The final four chapters of _Media Access_ are chiefly concerned with how old and new media can be used for increasing democratic and civic engagement. The researchers featured in this section assume that encouraging people to become involved in the political process is a good thing. Hofstetter’s chapter on political talk radio, for example, champions political talk radio as medium that encourages listeners to become more knowledgeable and more politically active than non-listeners, and concludes that the medium may therefore enhance democratic citizenship.
I take issue with the conclusions Hofstetter draws from his data. My main critique lies in how he measures listeners’ “knowledge” and whether talk radio “educated” citizens make informed political decisions when they are enticed to act. Hofstetter seems to argue that the quasi-interactive forum of talk radio, where (screened) callers can call in to the show and participate in dialogue with the host and other callers has the unintended consequence of educating listeners. This is commonly known as a “piggybacking” effect to entertainment media spectatorship wherein a viewer tunes-in to be entertained but has the unintended consequence of learning information. My major problem with the way Hofstetter positively correlates political talk radio listening to an increase in knowledge is that he measures this as an effect of audience participation. He does not actually measure how knowledgeable listeners are in terms of the political or scientific facts they might know, by asking them for example if they know who their senators are and how they voted on a particular bill, or whether or not there is scientific consensus that global warming exists. Instead, he assumes that incendiary speech that drags entertainment seekers to “interact” in highly staged entertainment shows that allegedly incorporate current events and political figures into their programming has the unintended consequence of educating the listener.
Hofstetter does mention some doubts about the talk show hosts’ credibility given the market pressures to talk about not what is truthful but rather what inspires high ratings and does not offend advertisers and networks. Anecdotal evidence suggests that talk radio is largely made up of conservative political commentators. According to A.C. Nielsen, the top five programs are those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, and Glenn Beck. I do not consider the type of incendiary, blatantly bigoted diatribe that is so often aired on these shows (ie: “the homosexual agenda” and “femi-nazi’s”) to be “information.” If talk radio is to be considered a public sphere, the kind that Habbermass suggests that is divorced from market and political pressure -a true marketplace of ideas-, then competing ideas and narratives about how the world works need to be aired. The repeal of the FCC "fairness doctrine" in 1987—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast, made sure that this will not easily happen, and this is why I am suspect that political talk radio imparts knowledge to its listeners. Given the content of such programing, I am also highly suspect that individuals for whom talk radio comprises their entire political and civics education are knowledgeable enough to make informed voting decisions.
1 comment:
The final four chapters of _Media Access_ are chiefly concerned with how old and new media can be used for increasing democratic and civic engagement. The researchers featured in this section assume that encouraging people to become involved in the political process is a good thing. Hofstetter’s chapter on political talk radio, for example, champions political talk radio as medium that encourages listeners to become more knowledgeable and more politically active than non-listeners, and concludes that the medium may therefore enhance democratic citizenship.
I take issue with the conclusions Hofstetter draws from his data. My main critique lies in how he measures listeners’ “knowledge” and whether talk radio “educated” citizens make informed political decisions when they are enticed to act. Hofstetter seems to argue that the quasi-interactive forum of talk radio, where (screened) callers can call in to the show and participate in dialogue with the host and other callers has the unintended consequence of educating listeners. This is commonly known as a “piggybacking” effect to entertainment media spectatorship wherein a viewer tunes-in to be entertained but has the unintended consequence of learning information. My major problem with the way Hofstetter positively correlates political talk radio listening to an increase in knowledge is that he measures this as an effect of audience participation. He does not actually measure how knowledgeable listeners are in terms of the political or scientific facts they might know, by asking them for example if they know who their senators are and how they voted on a particular bill, or whether or not there is scientific consensus that global warming exists. Instead, he assumes that incendiary speech that drags entertainment seekers to “interact” in highly staged entertainment shows that allegedly incorporate current events and political figures into their programming has the unintended consequence of educating the listener.
Hofstetter does mention some doubts about the talk show hosts’ credibility given the market pressures to talk about not what is truthful but rather what inspires high ratings and does not offend advertisers and networks. Anecdotal evidence suggests that talk radio is largely made up of conservative political commentators. According to A.C. Nielsen, the top five programs are those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, and Glenn Beck. I do not consider the type of incendiary, blatantly bigoted diatribe that is so often aired on these shows (ie: “the homosexual agenda” and “femi-nazi’s”) to be “information.” If talk radio is to be considered a public sphere, the kind that Habbermass suggests that is divorced from market and political pressure -a true marketplace of ideas-, then competing ideas and narratives about how the world works need to be aired. The repeal of the FCC "fairness doctrine" in 1987—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast, made sure that this will not easily happen, and this is why I am suspect that political talk radio imparts knowledge to its listeners. Given the content of such programing, I am also highly suspect that individuals for whom talk radio comprises their entire political and civics education are knowledgeable enough to make informed voting decisions.
Post a Comment