Plap 314 Final Terms

Front 1

sources of campaign news

Back 1

most Americans get their campaign news from TV ?

Front 2

patterns of election coverage

Back 2

1) increase in unfavorable news coverage of the candidates 2) increase in game instead of policy frames 3) increase in interpretive instead of descriptive frames 4) shrinking sound bite 5) rise of new media 6) image and performance (focus on gaffes)

Front 3

news frames

Back 3

contexts in which stories are reported

Front 4

game strategy v. policy/issue frames

Back 4

the media presents more stories from a game/strategy context than from an issue/policy context/FRAME; the media focuses on the 'horse race' aspect of politics

Front 5

interpretive v. descriptive frameworks

Back 5

interpretive stories focus less on the "what" and more on the analysis of that; this blurs the line between objective reporting and opinion (membrane of opinion v. analysis)

Front 6

shrinking sound bite

Back 6

because of the news increasing concern with entertainment and interpretive frames, the length of a sound bite has decreased a lot since the 60s

Front 7

spiral of cynicism

Back 7

increase in cynicism in patterns of election coverage

Front 8

patterns of news watching

Back 8

1) TV is main source of political news for most people 2) Americans watch a lot of TV 3) declining viewership of evening news 4) rise of cable news 5) viewing varies by age and partisanship

Front 9

challenges in studying media effects

Back 9

no experimental setting can show this, problems of 1) measuring exposure and 2) self-selection: exposure, selection, and recall

Front 10

hypodermic model

Back 10

*

Front 11

minimal effects model

Back 11

*

Front 12

nature and logic of experimentation

Back 12

*

Front 13

internal v. external validity

Back 13

internal validity: did the 'treatment' make a difference?
external validity: can this experiment be generalized for the rest of society or to other experiments?

Front 14

random assignment

Back 14

this ensures that an experiment's outcome is based on the the experiment, not a pattern in the subjects

Front 15

sequential v. assemblage experiments

Back 15

from Patterson's experiments of TV coverage, sequential experiments were when subjects watched the news over a period of days and weeks, while assemblage was a lot in a short amount of time (I think)

Front 16

agenda-setting effect

Back 16

news that receives prominent attention in the media becomes a story that people believe is important; media tells us what is important

Front 17

priming effect

Back 17

blahh: calling attention to some matters while ignoring others, priming subtly controls in what context viewers understand a story

Front 18

nasty ad hypothesis

Back 18

the idea that negative ads undermine democratic discourse and erode participation

Front 19

"inverted" Timothy Leary effect

Back 19

citizens "tune in, turn off, drop out"

Front 20

demobilization hypothesis

Back 20

the idea that negative ads demobilize a candidate's opponent's voters; at least maybe they won't vote

Front 21

political efficacy

Back 21

*

Front 22

stimulation hypothesis

Back 22

negative ads increase voter turnout: 1) they contain valuable information and resources, they propel voters to vote 2) negative ads heighten interest because positive ads are boring 3) raise the stakes and make the election seem more important 4) schoolyard analysis

Front 23

negative ad

Back 23

an ad that attack's the opponent

Front 24

positive ad

Back 24

an ad that discusses the positive qualities of a candidate

Front 25

contrast ad

Back 25

an ad with both positive and negative messages, though usually more negative

Front 26

ad: objectives

Back 26

1) persuasion 2) reinforcement 3) demobilization

Front 27

explicit messages

Back 27

explicit message: verbal and text message of an ad

Front 28

implicit message

Back 28

music, sound, images, anything other than what the narrator says (choice of announcer, backdrops, setting, stand-ins, attempts to invoke emotion, etc

Front 29

ad content: proximity message

Back 29

a candidate's attempt to appear similar to certain constituency because of character, ideology, and/or background

Front 30

ad content: emotional appeals

Back 30

*

Front 31

ad content: use of surrogates

Back 31

usually used for negative ads, this makes the attack seem less personal, as if the candidate didn't create it

