jpo notes

[regina Newbie Member Find all posts View Profile Close regina]

——
Two Step Flow Theory
influence of media messages
History and Orientation
The two-step flow of communication hypothesis was first introduced by Paul Lazarsfeld,Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet in
The People's Choice,
a 1944 study focused on theprocess of decision-making during a Presidential election campaign. These researchersexpected to find empirical support for the direct influence of media messages on votingintentions. They were surprised to discover, however, that informal, personal contacts werementioned far more frequently than exposure to radio or newspaper as sources of influenceon voting behavior. Armed with this data, Katz and Lazarsfeld developed the two-step flowtheory of mass communication.
Core Assumptions and Statements
This theory asserts that information from the media moves in two distinct stages. First,individuals (opinion leaders) who pay close attention to the mass media and its messagesreceive the information. Opinion leaders pass on their own interpretations in addition to theactual media content. The term ‘personal influence’ was coined to refer to the processintervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s ultimate reaction to thatmessage. Opinion leaders are quite influential in getting people to change their attitudesand behaviors and are quite similar to those they influence. The two-step flow theory hasimproved our understanding of how the mass media influence decision making. The theoryrefined the ability to predict the influence of media messages on audience behavior, and ithelped explain why certain media campaigns may have failed to alter audience attitudes anbehavior. The two-step flow theory gave way to the multi-step flow theory of masscommunication or diffusion of innovation theory.
Conceptual Model
Source: Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955)
Favorite Methods


To be added.
Scope and Application
All kinds of mass media can be researched with this theory (TV, radio, internet).
Example
To be added.
ReferencesKey publications
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1944).
The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign
. New York: Columbia University Press.Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955),
Personal Influence,
New York: The Free Press.Katz, Elihu (1973). The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report of anhypothesis. In Enis and Cox(eds.),
Marketing Classics
, p175-193.Weimann, Gabriel. (1994). Is there a two-step flow of Agenda Setting?
International Journal of Public Opinion
, v6, n4, p323.
The Two-Step Flow of Communication Theory
The story as told by Sarah Griswold"The mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church orState, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done forthem by men much like themselves, addressing or speaking in their name,on the spur of the moment…."
-John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty
IntroductionDevelopment of the Two-Step Flow of Communication TheoryThe Opinion LeadersCriticismsPraises and SupportRecent Studies Based on the Two-Step Flow of Communication TheoryApplications of the theoryReferencesSomething Else
Introduction
Man has forever fought against the forces of entropy, working very diligently atcreating order and meaning, dissecting and perusing until order is achieved. Forcivilization this has been important. It has lent the world many fascinating theoriesabout our surroundings and the effect human beings can have. As order drivenbeings, we seek to stretch and apply knowledge gained in all aspects of life tosituations and experiences very different from the origin of the knowledge. It isthrough the stretching and manipulating of old thought that new insights are made, and new psychological mountains are tackled. It is through this stretching andmanipulating of one socio-political based theory that the field of Advertising hasdefined some of its capabilities and constraints in the area of mass communication. This theory involves the two-step flow of communication.
This paper will address insights to the history and development, the criticisms and praises, recentstudies, and current applications of the two-step flow of communication theory. The ultimategoal is to answer one question: "What does a theory based on socio-political research have to dowith advertising, anyway?"
Development of the Two-step Flow of Communication theory
As with most theories now applied to Advertising, the Two-step flow of communication was firstidentified in a field somewhat removed from communications-sociology. In 1948, PaulLazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet published
The People's Choice
, a paper analyzing the votersi decision-making processes during a 1940 presidential election campaign.The study revealed evidence suggesting that the flow of mass communication is less direct than previously supposed. Although the ability of mass media to reach a large audience, and in thiscase persuade individuals in one direction or another, had been a topic of much research since the1920's, it was not until the
People's Choice
was published that society really began to understandthe dynamics of the media-audience relationship. The study suggested that communication fromthe mass media first reaches "opinion leaders" who filter the information they gather to their associates, with whom they are influential. Previous theories assumed that media directlyreached the target of the information. For the theorists, the opinion leader theory proved aninteresting discovery considering the relationship between media and its target was not the focusof the research, but instead a small aspect of the study.Lazarsfeld
et al
suggested that "ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders andfrom them to the less active sections of the population." People tend to be much more affected intheir decision making process by face to face encounters with influential peers than by the massmedia (Lazarsfeld, Menzel, 1963). As Weiss described in his 1969 chapter on functional theory,"Media content can be a determining influence…. What is rejected is any conception thatconstrues media experiences as alone sufficient for a wide variety of effects." The other piece inthe communication process is the opinion leader with which the media information is discussed.The studies by Lazarsfeld and his associates sparked interest in the exact qualities andcharacteristics that define the opinion leader. Is an opinion leader influential in all cases, on alltopics? Or is the influence of an opinion leader constrained to certain topics? How does anopinion leader come to be influential?
The Opinion Leaders
Who are they? How have they come to be defined?
A study by Robert Merton revealed that opinion leadership is not a general characteristic of a person, but rather limited to specific issues. Individuals who act as opinion leaders on one issue,may not be considered influentials in regard to other issues (Merton, 1949). A later study directed by Lazarsfeld and Katz further investigated the characteristics of opinion leaders. This studyconfirmed the earlier assertions that personal influence seems more important in decision makingthan media. Again, influential individuals seem constrained in their opinion leading to particular topics, non-overlapping among the individuals. The opinion leaders seem evenly distributed

be regarded as replacing the role of interpersonal networks but, in fact, as reemphasizing the roleof the group and interpersonal contacts."Lazarsfeld and his associates detailed five characteristics of personal contact that give their theory more validity:
•
Non-purposiveness/casualness
One must have a reason for tuning into apolitical speech on television, but political conversations can just "pop-up". Inthis situation, the people are less likely to have their defenses up inpreparation, they are more likely open to the conversation.
•
Flexibility to counter resistance
In a conversation, there is alwaysopportunity to counter any resistance. This is not so in media, a one sidedform of communication.
•
Trust
Personal contact carries more trust than media. As people interact,they are better able through observation of body language and vocal cues to judge the honesty of the person in the discussion. Newspaper and radio donot offer these cues.
•
Persuasion without conviction
The formal media is forced to persuade orchange opinions. In personal communication, sometimes friendly insistencecan cause action without affecting any comprehension of the issues.
Menzel introduced another strong point in favor of the two-step flow of information theory. First,there are an abundance of information channels "choked" with all types of journals, conferences,and commercial messages. These are distracting and confusing to their target. With the barrage of information humans are flooded with daily, it is not hard to understand why someone might turnto a peer for help evaluating all of it.
Recent Studies Based on the Two-step Flow of Communication theory
The true test of a theory lies in its timelessness, its ability to spark interest and provoke thoughtyears after its introduction. The two step flow of communication theory has been able to remainrelevant throughout the years. This should not be difficult to believe considering it has fueled atleast the past few pages this year, forty years after its debut. There have been several recentstudies that have addressed issues arising from Lazarsfeld's, Katz's, and Merton's studies fromthe 1940s. In two such studies Gabriel Weimann (1994) and Hans-Bernd Brosius (1996)addressed the setting of agendas as a two step flow of communication.In Weimann's paper addressing the re-emergence of the opinion leader theory into modern day(1991), he addresses several problems that have been overcome sparking the new interest in theold theory. As is further discussed in the section on theory criticisms, the two-step flow of communication theory is difficult to witness in the field. Many researchers have attempted todesign credible models for testing the theory, but with only minor success (Weimann, 1991).Brosius and Weimann set out to explain agenda setting using the basis of the two-step flow of communication theory determined by Lazarsfeld, Katz, and the many other researchers. To avoidthe difficulties in studying the actual flow of communication, Weimann and Brosius separatedthe opinion leaders from their two-step flow of communication theory. Participants were studiedagainst a scale to determine the "Strength of Personality".The Brosius-Weimann study attempts to describe the individuals whose personal communicationhas impact on agenda setting. These individuals are the archetypal opinion leaders, who stillcontrol the flow of information. Weimann and Brosius define agenda setting as a two-step flow,

