to new information. Second, we discuss the implications of this more rigorous conceptualization for research design and offer an example of how an experiment disentangling emphasis framing and persuasive information can be designed accordingly. Third, we highlight some promising avenues for further research on questions vitally important for understanding the political aspects of mass communication effects. In the end, our goal is to inspire further development toward a coherent, cumulative literature on political persuasion broadly conceived.

The Concept of Framing and a General Framework

Framing is commonly thought of as one among many types of media effects, with persuasion, priming, and agenda-setting and sometimes cueing pointed to as alternative ways that media might influence the public (Iyengar and Kinder 1987 ; Kinder 2003 ). 1 These varied forms of media influence differ in their emphasis on informational richness, depth or durability of influence, and the outcomes thought to be affected by media inputs. That there are so many alternative views of how, when, and in what ways the news media can influence opinion and behavior reflects a long-running and now familiar distinction between the traditions of “maximal” and “minimal” effects. Some scholars have believed that media can have pervasive, deep, and indeed “hypodermic” influence on the content of citizens’ thinking and their opinions toward objects in the social and political world. Others are more skeptical, taking a view that media are shallowly, temporarily, and/or only partially influential on these kinds of outcomes. The maximalist and minimalist schools of thought have waxed and waned over the past century of theorizing and the debate continues to this day (Bennett and Iyengar 2008 ; Holbert, Garrett, and Gleason 2010 ). Yet there remains little controversy over the core belief that media can—at least sometimes, in some ways—influence public views, opinions, and behaviors.

Emphasis Framing Defined

At the core of debates about media effects lies one of the most important, but most confused, concepts in the social sciences: framing. This concept is used in different ways across disciplines (for reviews, see de Vreese and Lecheler 2012 ; Druckman 2001 ; Kinder 2003 ), and recent scholars have gone so far as to argue that the concept should be abandoned as its meaning is lost in a confusion of alternative definition (Caciattore, Scheufele, and Iyengar 2016 ). Scheufele and Iyengar ( 2017 , 620) describe the framing literature as in a “state of conceptual confusion” where “any attribute of information is treated as a frame and any response from the audience is deemed a framing effect. From this perspective, framing cannot be distinguished from other forms of media or social influence such as agenda setting, learning or persuasion” (also see Chong and Druckman 2007a , 115–116; de Vreese and Lecheler 2012 , 299). While we agree with this diagnosis, we disagree with Scheufele and Iyengar’s prescription to focus on only one variant of framing: equivalence framing.

Equivalence framing presents an issue in different ways by using “different, but logically equivalent, words or phrases” (Druckman 2001 , 228). An example of this is how Kahneman and Tversky ( 1984 ) frame the effectiveness of a program to combat “an unusual Asian disease” in terms of 200 out of 600 people who “will be saved,” or in terms of 400 out of 600 people who “will die.” While we appreciate the precision in this type of frame, equivalence framing is clearly not the most widespread in the news media. Most work on framing effects in politics has instead focused on “emphasis framing” (Druckman 2001 ); hence, we concentrate on this type of framing.

Despite the muddle, (emphasis) framing remains a highly useful concept. Rather than be abandoned, we believe that its original meaning should clarified and its theoretical implications put to greater use. To make this concrete, we think there is a remarkable degree of clarity and consistency among early research on emphasis framing regarding the definition of both “framing” and a “framing effect.” In studies of how frames influence public opinion, a frame is “an emphasis in salience of some aspects of a topic” (de Vreese 2003 , 27), it “suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (Gamson and Modigliani 1987 , 143), and it stresses “specific elements or features of the broader controversy, reducing a usually complex issue to one or two central aspects” (Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997 , 568). A frame is simply an organizing idea, dimension, or principle that colors interpretations of an issue. 2

However, this familiar usage is not the most precise definition. Indeed, an emphasis frame is better defined more narrowly as a message that provides an interpretation of an issue or policy by emphasizing which aspect of the issue is relevant for evaluating it, without the frame itself providing any new substantive information about the issue (Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson 1997 ; Price and Tewksbury 1997 ). As Kinder ( 2003 , 359) summarizes, “It might be said that in pure form, frames supply no new information. Rather, by offering a particular perspective, frames organize —or better, reorganize —information that citizens already have in mind. Frames suggest how politics should be thought about, encouraging citizens to understand events and issues in particular ways.” 3

It is here that we make an important distinction, often muddled in discussions of framing and communication effects generally, between emphasis and information : frames provide a lens through which to characterize and understand an issue. Frames may therefore be relatively devoid of information, merely guiding audiences to think about that which they already know (i.e., frames may be mere emphasis), or they may be information-rich in a way that focuses only on a subset of considerations relevant to an issue (i.e., frames may entail information and emphasis). Even without providing new information—but merely emphasizing existing considerations—frames can matter because citizens often possess a mix of considerations that could be used to form an opinion on a given issue. These considerations might point in different directions, each pushing the individual to support or oppose the issue (Chong 1993 ; Feldman and Zaller 1992 ), thus “leaving citizens often confused and conflicted about where to stand . . . Frames help to resolve this confusion by declaring which of the many considerations is relevant and important, and which should be given less attention” (Nelson and Kinder 1996 , 1058). Accordingly, a framing effect on opinion “occurs when in the course of describing an issue or event, a speaker’s emphasis on a subset of potentially relevant considerations causes individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions” (Druckman and Nelson 2003 , 730; emphasis added).

