Power of the Press - Influence

How would American citizens have known about Operation Iraqi Freedom if it weren't for the media? Maybe everyone who didn't receive their information directly from the media would have received their information by word of mouth? Even so, it originated from the media. The argument could be made that today there is no one "go-to" source for news-related content. We receive our information not only through television but through the Internet as it has become a more mainstream commodity that is readily available. The method in which we receive our news-related content has drastically changed since the beginning of communication studies in the twentieth century, especially the decrease in the amount of time between when the information is available and when the public is aware of it. I think we are social creatures that communicate and spread information to one another, and now we can do it much quicker through more efficient platforms (e.g. Internet - social media and email, as well as cell phones - phone calls and text messaging).

In the first article, I made several connections to Cialdini's six principles of persuasion.

1. Commitment - entire article serves as a binding between the President and the American people 
2. Authority - authored by the President, and published through the nation's highest office
3. Social Proof - the following statement indicates that the President has multiple streams of support for his decision, "more than 35 countries are giving crucial support..."

I also tried to predict, through the Cultivation Process Model, what an individual's response may be at the time of reading this article in 2003...

1.     Invasion is needed to ensure protection against weapons of mass destruction (+)

2.     Invasion could cost thousands of troops’ lives (-)

3.     Innocent lives in Iraq will be liberated from the danger of their leader (+)

Possible attitude: the individual supports the invasion of Iraq.

Possible behavior: the individual will vote for President Bush again or greet the troops when they arrive back from war.

From the second article, I think it is clear that the public opinion wavered over the years following the invasion of Iraq.

• Feb 2001: 52% would favor an invasion of Iraq while 42% would oppose it
• Dec 2008: 64% felt the Iraq War was not worth fighting, with 34% saying it was worth fighting

It would be interesting to see how the press covered the war over the years. What were the differences, if any? I think that the public opinion was swayed depending on how the war was portrayed by the media. Even then, would we take into account the disparity in political affiliations among the networks covering the war?

Overall, I would relate this topic to the agenda-setting chapter by McCombs and Shaw in that there was a correlation between the media agenda and the public agenda. There could have been first level agenda setting based on how often coverage of the war was presented by the media. The more the coverage, the more likely there will be an increase in salience and perceived importance of the war by the public. I think the disparity in political affiliations among the major networks could contribute to second level agenda setting. Second level agenda setting would say that the attributes (e.g. a war rooted in profit, a war of resources, premature decision, too many lives being lost, etc.) ascribed to the war by the agenda setters (media) could influence the public agenda.

I'm not sure how to relate the invasion of Iraq to a positivist's view, but I think a social constructivist's view would hinge on how that individual perceives the invasion. It could vary depending on whether or not they think the invasion was to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction or if they thought the invasion was to liberate the suffering individuals in Iraq.