Week 7 notes
Week 7 notes Comm162
Popular in Campaigns, Voting, Media
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Erica Evans on Monday February 22, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Comm162 at Stanford University taught by Shanto Iyengar in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 9 views. For similar materials see Campaigns, Voting, Media in Communication Studies at Stanford University.
Reviews for Week 7 notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/22/16
Comm162 2/17/2016 Media Strategies: • Candidates are rational actors – they want to win • Press strategy (free exposure), Paid strategy (paying for advertisements) • Theory of issue ownership: Candidates focus on issues that they have an advantage on • Pandering – you want to take positions that people will like • Most political advertising is negative -‐-‐ but product advertising is highly positive. So why are politics so hostile? • Candidates do not advertise in states that have clear republican/democrat leanings. It is not worth it to spend money on these states. • The battleground states are where the campaigns really matter. • Primacy effect: early messages have greater impact than later messages. • Targeting: focus efforts on who it will matter to most • Downs’ “median voter” theory and “convergence” hypothesis; in the era of polarized parties, divergence rather than convergence – everyone’s going to be clustered in the middle. In a two-‐party system, both parties will converge. But this has obviously not happened! Student Presentations: Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: • How does partisan affect compare with affect based on other social divides? • Looked at race • To what extent are partisans willing to discriminate against opposing partisans on non-‐political decisions? • Took IAT – republicans associate republican with good, and democrats than bad. • People were more biased against political party than against race • Republicans favored republican resumes and vice versa. • Trust Game: player one gets money and decides to give money to someone, the money is tripled, and then has the opportunity to give some of the money back. • Dictator Game: Same as trust game, but there is no option for player 2 to give money back. • In the dictator game, the same race was likely to receive 8c more. • Co-‐partisans received 10% more donations. • Dictator game, Co-‐partisans received 25% more • IN CONCLUSION: Bias against party is stronger than racial bias. Affective polarization is uniform across parties. • Why? • Individuals choose rather than inherit party affiliation • There is open hostility in politics • Lack of salience Election Polarization Continues, Abramowitz: • Deepening geographic divide in 2008 election. On a state by state basis there were landslide victories • Most people live in areas with a lot of like-‐minded people • Overall democratic shift overall, but republican shift in the deep south • States themselves are becoming more internally polarized • Geographic divides are running deeper than they have in the past • Also growing generational divide • Also growing racial divides • Also change in party coalitions • Deep ideological divisions or elite polarization passed down? • Public divided on support/opposition of major issues • CONCLUSION: There is no disconnect between political elite and the public America’s Missing Moderates, Fiorina: • A rebuttal to the Abramowitz article • Fiorina is more of a minimalist when it comes to polarization • The political elite do not represent the mass public • A rise in independent classification for voters • People are stable in what they vote for, but if people are so stable, why are Washington politics so bad? • The middle of the electorate no longer has a home • Increasingly less conservative liberals and less liberal republicans • Primary voters are more extreme than the general public Party Polarization in American Politics, Layman: • Conventional wisdom says parties were not that different • Today, American parties “more programmatic, cohesive and ideologically distinct” set of parties • Shift from conflict displacement to conflict extension • Conflict displacement – • ^ Can lead to party realignment • Conflict extension – instead of newer issues overtaking older issues, we have new party conflicts extending from older ones. • Much more division in Congress now • Why polarization? • Increasing discrepancy between parties • The south has shifted to republican • A lot of ideological realignment • Party discrimination – stronger than race • More and more dems and reps are voting separately • People choosing party affiliation based on their ideological preferences • Elite vs. Mass polarization? He thinks Elites. Mass polarization in elites affects the public. • Party activists (issue-‐oriented) as the dynamic element – replaced professional lobbyists • Consequences of polarization: • Stalemate in politics à 12% approval rating in congress • A lot of negative political advertising • Widespread dissatisfaction and mistrust of politicians • Policy representation – people are more politically active Red Media, Blue Media, Shanto: • Are consumers of online news exercising selectivity in their news? • Does news content matter? • Does attentiveness matter? (political interest) • Media is increasingly diverse and customizable • Does the internet narrow users’ political horizons • What are the implications of an increasingly polarized readership? • Polarization leads to biased news content under the market model. Selective exposure may further reinforce existing beliefs and attitudes: the echo chamber effect • 4 source labels: Fox, NPR, CNN, BBC • 6 subject matters • Control condition: source labels were deleted • Fox has higher demand from Republicans, NPR and CNN attract more democrats. BBC is neutral. • Fox label has the strongest impact on story selection: its strategy works • Subject content matters: effect stronger for hard news, but soft news also shows polarization • More involved (politically interested) partisans are more selective Exposure to news information: • Echo chambers -‐ • Filter bubbles – when algorithms like FB newsfeed filter content based on what you have already consumed • Cross-‐cutting connections – when you are friends with people of the opposite ideology. FB promotes clustering. • Part of the reason conservatives receive more liberal content is because there are more of them • The algorithm used by Facebook, lowers the probability of seeing cross-‐ cutting content • Just because you are being exposed to this information does not mean you are actually reading or clicking on it • Conservatives are exposed to more cross-‐cutting articles and are more likely to click on them and read them than liberals – Republicans are more open-‐ minded! • People are not going to Facebook for hard news • This sample is younger, more educated and more female • Facebook works differently than other social media sites
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'