Elite Consensus & Popular Uprisings

Published 19 April 2010 1 3 Comments

Post your comments, questions, and position statements here.

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

3 Responses to “Elite Consensus & Popular Uprisings”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Nicole D. 20 April 2010 at 12:53 am

Zoe Baird, Nannies, and Talk Radio (Page) position statement

“Call-ins to radio talk shows were already expressing anger. Yet, in all the media examined for this chapter through Monday, January 18, no other newspaper or television story alluded to public outrage over the nomination. Why not? Because no “scientific” evidence (i.e. polls) had yet been gathered? Because of simple inattention? Or was Baker on to something when he went on to suggest that the press was out of touch with ordinary Americans…?” (88).

Page discusses the media coverage surrounding Bill Clinton’s nominee for attorney general, Zoe Baird. The chronological order that Page points out is very important, and I think he makes an excellent point. Early media reactions to Baird were generally very positive, but it was revealed that she had employed two Peruvians who were living in the United States illegally as her baby-sitter and driver for two years. This potential ‘scandal’ did not cause very much of an outrage among elites and congressional officials, so the tone of the story in the New York Times did not encourage readers to be upset with the fact that the nominee for attorney general broke the law. Page says that a justification that elites used for Baird’s offense was the fact that employing illegal immigrants for domestic work was so common. “Baird had done what ‘millions’ of other upper-middle-class American working parents have done” (83), so it should not be considered that big of a deal.

I think that this story had the potential to blow up and be over-covered by the media. It is interesting to see what drives how much coverage of a particular story there really is and what makes it newsworthy. Page says that the non-coverage of the story suggests that most journalists did not consider it very significant, because the media relied on government officials who minimized the manner. This goes along with Schudson’s notion of professional bias. But ordinary citizens took a stand against Baird and believed that her offense was a big deal. The majority of radio callers wanted her to step aside. Page reveals that income and money is a powerful force in how we perceive the world. In general, elites and officials with a high income felt that Baird did not commit a major offense, while ordinary citizens with lower income levels found it difficult to sympathize with her. Many felt that it was “hard to identify with somebody who has that type of income and assets breaking the law” (89).

Page says the fact that the public uprising “was an independent causal factor is indicated by the sequence of events” (90). I liked this point because I think that the public often forms their opinion after hearing what officials, experts, and analysts think, but in this case they formed their own negative opinion of Baird before the media portrayed the story in an overly-positive way. This was a rare and remarkable case in which public opinion was heard, although it differed from the initial mainstream media coverage, and made an impact by ultimately moving officials to action by withdrawing Baird’s nomination. At the same time, I think people are more inclined to voice their opinions about something negative. They will make more of an effort to complain about something than to give a compliment. This is what some people say about ratemyprofessor.com.

We are so often told by the media what to think, and I have especially noticed this regarding coverage of American politics. CNN always features political analysts to analyze what they think of an act of legislation, speech, meeting, etc. For example, immediately after a presidential debate, a few analysts will give their opinion about what was said, who they think won the debate, and what it will mean for them in terms of the overall election. I think that maybe if we do not hear all of these professional opinions right away, we will be more likely to think for ourselves and develop our own opinions. I usually try to avoid watching this post-debate analysis because I do not want it to alter my own opinions that I form independently. If we get just the bare facts instead of so much information from official sources when a story first breaks out, will we be more likely to form our own opinions independent of what they give us? Page says that new media has opened up new channels by which ordinary people can speak their minds and participate in deliberation. This is definitely true. There are definitely more forums for open deliberation online, but how much of an impact can this kind of deliberation (like what people say on message boards, user comments, and personal social media sites) make?

Reply
2 Maya D 21 April 2010 at 3:27 pm

Position Statement
“It may be that we live a life so unlike average citizens that we’re really not very attuned to what they’re thinking.”
Al Hunt, Wall Street Journal
Journalists’ purpose is to inform the general public about the world in which they live. They have immense power because of their ability to filter information, but they also have great responsibility to report news in the best interests of the average American. They cannot effectively do their job if they are only reporting and perpetuating the views of elites and official sources.
Journalists are supposed to be people seeking and reporting truth, today journalists attend planned press conferences, fancy dinners with elites, and report on the Iraq war from their hotel rooms. The lens through which they view the world differs greatly from the average American’s. Although journalists’ goal is to be unbiased, it is impossible to not have a distinct point of view based on one’s social location. Their social location is aligned with elites, not the public.
As journalists have turned into “media stars” the gap between the public and those delivering the news has grown. Journalists cannot understand the “average Joe” because they have no contact with him. Journalists’ dependence on the elite and official sources is dangerous to the American public. By not listening to the general public they are failing to keep the public’s best interest in mind or report accurately. In the case of Zoë Baird, the journalists in conjunction with official sources reported Baird’s hiring of illegal immigrants as an illegal but common act likening it to jaywalking. Their interpretation of Baird’s crime was extremely out-of-touch with popular opinion. Thankfully, the public uprising was able to trump the media’s interpretation and the public was eventually heard. This is one of the great successes of democracy, but what about other cases? The media is supposed to serve as a watchdog, the fourth estate, how can they do this if they are aligned with elites and official sources? If people knew what the public was thinking, instead of just the elites, how would their reactions change?

Reply
3 Andrés B. 21 April 2010 at 6:09 pm

Position Statement: McChesney, “Media Policy Goes to Main Street: The Uprising of 2003”

As we speak, the FCC and the Justice Department are reviewing the deal between General Electric and Comcast, America’s largest cable provider. Comcast plans to buy 51% stake in NBC shares while GE keeps the remaining 49%. I thought it was bad enough that the same company that makes most of the U.S. military’s missiles, General Electric, owns the broadcast company that is supposed to be covering the war and performing the watchdog function. Now the company that supplies most Americans with basic cable and high-speed Internet is going to own one of the country’s leading media outlets.
This deal is problematic. As Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said, “The media are our source of entertainment, but they’re also the way we get our information about the world. So when the same company produces the programs and runs the pipes that bring us those programs, we have a reason to be nervous.” And this is true.
Just as a quick rundown, if Comcast takes over NBC, it acquires:

• NBC Broadcast network (Jay Leno, 30 Rock, etc.)
• Local NBC stations in 10 major markets
• Cable channels like CNBC and Bravo
• Universal Studios, its amusement parks and resorts
• Telemundo
• NBC News
• NBC Sports and Olympics and
• A major stake in Hulu.com

Comcast would add these assets to:
• social networking platform Plaxo that has 20 million users
• Movie ticket provider Fandango
• Fancast, which is like Hulu.com
• Time Warner Cable with over 35 million customers of Cable, home phone and internet service
• E! Entertainment Television, G4, The Golf Channel, Versus and
• a large investment stake in Google.

This means that if I watch a movie produced at Universal studios, buy my movie ticket from Fandango, use Google Maps to get to the theatre then later watch the movie On-Demand from Time Warner Cable, Comcast or on Hulu, all that money is going to the exact same company. Now call me un-American, but one company cannot exert majority control over the biggest media outlets in the country, even the world.

Reply