“Changing Minds” is a book written by Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson and published in 2013. The purpose of this book is to disclose the results of the experiments that the authors conducted to study the effect of partisan news. Modern Americans have access to a broad range of news sources, which allows them to choose the approach that aligns with their political views. Moreover, the general availability of partisan news sources also allows people to turn off the news, which is a surprising effect. As a result, the new media environment supports the political affiliations and beliefs that Americans already have. This paper will present a critical analysis of Chapters 1 through 4 of the book “Changing Minds.”
The partisan news sources, which are directed at specific audiences who support a particular political agenda, draw the attention of small audiences. This idea is one of the critical arguments that the authors of the book “Changing Minds” put forward. This hypothesis means that these news sources are not directed at managing the opinions of the people who already support the political views of the partisan news source. Hence, such media is not effective when trying to change the political affiliation of people. Moreover, Arsenaux and Johnson (2013) state that watching partisan news can strengthen the political views that the person has already had.
The book by Arceneaux and Johnson is a study of media influences on public opinion in the United States. In Chapter 1, the authors introduce a levelheaded examination of the controversy over the “hypodermic model” of powerful, persuasive effects against “minimum effects.” The hypodermic needle model is a communication paradigm that proposes that an intended message is directly received and entirely accepted by the receiver. For partisan news, this means that the viewer listens to the agenda presented in the news source and agrees with everything stated. The “minimal effect” theory suggests that political views, campaigns, or media sources can effectively persuade only a small number of recipients. These notions mean that despite the availability of a variety of news sources, the contemporary citizen has, they are unlikely to critically analyze the information and political agenda of the party they disagree with. Thus, “Changing Minds” introduces the idea that the availability of the news sources that the modern people have has little potential of affecting the political views of these people.
Another focal point of Chapter 1 is the media’s shift in focus to agenda-setting, priming, and framing effects. Some of the previous research, such as Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro’s “The Rational Public ” report, contain counterpoints to the “Changing Minds” arguments. Under “The Rational Public,” findings suggest that aggregate public opinion alters for some reasons, even in cases of short-term fluctuations. These changes occur in a manner related to receiving new information found in the news media. Hence, the attention to agenda-setting and framing does not have a direct influence on the interest of the public in a particular partisan news source. This also suggests that partisan news sources’ effect on the public’s opinion is more complex than previously assumed.
In Chapter 2 of “Changing Minds,” the authors focus on explaining the expansion of cable news and the impact of legislation on the development of this information source. For example, the 1992 Cable Act promoted the establishment of cable news as such. The 1992 legislation represented a return to legislation. The changes were made in the fields of cable pricing, operations, and programming access, as well as the development of further safeguarding and security for public access channels and the expansion of obscenity rules to encompass cable and public access channels. In contrast, the 1984 cable act deregulated most cable transmission, and subsequent court judgments lowered rules even more (Arsenaux & Johnson, 2012). It is essential that the authors of the book examine the history of cable television and the policymakers’ support for it.
In the following chapter, the authors focus on the methods they used to conduct their study and their revolutionary nature. It is important that Arsenaxu and Johnson (2013) explain their methodology, which is crucial for any type of scientific research. Moreover, this chapter discloses some of the aspects that led to biases in the previous studies. Hence, this chapter is crucial for understanding media research and the differences between the traditional methods and those used by the authors of the book. The subsequent chapter focuses on the diverse populations and how the effects discovered by the authors impact different populations.
One assumption that counteracts some of the ideas from the first four chapters of “Changing Minds” is the nature of the impact that the news has. This impact of the news is most likely to happen if it indicates elite-level consensus, as opposed to ideological or party disagreement, which would cause Democrats and Republicans in the mass public to divide. Though emanating from leaders, these are media impacts that have evolved in recent years in terms of rising political differences among the public on a wide range of policy topics. Since the 1970s, this difference has followed ideological division at the elite level, and it is the inspiration for Arceneaux and Johnson’s (2013) book. Thus, the authors appeal to several theories on political opinion formation and the impact of the elites on news reporting.
“Changing Minds” offers substantial ideas on partisan news since, for example, as part of the great expansion of cable television, partisan news talk shows and, by extension, new trends in online and social media affect the viewers. For instance, with Fox News, for example, the O’Reilly Factor, on the right and MSNBC, for instance, Rachel Maddow Show, on the left, have contributed to this ideological “sorting,” if not mass polarization (Arsenaux & Johnson, 2012). The other argument is how media growth has encouraged news junkies to consume more political material and, by extension, has prompted partisans to select more partisan sources. Thus, partisan news is specifically tailored to suit the tastes of the people who already have a certain political affiliation, which is the main argument the authors of “Channing Minds” present.