This practical distinction between mere emphasis and information has been used to argue that framing should be understood as emphasis only, in contrast to other processes of media effects such as persuasion effects that work through the transmission of new information. Using the distinction between emphasis and information, it is clear that framing stands in sharp contrast to the traditional direct influence theory of persuasion. Indeed, persuasion means changing people’s opinions by “the supply of arguments and evidence through which people are induced to change their minds about some aspect of politics” (Kinder 2003 , 367; see also Chong and Druckman 2007a , 115; Zaller 1992 , 118).

The Expectancy-Value Model as a Framework for Mass Communication Effects

To appreciate the distinction between emphasis framing and information-based persuasion, we suggest using the expectancy-value model of attitude formation (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980 ) as a general framework for understanding mass communication effects. This psychological theory was first introduced to the framing literature by Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson ( 1997 , 225–228) and further elaborated by Chong and Druckman ( 2007a , 105–106; also see Jerit 2009 , 412; Slothuus 2008 ). Despite drawing on the expectancy-value model, framing scholars have maintained a focus on the emphasis component while doing less to illuminate the component regarding the content of information. In the expectancy-value model, an opinion toward an object (e.g., a policy) reflects the weighted sum of a set of evaluative beliefs about that object:

where consideration i is the evaluative belief on dimension i and weight i is the subjective weight or importance the individual attaches to that consideration. The first component of opinion is considerations, that is, “any reason that might induce an individual to decide a political issue one way or the other” (Zaller 1992 , 41). The second component of opinion is emphasis : the weight of importance or salience attached to particular considerations. Using this model, an opinion toward, for example, a healthcare policy might be the result of a positive consideration that the policy will improve patients’ health (i.e., a reason to support the policy) and a negative consideration that it will increase costs (i.e., a reason to oppose the policy). Depending on the relative weight or importance an individual attaches to each of these considerations, opinion on the policy might be positive, negative, or neutral. And while these examples of considerations are cognitive in nature, such considerations might also be purely affective or running tally evaluative summaries of previously encountered information (Lodge, McGraw, and Stroh 1989 ).

This psychological model highlights that there are necessarily two processes by which opinions might change: change in the content of opinion-relevant considerations (i.e., information) and change in the weights attached to considerations already in memory (i.e., emphasis). Indeed, persuasion theory explains opinion change to occur when, “ in light of new information , people come to think that the president is smarter than he first seemed, or that school segregation is ineffective and should be abandoned” (Kinder 2003 , 367; emphasis added). In the previous example, persuasive information might alter the content of considerations to make an individual think that the specific policy will do little to improve the health of patients and, in turn, decrease policy support.

We suspect research on media effects using related concepts or different theoretical approaches will benefit from using the expectancy-value model as an integrative framework. First, using the expectancy-value model to distinguish between emphasis framing and persuasion effects highlights why it might be problematic that the majority of studies of mass communication effects in politics have focused on framing, or at least have been presented as framing studies. Even though changing opinions by altering the content of citizens’ considerations might be as important as changing opinions by altering the emphasis on each consideration, the dominance of framing means that we know much more about one half of the model—the emphasis framing component—than about the other half involving persuasive information to change content of considerations. To the extent that “framing studies” are indeed only about the emphasis component of this model, comparatively fewer studies have explicitly studied the role of arguments (Cobb and Kuklinski 1997 ), although some recent work studies the influence of policy information (Boudreau and MacKenzie 2014 ; Bullock 2011 ). Consequently, we still need to know much more about how arguments can be used to change citizens’ opinion and behavior and what the comparable effects of attempts to frame and persuade are.

Second, bearing the logic of the expectancy-value model in mind can help scholars be more consistent not only in conceptualization but also in the empirical testing of media effects. Rather than merely emphasizing a dimension in order to activate existing considerations, many experimental framing studies as part of their “framing stimulus” provide new information that could modify the content of considerations. An example from our own work is the study by Druckman and Leeper ( 2012 ) on opinion toward the Patriot Act. In their experiment, the policy was framed as either about “weakening the protection of citizens’ civil liberties” or a way “to identify terrorist plots on American soil and to prevent attacks before they occur.” In addition to emphasizing these alternative dimensions of the issue, however, the experimental manipulations presented study participants with different information about policy content—either, in the former framing condition, that under the Patriot Act, “the government has access to citizens’ confidential information from telephone and e-mail communications” or, in the latter framing condition, that “the government has more resources for counterterrorism, surveillance, border protection, and other security policies.” This combination of framing and information creates an experimental confound that muddles the means through which opinions in the study changed.

This operational confounding of framing and information in many political communication experiments is further confused by the sometimes casual use of “frames” and “arguments” as interchange synonyms (e.g., Chong and Druckman 2007b , 641; Druckman, Peterson, and Slothuus 2013 , 57). Such design features make extant emphasis framing studies vulnerable to the alternative interpretation that their results showcase effects on opinion that are, at least partly, caused by variation in the content of information, not emphasis alone. That is to say, they might manipulate the persuasive information along with the framing, blurring the two causes of opinion formation. As a way forward, we hope revitalizing the expectancy-value model can help to call attention to the persuasive information component of mass communication as well as lead to more careful experimental and observational research designs.

