Bad Press

How The Media Sways Public Opinion

by Roland Kriewaldt

Watching the evening news, we might assume that such programs are impartial, neutral platforms both socially and politically. We listen to respectably dressed anchormen or women, looking business-like and sincere for the cameras, and we feel assured that they won't betray their humanity by showing emotions or expressing an opinion of their own. They are there to give us the facts. Aren't they?

Yet the media is owned by wealthy business people who do have opinions and agendas of their own. What protects us from their influence if they "own" the trusted news anchors we invite into our living rooms each day? Aren't we just sitting ducks?

Let's be realistic: if you owned a television station, wouldn't you feel entitled to use it in whatever manner you saw fit? And wouldn't you broadcast your views to influence others if it brought you economic, moral or philosophical benefits? Sure you would. And today's media barons would likely agree with you. After all, they're just business people, not guardians of society. (That's someone else's job!)

But how would a partisan media owner use television and newsprint to sway public opinion without overstepping the fictitious bounds of neutrality? Simple: they use subversion.

This article was inspired by a commercial for a Canadian news program I saw [and let me preface by claiming my drug fee status!] It showed a collage of short news reels to convey the scope of topics typically covered in their programming. What got my hackles up was when they depicted our ongoing decriminalization of marijuana issue by showing a decrepit looking man rolling a joint. Now why choose him over a well-dressed businessman smoking a joint? After all, that's an accurate portrayal too.

The man shown rolling the marijuana joint looked desperate and dangerous. This triggers our fear and social biases: we judge him a social outcast detrimental to our society. As proof, consider that high end products are purposefully associated with attractive, sexy and vibrant career people in advertising. This creates a strong, competitive desire in consumers to imitate the look of success on display. This is also why Rolex commercials will never feature wild-eyed, desperate looking men rolling joints. That would create a repulsion for buying their "esteem" based product. (Remember how cigarette ads always featured laughing, beautiful people?).

All advertisers know the attraction/repulsion formula. Hence, the tv station intentionally chose to associate a repulsive image with the marijuana legalization issue. This influences our opinion about the "dangers" and "threats" of marijuana smokers (not the drug itself), especially if we have never smoked it. Our repulsion for the man bleeds into the issue, and we are swayed to believe that marijuana is bad — unlike alcohol, which is associated with laughing, beautiful people (not loud, hostile, invasive drunks who may die in their cars). It's an old game of mental conditioning which Pavlov helped define in the 1900's: See bad - Think bad - Is bad. No sale!

Subversion is a common tool in psychological manipulation. If a newspaper favors one political candidate, they'll publish unflattering images of rival candidates to invoke our repulsion. The one they favor gets the best treatment with flattering images that show them as attractive, honest, caring individuals. This attracts us to them, which is the intent. Reading several newspapers, we'll see that it's a common ploy. We can also determine the status of the readership by the ads: is it for Rolex watches, or nude female mud wrestling?

So with this vast array of imagery and information, our choices must be informed by our opinion and agenda alone, not by those of the media bosses. Let's keep our eyes, ears, and minds wide open.