Prior’s a persuasive insight that those who are not interested in politics have more sources to engage in leisure activities or other interests. Arceneaux and Johnson (2013) refer to this as ” choices to shut out news entirely,”— which is more relevant to the way people typically choose the news sources of their preferences (p. 53). People typically turn off the news sources that do not appeal to their views or the where presenters voice opinions that do not correspond to the opinion of these individuals. The authors correctly point out how this screening out confounds all observational research looking for the media’s causal influence on partisan strife. As a result, experiments that impose exposure to media material restrict what people can learn about actual behaviors.
To address this, the authors devised and carried out11 original randomized experiments. Moreover, some of these experiments allowed some subject-controlled selective exposure to entertainment versus news programs. Others, adapted from medical trials research, first determine whether subjects prefer entertainment versus news before examining the effects of news show exposure on individuals who would not normally view such programs. Nearly 1,700 people took part in the tests, including university students and also a varied group of office employees and adults from an online surveys. This research specifically looked at the persuasive impacts of news talk programs on political polarization, the effects of hearing opposing viewpoints, agenda-setting, priming, and framing effects, and perceptions of media bias.
The overall findings that the authors of “Changing Minds” outlined in the first chapters are convincing. Some of the important ideas voiced by authors include the argument that partisan broadcasts influence some attitudes of like-minded news-seeking partisans. Furthermore, “counter attitudinal” exposure appears to sometimes strengthen, rather than decrease, some political attitudes (Arsenaux and Johnson, 2013). This idea has supporting arguments in fields other than sociology, and political sciences since evidence for psychological processes of motivated reasoning existed before the publication of this book. The most crucial and striking conclusion is the extent to which political talk show news influences the opinions of entertainment seekers. What is important to note here is that this is unlikely to happen widely outside of the experiment since people are not substantially exposed to such news, if at all. Thus, partisan news has a limited effect on people, and only a small proportion of individuals using cable television are exposed to the effects of partisan news.
The authors of “Changing Minds” argue that direct partisan media impacts that lead to political polarization are limited. Considering this, any current mass polarization may be considerably worse because individual decisions in media consumption mitigate the effects of partisan news outlets. It is also clear that reforms in the media are not the answer to eliminating partisan polarization and conflict, based on the author’s findings. Instead, partisan news must go to the type of political leadership. Partisan news has offered a means for individuals to reinforce their ideas, and as Arsenaux and Johnson (2013) point out, their tests only measure the direct impacts of media broadcasts. It is necessary to consider the cumulative consequences of partisan news and the subsequent spread of the ideas and disputes that they highlight across society. Thus, “Changing Minds” offers future social and political sciences researchers a direction for their studies as they point out some of the insufficiencies in the current understanding of how cable news impacts the political opinions of the citizens.
As a result, it appears that cable news that presents partisan opinions attracts the attention of a small group of people who are affiliated with a certain political ideology. This idea is based on some common knowledge facts since people are more likely to choose a source of news or entertainment that they like, which would be a source that presents opinions similar to the one they already have. Based on this approach, one can assume that partisan news has a very tiny impact on the opinions of people with other political affiliations. In this light, the opinions presented by Arsenaux and Johnson (2013) in their book “Changing Minds” seem valid and correspond to the general approach to how people navigate news sources.
One drawback of “Changing Minds” is that the authors do not offer ways of improving partisan news to help these sources draw the attention of the people with opposing political views. Such recommendations would be helpful when acting as a way of improving the people’s understanding of other political ideas. Moreover, the harms of the lack of appeal to the other audiences are not discussed, which is another issue that might interest the reader of this book. When comparing “Changing Minds” to previous readings and the author’s understanding of sociology, partisan news have little effect on changing opinions.
In summary, Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson wrote and published “Changing Minds” in 2013. The goal of this book is to reveal the findings of the experiments that the writers undertook to investigate the impact of partisan news. Modern Americans have access to a diverse selection of news sources, allowing them to select the strategy that best fits their political beliefs. Furthermore, the widespread availability of biased news sources encourages individuals to tune out the news, which is an unexpected result. As a result, the new media environment reinforces Americans’ existing political loyalties and opinions. This paper presents a critical examination of Chapters 1–4 of the book “Changing Minds” and the main ideas on the partisan news and its impact.
Reference
Arsenaux, K. & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds. The University of Chicago Press.