Front 32

ads as multivitamins

Back 32

*

Front 33

informational content of ads

Back 33

*

Front 34

"Freak Show" ad

Back 34

where the old people talk about the kinds of things that are 'un-Iowa' and that they don't want where they live

Front 35

"Daisy" ad

Back 35

little girl, nuclear explosion

Front 36

"Tank" ad

Back 36

Dukakis tried to show he was experienced with the military, but ended up looking ridiculous and Bush Sr. made an ad that mocked him for that and used his image against him

Front 37

"Windsurfing" ad

Back 37

Bush Jr. used image of Kerry windsurfing against him in two ways: not many Americans windsurf, proximity attack, and used the context to talk about Kerry's flip-flopping

Front 38

"Morning in America" ad

Back 38

Reagan's super-positive ad featuring flags, white people, and tone of progress

Front 39

"Bear in the Woods" ad

Back 39

Reagan's ad to subtly talk about his ability to face USSR and communism, "if there is a bear"

Front 40

"Wolves" ad

Back 40

Bush Jr's version of the "Bear in the Woods" ad, where the Wolves represent terrorists

Front 41

"Willie Horton" ad

Back 41

Bush Sr. used Willie Horton's crime as the subject of an ad about crime in Mass, where Dukakis had been governor

Front 42

"Revolving Door" ad

Back 42

another ad about crime, Bush Sr. said Dukakis wanted the Revolving Door policy for all US while priming audience to think about Horton's violent crime

Front 43

"Playboy Party" ad

Back 43

something about racism and Ford

Front 44

"Chuck Norris" ad

Back 44

wow Mike Huckabee

Front 45

methods of studying advertising, measuring ad exposure

Back 45

*

Front 46

Wisconsin/CMAG tracking data

Back 46

tool that tracks what ads are broadcast how often and where, perhaps even what times

Front 47

ads made v. ads broadcast

Back 47

something about how ads are played different amounts, thanks to CMAG, we know that number of ads means nothing, number they are played does

Front 48

Jeopardy/Wheel of fortune

Back 48

prime time for political ads because these shows are after the afternoon news and before primetime tv shows - cheap but still large-ish audience

Front 49

social capital

Back 49

features of social life (networks, trust, norms) that enable community members to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives

Front 50

civic engagement

Back 50

people's connections with the life of their community, not only with politics

Front 51

political cynicism v. skepticism

Back 51

cynicism is a mistrust in politics, leaders; predisposition to disbelieve
skepticism is the doctrine that all knowledge is uncertain; withhold judgments/opinions until more clear; this is good for democracy

Front 52

issue frames v. strategic frames

Back 52

the media presents more stories from a game/strategy context than from an issue/policy context/FRAME; the media focuses on the 'horse race' aspect of the campaign

Front 53

mass media and democratic linkage

Back 53

as Tocqueville said, media is a link, but is it a bridge or a barrier? Some (Patterson, McChesney) say bigger media has negative effect on citizens and democratic life

Front 54

democratic v. authoritarian media models

Back 54

authoritarian - state ownership and strict control of media; spread propaganda; media help bring public opinion in line with government policy
democratic - media provide info critical to democratic linkage; constitutionally protected and independent; help bring government policy in line with public opinion

Front 55

Enemy Ravens

Back 55

that thing about authoritarian news?...

