Cognitive Dissonance, Media Illiteracy and Public Opinion Essay

Topic The phrase Cognitive Dissonance, Media Illiteracy and state- declareed Opinion on watchword Media is examining and discussing public perspective, media illiteracy and cognitive dissonance. The author takes you through a let out down on public imprint of intelligence operation wallpapers and video recording word and shows wherefore a lot of the duodecimal research taken everywhere the past several decades is in fact invalid. The main purpose of this article is to compare and contrast report and television intelligence agency, and investigate the reasons why wiz source is more credible and reli suitable than the other. He also discusses the pooh-pooh in the audiences of both.Context Many other scholars have cited Claussen as to why he believes multitude demand TV intelligence service over tidingspaper is because it is human nature to want a name and a gift and a voice with communication (Claussen, 2006). It touches on the questions raised by other papers re garding the creditability of TV countersign and why throng choose to stick with the tidings as entertainment instead of reading newsprints for the facts, which also shows the differences in public opinion over the several decades in which the information is gathitherd. It follows in with fields of study such as journalism, media studies and mass communication as it breaks down how these types of communication are influential to the public. It intertwines with psychology, public sociology and cultural studies as the article examines the thought pattern and reasoning as to how people choose their preferred style of news consumption.Structure This research article is veritable from the findings of quantitative research conducted by the U.S. report attention, American Society of theme Editors and most recently The Ford Foundation. The article itself has two formal headings to break down what is being discussed and where the information was extracted 1) Studies and Surveys Abou t Newspapers Versus tv set, and 2) Reasons Why The U.S. Public Gave Television News A Free Pass. The departments of this article are quite clear. It starts with the introduction, which gives an commodious summary of what is being discussed, whom this egress is affecting and the reasons why this information was garner. It therefore moves Claussens main principle under the heading Studies and Surveys About Newspapers Versus Televisions. In this section you find the deduction to support the authors claims more or less the difference between newspapers and television news and the publics opinion on this matter.The article then moves on to the second heading, Reasons Why the U.S. Public Gave Television News a Free Pass, which itself is a bold command of the authors viewpoint. Continually referencing Newhagen and Nass article Differential Criteria for Evaluating Credibility of Newspapers and TV News (Newhagen and Nass, 1989), which shares Claussens view, this section also serves as a conclusion. This section concludes with the opinion that the reason why people choose TV news over newspapers is due to the publics illiteracy of the media. The author is able to communicate his thoughts and ideas clearly without the use of diagrams, tables or visual aids. He uses ample facts and figures to support his assertion, in a clear and well-structured article. Overall, the structure of this piece has been flabby to follow, simple to read and very informative.Style This is an informative yet glib piece Claussen uses research to persuade the audience of his opinion on news consumption by the public. He is writing to a general audience, anyone who is enkindle in reading about this topic willing find it to be an interesting piece to read. The language is simple and neutral, and is clear and easy to gain with minimal use of jargon and difficult words. The article is formal, and he does no. use descriptive language or attempt to visualise the topic at hand, keeping his authority on the subject.Argument The public opinion regarding news media, the differences between newspapers and TV news, the reasoning behind why the quantitative research on this topic is invalid and the changes make in this industry over the past several decades are all parts of the argument at hand. The author is trying to convince his audience that people will give an answer on this topic that is deemed more fondly grateful rather than the real truth as to the carriage they pay for their news. He is also convincing the audience that newspapers have a lot more content and points of view than the simple ones broadcasted on television.The author believes lack of culture on media literacy is the most important factor and that the content of the television news has become so poor that many consumers can no long-range deny that newspapers are higher quality news media than television news broadcasts (Claussen, 2006). The author makes few assumptions throughout the article one being that the newspaper industry and those who believe in an important, even unique, role for newspapers are have-to doe with about the long term future of the industry (Claussen p212) as there is no evidence to support the scope of these claims.Evidence The author has gathered examples of opinions by scholars and professionals in the mass communication industry, as well as gathered statistics from quantitative research performed by organisations and corporations to back up legal age of his claims. The major(ip)ity of the sources cited in this article are secondary sources, provided I have found one slick study from readership.org cited by Claussen. This case study looks at the type of news people want to read, and rankings of grandeur among types of newspaper readers, however all of the other original research cited in this article is no longer available via the web to legitimise the sources. evaluation Claussen included information from similar articles to excerpt on c onclusions and back up his claims on this topic, in particular, the article Differential Criteria for Evaluating Credibility of Newspapers and TV News (Newhagen and Nass, 1989) this is a peer viewed journal article which has been cited over 50 times. In relation to this article drawing on the conclusion that newspapers will forever and a day be at a disadvantage relative to television in surveys of public attitudes because of the separation in time and space between readers and the people who produce newspapers some would say since the article was written in 1989 this paper would benefit from more recent findings on this topic as at one time this may have changed due to the instant feedback they can now receive via online surveys.This has been included to support the claims that it is harder to produce newspaper news than television news, however looking at this article this would be the main conclusion you would draw from this evidence. Another example would be The Publics Use an d cognition of Newspapers (Bogart, 1984). This is another journal article, which compares newspaper content and the content of television news. The way the statistics are portrayed in this article compared to the original source strengthens the argument by changing the wording to make the argument more smooth-tongued for example only 53% said television alone was not sufficient (Claussen, 2006) compared to the original article that Claussen used to gain his evidence which give tongue to 53 percent, say they do not jack off enough news from TV and want the added details from the newspapers on the big stories (Bogart, 1984).One major reason which has not been discussed in this article, is that majority of people in the US have a television in their home, which has free access to the local anaesthetic channels, therefore watching TV news is more accessible. This article has been evenhandedly useful in comparing the differences between newspaper and television news throughout hist ory however not having any recent evidence or opinions has weakened the claims as there is no evidence habituated from the decade prior to writing this piece regarding the growth of media, including websites, smart phones, social media, and other communication sources.Conclusion Going through the evidence and opinions that Claussen has cited to support his claims and after analyising the article more deeply, it would be found that his argument that newspaper content is a lot stronger than television news, is not necessarily correct, considering that television news is much easier to obtain. People prefer a more in-person way of viewing their news and in this day and age people want as much information as they can get in the quickest way possible making TV news most popular. With the new technologies available in these recent times would these claims made regarding where people gain their news from still be relevant to the countersign on the newspapers long term future?References Bogart, Leo 1984, The Publics Use and Perception of Newspapers The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 709 719. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from JSTOR Database via Griffith University.Juric, Pavica 2006 Mass Media utilisation during a Natural Disaster LSU College Students and Hurricane Katrina, Masters thesis, Louisiana State University, billy club Rouge.Newhagen, John & Nass, Clifford 1989, Differential Criteria for Evaluating Credibility of Newspapers and TV News, Journalism Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 277-281,284. Retrieved January 9, 2013 from ProQuest Database via Griffith University.