Strategically Communicating

This week’s readings tell us that media, such as commercials, advertising and voter campaigns, have an effect on people’s behavior and influences public opinion. But, what effect does media privacy have on the two-way relationship between mass media and public opinion? Does increased censoring of online conversations lessen the influence mass media has on opinion leaders?

On September 25, 201, Durden (2011) reported in his blog post that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) submitted a vendor proposal request for the creation of a “Social Listening Platform” whose function is to gather data from various social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums and YouTube as well as primary news sources such as CNN, Wall Street Journal and Google News. (p. 1) The purpose being, “to get a better sense of the relevant concerns and discussions that are taking place in the public domain in order to improve our communications and engagement with the public,” (Ungerleider, 2011, p. 1) stated a Federal Reserve Bank of New York spokesperson, Jack Gutt.

According to Durden (2011), FRBNY will use information gathered to guide communication strategies in order to handle crisis situations, spot emerging trends, and reach key influencers. Katz (1957) tells us that the two-step flow of communication hypothesis “influences stemming from the mass media first reach opinion leaders who pass on what they read and hear to those of their every-day associates for whom they are influential.” In this context, the importance of interpersonal relations in mass communications underscores the need for FRBNY to focus their efforts on creating strategies that effectively engage opinion leaders in order to reach influential audiences.

This raises many questions in my mind such as what effect will these efforts have on the public’s willingness to interact with the FRBNY? Will they feel more or less comfortable with sharing information online now that they are being “watched” more closely? While the internet has created a space for more transparency and a heightened level of consumer action, are we entering an era of counterespionage? Will it evoke fear in speaking freely?

According to Durden (2011), FRBNY says it will be used for communication strategies, but this gives them much more power than that. It’s interesting to see the FBRNY request for proposal (2011) requesting the software have “the ability to identify discussions that are unrelated to FRBNY, such as anything related to Federal, FBI, etc.?” (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2011, p. 14)  Interest in social media monitoring from other areas of government are increasing. Fast Company (2011) reports that “with the 2012 election heating up, nearly all major political candidates have created impressive social media monitoring systems.” (Ungerleider, 2011, p. 1) Many people may see government monitoring of social media as violating privacy rights, but it is also the future.

It will be interesting to see how FRBNY deploys such communication strategies and the influence it will have on its audiences. Giving them the ability to engage directly with content owners may increase their level of influence on such targeted opinion leaders. Will content owners be equally influential in changing bank policies? FRBNY is clearly raising its investment in becoming more engaged with its audience to be more effective in delivering its messages. While new media has increased consumer participation, I hope this increased level of government monitoring does not have a negative effect on the public. Activities such as harassing content owners who may speak objectively, censorship of offended material, post publication criminal penalties, and interference with the public’s ability to buy, read and listen online in the financial industry will ultimately lead to a decrease in participation based on fear.

Class discussion questions:

1.  What effect will increased monitoring of social media conent by government agencies have on the public’s willingness to be transparent when posting content?

2.  Will the public feel more or less comfortable with sharing information online now that they are being “watched” more closely?

3.  While the internet has created a space for more transparency and a heightened level of consumer action, are we entering an era of counterespionage? Will it evoke fear in speaking freely?

 References

Durden, T. (2011, September 25). Here comes FIATtackWatch: Ben ‘big brother’ Bernanke goes watergate, prepares to eavesdrop on everything mentioning the fed [blog post]. Retrieved from http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/09/26/here-comes-fiattackwatch-ben-big-brother-bernanke-goes-watergate-prepares-to-eavesdrop-oneverything-mentioning-the-fed/

Federal Reserve Bank ofNew York(FRBNY). (2011, September 23). Sentiment and analysis and social media monitoring solution request for proposal [supplemental material]. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/66281284/Frbny-Social-Media-Rfp

Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78.

Ungerleider, N. (2011, October 11). The Federal Reserve plans to monitor Facebook, Twitter, Google News. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/1786730/federal-reserve-bank-sentiment-analysis-social-media

In his analysis of the “Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media,” Maxwell McCombs states that his use of the word “agenda” is purely descriptive and not an inference that news organizations have ulterior motives for shaping the public discourse. It would seem McCombs wasn’t privy to the current incarnations of Fox News and MSNBC.

The resurgence of partisan media is just one part of what makes the articles by McCombs and Elihu Katz of limited use in understanding an era where the media’s influence on individuals is both patently obvious and amazingly complex. Unquestionably, the media “agenda-setting” that McCombs describes and the sway held by Katz’s “opinion leaders” have an impact on how the “pictures in our head” are created. But so do many other factors.

I would submit that McCombs’ “agenda-setting” is what journalists simply call “news judgment.” Partisan media aside, I would argue that “news judgment” is determined by three factors: observation, publicity and the public. Journalism is primarily a reactive profession. For better or worse, often the loudest voices and most conspicuous displays gather most of the attention. Media outlets with a national or global scope have arguably the most discretion in what issues are brought to the forefront, but it’s ultimately the perception of “public interest” that dictates content.

In today’s “convergence culture,” the level of influence depends more on the consumer than the producer. To say that our ideas are formed by the media and opinions we consume is to say that oxygen impacts our position on respiration. We gather information. What we gather and how we interpret is ultimately of more importance than who delivered it. McCombs acknowledges that individual media consumers ultimately determine what is relevant to them. And while the media still has the capacity to introduce people to specific agenda items, the degree of influence can be overstated.

To wit, I would hazard to say that 80-90 percent of people who plan to vote a year from now in the 2012 election already know for what (if not whom) their vote will be. And all the interim cacophony of media agenda-setting and opinion leaders will have little influence over that.