Front 56

propaganda

Back 56

*

Front 57

Voice of America

Back 57

US's only public media, only released in other nations, not the US

Front 58

permeable membranes

Back 58

1) opinion/analysis v. news
2) blogosphere v. mainstream news
3) news v. entertainment

Front 59

public, semi-public, private ownership

Back 59

public - fully under governmental control, no public media in US
semi-public - ex: PBS funded by CPB funded by the government, not directly government-controlled
private: everything else

Front 60

CPB, PBS

Back 60

government gives money to CPB to give to PBS so that PBS is not directly funded and therefore influenced by the government, keeps it from being public, it's semi-public

Front 61

Postcards from Buster

Back 61

incident where a show on semi-public PBS showed Buster the bunny visiting a two-mom family, many were outraged that their tax dollars were showing children homosexuality

Front 62

penny press

Back 62

first modern newspaper, had reporters, objective reporting; came about because of democratic market society

Front 63

FDR's wheelchair v. Reagan's colon

Back 63

shows the difference in what the media feels is appropriate news; no one knew FDR used a wheelchair but now everyone knows everything about the president

Front 64

concentration and consolidation of ownership

Back 64

recent trend - 80% of newspapers owned by conglomerates in the 1990s; Clear Channel owns most of radio
lose viewpoint diversity and localism!

Front 65

multiple ownership

Back 65

one company owns lots of properties in single media; ex: Clear Channel owns LOTS of radio stations

Front 66

cross-media ownership

Back 66

owning different kinds of media (ex: newspaper and tv station)

Front 67

sins of omission/commission

Back 67

omission - what gets left out when corporations have other interests
commission - what gets included for the sake of corporate interests; not really news, but the desire of affiliates to make something known

Front 68

Starbucksification

Back 68

large corps like Starbucks provide comfort and familiarity, but squeeze out local establishments
lose viewpoint diversity and localism!

Front 69

First Amendment

Back 69

one's first amendment rights are limited when 1) clear and present danger 2) fighting words/hate speech 3) defamation

Front 70

defamation, slander, libel

Back 70

defamation - verbal or written, false or unjustified injury to someone's reputation
slander - verbal defamation
libel - written defamation

Front 71

obscenity

Back 71

limited by the first amendment, for example porn

Front 72

indecency

Back 72

allowed by the first amendment but restricted on TV when kids could be watching

Front 73

Miller v. California

Back 73

established the criteria for what defines obscenity: **

Front 74

prurience/prurient

Back 74

part of the definition for obscenity, dictionary.com says: having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc.

Front 75

indecency fines/complaint process

Back 75

fine can be up to $325,000 for indecency as of 2006; complaint process made easy by Parents TV Council

Front 76

Parents' Television Council

Back 76

the reason the FCC has been getting more active, this organization is a bunch of lazy whiny parents that can't control what their kids watch, their website makes it easy to complain to the FCC

Front 77

Super Bowl 2004

Back 77

many upset about Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, called it "media's race to the bottom," CBS-Viacom only fined $550,000; but then in the end, US court of appeals said FCC acted arbitrarily, so CBS-Viacom didn't pay ANYTHING

Front 78

Federal Communications Commission

Back 78

controls TV programming for indecency and obscenity; recently has become much more active

Front 79

Communications Act of 1934

Back 79

*

Front 80

1996 Telecommunications Act

Back 80

newspapers owned by large corporations with heavy TV interests gave more favorable coverage to provisions of the act that would benefit TV owners, whereas newspapers owned by corporations without TV interests gave more negative coverage

Front 81

2003 FCC proposed rule changes: 25% -> 35% -> 45% -> 39%

Back 81

thought less competition would be good for diversity and localism, more money means more options; so FCC changed restrictions on percentage of national audience one corporation can own from 25% to 35% to 45% then to 39$

Front 82

localism

Back 82

FCC actually found that local TV stations show more local news that conglomerates do, and more in-depth local news; this report was 'forgotten' when FCC was increasing audience percentage to enlarge media corporations

Front 83

viewpoint diversity

Back 83

having different programs on TV other than those that appeal to white middle class

Front 84

bias

Back 84

dictionary.com says: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
media says they are not biased, no way to prove bias or that supposed bias accomplishes anything

Front 85

bias claims based on inference

Back 85

indirect, can be based on how the public perceives the media or journalist's background, attitude, and/or characteristics

Front 86

bias claims based on observation

Back 86

direct, based on actual instances of bias occuring

Front 87

Food Lion v. ABC news

Back 87

investigative report on Food Lion's unsanitary food policies; ABC aired it, but Food Lion sued ABC for misleading them; first the fine was the $1,400 it cost to train them, then the fine was 5.5 million dollars, then it was changed to $2 in 1999 - investigative reporting is OK!

