Media is defined as “The means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.” (Dictionary). It is an extraordinary power, with the ability to create and bombard its consumers with endless images and opinions. However, attached to the media’s power is its ability to overwhelm and negatively affect its consumers. Detrimental to politics, “...a sense of cynicism, distrust, and suspicion of modern politics and politicians”, otherwise known as “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) can be created by the media. Ultimately, the type, overexposure, content, and stance of the media combined with our own misinterpretations causes “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) and turns us off politics.

The type and exposure of media plays a determinant role in the cause of “media malaise” (Newton, 1999). Newton (1999) discovered that while dependent on content, television can be subtly linked to “media malaise” (Newton, 1999). However, Newton (1999) also concluded that “...after controlling for income, education, gender, age, and party politics, reading a broadsheet newspaper is strongly connected with media mobilization...” (p.596). This indicates that the media’s ability to turn us off politics takes place the strongest through television as opposed to other types of media. In 2005, on average, Canadians watched a little over 3 hours of television per day and in the United States it was over 8 hours per day (www.economist.com, 2007). This trend of excessive television watching exhibits how our time allotted to television is increasing to near obsession. With this much time devoted to television, the intake of an extreme amount of political propaganda is inevitable. When this excessive information overwhelms viewers, it is a natural reaction for a viewers mind to mentally defend itself and consequently shut the information out. While this decision is not always done consciously, it is clear evidence of “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) and how it results from the television and overexposure of it.

One could argue that since television is only one type of media, overall, the media would not turn us off politics. However, Statistics Canada (2003) reported that for regular users over 19 years, 91% of these consumers chose television as their most regular source, next to newspapers which was significantly lower at 70% (Chart 1). Even more significant are the results found that show that those who used television as their only source of media engaged less in “non-voting political activities” (Keown, www.statcan.gc.ca, 2003). “In fact, in terms of their involvement, those who used television as their only source of news closely mirrored those who did not follow the news at all.” (Keown, www.statcan.gc.ca, 2003). This shows a strong relationship between television users and political disinterest. Another argument against “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) could be the findings by Statistics Canada (2003), as high numbers for “average sources used” was found for those with “Some Postsecondary”, those with “Household income of $60,000 or more”, and those with an “Occupation type of professional/manager” (Table 2). These results may suggest that since a higher average number of sources are used for these groups, “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) through television is not significant enough to conclude that the media turns us off politics. However, it is not a coincidence that these groups represent a niche type of Canadians, who you can assume would (due to their higher economic standing) take more interest in politics. Since this niche does not represent a large enough portion of Canadians, it would be incorrect to assume that due to these findings, “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) is, overall, not evident.

As said by Jules Carlysle, “We are so cleverly manipulated and influenced by the media and establishments on both the right and left, that the truth has become hopelessly lost in semantics.” This is exactly the issue created by content that contributes to “media malaise” (Newton, 1999). Today, “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) is most often created by the bias of the media producers who are looking towards satisfying their consumers and increasing their profit as opposed to delivering the most politically relevant news. Each media type suffers from this bias due to several factors. Highlighted by Popkin & Kabashima (2003) the first factor in creating this bias is the stance on their story, which is determined by what the viewer’s inclinations are and what their rivals will be reporting. An example demonstrated by Popkin & Kabashima (2003) is the clear distinction between the messages from the “government media” as opposed to the “commercial news”. For example, in Canada, the Government message will support what they wish Canadians to gain information on, whereas a commercial media source who may work towards gaining more viewers as opposed to reporting the most politically imperative story. Noted by Popkin and Kabashima (2003), “When commercial media compete against government media, they emphasize on a different variety of shows, because they judge stories according to value of audience and the cost of producing the story.” (p.2). This point can lead us to the conclusion that often the commercial media is more concerned with its cost and profits than it is with its distribution of knowledge. And as the media consumption rises, so does the ability for each type of media to specifically focus in on their target consumers, and ultimately leave out more facts and point of views. So as the consumption rises, so does the media’s flexibility. These goals of the media combined with their expanding flexibility, are imperative in creating the bias found in the content of the media. It is these stories that creates the excitement and the stir of the media, but reduce the viewers trust in the politicians and events reported and consequently create “media malaise” (Newton, 1999).