wherein certain individuals (influentials) "collect, diffuse, filter, and promote the flow of information" from media to the community. The difference between these influentials and theopinion leaders, as Weimann stresses, is that these influentials are usually elitists, not spreadthroughout the community as the old theory suggested (Weimann, 1991). Are these influentials anew breed? Or is there really a difference between influentials and opinion leaders? This, as yet,has not been addressed. Weimann and Brosius suggest the influentials are a subsection of theopinion leaders.
Applications of the Theory
To those who claim that there are no applications of a socio-political theory in advertising,exhibit A is the barrage of articles written daily on the very subject. No longer does theadvertising industry doubt the existence or qualities of influentials, as they are most commonlyreferred to today. Instead, the discussion revolves around effectively targeting messages to reachthese influentials.For fifty years, the research organization Roper has considered the group of "influentials"important enough to track. Regularly, reports and studies are performed in an attempt to unlock the secret to reaching these influentials. Who are they? What has the term "influential" come todescribe? According to Diane Crispell, these people are the "thought leaders" and "pioneer consumers". "Influentials are better educated and more affluent than the average American, but itis their interest in the world around them and their belief that they can make a difference thatmakes them influential (Crispell, 1989)."The influentials today seem to be isolated in the upper class. They are the trend-setters. It is thisgroup that is first to adopt new technology, and remains on the leading edge of trends (Poltrack,1985). This is the group that advertising attempts to reach. Daily articles are published onmaximizing the market by reaching these influentials. The idea remains that the most efficientmedia is word-of-mouth, and it is by reaching the influentials with other forms of media that thisword-of-mouth is generated. It seems the opinion leaders of yesterday have been overlooked for the smaller subset of influentials.
References
Brosius, Hans Bernd and Weimann, Gabriel. (1996). Who sets the agenda?:agendasetting as a two-step flow.
Communication Research
, v23, n5, pp561-580.Crispell, Diane. (1989). The Influentials. Consumers who influence America.
American Demographics
, v11, n3, p12.Glock, Charles Y. (1952). The comparative study of communications and opinionformation.
Public Opinion Quarterly
, Winter, pp512-523.Glock, Charles Y. and Niosia, Francesco (1966). The consumer.
The Uses of Sociology
, New York: Basic Books, Inc. pp359-390.Goeke, Joseph R. (1961). The two-step flow of communication-the theory re-examined. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the AmericanAssociation for Public Opinion Research.
Public Opinion Quarterly
, Fall, pp459-461.Katz, Elihu (1973). The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report of anhypothesis. In Enis and Cox(eds.),
Marketing Classics
, p175-193.Lazarsfeld, Paul and Menzel, Herbert. Mass Media and Personal Influence, inSchramm (ed.),
The Science of Human Communication
, pp.94-115.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., and Gaudet H. (1948).
The People's Choice
. New York:Columbia University Press.Leiss, Julie (1992). Print Ads top TV in reaching influentials (Roper Organizationresearch on reaching influential consumers).
Advertising Age
, Sept 14, v63, n37,p44.Poltrack, Terence. (1985). Influencing the Influentials (Corporate AdvocacyAdvertising).
Marketing and Media Decisions
, August, v20, p56.Merton, Robert (1948). Patterns of Influence: a study of interpersonal influence andof communications behavior in a local community. In Lazarsfeld, Paul and Stanton,Frank (eds.),
Communication Research
, NewYork: Harper and Brothers. pp180-215.Weimann, Gabriel (1991). The influentials: back to the concept of opinion leaders?.
Public Opinion Quarterly
, Summer, v55, n2, p 267.Weimann, Gabriel. (1994). Is there a two-step flow of Agenda Setting?
International Journal of Public Opinion
, v6, n4, p323.
Ode to Paul Lazarsfeld
Finally, my advice to all future and present students of communication theories, get familiar with babelfish, the translator. Lazarsfeld was a very influential person in his time, and he remains sotoday. There are countless websites and readings devoted to his research. Unfortunately, many of them are in German. For those of you who know German, this is no concern. For the rest of us,there is a wonderful utility that will translate these entire sites! (As yet, I am not aware of an easysolution for translating periodicals and books.) Feel free to email mewhen you find one.Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz are well-known as the fathers of functional theory, and their book
Personal Influence,
published in 1955, is considered to be
the
handbook to the theory. Inresearching the effects of the media on the voting public in Elmira, New York in 1940,Lazarsfeld and his team of researchers asked the question as to
whether the HypodermicNeedle approach, where (presumably) the mass media would affect the actions of the votingpopulations, was a valid model of communication
. In the 1940s, social researchers needed toquestion psychologically-based communications theories in an attempt to more clearly definehow information flows from a source to its audience. Therefore Lazarsfeld investigated the flow
Paul Felix Lazarsfeld (February 13, 1901 – August 30, 1976) was one of the major figures in twentieth century American sociology. Founder of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, he conducted large-scale studies of the effects of communication through mass media on society, particularly on voting behavior. Lazarsfeld developed the "two-step flow" theory of communication, based on his findings that the majority of the general public did not form their opinions or decide on a course of action based on directly receiving information, but rather relied on "opinion leaders." He also articulated concepts such as the "black-and-white" alternatives, which are used by governments to present situations in clear-cut choice format with one being unacceptable and the other desirable, and the "narcotizing dysfunction" of overexposure to information leading to public apathy. Lazarsfeld's work illustrated the use of quantitative, mathematically-based, scientific research into sociological issues. His use of objective techniques and measures provided the foundation for serious inquiry into many issues of great importance to the understanding of the functioning of human society. Study of media influence on people
In 1940, a study of the influence of the media on voters' choices was commissioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s staff when he decided to run for a third presidential term. Paul Lazarsfeld headed a group of researchers trying to find out just how much influence the mass media exerted during presidential elections. To gather their data, they set up an extensive study in Erie County, Ohio, where they examined the media's role in the election between the Democratic incumbent, Roosevelt, and Republican challenger, Wendell Willkie.
Limited effects' paradigm
The study yielded startling results, indicating that neither radio nor print had as much influence on voters as had been suspected. The researchers found that assumptions about the same amount of information being received by everybody were not true, since some people receive more information than others. Some members of the public have more exposure to media, have more numerous and more diverse social networks, and they are perceived as influential. They also found that the response to media messages is influenced by the social relationships. To receive a message does not necessarily imply a response. To not receive a message does not imply there will be no response, since people can receive the message via some other channels.
Finally, it was found that most of the people questioned relied heavily on other people for the information they used to make their voting decisions (Lazarsfeld et al. 1968, 148). These “other people,” individuals who were relied on for information, were called by Lazarsfeld "opinion leaders" (151). Lazarsfeld then began to study these individuals and found that an opinion leader could be just about anyone, from a homemaker next door to a coworker on the assembly line.
Further analysis revealed that the opinion leaders were better informed than the average person and that, in general, they tended to read more newspapers and magazines, and listened to more radio news and commentary than average. As a result of his findings, Lazarsfeld developed the "two-step flow theory" of communication.
Theory of the two-step flow
Lazarsfeld's two-step flow theory, published in Personal Influence in 1955, stated that the process of communication from mass media is received in the first place by opinion leaders, the people who directly receive the message, and then these people transmit the message in an interpersonal way to less active members of the society. In other words, according to the two-step model: (1) the mass media influences certain individuals, and (2) these individuals personally influence others.
One serious mistake that Lazarsfeld perceived in this theory was the “inherent subjectivity” of the research method used to locate the “opinion leaders.”
Because every person in a random sample can only speak for himself, opinion leaders had to be located by self-designation, that is, on the basis of their own answers. In effect, respondents were asked whether or not they were opinion leaders. Beyond the inherent problem of validity, it was almost impossible to ascertain a meaningful result with this subjective approach. Any answer to the question "do you consider yourself a leader?" contains a role-status conflict.
This systematic error was an important factor in the quality of the theory, and was a constant feature even in the studies that were developed after the two-step theory. Incongruence in the definition of opinion leader and its specific role notwithstanding, Katz and Lazarsfeld's approach is still in use, albeit using improved techniques, such as: The informants' rating method and The self-designating method.
The informants' rating method
Instead of using a random sample, the "informants' rating" method uses key members of the group, who were previously identified, in order to have their point of view about who in the community is influential in terms of opinion leadership. Even though this method is highly accurate and economical, it has the inconvenience of designing a previous database in order to choose the "key informants." Therefore, it is only suitable for relatively small groups.
The self-designating method
The "self-designating" study is based on the original dichotomy-style method used by Lazarsfeld, in which the respondent is asked to classify himself as an opinion leader or a follower. The two questions used by Lazarsfeld in this type of study were:
1. "Have you recently tried to convince anyone of your political ideas?"
2. "Has anyone recently asked you for your advice on a political question?"
The narcotizing dysfunction
Lazarsfeld developed the idea of the "narcotizing dysfunction" to explain the public's increasing apathy or inertia when bombarded with more and more information (565).
Unlike media "crusades," Lazarsfeld stated that the "narcotizing dysfunction" is not exploited intentionally by those in power. Rather, he suggested that it is an "unplanned mechanism."
It is termed dysfunctional rather than functional.... on the assumption that it is not in the interest of modern complex society to have large masses of the population politically apathetic and inert. (565)
While public apathy is certainly not desirable in terms of the public interest, it is rather naïve to suggest that those in power would not exploit such a mechanism out of respect for such philosophical principles. In a recent example, the presence of an All-Iraq Newscast which "narcotizes" its viewers is clearly in the interest of the administration.
War-time applications
German WW II propaganda machine
Prior to Lazarsfeld’s work in America, there existed a "hypodermic needle" (or "magic bullet") model of communication, which held that an intended message is directly received and wholly accepted by each individual (see Schramm 1997). This model emerged from the Marxist Frankfurt School of intellectuals in the 1930s to explain the rise of Nazism in Germany. Thus, while the "hypodermic needle" model considered the influence of the mass media to be direct, Lazarsfeld's two-step flow model stressed human agency.
The historical importance of the “magic bullet” was, however, further enhanced by Goebbels who incorporated it into the Nazi World War II propaganda-machine (and was perfected in all Communist countries after the war, and utilized in numerous other countries in the twentieth century.)
American alternatives
To minimize and counter Nazi propaganda, in 1942 the American World War II administration extended contracts for communication research to Paul Lazarsfeld and others, including Hadley Cantril and Council on Foreign Relations member Frank Stanton. Lazarsfeld, by that time, was known for his “black-and-white” dichotomy which epitomized the claim that:
…the presentation of simple alternatives is one of the chief functions of the crusade….…Public issues must be defined in simple alternatives, in terms of black and white... to permit organized public action. (Lazarsfeld 1975, 563)
The American propaganda strategy could, in a nutshell, be expressed by the following:
The purpose of propaganda is to mobilize certain of man's emotions in such a way that they will dominate his reason [and] The function of a propaganda agency is almost the exact opposite: it is not to inform, but to persuade. In order to persuade it must disseminate only such fact, such opinion, and such fiction masquerading as fact as will serve to make people act, or fail to act in the desired way. (Warburg 1946, 15-16)
The strategy outlined above could be easily managed, via Lazarsfeld’s dichotomy, with the help of film footage and war correspondents' reports from the battlefield. An important element of success was also the Axis nations' (Germany, Italy, and Japan) own “world-conquering” propaganda, and the major turning point was supplied by the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Over all, dichotomy-based propaganda was very effective during World War II. The main reason for its success was that it made the alternatives of "us" versus "them" absolutely clear to the U.S. population (with the latter alternative virtually unthinkable). It was, in fact, a version of the “magic bullet” strategy in which “them” was painted so “black” as to be deemed suicidal.
The Cold War (including the Korean War and Vietnam War) presented a different situation. Nobody in America saw the real "battlefield," nor could actually comprehend what was at stake with, perhaps, the only exception being when the Soviet missiles were captured on film as they were shipped to Cuba in 1962. Otherwise, nobody had any clear notion of not just who, but, more importantly, why there were "us" and “them" and, above all, the consequences of "them" winning. Under these circumstances, instead of a clear black-and-white dichotomy, there appeared only various shades of gray.
In the post 9/11 terrorist era, as has been the case in both Iraq conflicts, the (American) public and academe learned the first-hand lesson of facing a real enemy who kills Americans not just abroad but at home as well, and mostly returned to the "Lazarsfeld black-and-white dichotomy," to wit: support the administration and its policies or be considered a traitor.
Legacy
Paul Lazarsfeld is regarded as one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century, a pioneer in the field of mass communications research and in market research. As the founder of Columbia University's Bureau of Applied Social Research, he exerted a tremendous influence over the development of techniques and the organization of such research.
"It is not so much that he was an American sociologist," one colleague said of him after his death, "as it was that he determined what American sociology would be."(Columbia University Press Encyclopedia).