Improving Fit between Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Design

As we have explained, emphasis framing effects are theorized to occur through changes in the weights individuals put on their existing considerations about an issue. Yet there has been a remarkable lack of clean empirical testing of framing effects on opinion formation. The empirical testing of framing has rarely, if ever, followed the strict definition of framing as purely about changing the emphasis or importance of a belief, not the content of beliefs. Instead, existing framing studies—whether experimental or observational—have assessed the impact of framing by varying both information (e.g., factual policy information and persuasive arguments) and emphasis. Hence, it is difficult to know if what we have taken from extant literature to be framing effects are really caused by the framing alone and not by the provision of information and arguments embedded in stimuli meant to induce emphasis on a subset of those considerations.

Our solution has been experimental designs that cleanly separate the communication of new information from the communication of emphasis on a subset of issue-relevant considerations. One possible strategy for doing so would be to measure individuals’ pre-existing beliefs about an issue and then later randomly assign participants to experiences that emphasize distinct subsets of those considerations. That strategy, however, suffers from numerous limitations. For one, considerations may be affective or contain a mix of affective and cognitive elements, leading people to express few beliefs about a given dimension even though it may factor in their subsequent opinions. Another is that information about issues is not likely to be evenly or arbitrarily distributed in the public—individuals who have particular beliefs about an issue are likely to be different from individuals who hold other beliefs about the same issue, due to previous media experiences or deliberation.

To overcome these limitations, we have developed a two-stage experimental design that manipulates beliefs through the provision of information and separately manipulates emphasis on different issue dimensions through a later stimulus that provisions no new information (Leeper and Slothuus n.d. ). In one of our experiments, we provide information about an issue by randomly exposing individuals to different combinations of information about the cost and impact of an electronic medical records policy. Specifically, we tell respondents:

The first study you will participate in is about the quality of journalism. We are interested in how well journalists write about the news. You will read a few short excerpts from a news article and then we will ask you some questions to see how well you understood what was written.

We are asking different people to read articles on different topics. You are being asked to read excerpts from an article about electronic medical records.

We then expose them to one of five informational conditions that describe the policy as (1) Low Cost/Low Impact, (2) High Cost/Low Impact, (3) Low Cost/High Impact, or (4) High Cost/High Impact; we also include a control condition that receives no information about the policy. Thus respondents in conditions 1–4 all have been exposed to the same set of issue dimensions but the belief content along each of those dimensions is randomly varied. 4

We then later, independently, assign respondents to either a “cost emphasis” or “impact emphasis” condition, creating a 5x2 full factorial design. In the cost emphasis condition we lead respondents to think about the issue in terms of costs without providing any information about those costs :

Some support the proposal. Others are opposed because they say that we should judge the proposal based on whether it is costly. Indeed, much of the debate over the proposal now revolves around the question of costs.

Based on whether you think the proposal will mean higher or lower costs, to what extent do you favor or oppose this proposal?

The manipulation emphasizing patient impact is similar:

Some support the proposal. Others are opposed because they say that we should judge the proposal based on whether it will affect the health of average Americans. Indeed, much of the debate over the proposal now revolves around the question of the proposal’s impact on patients’ health.

Based on whether you think the proposal will have a large or small impact on patients’ health, to what extent do you favor or oppose this proposal?

In each case, the emphasis manipulation simply and cleaning asks respondents to emphasize and give weight to the cost (or impact) considerations related to the policy, without providing them information about that dimension. We thus obtain a clean estimate of the emphasis framing effect, stratified by all possible combinations of beliefs individuals might hold about the policy. Figure 8.1 displays treatment group means and standard errors for all conditions.

Mean opinion by information and emphasis condition.

Note: Points are mean levels of policy support, by information and framing conditions. Gray points represent cost frame conditions and black points represent impact frame conditions. Bars represent one and two standard errors of the treatment group mean.

The results are strikingly clear, along the vertical axis are the five informational conditions, with the gray dot corresponding to respondents assigned to the cost emphasis condition and the black dot corresponding to the respondents assigned to the impact emphasis condition. While the treatment group means vary considerably across the various information conditions—with those in the high cost/low impact condition being particularly unfavorable to the policy, and those in the low cost/high impact condition being particularly favorable—the variation within each informational condition across the cost versus impact emphasis is small. Indeed, in the control condition and the two high cost information conditions, there is no difference whatsoever in opinions between those framed to emphasize cost and those framed to emphasize impact. Only in the low cost conditions is there an apparent framing effect, but the differences in each case are 0.05–0.06 on a 0–1 scale, the equivalent of one-third of a response scale category.

This experiment—and several others like it reported in Leeper and Slothuus ( n.d. )—demonstrate both the inferential limitations of traditional framing experiments and the value of cleanly conceptualizing and operationalizing the expectancy-value model of opinion formation. Whereas past work is typically unable to disentangle any impact of emphasis alone from any impact of information alone on opinion formation, our experimental design separately manipulates each, while holding emphasis constant in the informational manipulation and providing no new information in a separate emphasis manipulation. This approach shows that “framing” as typically discussed and studied in the experimental literature likely works through the transmission of new information rather than through emphasis alone (Leeper and Slothuus n.d ). Indeed, given that almost any political message is likely to contain both emphasis framing and the transmission of new information, the traditional view of framing as emphasis only is less useful than it might seem. Taking account of both components of the expectancy-value model of framing effects is likely to be a much more fruitful empirical foundation for future research than treating framing as a stylized, emphasis-only process.