Discussion Questions:
-Which had more influence on you in the debate over health care reform: McCombs’ media “agenda-setting” or the “opinion leaders” in Katz’s analysis of peer influence?
-Is the notion that the U.S. is a country bitterly divided by ideological differences apparent at face value or is that concept something that could be manifested by media “agenda-setting” as McCombs describes it?

This week’s reading challenged me a little more than previous weeks.  I found that the Two-Step flow really connected with me well.  In particularly where Katz says that “people were still most successfully persuaded by give-and-take with other people” (p.61).

Think about it.  If you haven’t taken the time to read up on or look into an issue that is of interest to you, what do you do?  Typically you would talk about it with friends, family and coworkers.  Unfortunately too many people form their opinions based on what they hear on the evening news or 30 second commercial ads and assume that what they saw or heard on TV is correct.  Diligent strategic communicators on the other hand know that even if what you saw or heard on TV is in line with what you want to believe, you still owe it to yourself to investigate further. 

Looking into, questioning and discussing will make you more persuasive and that is what Katz says makes one an ‘opinion leader.’  You now can articulate more than one perspective to an issue and concretely state your view and why.

In sales one key element to becoming great is becoming a subject matter expert.  Know your product(s) inside and out as well as knowing the competition.  Find out what they think makes theirs better than yours.  When you confront a customer they will be convinced that you are an expert if you know both the good the bad and the ugly on your product as well as the competitors.  If you educate your customers, you make them opinion leaders; they will sell you and your product for you.  People that look up to them will believe what they say more so than what you have to say even if your information is better.  Think about the ‘drug study’ (p.68-70).

I was left asking myself “do I strive to be an opinion leader?”  Do I take the time to educate myself and take an honest look at the various perspectives even they are counter to what I want to believe?  It’s tough to do because I believe that our natural tendency is to only look into things that coincide with our beliefs.

My question is the same to the class:

Do you take the time to educate yourself and take an honest look or lend an honest ear to the various perspectives even if they are counter to what you want to believe?

Out of this week’s assigned articles, I found McLuhan’s article on Understanding Media to be particularly frustrating. Before cruising into the negatives, I’d like to start out by saying that I agree with the McLuhan’s basic explanation of the concept of hot versus cold media. I liked his description of “censor” as a defense against “information overload,” and how a message through many forms of media and communication can have that strong an impact on a consumer that it would require an almost chemical defense. What I didn’t like was the shear volume of examples used to explain these concepts. Maybe it was the fact that this article was written 50 years ago, or that I over analyzed his descriptions of myth, references to the bible and overuse of the word “jazz,” but this article felt like a choppy and bizarre condensed media history that was either too complex or too simple to understand.
Regardless of how much or how little anyone gleaned from this article, I’m thinking that we are going to need a hot medium like “dialogue” during class tomorrow to make some sense of one of the most confusing, circular and cryptic articles every written.

Discussion Questions:
Are political campaign rituals like debates and television appearances still “hot media” or have consumers/Americans become too
“Censored” based on McLuhan’s description of the term to be influenced by these rituals?
Can anyone explain what McLuhan meant by exclusion and inclusion regarding hot and cold media?

Why are we reading these three articles together for this week’s class?  Mass-media agenda setting, the two-step flow of communication, and hot and cold media are all seemingly different concepts.  However, taken together we can start to form a better understanding of our digestion of the news through mass media.  The idea that the mass media largely set the agenda for what they think is important to the world at large combined with the theory of “opinion leaders” then spreading those ideas to people who are less interested is quite interesting.  Throw in the idea that the medium through which the message is conveyed is hot or cold, passive or participatory, and you have quite a load to think about.  Examining political campaigns, party agendas, controversies, catastrophes and crisis, and celebrations from the perspective that each of these theories promotes, throw those conclusions all together, sort out the discrepancies and common themes and you might discover something all together new.  I am still processing the amount of information coming at me from these three readings.  I know they will fit together to form some new understanding and I can certainly see where this is going but it’s all nebulous in my mind.  Indeed, I am looking forward to the class on Monday.

Questions for discussion:

How do these three concepts work together to help us better understand mass media and its implications on important information?

How can we use that knowledge to be more discriminative in our digestion of media?

Although the articles for this week’s reading were published nearly 30 to 50 years ago, I found that their concepts could still be valuable for understanding today’s rapidly changing media environment.

For example, after reading about “the two-step flow of communication,” by Katz, I recognized how opinion leaders are used at University of Oregon through peer health groups. These student groups, formed of mostly human physiology or biology majors, meet to discuss student health issues such as smoking, alcohol/drug use, safe sex, etc. Student leaders, who are essentially opinion leaders, then volunteer to carry out informal student education campaigns, mostly through social media sites, to influence their peers to choose healthy behaviors.

McLuhan’s concept of hot and cold media can easily be applied to today’s social media. Perhaps facebook could be thought of as a hot media because the viewer doesn’t need to exert much effort to fill-in the details. In contrast, the traditional mass media sources of newspaper and TV may be considered today as cold because they require more of the viewer’s effort to determine meaning.

McCombs’ concept of agenda-setting by the mass media may describe the traditional role of the media in the past (when broadcast and print were our primary sources). However, today our convergence culture includes an extremely large variety of social media sites, online search engines, and instant online news from global resources. I believe well-educated consumers generally form more informed opinions through the power of collective intelligence and may therefore be less influenced by media agenda-setting in today’s world.

Discussion question: In the 2012 presidential campaign, do you think agenda-setting by the media will be a major factor? Do you currently see any use of opinion leaders to influence the election? Will the candidates use more hot or cold media?