Uses and Gratifications Theory:

• the audience chooses which messages will be received and acted upon
• the audience also has an influence on the media
• grants power to the individual audience members
An example: A person watching television may choose to watch the commercials or choose to change the channel.
Agenda Setting Hypothesis:
• the media does not tell people what to think, but tells them what to think about (meaning that the media doesn’t try to persuade its audiences to think one way or another)
An example: News channels often have the same top stories
The difference between the two are that uses and gratification theory focuses on the connection between an individual and the message while the agenda setting hypothesis focuses on the media's influence of the message to the audience.
The relationship between the two models goes back to the audience. The agenda-setting hypothesis states that media gives the audience the most important information, or top stories, and the uses and gratification theory states the audience's action to keep or pass through the message. Through the agenda setting hypothesis, media outlets showing the same stories hand feeds the audience the messages that the uses and gratification theory states. Therefore, these two theories are directly related in that they intertwine with each other.
Uses and Gratifications Theory
The Uses and Gratifications Theory was coined by J.G. Blumler and E. Katz in 1974.The theory suggests that media users play an active role in choosing and using the media.Users take an active part in the communication process and are goal oriented in their media use.The uses and gratifications theory grants power to the individual audience members and they choose which messages will be received and acted upon.

Agenda-Setting Hypothesis
The Agenda-Setting Hypothesis or theory was pioneered by Max McCombs and Don Shaw in 1972.This theory conveys that media content sets the agenda for public discussion.The media does not tell people what to think, but what to think about.The agenda-setting theory is also known as the limited-effects model of mass media. Social scientist Joseph Klapper explains here how the mass media functions through this theory, “Mass media ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause for audience effects but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influence.”For example with newspapers, the headlines are telling readers “hey this is important” but not “hey he is wrong or she is right” it leaves the decisions and opinions to the reader.