What is Next for Research on Framing and Beyond?

The concept of framing has powered a significant theoretical and empirical advancement in the study of both media effects and opinion formation. The next generation of framing research has many questions left to answer and we discuss some of these possible directions next. We have already suggested one clear step forward: better conceptualization and experimental design that cleanly disentangles the information and emphasis components of framing’s underlying expectancy-value theory. This will require much more careful experimental work, more serious attention to the impacts of specific information and arguments apart from any emphasis they entail, and perhaps a greater reliance on a mixture of methods for understanding how communication processes are used in real-world politics. More broadly, the most important next directions for framing research relate to efforts to improve the realism of framing experiments and the degree to which framing theory can explain the political realities that surround and accompany framing processes. We suggest framing researchers should focus on four main avenues for improved realism: generalizability of results, over-time dynamics, competitive and partisan framing, and the strategic construction and dissemination of frames.

Generalizability of Results

Some of the most important questions related to empirical research on framing effects address questions of how well existing results generalize beyond the particular contexts, individuals, issues, and frames used in past research. While framing constitutes a general theory of media effects and framing effects should materialize in a broad array of political contexts, there is little reason to believe that a set of frames will all have similar sized effects on individuals with different sets of beliefs or ideology or similar sized effects across different issues. These questions are profoundly important because the answers tell us about how politically important framing effects can be regardless of how large the effects of some frames appear to be in laboratory-like settings.

Indeed, there is remarkably little research on framing effects across political contexts. With a few exceptions—like Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley’s ( 1997 ) classic hate rally experiment—few published framing studies have been replicated in other geographical locales, on different populations, or amid different political contexts. This may not matter if effects are relatively homogeneous across these various contextual variations but lacking evidence, we simply do not know whether that is the case. Similarly, while framing research has traditionally been performed mostly on convenience samples, national populations of survey-experimental respondents are now commonly used for studying framing. At broad glance, it does not appear that the sample characteristics used in framing experiments have dramatically affected the insights gained from these experimental studies (see, for example, Mullinix et al. 2015 ) but again lacking more systematic research on the question, we do not know much framing effects vary across types of samples.

More interesting questions about the generalizability or replicability of framing effects results relate to variation in effects across issues and across frames themselves. Given most framing research examines a single frame—or two alternative frames—on a single issue, there is markedly little research examining how frames affect opinion across types of issues. Observational research (Bjarnøe 2016 ; Boydstun 2013 ; Chong and Druckman 2011 ; Hänggli 2020 ; Hopkins 2018 ) has shown that on most issues, relatively few frames tend to quickly come to dominate most debates. As a result, the set of applicable and broadly recognizable frames for any given issue tends to be quite small. It is these frames that are typically used in experimental studies or pilot tests to determine the even smaller set of frames used. As a result, there are substantial gaps between the set of frames that appear to emerge organically in political debates, the sets of frames studied experimentally, and the universe of possible frames that might be applied to any given issue. Systematic attempts to map the political issue space provide a potential basis for identifying the set of issues that might be studied in framing research, but it is comparatively much more difficult to identify the set of frames that might possibly be relevant to a given issue. As a result, research—both observational and experimental—will necessarily tend to examine frames that are in some sense strong , leading us to believe that framing is quite impactful when in reality we only know that strong frames are quite impactful.

Yet despite our knowledge being limited in this way, we tend to lack insight into what makes frames strong. To know that, we would need to study a broader set of frames across a wide array of issues in order to assess which combinations of frames and issues (and people and contexts) generate large framing effects as opposed to smaller effects. Yet even this hypothetical issue-by-frame matrix of experiments will only generate a pattern of experimental results—it will not answer the essential question of why particular frames are strong for particular issues. Indeed, that question invites tautological answers: strong frames produce large effects because they are stronger than weak frame. An alternative would be to use a theory-driven approach that deductively arrives upon likely strong frames and evaluates whether theoretical expectations about features of strong frames hold empirically.

Over-Time Processes

A second area of framing research in need of considerably more theoretical and empirical attention relates to how temporal dynamics influence framing processes. While Chong and Druckman ( 2010 , 663) pointed out that “[w]e know little about how the public processes sequences of messages received at different points in time rather than simultaneously,” there has been remarkably little subsequent research examining such processes. Druckman and Leeper ( 2012 ) showed that once exposed to messages, individuals respond to subsequent information exposure in different ways conditional on the strength of the opinions formed initially. Lecheler and de Vreese ( 2013 ) prominently used experimental manipulations of message exposure embedded within long-running panel surveys to measure the durability of framing effects and the degree to which repeated exposure impacts opinions. Those studies demonstrated that repetitive exposure to messages alone does not increase opinion shifts while any effects that do emerge in response to media exposure decay over relatively short periods of time.