A key aspect of “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) is the “lack of trust in politicians and politics” (p. 596). As discussed, this trust is weakened through content. However, within the content lies the reports stance, which is a determinant factor in creating this mistrust. This stance refers to the position the media takes on a report, and consequently the appearance the media creates for each report. While one could argue that reputable media coverage is indeed made up of facts, it is important to note that it is simply impossible for each reporter to include every detail. The process of eliminating and choosing facts for the published story is where the bias and stance for the report is created. Another instance where this becomes inevitable is in times of elections, where the media has the power to make political parties or leaders appear a certain way. “When the media reports about politicians and policies that is framed as self-interested and not in terms of the common good, whether correct or not, the public’s experience of their leaders is biased towards attributions that induce mistrust.” (Jamieson & Cappella, 1997). As mentioned by Jamieson and Cappella (1997), it is the stance taken, or “strategy coverage” (p. 142) that invites such attributions. This blatantly obvious advertising induces viewer’s suspicions about trust in that group, ultimately causing “media malaise” (Newton, 1999). One could argue that there isn’t enough coverage done by the media to turn a viewer’s opinion sour. However, Jamieson and Cappella (1997) suggest that “...it takes only one strategically framed story to trigger a viewer’s cynical attributions...” (p. 150).

Viewer’s misinterpretation is the final factor in the cause of “media malaise” (Newton, 1999). This is the viewer’s mental mix up that occurs due to the factors of overexposure, content, and stance. When these take place negatively within the media, as they frequently do, it becomes difficult for the viewers to correctly interpret what exactly they are looking at. This overwhelming and confusing feeling often causes one of two things to happen. The first is the viewer’s immediate reaction to stop listening, reading, or watching. The second is where the viewer continues to listen, read, or watch, but do so without the proper understanding of the report. As found by Doris A. Graber (1976), the images from this report which are “...verbally created and often incomplete and badly distorted, become the primary basis for attitudes and actions by the public.” (p. 136). This shows us that when the viewer experiences a negative misinterpretation, as this is most often the case, this in turn causes a off-putting opinion from viewers, and lowers their interest in that particular political information. Furthermore, these misinterpretations cannot be mentally escaped. As explained by Graber (1976), “...given the human perceptual processes, which are subjective and linked to individual’s personal and social characteristics and experiences, perceptual distortions are unavoidable.” (p. 138). These misinterpretations are a result of the overexposure, content, and the stance of the media, and evidently the final process that leads to “media malaise” (Newton, 1999).

In conclusion, ultimately the type, overexposure, content, and stance of the media combined with our own misinterpretations causes “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) and turns us off politics. Through television specifically, and the expanding amount of overexposure, “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) becomes evident when viewers are forced to mentally defend themselves against the bombardment of information. When viewers do choose to look to the media for political information, often their misinterpretations create negative, muddled images that become the foundation for their opinions on politics. For content, the media’s goal for higher profits and viewers as opposed to delivering the most politically relevant news often causes a bias within their reports. This, combined with the strategic stance taken on each report, requires only a single viewing to induce mistrust within it’s viewers (Jamieson & Cappella, 1997). Overall, these factors play key parts in the cause of “media malaise” (Newton, 1999, p. 6). From the outstanding statistical evidence on consumption of political information through media, we can infer that “media malaise” (Newton, 1999) is not only evident, but will likely continue to grow in relation to the expanding access we have to the media.

Word Count: 1,642

Bibliography

(2007, July 19). Retrieved November 2, 2010, from www.economist.com: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid =7933596&story_id=9527126
Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media
Graber, D. A. (1976). Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://books.google.ca/: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mAcZaW5MAh4C&oi=fnd&pg=P A1&dq=verbal+behaviour+and+politics- doris+a.+graber+bibliography+information&ots=Tc5dvQGk73&sig=umKIBX- 6gDRvQ_0WdxPeC5CFZOQ#v=onepage&q=perceptual%20processes&f=false
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (1997). Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://lib.mylibrary.com.proxy.queensu.ca: http://lib.myilibrary.com.proxy.queensu.ca?ID=44167
Keown, L.-A. (2003). Retrieved November 2, 2010, from www.statcan.gc.ca: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/af- fdr.cgi?l=eng&loc=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006008/pdf/9610- eng.pdf&t=Keeping%20up%20with%20the%20times:%20%20Canadians%20an d%20their%20news%20media%20diet
Keown, L.-A. (2003). Retrieved November 2, 2010, from www.statcan.gc.ca: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/af- fdr.cgi?l=eng&loc=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008- x/2006008/pdf/9610- eng.pdf&t=Keeping%20up%20with%20the%20times:%20%20Canadians%20an d%20their%20news%20media%20diet
Newton, K. (1999, October). http://www.jstor.org.proxy.queensu.ca. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.queensu.ca/stable/194239?seq=1
Popkin, S., & Kabashima, I. (2007, April). Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.queensu.ca: http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.queensu.ca/details- sfx.xqy?uri=/14681099/v08i0001/1_icmcp.xml