Differences in Theories
These two theories have very little to do with each other at first thought, but after analyzing both, the audience does find something that gratifies them or catches their attention that lies under the agenda setting hypothesis.Forexample, when reading the news publications, I’m not interested in politics, weather, or comics, but when I see the entertainment section and it says “Kardashian Sisters: Tears behind the Smiles. TOXIC LOVE.”I have used the uses and gratifications theory to find what appeals to me but when I see the headline I automatically think about this headline and try to come up with a decision or opinion.
An effective factor for mass communications practitioners to have is the ability to persuade the publics. This can be done with the support of communication theories. Two such communication theories include the Uses and Gratifications Theory and the Agenda- Setting Hypothesis.
The Uses and Gratifications Theory gives an individual audience member the power to control which messages they take in and which messages they pass over. The audience influences the media, and the media changes its message to fit the audience. For example, a person who is watching television can see a message on a commercial and can chose to change the channel because they do not want the message.
The Agenda-Setting Hypothesis says that the media does not tell people what to think; instead it tells them what to think about. According to the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis, media does not try to persuade the audience to think one way or another, it merely presents the most important messages through which the audience can chose to accept or deny. For example, news channels often have the same top stories.
The difference between the two communications is this; The Uses and Gratifications Theory is focused on an individual’s connection with a message, while The Agenda Setting-Hypothesis is focused on the media’s influence of what messages are presented to the audience.
The relationship connecting these two communication theories can be seen through the association of an audience to a message. The Agenda-Setting Hypotheses supports the media’s ability to present the audience with the most important messages, and the Uses and Gratifications Theory supports the actions of the audience when they make the choice to take in a message or to pass over a message. An example of the supporting relationship between the two theories can be seen when an individual member of an audience, who is watching the news, makes the decision to either watch and listen to a news story, or to change the channel because they do not accept the message presented in the story.
The role of public relations practitioners is important to both of the communication theories. In the Uses and Gratifications Theory the role of PR practitioners is to feed information and messages into the media through the public. In the Agenda-Setting Hypothesis the role of a PR practitioner is behind the media. PR practitioners feed information and messages into the media and the media presents the messages to the public. Both are effective ways PR practitioners can persuade the publics.

This theory in mass communication has different phase of analyzing the audience and as such has some strength and weakness.
In the agenda setting theory, it state the control the mass media has on the audience.To analysis the strength of this theory, it is clearly traced how the media provides the audience with information. Also,it creates a sense of strong attachments between the two partners as one depend greatly one the other for vital information of interest.Most importantly,the audience become active users of the mass media.
Lastly,the audience tends to understand the information due to segmentation of related issues shaped on a particular way.

As much as the theory seeks to have attention of the audience, it falls short of some glory.Be it that, it some times leaves the audience ignorant about certain important issues which were not made available to them.They are also being manipulated,accept or see things in a different manner. Also, the audience becomes baise in expressing their opinions on subjects of other informations they come contact with.Along the line, the theory make available informations which may be of good side in their reportage simlpy by building public images most importantly to the society.

The uses and gratification theory indicates what the audience can do with a particular masss media which is a primary strength.In this case, the media cannot manipulate the audience thereby making them independent in selection of information.(Accept orReject)
They also make their own meanings from the content from the media without being forced to think in a certain way.One good point about this theory is that, it actually allows the individual to identify him/her self.

In as much as th theory seeks to allow the audience to select, go through the thinking process,they might sometimes be over loading themselves with information of no interest.Further more, in the process of selection of any mass media of choice,certain vital information may be overlooked and as such fall ignorant to such information.
The audience sometimes dont pay much attention to those media or better still may be engage for activeness sake.
Comparism come to play, which leaves a particular mass media subjective to the other which actually may be the best in reportage.

military-industrial complex, network of individuals and institutions involved in the production of weapons and military technologies. The military-industrial complex in a country typically attempts to marshal political support for continued or increased military spending by the national government.
The term military-industrial complex was first used by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961. Eisenhower warned that the United States must “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex,” which included members of Congress from districts dependent on military industries, the Department of Defense (along with the military services), and privately owned military contractors (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman). Eisenhower believed that the military-industrial complex tended to promote policies that might not be in the country’s best interest (such as participation in the nuclear arms race), and he feared that its growing influence, if left unchecked, could undermine American democracy. Click here for an audio clip from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address.
Although Eisenhower is credited with the phrase and many scholars regarded the phenomenon as new, elements of the domestic and international military-industrial complex predate his landmark address. Military forces have been funded overwhelmingly by national governments, which historically have been the target of lobbying efforts by bureaucrats in military-related ministries, by legislators from districts containing military bases or major military manufacturing plants, and by representatives of private firms involved in the production of weapons and munitions. Because the goals and interests of these various actors broadly coincide, they tend to support each other’s activities and to form mutually beneficial relationships—what some critics have called an “iron triangle” between government officials, legislators, and military-industrial firms. For example, legislators who receive
campaign contributions from military firms may vote to award funding to projects in which the firms are involved, and military firms may hire former defense-ministry officials as lobbyists.
Some features of the military-industrial complex vary depending on whether a country’s economy is more or less market-oriented. In the United States, for example, weapons production shifted from publicly owned companies to private firms during the first half of the 20th century. In France, however, the national government continues to own and manage most military-related enterprises. Although in most cases the military-industrial complex operates within a single country, in some cases, such as that of the European Union, it is international in scope, producing weapons systems that involve the military firms of several different countries.
Despite such differences, the military-industrial complex in most economically advanced countries tends to have several characteristic features: a high-tech industrial sector that operates according to its own legal, organizational, and financial rules; skilled personnel who move between administration and production; and centrally planned controls on the quantity and quality of output. Because of the technological complexity of modern weapons and the preference in most countries for domestic suppliers, there is little competition in most military markets. The military services must ensure that their suppliers remain financially viable (in the United States and the United Kingdom this has entailed guaranteeing the profits of private firms), and suppliers attempt to ensure that public spending for their products does not decline. Because of the lack of competition and because the budgeting process is often highly politicized, the weapons systems purchased by national governments are sometimes inordinately expensive and of questionable value to the country’s security. In addition, the pressure for large military budgets exerted by the military-industrial complex can result in the depletion of the country’s nonmilitary industrial base, because, for example, skilled workers are attracted to high-paying employment with military firms.
The term military-industrial complex can also refer to the physical location of military production. Military spending creates spatial concentrations of prime contractors, subcontractors, consultants, universities, skilled workers, and government installations, all of which are devoted to research and development on, or the manufacture of, military systems and technologies. Examples include the aerospace complex in southern California, the shipbuilding complex on the southern coast of South Korea, and the isolated military research complex of Akademgorodok in Siberia. National governments often created such complexes in locations without a history of industrial production by underwriting massive migrations of skilled labour, and the areas came to resemble company towns that provided not only jobs but also housing, health care, and schools to workers and their families. The need to preserve this infrastructure can contribute to political pressure to maintain or increase military spending. Indeed, sometimes governments have chosen to continue funding weapons systems that branches of the military have deemed obsolete, in order to preserve the communities that are economically dependent on their production (e.g., the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf submarine in the United States).
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 reduced, at least momentarily, the influence of the military-industrial complex in many countries, particularly the United States and Russia. However, in part because of rising military involvement in the Middle East and concerns about terrorism, it remains a potent political force in both the United States and Russia, as well as throughout the world.
India, having one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and being the most populous democratic country, has great potential to become a future superpower. However, in this increasingly globalised environment, India faces several threats to its security. The Naxalites has been identified as the biggest internal security threat to India by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The complex and structural causes of the problem support this proposition. The Naxal movement also presents the greatest overall threat to India in the future, as it highlights various underlying weaknesses of India’s governance, political institutions and socio-economic structure. Naxalism is the biggest threat because it affects several areas including the economy, security and foreign affairs, its citizens and rule of law. Because of the multi-dimensional aspect of the Naxal problem, a three-pronged approach should be taken in dealing with the threat. It calls for a balance between military forces, social and economic development, as well as dialogue between all parties.