Yet this constitutes a relatively small body of theoretical and empirical work that only scratches the surface of possible over-time dynamics associated with opinion formation. More complex interplays between message exposure, message selection (see, for example, Druckman, Fein, and Leeper 2012 ), and opinion formation are not well understood. The reasons for this are obvious: it is costly and difficult to repeatedly interview the same individuals and to design experimental stimuli that play out over multiple, time-separated sessions. Yet the increasingly—indeed almost universal—reliance on online survey panels mitigates many of the logistic challenges involved in such research, albeit with potentially high costs. Logistical challenges aside, framing researchers should also work to develop richer theoretical explanations of over-time framing processes where new information is received in sequences rather than simultaneously, where considerations are emphasized by different actors in a strategic interplay, and where opinions are allowed to evolve in more naturalistic ways.

Acknowledging Partisan Competition

This realism with respect to over-time dynamics of framing is also likely to naturally invite what we see as a third key direction for framing research: greater attention to competitive framing, particularly competitive framing between partisan actors. As Leeper and Slothuus ( 2014 , 130) argued, political psychology must be understood as partisan political psychology. Our efforts to understand how citizens think, reason, and feel about politics is necessarily inseparable from the partisan nature of politics. Framing theory should be viewed in the same light. Bullock ( 2011 , 511) notes that political parties “rarely take a position without trying to frame it in a way that will garner support for it.” Thus, it is difficult to talk of “framing effects” without considering how those influences might vary across different (typically partisan) sources and across different (typically partisan) message recipients.

Some studies have begun to explore how framing effects are conditioned by the political parties sponsoring the frames (Slothuus and de Vreese 2010 ). Others show how citizens’ prior issue beliefs might constrain the ability of political parties to frame opinion even among their own supporters (Slothuus 2010 ) or how the structure of partisan competition might help citizens connect their values to specific policies (Petersen, Slothuus, and Togeby 2010 ). Another strand of research explores how party cues interact with policy information and arguments to influence opinion (Boudreau and MacKenzie 2014 ; Bullock 2011 ), and how the degree of elite partisan polarization will determine the relative influence of these types of communication in citizens’ opinion formation. Messages from political parties might also shape how partisans interpret factual information about real-world developments (Bisgaard and Slothuus 2018 ). All of these recent studies point to important interactions between partisan sources and their attempts to influence opinion by the emphasis they put on various considerations and the persuasive information they provide. Drawing on the expectancy-value model might help highlight differences and similarities between these studies and further their integration.

While political parties are not the only sources that compete in politics—interest groups, think tanks, corporations, and other entities may also act to frame issues—attention to the sources of frames, the reasons behind their strategic choice of frames, and variation in responses to frames across partisan audiences, will rightly steer attention toward the kinds of real political competition that occurs outside experimental laboratories. Indeed, research into the sources of frames and variation in framing effects across partisan audiences, will naturally invite important questions about framing competition more broadly, a topic that despite making waves in the mid-2000s (Chong and Druckman 2007b ; Sniderman and Theriault 2004 ) has led to little published research. A possible takeaway from research into competitive framing is that, in the face of rival frames, no frame is particularly strong or influential. Yet the evidence base supporting this stylized fact is remarkably small. Ultimately, we know little about how frames interact with one another.

Strategic Frame Construction

A final avenue for future framing research relates to the supply side of frames and the processes that lead particular frames to be used by different actors and to become salient in public debate. As we already noted, much observational research shows that political debates rarely involve more than a few key arguments or dimensions. Abortion balances considerations of rights of women and rights of fetuses. Minimum wage laws balance considerations related to well-being of workers and well-being of enterprises. Antiterrorism policies balance considerations of national security and individual rights. While almost any political issue might be debated and thought about along a wide array of dimensions of competition, most issues come to be debated along relatively few. Moreover, partisan actors deploy information and emphasis in a manner meant to influence public opinion in a strategically beneficial way. Yet, aside from research by Hänggli and Kriesi ( 2010 , 2012 ; Hänggli 2020 ), there is remarkably little work on how the set of frames that come to be prominent—and thus come to be used in observational and experimental studies of framing processes—come into being or how they are chosen by key political actors to be deployed.

Our ignorance about these processes of frame construction highlight the lack of realism in extant framing research. While we know about the effects of frames on a wide array of issues (because framing experiments are relatively easy and cost-effective to deploy), we know little about the political contexts about which those experiments are meant to lead to inference. This is all the more important in the twenty-first century where it is not only political elites who are engaged in process of frame construction and dissemination but also political amateurs operating on social media who construct, debate, and disseminate information to one another without the involvement of political parties or traditional media.

Framing effects research to date largely presupposes that a relatively narrow set of non-partisan frames can be studied in a one-off setting to understand opinion formation on a given issue. Yet the realities of the twenty-first century media and political landscapes mean that frames may emerge much more organically and be distributed in much more complex and diffuse manners than those emulated by stylized framing experiments. The framing concept has been essential to our current understanding of political communication and political psychology. In order for it to continue to be relevant, researchers need to adapt framing theory and framing research to the realities of modern political framing.

Framing has become and is likely to remain among the most important concepts in contemporary media effects research, with good reason: framing is an intuitive concept and research on framing effects has generated considerable insight into the apparent ease with which media and political actors can use framed communications to influence public opinion. Yet there is also much that we do not know about the limits of framing effects, the generality of framing effects, or the processes by which frames come to dominate particular issues and particular ways of thinking about those issues.