Front 88

watchdog role of media

Back 88

media can be the watchdog not just for the government; "news is what someone somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is just advertising." -Lord Northcliffe

Front 89

muckraking models

Back 89

1) simple muckraking: journalistic investigation -> publication -> public opinion -> policy initiatives -> policy consequences; it's hard to arouse the public to take action
2) leaping impact muckraking: when some elements of the simple sequence are missing; ex: when reports of people burning down their house to get insurance $ were aired, arson went down dramatically, no need to involve the gov't, criminals already stopped; this is common when the media and public officials collaborate
3) truncated muckraking: when the sequence stops and no action is taken

Front 90

objectivity

Back 90

*

Front 91

content analysis

Back 91

*

Front 92

anticipatory self-censorship

Back 92

*

Front 93

infotainment

Back 93

the idea that the news selects stories the way entertainment news selects stories; criteria: 1) newness/strong impact on audience 2) violence/conflict, scandal, disaster 3) familiarity 4) proximity (ex: lack of foreign affairs) 5) timeliness 6) visual appeal, pictures are important

Front 94

interdependence of media and political actors

Back 94

media perform four major functions for the government: 1) inform the gov't of current events 2) keep them attuned to the public's major concerns 3) enable them to convey messages to general public as well as other political elites 4) allow them to remain in view of the public
Also, see symbiotic/parasitic

Front 95

mutual manipulation

Back 95

*

Front 96

symbiotic/parasitic relationship

Back 96

term for relationship between media and government; sometimes they work together (symbiotic) and sometimes one gains at the expense of the other (parasitic)
the media needs: newsworthy stories, scoops, exclusives, large audiences
the government needs: favorable publicity, support for their policies, political support

Front 97

multiplying red ties

Back 97

shows that even in Congress, their appearance changed when it was aired on tv; an example of gov't appeals to viewers via media

Front 98

logic of leaks

Back 98

sometimes leaks get out that are bad for the subject; sometimes leaks get out that the subject wants to be released, but doesn't want to be responsible for leaking

Front 99

feeding frenzy/pack journalism

Back 99

the pressure on the media to have all the stories their competitors have, and first, produces pack journalism and lowers journalistic standards

Front 100

scandal coverage

Back 100

caused by 1) new technology 2) new economies
characterized by 1) lack of sourcing 2) going after stories that are 'out there' 3) rush to judgment 4) blurring the lines between reporters and celebrities

Front 101

New News

Back 101

as Kalb says, characterized by 1) lack of sourcing 2) rush to judgment 3) going after anything that's 'out there' 4) blurring the lines between reporters and celebrities

Front 102

Watergate

Back 102

archetypal example of muckraking and scandal; the "prize" for the investigation was Nixon's resignation

Front 103

Monicagate

Back 103

nickname for the Monica Lewinsky scandal ('gate' comes from Watergate)

Front 104

Rathergate

Back 104

When Dan Rather used false evidence to say that George Bush had received preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard - media scandal

Front 105

nature of war coverage (trade-offs)

Back 105

I think this is about 1) role of new technologies 2) media's role as citizens or journalists 3) implications of multiple audiences 4) what to show - flag-draped coffins? dead or injured soldiers? civilians?

Front 106

embedded journalists

Back 106

Tight Control Model: gov't and military spoon-feed information to the media
Embedded: media have constant access, BUT reporters are dependent on the military for their lives so this creates pro-American bias AND they get 'soda straw' coverage - small scale snapshots that fail to convey the larger picture