Background
The terms Naxalites or Maoists are used to refer to militant far-left radical Communist groups operating in India. Inspired by the doctrines of Mao Zedong, Naxalites work to overthrow the government and upper classes by violence. The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) describes the objectives of Naxalites as destroying “state legitimacy…with the ultimate object of attaining political power by violent means”. They are considered as a terrorist organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of India (1967). The movement started in West Bengal in the early seventies but has since spread to the rural areas in central and eastern India. The MHA notes that Naxalites attach themselves to civil society and front organisations on issues such as displacement, land reforms and acquisition where they can increase their mass support.

Naxalites have been attacking police establishments and infrastructures such as public transportation, causing insecurity and instability to the area. From the period 2006-2010 alone, there were nearly 9,000 incidents with Naxalites with over 3,000 civilians killed. The Naxalites are active in approximately 40 percent of India’s geographical area. They control large portions of remote and densely forested areas and are concentrated in an area called “Red Corridor”. This area is also the tribal belt where the tension between economic development and aboriginal land rights is most apparent.

The India Home Minister P Chidambaram has declared that the security forces need to be more assertive against the Maoists. However, this is only one part of the solution. An examination of the reasons behind the Naxalite movement indicate that military force on its own will not be enough to counter India’s biggest security threat.

Causes of the Threat
The causes of the Maoist movement in India are structural. Economic, political and cultural dimensions are closely linked. The first is the economic situation which is exploited by Naxalites and their extreme left ideology. It seems much like a catch-22 situation. On the one hand, India has experienced relatively fast economic growth, which has led to increased levels of national wealth. To facilitate and continue this development, businesses need more land and natural resources such as minerals. On the other hand, this economic growth has been uneven among regions, and has widened the disparity between the rich and the poor. Proponents of these businesses argue that these regions need economic development, if they are to catch up with their richer counterparts.

The Indian aboriginals, known as adivasis, live these richly forested lands, which are wanted for development by businesses. The conflict between economic progress and aboriginal land rights continues to fuel the Naxalite’s activities. Their strongest bases are in the poorest areas of India. They are concentrated on the tribal belt such as West Bengal, Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh where locals experience forced acquisition of their land for developmental projects. Arundhati Roy, a Naxalite sympathiser said that the tribal forestlands should be called a “MoUist Corridor” instead of the “Maoist Corridor” as the people of these tribal forest ands have been wrestling with “Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) of the mining companies. Prashant Bhushan, a civil rights lawyer noted that businesses are making adivasis go through “sham formal consultation” processes where interests of the adivasis are not sincerely considered.

Second, the alienation that is being exploited by the Maoists has a social, communal and regional dimension. The battle can also be described between India’s most neglected people and the nation’s most powerful industrial businesses. The adivasis make up about 8.4 percent of the population and live in severe poverty. They live in remote areas where government administration is weak and there is a lack of government services. These indigenous people have the lowest literacy rates in the country and highest rates of infant mortality.

Given this socio-economic alienation, it is easy to see how the Naxalite’s ideology is popular among the rural poor and indigenous tribes, and why the adivasis view the guerrillas as their “saviours”. The adivasis do not feel like they have any political power to voice their grievances legitimately, and therefore the alternative of subversive, illegal groups seem attractive.

Some argue that Naxalites are not concerned about the social or economic welfare of these people and are simply using them as a means to its end goal of seizing political power. The spread of Naxalism reflects the widespread alienation and discontentment felt by large parts of the country who are systematically marginalised. Dr. Subramanian, a former Director-General of the National Security Guard and Central Reserve Police Force notes that Naxalism exists in these tribal areas because of the dissatisfaction of the people against the government and big businesses, the terrain is suitable for guerrilla tactics, and there is no existence of a proper and effective local administration mechanism. In these areas, the conditions are conducive to warfare and extremist ideologies. Even if Naxalites are simply exploiting the adivasis’ situation for their own ends, their popularity indicates the power of the root causes to create such an environment for insecurity and violence.

Naxalite movement as the biggest threat
The Naxalite threat is the biggest security problem for India’s future as its effects are multi-layered. The Maoist movement highlights India’s interior weaknesses, which makes India also vulnerable to external threats. As part of globalisation, threats such as the Naxalite movement can no longer be viewed as simply internal as it also affects external security.

The security dangers are aptly described by a former Pakistani Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence and his description of India’s foreign affairs. The Director-General equated India being busy with internal security problems to having two extra Divisions in the Pakistan Army for free. A nation cannot effectively withstand threats coming from outside its country if there is instability inside it. Furthermore, globalisation has encouraged the emergence of non-state terrorist actors as well as international interference in each other’s affairs. India has been one of the victims of international and state sponsored terrorism fuelled by fundamentalist ideologies. The Pakistani support for terrorist acts within India and the Jammu and Kashmir proxy war is an example of when it is critical that national security forces focus solely on eliminating external threats.

India’s regional neighbours are also external threats. For example, in 2004, the MHA was wary of the “symbiotic relationship” between the Communist Party of Nepal and Naxal groups in India. This means having military deployed along the border. In the past, India has also been involved in territorial disputes with China such as over Aksai Chin.

Another reason why the Naxalites are the biggest threat to security is because of the way the issue affects India’s economic development. This is apparent in several ways. For example, the more the Maoists concentrate on the poor and marginalised regions of India, the more economic development (which is imperative to improving those regions’ conditions) will be hampered. Furthermore, the Naxalite rebels are no longer just focussing on remote jungles but on urban centres. Maoist leader Kishenji even declared that the group aims to establish an armed movement in Calcutta by 2011. Internal order and stability are necessary for a nation’s economic development. For India to continue being able to withstand outside security threats, it must build up its infrastructure, its defence and its people. In terms of lifting its citizens out of poverty, India has a long way to go, and continued economic growth is integral to India’s development as a strong global player. The Naxalite activities are using up scarce resources on defence and internal security when it should be spent on areas such as social development. For example in 2006, 22% of the total government expenditure is on the military, compared with a mere 1.84% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on the social sector.

The Naxalite movement is also the biggest threat to India, in terms of the effects on its citizens and what it means for democracy and rule of law. Not only has there been a great loss of life since the conflict between the guerrillas and the military, but addressing the problem through violence risks polarising people further and driving them to subservience. The guerrilla warfare is a threat not only to citizens’ lives but their properties. Too impatient and desperate to wait for government intervention, civilians such as landlords are taking matters into their own hands. As writer Navlakha noted, by portraying the Maoists as a ‘menace’ and separating the movement from socio-economic causes, it “allows the rich and poor divide to impose itself on a formal democratic structure”. Navlakha gives the example in Bihar where Naxalite groups are band under the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act, yet a majority of the massacre were committed by landlord armies which were not considered an act of terror under the law. Such treatment for the upper class only serves to threaten the rule of law, state legitimacy and democracy as the political norm.

Solutions
The complexity of the causes of the Naxalite problem as well as its implications both for internal and external security reflect a solution that is multi-dimensional and calls for a synergy between the central governments and the states. In order to comprehensively dissolve the Naxalite threat, the government has to address its root causes. Socio-economic alienation and the dissatisfaction with the widening economic and political inequality will not be solved by military force alone, which seems to be the main instrument employed by the government. The problem calls for a three-pronged solution: social and economic development, multi-lateral dialogue and military force.