In this chapter, we have advanced the argument that framing remains a useful theory of media effects, indeed one so useful it should generate considerably more research moving forward. Rather than being discarded, framing theory should be renewed in light of the expectancy-value model’s capacity to encompass a broad area of communication and psychological processes of interest to multiple social sciences. We have suggested a number of paths that research might take: for example examining generalizability across a range of factors, pursing more theoretically driven research into competitive framing, and investigating processes of frame construction and diffusion. We have also, perhaps implicitly, suggested some directions that we think media effects research should not take, namely, the pursuit of isolated research into different processes of such effects. Priming, framing, agenda-setting, persuasion, cueing, and learning all entail processes of either information transmission or emphasis or both; that is to say all of these processes involve the two mechanisms theorized in framing research to impact upon opinion. Rather than pitting these processes as theoretical rivals, we think a synthesis is in order whereby processes of information transmission and processes of emphasis are, respectively, theoretically unified and empirically integrated. Much more progress can be made in understanding media effects when the semantic differences between these processes are set aside in favor of a thorough investigation of how information and emphasis work together and separately to shape public views.

Our argument is therefore that framing theory provides an umbrella for encompassing a disparate array of media effects theories. While Cacciatore, Scheufele, and Iyengar ( 2016 ) are right to argue that the concept of “frame” has become muddled, we feel that the expectancy-value model of opinion formation at the core of framing theory shines through. Rather than debate what precisely is a “frame,” we feel we can advance our understanding of political communication much more by focusing on separate influences of information and emphasis and studying the generality of any results. Rather than limit framing to the narrow notion of mathematical equivalence (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky 1984 ), we believe framing theory retains considerable value. Rather than abandon theory, we suggest that researchers should attempt to be particularly clear about what information and what emphasis is at stake in any particular experimental manipulation or any observational measurement of media content.

One final concern worth noting about framing is the risk that the collective enterprise of framing research generates a considerable file drawer, limiting our ability to generate theoretical and empirical progress. As a mature academic theory, it is easy for new research into framing to be seen as trivial or lacking the novelty necessary for publication. If that view of new framing studies leads to publication bias, then much of our call for new research into the generality of framing effects will be for naught. Of course, simple extensions of existing work are just that, extensions; but social science disciplines need to reckon with how to publish and accumulate bodies of research in this kind of mature field without leaving “null effects” and replications in the file drawer. This may require innovative forms of publishing, greater space for note-length articles, and much more systematic accumulation of new experimental findings through meta-analysis.

Ultimately, we feel that we have learned a considerable amount from existing framing research and yet there is much left to be learned. How media and elites transmit information to the public and thus shape the views of those whom they are meant to represent constitutes one of the most important and normatively interesting problems of contemporary politics. Now is the time for more rather than less framing research.

Portions of this section first appeared as part of a working paper (Leeper and Slothuus n.d. ).

Taken to an extreme, a frame is a heresthetic device that makes only one side of an issue publicly palatable (Riker 1986 ).

In fact, equivalence frames are emphasis frames in the sense that they emphasize gains or losses, for example, but the frames contain the same factual information.

Even those these two dimensions—cost and impact on patients’ health—have been implicitly emphasized, individuals in every experimental condition have had the same dimensions evenly emphasized.

Ajzen, Icek , and Martin Fishbein . 1980 . Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bennett, W. Lance , and Shanto Iyengar . 2008 . “ A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. ” Journal of Communication 58, no. 4: 707–731.

Bisgaard, Martin , and Rune Slothuus . 2018 . “ Partisan Elites as Culprits? How Party Cues Shape Partisan Perceptual Gaps. ” American Journal of Political Science 62, no. 2: 456–469.

Bjarnøe, Camilla . 2016 . Evolution in Frames: Framing and Reframing of Policy Questions . Aarhus, Denmark: Politica.

Boudreau, Cheryl , and Scott A. MacKenzie . 2014 . “ Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives. ” American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 1: 48–62.

Boydstun, Amber E.   2013 . Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bullock, John G.   2011 . “ Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate. ” American Political Science Review 105: 496–515.

Busby, Ethan , D. J. Flynn , and James N. Druckman . 2018 . “Studying Framing Effects on Political Preferences: Existing Research and Lingering Questions.” In Doing News Framing Analysis II , edited by Paul D’Angelo , 27–50. New York: Routledge.

Cacciatore, Michael A. , Dietram A. Scheufele , and Shanto Iyengar . 2016 . “The End of Framing as We Know It . . . and the Future of Media Effects.” Mass Communication and Society 19, no. 1: 7–23.

Chong, Dennis . 1993 . “ How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties. ” American Journal of Political Science 37, no. 3: 867.

Chong, Dennis , and James N. Druckman . 2007 a. “ Framing Theory. ” Annual Review of Political Science 10, no. 1: 103–126.

Chong, Dennis , and James N. Druckman . 2007 b. “ Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. ” American Political Science Review 101, no. 4: 637–655.

Chong, Dennis , and James N. Druckman . 2010 . “ Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects Over Time. ” American Political Science Review 104, no. 4: 663–680.

Chong, Dennis , and James N. Druckman . 2011 . “Identifying Frames in Political News.” In The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques , edited by Erik P. Bucy and R. Lance Holbert , 238–267. New York: Routledge.

