The formation of public opinion
Posted by Harry Stotle on February 26, 2008
Public opinion is not an aggregate of individual opinions which would have been formed independently. Quite the opposite, really: opinions are for the largest part products of a preexisting public opinion. Naturally, public opinion acts in a circle, as it is reproduced through the very elements it has produced, the individual opinions.
Within its workings, Individuals are not passive, but they are restrained. All they can generally do is select according to their own preferences or interests (what Mark Twain used to call their ‘corn-pone opinions’) among a limited set of possible opinions deemed as legitimate and previously authorized by public opinion. In practice I may, for instance, entertain an opinion favorable to Obama, Clinton or McCain, not an ’illegitimate’ opinion, i.e. one which would be considered as eccentric, ridiculous, foolish, extremist or mad by public opinion. Well, I can, but I may not, at least if want my opinions to be discussed, respected or spread by others on any significant scale, and unless I don’t mind being ridiculed, isolated, silenced or persecuted. Actually, if I am obstinate enough not to mind this kind of social pressure, my attitude is likely to be interpreted as an additional confirmation of the illegitimacy of my opinions.
No individual or group of individuals can control public opinion which is essentially a-centric. Believers in conspiracy theories do not understand the mechanisms at work. The most one can do is influence public opinion, propaganda being the primary tool. Advertising – as we shall see – is the other one.
Not all individuals, however, were born equal before public opinion. Some of them are simply more intelligent, they have the capacity to question received ideas. Those can be extremely influential, usually after their death, when the previous ideas have lost momentum. They are very rare.
Another group are the so-called ‘opinion makers’. These do not actually ‘make’ anything, but have the power to focus public attention on a specific opinion rather than on others. These people are the actors of the Media. Their role is to increase the legitimacy of a subset of opinions, first by mentioning it, then by relaying it. In the general case, their audience already shares their subset of opinions. Very few people read a newspaper promoting adverse opinions. All they are looking for is a reinforcement of their established opinions, by the proper selection of appropriate facts and points of view. The more an opinion is reinforced, the better it spreads. Media backing such opinions get more following, and become more legitimate and influential.
The surge of the Internet did not entail any dramatic change until now. Assuming that the entire range of possible opinions is present on the web (a reasonable assumption), each of them remains almost invisible and diluted until some mass media directs public attention onto them. This can be done by non-digital media (a newspaper or a TV program mentioning an opinion expressed on the Internet, or adopting such opinion), or by digital media (e.g. major blogs). Self-organized buzz can in some cases spread virally, although none – to this date – have been able to become influential on a macroscopic scale without the leverage or traditional media.
In order to survive, traditional media need resources. Subscribers not being enough in most occurrences, advertising does the rest or does it all. In other words, any non-digital media is dependent on advertising. As advertising has also become the main source of revenues over the Internet (see previous post), the rule applies basically to all media of any kind.
Theoretically, advertisers on a perfect market are indifferent to the content of the support. They are supposed to advertise strictly according to the size of the audience. They don’t. They advertise only in ‘legitimate’ media, i.e. media relaying ‘legitimate’ ideas. Not only they are human beings, reluctant to help in any way people spreading dissenting ideas, but they are also aware that the ‘illegitimacy’ of the content can affect the image of whatever they have to sell. Even in the rare occasions where they accept a certain amount of scandal to draw more attention, things are kept within strict boundaries. For instance, Benetton ‘shocking’ marketing campaigns remained politically correct, until they had to be stopped altogether.
This means that media and therefore people working for them cannot afford emphasizing anything else than mainstream or innocuous ideas, unless they have a niche and motivated subscribers. Any opinion deemed to be illegitimate, no matter how sound or well documented it may be, is put aside or condemned. This includes original ideas, as well as views opposed to those of most people, or contrary to the interests of the advertisers.
Large corporations do not have to plot to impose their views. They don’t even have to plan it or think about it (although they of course can if need be). They simply have to advertise. Directly taking over the media is also an option, but not a necessary one. This is easily done, their opinions being usually of the mainstream kind or, more precisely, representing the subset of mainstream opinions the most compatible with their own interests.