Socio-economic development
As the Naxalites are fuelled by discontent from the marginalised and the poor, a larger percentage of the national budget must be allocated to addressing the needs of these regions. More of the national expenditure needs to be focused on developing these poorer regions through initiatives regarding health, education, social welfare and rural and urban development. Government service delivery should be improved in these tribal areas. Both state and government must ensure that things such as statutory minimum wages, access to land and water sources initiatives are implemented. In coming up with strategies for national economic growth, the government must always bear in mind the possible effects of fast growth for all socio-economic groups in a country as large and diverse as India. If the social needs of these marginalised people are addressed, there will be no discontent to fuel the Naxalite’s movements.

Dialogue
Second, the government should initiate sincere dialogue with these marginalised groups, the Naxalites and state leaders. The popularity of Naxalites with the adivasis is a reflection of the fact that the government has been unaware or “unapologetically indifferent to their plight”. By communicating and starting a dialogue between these stakeholders, these groups will feel that they being listened to.

By opening dialogue, the government can give opportunity for the rebels to join the mainstream by showing them that solutions can be created together with the government, by being part of the political system in a legitimate way. They no longer need to resort to violence to get the state’s attention. For example, the former director-general of AP concluded that as a result of the ceasefire and dialogue with Maoists in 2004, the violence in the state decreased by 80-90 percent in the region. As David Pilling noted, the challenge for India’s leaders will be to allow the necessary development in these poverty-stricken areas while acknowledging the rights of a neglected indigenous group.

Military
Currently, the main instrument employed by the government to address the Naxalite threat is the increasing use of the military. While some military force is still needed to combat against the Maoist guerrillas, it should not be the only solution. By only addressing the issue by brute force, government risks alienating civilians who are caught in the middle. Coercion of the state will only encourage people to rally against it.

Governance
The growing Naxalite insurgency also reflects a flaw in the federal structure. Because law and order is seen as a state responsibility, the central government is unable to be implement a coherent national strategy to address the threat. Ganguly notes that “in the absence of a near complete breakdown of public order or without the express request of the afflicted state, the central government cannot…[intervene].” The government has the overall responsibility of mobilising development, but it cannot do so without the support of the states. The central government and the states need to cooperate together to solve the internal security threats and coordinate the implementation of this multi-dimensional approach. Both organisations must complement and support each other’s initiatives and strategies.

Conclusion
To conclude, the Naxalite problem reflects underlying issues in the Indian social, economic and political institutions which threaten to expose India to even more danger from outside forces. While the Naxalite movement is mainly an internal threat, with globalisation, external and internal security threats are inextricably linked. The complex and multi-faceted approach to solving the Naxalite issue also reflects the fact that this is the biggest menace to India’s security in the future.
Naxal, Naxalite and Naksalvadi are various Communist guerrilla groups in India, mostly associated with theCommunist Party of India (Maoist). The term Naxal derives from the name of the village Naxalbari in West Bengal, where the movement had its origin. Naxalites are considered far-left radical communists, supportive ofMaoist political sentiment and ideology. Their origin can be traced to the split in 1967 of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), leading to the formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist). Initially the movement had its centre in West Bengal. In later years, it spread into less developed areas of rural southern and eastern India, such as Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh through the activities of underground groups like the Communist Party of India (Maoist).[1]
In 2006 India's intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing estimated that 20,000 armed-cadre Naxalites were operating in addition to 50,000 regular cadres[2] and their growing influence prompted Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to declare them to be the most serious internal threat to India's national security.[3] Naxalites, and other anti-government militants, are often referred to as "ultras".[4]
In February 2009, the Indian Central government announced a new nationwide initiative, to be called the "Integrated Action Plan" (IAP) for broad, co-ordinated operations aimed at dealing with the Naxalite problem in all affected states (namely Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal). Importantly, this plan included funding for grass-roots economic development projects in Naxalite-affected areas, as well as increased special police funding for better containment and reduction of Naxalite influence in these areas.[5][6]
In 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India.[7] In August 2010, after the first full year of implementation of the national IAP program, Karnataka was removed from the list of Naxalite-affected states.[8] In July 2011, the number of Naxalite-affected areas was reduced to 83 districts in nine states (including 20 additional districts).[9][10][11] In December 2011, the national government reported that the number of Naxalite-related deaths and injuries nationwide had gone down by nearly 50% from 2010 levels.[12]
The Indian Constitution provides a quota system whereby a certain number of posts in the Government/public sector units, in all public and private educational institutions, (except in the religious/ linguistic minority educational institutions) in order to mitigate backwardness of the socially and educationally backward communities and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
RESERVATION POLICY