Cobb, Michael D. , and James H. Kuklinski . 1997 . “ Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. ” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 1: 88–121.

de Vreese, Claes H.   2003 . Framing Europe . Amsterdam: Aksant.

de Vreese, Claes H. , and Sophie Lecheler. 2012 . “News Framing Research: An Overview and New Developments.” In The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication , edited by H. A. Semetko and M. Scammell , 292–306. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

de Vreese , Claes H. , and Holli A. Semetko . 2004 . “ News Matters: Influences on the Vote in the Danish 2000 Euro Referendum Campaign. ” European Journal of Political Research 43, no. 5: 699–722.

Druckman, James N.   2001 . “ The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. ” Political Behavior 23, no. 3: 225–256.

Druckman, James N. , Jordan Fein , and Thomas J. Leeper . 2012 . “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106, no. 2: 430–454.

Druckman, James N. , and Thomas J. Leeper . 2012 . “ Learning More from Political Communication Experiments. ” American Journal of Political Science 56, no. 4: 875–896.

Druckman, James N. , and Kjersten R. Nelson . 2003 . “ Framing and Deliberation. ” American Journal of Political Science 47, no. 4: 729–745.

Druckman, James N. , Erik Peterson , and Rune Slothuus . 2013 . “ How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. ” American Political Science Review 107, no. 1: 57–79.

Fabrigar, Leandre R. , and Richard E. Petty . 1999 . “ Review of ‘Political Persuasion and Attitude Change’ by Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, Richard A. Brody. ” Political Psychology 20, no. 2: 436–440.

Feldman, Stanley , and John Zaller . 1992 . “ The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State. ” American Journal of Political Science 36, no. 1: 268–307.

Gamson, William A. , and Andre Modigliani . 1987 . “ The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action. ” Research in Political Sociology 3: 137–177.

Hänggli, Regula . 2020 . The Origin of Dialogue in the News Media . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hänggli, Regula , and Hanspeter Kriesi . 2010 . “ Political Framing Strategies and their Impact on Media Framing in a Swiss Direct-Democratic Campaign. ” Political Communication 27, no. 2: 141–157.

Hänggli, Regula , and Hanspeter Kriesi . 2012 . “ Frame Construction and Frame Promotion (Strategic Framing Choices). ” American Behavioral Scientist 56, no. 3: 260–278.

Holbert, R. Lance , R. Kelly Garrett , and Laurel S. Gleason . 2010 . “ A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar. ” Journal of Communication 60, no. 1: 15–34.

Hopkins, Daniel J.   2018 . “ The Exaggerated Life of Death Panels? The Limited but Real Influence of Elite Rhetoric in the 2009–2010 Health Care Debate. ” Political Behavior 40, no. 3: 681–709.

Iyengar, Shanto , and Donald R. Kinder . 1987 . News that Matters: Television and American Opinion . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Jerit, Jennifer . 2009 . “ How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions. ” American Journal of Political Science 53: 411–426.

Kahneman, Daniel , and Amos Tversky . 1984 . “ Choices, Values, and Frames. ” American Psychologist 39, no. 4: 341.

Kinder, Donald R.   2003 . “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology , edited by D. O. Sears , L. Huddy , and R. Jervis , 357–393. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lecheler, Sophie , and Claes H. de Vreese . 2018 . News Framing Effects . London: Routledge.

Lecheler, Sophie K. , and Claes H. de Vreese . 2013 . “ What a Difference a Day Makes? ” Communication Research 40, no. 2: 147–175.

Leeper, Thomas J. , and Rune Slothuus . 2014 . “ Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation. ” Advances in Political Psychology 1: 129–156.

Leeper, Thomas J. , and Rune Slothuus . n.d. “Can Citizens Be Framed? How Information More than Emphasis Changes Political Opinions.” Working paper, Aarhus University.

Lodge, Milton , Kathleen M. McGraw , and Patrick Stroh . 1989 . “ An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. ” American Political Science Review 83, no. 2: 399–419.

Mullinix, Kevin J. , Thomas J. Leeper , James N. Druckman , and Jeremy Freese . 2015 . “ The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. ” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, no. 2: 109–138.

Mutz, Diana C. , Paul M. Sniderman , and Richard A. Brody . 1996 . “Political Persuasion: The Birth of a Field of Study.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change , edited by Diana C. Mutz , Paul M. Sniderman , and Richard A. Brody , 1–14. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Nelson, Thomas E. , Sarah M. Bryner , and Dustin M. Carnahan . 2011 . “Media and Politics.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science , edited by James N. Druckman , Donald P. Green , James H. Kuklinski , and Arthur Lupia , 201–213. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nelson, Thomas E. , Rosalee A. Clawson , and Zoe M. Oxley . 1997 . “ Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. ” American Political Science Review 91, no. 3: 567–583.

Nelson, Thomas E. , and Donald R. Kinder . 1996 . “ Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. ” Journal of Politics 58, no. 4: 1055.

Nelson, Thomas E. , Zoe M. Oxley , and Rosalee A. Clawson . 1997 . “ Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. ” Political Behavior 19, no. 3: 221–246.

Petersen, Michael Bang , Rune Slothuus , and Lise Togeby . 2010 . “ Political Parties and Value Consistency in Public Opinion Formation. ” Public Opinion Quarterly 27, no. 2: 158–177.