The American people will soon elect the next President. Their choice will be limited however to candidates acknowledged as being legitimate by the media. May be a good group, may be not. Nothing can be done about it.
By the way, this post is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is how the world goes.
chicagoadam said
Public opinion does not reflect what the “public” thinks – and really never has. For decades social scientists have conducted simple studies in which they ask individuals how they will answer a question. The scientists then put the individuals in a group – and voila the individuals reach entirely different answers. Surprisingly, whatever the most vocal group participants proffers as the right answer most often becomes the answer selected by most in the group.
Why? Simply enough, most people are subjected considerably by peer pressure in any and all settings. Individually, many people may feel one idea or one politician is bad. But in a group they will say the opposite. Joseph McCarthy was despised by many people, but it took years before a group action – censorship by the U.S. Senator – finally happened. And almost no one publicly said he was bad as he chased hidden communists down the halls of U.S. Congress.
People usually say what they think the other person wants to hear. Plop an individual in the U.S. southwest, and they’ll say immigration should be stopped. Put the same person in a nursing home surrounded by immigrant unskilled healthcare workers and immigration is suddenly fine. Take them to church, and they affirm everyone should have health care. Take them to work and they are ready to deny healthcare to any employee that will drive up group premiums.
Very few people in the public spend much time thinking about most issues. They merely parrot the response they believe is most acceptable. Because of this, those who spend money on media spending have the ability to set the standard of what most people think – by setting what is considered the most acceptable point of view. Randolph Hearst, renowned U.S. newspaper publisher, once said “it’s not a good idea to argue with people who buy ink by the barrel.”
In the end, public opinion is for sale. If you want people to think Hilary Clinton is liberal, you need only own a radio station and pay Rush Limbaugh to say so. If he says it enough times, Hillary the liberal becomes public opinion. Or John Kerry, decorated battlefield veteran, can be branded a traitor to his country unsupported by any facts at all. The public, although composed of individuals, will mimic whatever they hear as the most common answer – regardless of its validity.
The only answer is open, equal public debate. If multiple points of view receive the same hearing, then people are forced to listen and make their own decision as to their favored opinion. And only after that can an assessment be made as to public opinion. Until that utopian day, those who spend are positioned to set what becomes public opinion.
This is how the world of Rupert Murdoch goes.
harristotle said
Public opinion is not an aggregate of individual opinions and thus does not ‘reflect’ individual opinions. Individual opinions are limited by constraints originating in public opinion.
‘Legitimacy’ is the key concept here. Saying that a political regime or an authority is ‘legitimate’ does not mean it is supported or approved by a majority. It means that most individuals believe that most other people consider such regime or authority as legitimate.
Take a regime that is disliked by a majority. This regime will remain strong as long as the same majority believes it is so strong that any individual disapproval or disobedience would be bound to fail. Otherwise, democracy would be the only possible regime and no tyranny could survive. Yet, we know that democracies are extremely rare.
On the other hand, any regime can collapse when expectations on its legitimacy change. Even its supporters (including public force) start taking a distance. That’s what happens during revolutions.
Democracies are also subject to this phenomenon. The winner in election is almost never the person who would get the individual approval of a majority of voters. The winner is either the candidate with the highest legitimacy expectations, or the candidate preferred by a majority among the limited number of candidates considered as legitimate.
The media have a strong influence on legitimacy build up. They are not completely free to determine who is legitimate or not, as all they can do is to increase or reduce the legitimacy of a candidate or an authority. But this is still a lot of influence: they are the ones making or possible or not for a black man or a woman to be a legitimate candidate. They are also the ones triggering an ‘obamamania’ or a ‘clintonmania’ after a ‘bushmania’.
To consider opinions as an individual process is an illusion. What we are dealing with is a tangled hierarchy of logical levels where individuals interpret ideas of the groups they belong to.
This is how the world goes in general, not only Rupert Murdoch’s. Even science, which though it depends on critical evaluation of ideas, is far from exempt from such legitimacy effects!