The concept of reservation was enshrined in the Constitution to allow the so-called deprived classes to come at par with the so-called privileged ones. The Constitution of India allows this kind of positive discrimination in order to bring about equality of opportunity and status in the society. The founding fathers had never intended Reservation to be a temporary phenomenon. Reservations to the underprivileged were to be extended until they were uplifted socially and stabilized economically. Reservations with the view of helping the deprived classes to gain a better footing and avail equal benefits of an independent and free nation was introduced in the system.
Yet, the various governments till now have failed to truly uplift the backward sections of the society and failed to provide them with equal opportunities even after 60 years of independence. Freedom and application of a reservation policy, has changed nothing. In reality, reservation has failed at all fronts. Not only has it failed to achieve the desired aim of bringing the non-privileged classes into mainstream, it has marginalised them all the more and deepened the caste system even more. Moreover, reservations is now used not as an effective means of eliminating discrimination but as a vile instrument of increasing the vote-bank.
The 93rd amendment and the recent declaration of the government for reservation in institutions of higher education has once again stirred the anger of the youth in general all over the country. The moral ground in favour of reservations still holds good. What is needed is to formulate a well-balanced policy of reservation, which opens equal doors of opportunity to all. Development of one section of the society should not be at the cost of the other section. Development of the society can be possible only if all the sections of the society are given equal opportunities. Opportunity for development should be judiciously distributed among all the sections of society. Opportunity in education, jobs and other fields of life should be equally distributed.
The present decision of the government regarding the reservation policy has angered the youth because it triggers the development of one section of the society while pushing another into oblivion. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has put a stay on the implementation, the controversy has deepened. The country seems to be divided into two bi-polar thought streams— one supporting reservations and another dead against it.
If one takes a look at the issue objectively one will realize that the intention behind reservations is not faulty at all but it is the implication and the application of it that has proved ineffective. The way reservation has been implemented all these years has deepened and aggravated the caste distinctions in the society, marginalised the poor and the needy and has benefited only the topmost layer of the so called Backward classes. The benefit of reservation has failed to trickle down to the lowest section of the society. Moreover, it has killed the spirit of brotherhood and healthy competition, the desire to surge forward and to work hard. Reservations based on the narrow concept of caste is thus, fundamentally wrong and hence has proved to be a failure.
Thus, it is time to introspect, while keeping aside the greed of political mileage and think objectively about where things have gone wrong. It seems that nobody really cares about the welfare of the underdog but wants to gain a bit of the large chunk of political boost for the next elections. Reservation should not be forsaken because, in fact, every one wants that society should develop as a whole and everyone should reap the benefits of development. But reservations instead of being caste-based to meet the political needs of our power hungry politicians, should be based on a more acceptable criteria through which every section of the society is benefited. For instance, it can be based on economic status or anything else that can work truly for our society and state. We should take a lesson from the United States in this regard. It is the most market-oriented country and has a policy of affirmative action. US universities and the government give preference to Black and Hispanic applicants in admission as well as jobs. Yet the US economy remains among the most competitive in the world. The trick lies in undertaking affirmative action by providing incentives rather than quota-based restrictions.
The US has long abandoned the quota system for affirmative action. They have put in place a point system under which candidates from among the Blacks, backward regions, immigrants, etc., are given a few extra points in admission and appointment procedures. This leads to nominal increase in the cost of production. The additional points only lead to nominal lowering of standards. In contrast, the quota system can lead to a heavy lowering of standards. Similar, is the case in South Africa where the new constitution envisages a programme of affirmative action.
We need to identify the ones who are really needy, downtrodden and under privileged. Then, we need to provide them with proper incentives such as education, opportunities and financial backing. After that real talent and hard-work should be awarded and accepted instead of blindly guaranteeing anyone a secure future merely on the basis of caste even though he/she is least deserving. Merit should be the criteria because the country needs the best of its people in order to develop and not those who are harnessing the unmerited and undeserved benefits just because they belong to a section of society which has been luckily marked in the Constitution as under-developed. It is so disheartening to see a well deserving candidate with a promising future to lose out to another less deserving candidate because he happens to be from a reserved section of the society-fortunately or unfortunately. Why should a deserving individual suffer only because he happens to be a part of the so-called privileged class of society-unfortunately or merely because of the faulty policy of the state?
Nothing much has changed since the past 60 years proving that we have misdirected our energies in the wrong direction. We have failed utterly in bringing the under-privileged at an equal footing with the rest of the society. Rather, many a times, it seems that the reservation policy tries to avenge the wrong done to the non-privileged all these years. We have successfully paralysed a section of the society permanently and blocked their upward mobility by killing their zeal to work hard and be rewarded. Who will want to work hard if one gets an opportunity and other incentives without burning the midnight oil? Instead of encouraging this kind of lethargy, the policy should be formulated in such a way as to harness the real cream of every section of the society regardless of their caste or community for the betterment of the society.
In view of the present scenario, it is needed to keep aside the narrow vote bank politics and think truly for the betterment of the under-privileged and honestly pursue! policies and programmes for their upliftment.
PUBLIC OPINION IN DEMOCRACY
Public opinion is the opinion which the people in general hold on questions of public interest of a certain time. Democracy, being the Government of the people, by the people and for the people, seeks people's opinion on various issues. It can not ignore people's reaction to its policies. No government would like to be in power only for one time.
It would like to come back to power again after the next election. Coming back to power depends on the next election which in turn depends on people's opinion of its work when it was in power.
Strong public opinion plays a very significant role in the capturing of powers, forming government arid also retaining ne government in the consecutive elections public opinion dips in creating such a condition where the government cannot or to misrule or neglect the country. An alert and intelligent olic opinion which keeps itself informed cannot be taken for ride by the government.
The government also knows that disregarding the aspirations of such a public will make it unpopular instantly and the chance of its coming back to power in the next election becomes remote. Thus public opinion plays a significant role in determining the role of the government.
But public opinion is not always reliable. The people in general are fickle, ignorant and are usually moved by their feelings and not by their power of reasoning. Hence, they can be easily misguided. In a country like India, where the masses are by and large illiterate and ignorant, it is very easy to misguide them and distort their views.
Therefore correct and reliable public opinion is very necessary for the success of democracy. In this respect, the Print Media such as newspapers, magazines, journals and the electronic media such as radio, television or cinema can be of great help needless to say that the press carries the news of the world.
Public opinion depends to a large extent, on this press. Newspaper reports, if given correctly, helps in the formulation of right kind of public opinion. Newspapers offer citicism as well as suggestions for improving the public opinion. They not only ventilate public grievances but also try to voice the feelings, and view of the people.
But sometimes the press gives biased news which harms a lot. The public is misled and their opinion is inflamed in such circumstances. It has been seen that some newspapers use fiery language and give hot headlines in words to attract the attention of the masses. As a result people fail to discriminate the right thing from the wrong. Different people come to diffrent conclusions according to different perceptions of their own about the same event.
What is important is correct reporting. The press enjoys immense power and therefore it should not misuse them. Instead it should exercise those powers in forming a healthy atmosphere by dint of a healthy public opinion.
Importance of radio, television or cinema (Electronic Media) in the formulation of public opinion can never be overlooked specially in a country like India, where the precentage o illiterate persons is so high. Radio and television broadcast national and intrnational news and educate the people. The leaders of various political parties also express their views of radio and television. Cinema is also important source information of public opinion. It often depicts about comet problems like untouchability, dowry, smuggling, terrorism, etc.
Thus the press and other media of public communication as mentioned above should work in a very responsible manner. Otherwise disorder will be noticed everywhere. We must remember that public opinion is there for the good of the people and not for doing harm for them
In demonstrate state public policy is function of opinion. As 'hospitality to a plurality of ideas' is the essence of democracy, a democratic state, in fact, lives by the free organization of opposing opinions. To quote said, "under a democracy, public opinion becomes an active, propelling factor. The people regard the government as a mere agency to which they have delegated power without releasing it from the obligation to obey orders."
The role of public opinion in a democracy is of particular significance on two grounds. In the first place, when free play of opinion is assured, the whole process acts as a check on the overgrowth of power. A government, whatever be its structure, is, after all, an organization of power. Democracy is distinguished from other forms of government by the fact that it is built on the assumption of diffusion of power rather than its concentration in one centre. It functions best when, as Mannheim expresses, a balance in the structure of the community is secured, by allowing opinions to complete peacefully and freely, a democratic structure strives, as it were, to set a thief to catch a thief. It ensures an interlocking system in which no power group can seize an opportunity to outbid others and exert undue pressure on the government. Where through coercion or callousness, opinion becomes paralyzed, the condition spells a danger for democracy. Here, 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'; the watchful citizen would speak, following burke 'while I will obey punctually, I will censure freely.'
This brings us to the second important function discharged by public opinion in a democracy. When law becomes a reflection of public opinion, it offers an easy solution to the problem of political obligation. The citizens obey the law, as it rests on their will to obey. The whole process of lawmaking serves to obliterate the distinction between the law-giver and the law- receiver. To quote Macler, "when opinion is free to determine government, policy is not of the acquiescence that submits to force, but of active consent. The level of strength is thereby raised and other goals than those that depend on force are given a higher valuation. To make opinion the basis of government is to appeal to reason- whether you win or lose. It is to assume a common good - whether or not your conception of it prevails."
It the field of political dynamics, the significance of public opinion lies in its ability to influence government, here, as Maciver observes, "we are referring to the modes by which variant opinions find political expression, to the systems under which conflicting opinions are elicited, registered, channeled, and brought to bear on government, and to the devices by which government is made responsive to the trends and tides of opinion." The essential problem is to translate popular thought into political action. As democracy postulates free organization of opposing opinions, the struggle of ideas and the conflict of opinions unravel important spheres of disagreement, agreement and ignorance. These are of the utmost important in a democracy under which government is constantly to adjust itself, for the sake of stability, to the shifting "parallelogram of forces."
Opinions may be reflected in an election, a policy decision, or formal legislative enactment. Once it is accepted that opinion determines political action, the opinion conductors may be found in formal as well as informal agencies. The formal role is played by the governmental agencies like the legislative, executive, judicial and administrative machineries, while the latter may be illustrated by the role of political parties and interest groups.
It is important to point out, in this connection that the rule of public opinion in a democracy is built on one significant assumption. The underlying idea is that opinions are always directed towards the attainment of public interest as distinguished from sectional advantages. This lead us to the problem of propagation of opinion; and in view of the control exercised over the media of opinion in modern times by select groups of interested minorities, there is ample truth in Finer's remark that, "it is clear that between ourselves and the facts occur a number of processes which may distort our reception of them. Therefore, the process of distortion may not solve the problem that we wish to see solved."
The role of public opinion in a democracy is ultimately decided by the result of the struggle between belief and fact. Owing to subtle manipulation of the opinion-forming processes by interested groups, a fundamental distinction has taken place in recent times between what is and what people believe to be. Facts are misrepresented without scruple, and appeals are made frequently to the blind emotions and prejudices of the people. The process of corruption of facts becomes complete when exclusively a powerful group or a capitalist controls the major opinion-forming agencies like newspaper and radio. If government is to be really responsible to the value- preferences of the governed, "MacIver observes, that no opinion-group lacks reasonable opportunity to find avenues through which it can without prejudice, reach the public ear."