Price, Vincent , and David Tewksbury . 1997 . “ News Values and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing. ” In Progress in Communication Sciences, edited by George A Barnett and Franklin J. Boster , 173–212. London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Riker, William H . 1986 . The Art of Political Manipulation . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scheufele, Dietram A. , and Shanto Iyengar . 2017 . “The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication , edited by Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson , 619–632. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slothuus, Rune . 2008 . “ More Than Weighting Cognitive Importance: A Dual-Process Model of Issue Framing Effects. ” Political Psychology 29, no. 1: 1–28.

Slothuus, Rune . 2010 . “ When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. ” Political Communication 27, no. 2: 158–177.

Slothuus, Rune , and Claes H. de Vreese . 2010 . “ Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects. ” Journal of Politics 72, no. 3: 630–645.

Sniderman, Paul M. , and Sean M. Theriault . 2004 . “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion , edited by William E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman , 133–165. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zaller, John . 1992 . The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion . New York: Cambridge University Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Social media manipulation by political actors an industrial scale problem - Oxford report

Social media manipulation of public opinion is a growing threat to democracies around the world, according to the 2020 media manipulation survey from the Oxford Internet Institute , which found evidence in every one of the 80+ countries surveyed.

Organised social media manipulation campaigns were found in each of the 81 surveyed countries, up 15% in one year, from 70 countries in 2019. Governments, public relations firms and political parties are producing misinformation on an industrial scale, according to the report.  It shows disinformation has become a common strategy, with more than 93% of the countries (76 out of 81) seeing disinformation deployed as part of political communication. 

Social media manipulation of public opinion is a growing threat to democracies around the world

Professor Philip Howard , Director of the Oxford Internet Institute, and the report’s co-author says, ‘Our report shows misinformation has become more professionalised and is now produced on an industrial scale.  Now, more than ever, the public needs to be able to rely on trustworthy information about government policy and activity. Social media companies need to raise their game by increasing their efforts to flag misinformation and close fake accounts without the need for government intervention, so the public has access to high-quality information.’

Social media companies need to raise their game by increasing their efforts to flag misinformation and close fake accounts without the need for government intervention, so the public has access to high-quality information Professor Philip Howard

The OII team warns the level of social media manipulation has soared, with governments and political parties spending millions on private sector ‘cyber troops’, who drown out other voices on social media. Citizen influencers are used to spread manipulated messages. These include volunteers, youth groups and civil society organisations, who support their ideologies.

OII alumna, Dr Samantha Bradshaw, the report’s lead author says, ‘Our 2020 report highlights the way in which government agencies, political parties and private firms continue to use social media to spread political propaganda, polluting the digital information ecosystem and suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  A large part of this activity has become professionalised, with private firms offering disinformation-for-hire services.’

Key findings the OII researchers identified include:

• Private ‘strategic communications’ firms are playing an increasing role in spreading computational propaganda, with researchers identifying state actors working with such firms in 48 countries.
• Almost $60 million has been spent on firms who use bots and other amplification strategies to create the impression of trending political messaging.  
• Social media has become a major battleground, with firms such as Facebook and Twitter taking steps to combat ‘cyber troops’, with some $10 million has been spent on social media political advertisements. The platforms removed more than 317,000 accounts and pages from ‘cyber troops’ actors between January 2019 and November 2020.

This activity has become professionalised, with private firms offering disinformation-for-hire services Dr Samantha Bradshaw

Cyber troops are frequently directly linked to state agencies. According to the report, ‘In 62 countries, we found evidence of a government agency using computational propaganda to shape public attitudes.’

Established political parties were also found to be using social media to ‘spread disinformation, suppress political participation, and undermine oppositional parties’, say the Oxford researchers.  

According to the report, ‘In 61 countries, we found evidence of political parties or politicians running for office who have used the tools and techniques of computational propaganda as part of their political campaigns. Indeed, social media has become a critical component of digital campaigning.’

We found evidence of political parties or politicians running for office who have used the tools and techniques of computational propaganda as part of their political campaigns....social media has become a critical component of digital campaigning

Dr Bradshaw adds, ‘Cyber troop activity can look different in democracies compared to authoritarian regimes. Electoral authorities need to consider the broader ecosystem of disinformation and computational propaganda, including private firms and paid influencers, who are increasingly prominent actors in this space.’

The report explores the tools and techniques of computational propaganda, including the use of fake accounts – bots, humans and hacked accounts – to spread disinformation. It finds:

• 79 countries used human accounts,
• 57 counties used bot accounts, and
• 14 countries used hacked or stolen accounts.

Researchers examined how cyber troops use different communication strategies to manipulate public opinion, such as creating disinformation or manipulated media, data-driven targeting and employing abusive strategies such as mounting smear campaigns or online harassment. The report finds:

• 76 countries used disinformation and media manipulation as part of their campaigns,
• 30 countries used data-drive strategies to target specific users with political advertisements,
• 59 countries used state sponsored trolls to attack political opponents or activists in 2019, up from 47 countries in 2019.

The 2020 report draws upon a four-step methodology employed by Oxford researchers to identify evidence of globally organised manipulation campaigns. This includes a systematic content analysis of news articles on cyber troop activity, a secondary literature review of public archives and scientific reports, generating country specific case studies and expert consultations.

The research work was carried out by Oxford researchers between 2019 and 2020. Computational Propaganda project research studies are published at https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/posts/industrialized-disinformation/

DISCOVER MORE

• Support Oxford's research
• Partner with Oxford on research
• Study at Oxford
• Research jobs at Oxford

You can view all news or browse by category