Article Review
The article is about the study conducted by Smith and Searles (2013) on determining whether fair and balanced news or difference in opinion matters for media effects. It encompasses the exploration of both the effects and content opinion shows during the 2008 presidential election (Smith and Searles 671). According to the study, opinion changes opinion. On the case of TV shows devoted to attacking opposition candidate instead of praising candidates with the same, opinions conveyed in opinion shows, newspaper editorial, and political talk radio programs has the capacity to change the public’s perception. The exploration of the given issue in the study encompasses an object to focus on the effect of partisanship amidst the wide expansion of media marketplace on the American’s ideological perspective. Recent studies suggest that Americans engage in selective partisan news sources when it comes to exploring political-related issues. For example, Democrats tend to turn their channels to CNN or MSNBC while Republicans go to FOX News and Rush Limbaugh for their dose of daily news (Stroud 2008 as citied in Smith and Searles 672).
The study follows quantitative method that employs panel and rolling cross-sectional data obtained from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) that were tested using a cross-sectional design, which was spread in a controlled manner over time (674). Furthermore, sets of hypotheses were formulated for testing using the described methodology. The study is composed of three sets of hypothesis, which highlights the theoretical underpinnings of how opinion changes opinion. The first hypothesis stipulates that the media coverage of opinion shows as a greater effect on audience attitude as compared to new show (673). The second hypothesis is divided into two sub-hypothesis stating that exposure to opinion shows is likely to influence the viewer’s perception about the out-party candidate to be ideologically radical (673). Meanwhile, hypothesis 2B states that exposure to opinion shows is less likely to affect the viewer’s perception of the in-party candidate ideology (673).
The third hypothesis is also divided into two sub-hypothesis stating that (3a) exposure coverage of opinion shows featuring the out-party candidate increases the likelihood of viewers developing positive perception of the in-party candidate (674). On the other hand, hypothesis (3b) states the opposite of hypothesis (3a). In order to test the probability of the given hypotheses, data from 2008 NAES were collected within the period of December 17, 2007 to November 3, 2008), which is comprised of 57,967 adult American correspondents that are randomly selected through a random-digit dialing technology (674). The obtained data were analyzed by cross-examining its variables against the data from the Campaign Coverage index obtained by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). Given the nature of the methodology and obtained data, it is apparent that that the employed methodology (RCS) is valid in studying the problem in focus. This is because the problem set encompasses a comparative nature in which variances can only be determined by cross-sectional comparison of data sets.
However, possible flaws are imminent due to the weakness of the RCS design, which is its lack of capability to capture attitude change among the participants. For that reason, the study relied on online-based data panel to accommodate individual-level analysis by means of conducting online panel interviews of 28,985 participants (674). The perceived weakness of RCS in determining attitude change within the participants have resulted to the formulation of an independent survey, which added more complex elements on the gathered data to be analyzed. On the other hand, since study itself constitutes several hypotheses, it is only appropriate that the authors conduct a separate interview to individually address the different aspects of the hypothesis that are detrimental in establishing a strong argument to support the thesis. Furthermore, it is easier for the authors to compare and interpret the results because the data are organized according to cluster. For example, hypothesis one to three requires separate set of data to be analyzed (from NAES and PEJ). On the other hand, measuring attitude factor that justifies the variances between NAES and PEJ data will require another set of data, which the online interview tend to provide.
All of these gathered data are clustered according to relevant factors in the issue and applying them to RCS approach have rendered easier interpretation of results. Given the nature of data gathering method and the type of numerical data itself, it is apparent that the authors have highly employed the use of quantitative method of research, which provided a high level of accuracy and validity to the conclusive results of the study. Therefore, the results have established and proved the hypotheses correct that opinion shows influence the viewers perception about political candidates. Moreover, it was found that opinion shows are likely to focus on out-party candidates focusing on the negative characteristics of the candidate (677). It is safe to assume that the methods, analysis, and conclusions are convincing because they satisfied the predictions made by the hypothesis. For example, it was predicted that opinion shows affect the perception of both the in-party and out-party candidates. Hence, the evidences and the evidences and results of RCS analysis reveals that respondents watching Fox’s opinion shows are in favor of McCain during the 2008 presidential election (677). On the other hand, as the opinion shows change its focus of coverage overtime, the viewer’s perception of the candidate also shifts. However, there is only one limitation in the study and that is the higher focus given on opinion shows. It could have been a strategic research if the authors also gave attention to news programs to provide a contradicting element to the study thesis, which will further strengthen its claim on the issue. If the study were to be conducted differently, there will be a higher emphasis given on attitude factor. Furthermore, employing the use of survey instead of interview could have shorten the time needed to complete the data gathering process given the size of the needed correspondents.
Works Cited
Smith, Glen, and Kathleen Searles. "Fair and Balanced News or a Difference of Opinion? Why Opinion Shows Matter for Media Effects." Political Research Quarterly 66.3 (2013): 671 –684. Print.