MEDIA AND WAR
From its earliest days, the government has feared the power of an unchecked press. As World War II photographer Jimmy Hare said, "Photographs seem to be the only thing the War department is really afraid of (Neuman, 82)" -- and the visceral and ubiquitous nature of television, once it was a significant component in war journalism, was no different.
The unique nature of an image's power to make an emotional impact made for a new frontier on governmental attempts to restrict the press. With the advent of television technology, the government faced new challenges in how it controlled, or failed to control the press during WWII and the Vietnam War. Each American conflict, of course, has had its own circumstances, but from the introduction of photography and television into the arena of war, the government has had the difficult task of trying to manipulate the dissemination of images.
The photograph was the first hurdle for censors. In fact, during the first World War, the government completely banned publication of images of American dead. The government did not allow a single picture of an American casualty to be published over the entire duration of the war. And when the United States entered the second world war, they continued this strict policy for close to two years.
The Office of War Information was responsible for keeping a tight rein on reports from the front in WWII. The OWI actively censored words, images, and film -- but they also depended on a degree of self-censorship. Pictures taken on the battlefront had to be submitted and reviewed by government censors who had the authority to suppress them. "Censorship of most other domestic information, however, relied on voluntary compliance by the press and public with its guidelines (Roeder, 8)." Generally, newspaper and magazine editors tended to eschew graphically brutal pictures. Images of the dead and horribly wounded were relegated to a special file within the OWI -- the "Chamber of Horrors" collected those visuals the government deemed too inflammatory or harsh for the public view.
But just as the government can fear the press, it has also viewed propaganda as a powerful medium in its favor. During the war, the OWI was also responsible for creating propaganda to rally the homefront around the fighting. "A media-savvy administration made full use of these tools for mobilizing public involvement (Roeder, 5)." The office released images like Rosie the Riveter, the All-American housewife who could take on the responsibilities of the absent male work force, to keep momentum for the support of the war at home. Americans lived with a steady balance of propaganda telling them to be frugal, support the boys, and work harder. The OWI tried to include the whole population in the war effort.
In 1943, the government made a major strategic change in its censorship policy. Public opinion polls found that the public was weary of the war, so officials decided they needed a new impetus to rally the homefront. They decided to allow the press to publish images of dead Americans. For the first time in decades, Americans saw images of their dead countrymen on foreign shores. But even these images were sterilized for public consumption. The OWI kept strict control over what types of images were acceptable, approving rather anonymous pictures of gracefully fallen men, like the first ever published photograph of American casualties in 1943 Life magazine (up left.) "As a result, war was slightly more visible, but still protected from full view. America's war dead were faceless, as censors feared the impact of a frontal photograph, and the wounded were always being attended by medical personnel (Neuman, 84)." The OWI would not allow graphic pictures to be published, such as the one to the right which shows a dead WWII soldier with a contorted leg.
But the new technology of television was slippery and elusive for the American government. The era of control which it enjoyed during the second world war was most emphatically a thing of the past during the Vietnam age. Censors in World War II used images to help them control public perception but the experience of the Vietnam War was quite different. "It certainly wasn't the zenith of technological development, but the American war in southeast Asia resonates because of the continuing assumption that television news had more effect than ever before, or since, simply because the Pentagon did not understand the potential power of the medium. Never again would reporters wander war zones at will (Macgregor, 132)." As a result, television and photojournalists were allowed access to some of the most disturbing imagery in America's collective memory.
The government could not stop the flow of nightly images depicting traumatic battles and the American gruesome casualties. "World War II was far from the uncensored war called Vietnam, where photographers were free to roam and publish at will (Neuman, 84)." The control exerted by the American government was also not enough to prevent television reporters from recording the war's disturbing effects on the Vietnamese. Television journalist Morley Safer's account of American troops who set fire to a Vietnamese village with zippo lighters is an example of an image that never would have found its way out of the OWI's "Chamber of Horrors."
In Vietnam, reporters could get information from the government's Joint United States Public Affairs Office -- a very loose OWI equivalent -- which was also responsible for distributing wartime propaganda. But "while in Vietnam official ignorance and evasion were present, there was no formal censorship (Braestrup, 20)." And the lens of a television camera was a tricky thing to restrict. Especially in Vietnam, it had the habit of recording and showing the war at its worst.
Indian media has been performing its role as one of the pillars of democracy, by generating public awareness and voicing opinions on security matters in the overall national interest. The public opinion on the legitimacy of an operation plays an important role in the formation and sustenance if the national will in addition to giving strength to the political leadership. Although security of information is a vital issue while conducting military operations, the civil population has to be made aware of the details a appropriate time. Public support is a great morale booster for the soldier. It is therefore important that the civil society is well informed about the truth rather than be fed with rumours.
2. On the other hand, the armed forces must understand the working, compulsions and restrictions of the media, to ensure interaction leading to synergy. It is not possible in the current world for the military to exclude the media and yet expect it to project an encouraging image. The organisational structure of the military is hierarchical in which professional pride and regimental loyalties are intricately interwoven. It does not go in line with democracy and adopts authoritarianism so as to be effective in warlike situations. Since it is battle- oriented, it does not entertain any interference from outsiders. Certain legitimately activities done by the military does not make any sense to civilians who have little awareness about military matters. The military likes to be focussed and left alone to carry out its allotted task.
3. All over the world media- military interaction in order to achieve the national objectives has undergone significant change. There are permanent institutions and clear cut policies on the manner in which the military operations are covered. However the Indian military media policies are obsolete and need a fresh look in order to be contemporary.
4. The involvement of armed forces in internal security operations and Low Intensity Conflicts (LIC) has been increasing in the recent past. Such operations are against insurgents/militants who are intermingled with the civil population. There have been cases in which different versions of the case from the military and the civil population have led to controversies. These controversies are lapped up by the media and are covered so widely that the truth is never amply revealed. Media has to be aware of the sensitivity of the situation and exercise self restraint in order to deal with the issue with maturity.
5. The Gulf War showed the world the magnitude to which media can penetrate the war theatre. Millions around the globe watched the launch bombs and missiles destroying targets in Baghdad. Kargil and Afghanistan showed the details of each offensive in real-time. The coverage was much more than what was available during the previous wars. It is now debated whether what was shown and reported was real or rigged. The core issue is that the advancements in the field of information technology have enabled the media to cover and influence the operations to a greater degree.[1] Therefore it is necessary to analyse the intricate relationship between the Indian military and the media, and to understand the whether the Indian media is mature or is still adolescent.


Find out more from UK Essays here: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/media...#ixzz3Ds9o7PO4
War journalism
• Susie Gyöpös
• Markéta Moore

2
The first casualty in war is truth
(Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917)
• When the country goes to war, the corporate
media are virtual cheerleaders

3
American Civil War (1861-1865)
• Reportial anonymity broken
• Reporting florid, subjective descriptions were
the norm
• European coverage based on Union press
• British favored the Confederacy (bribery)
• Issue of security and sensitive information
• Attacks on journalists (arrests, censorship)
• 1864 Secretary of War Edwin Stanton began to
issue his own reports

4
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)
• New era in European war reporting
• First use of wireless for
• transmitting news from battlefield
• French government prohibited journalists from the
field Prussians were more accommodating
• Use of carrier pigeons during the Siege of Paris
• Reporting accurate, succinct
• Press of six countries present

5
World War I (1914-1918)
• Outlaw journalists (1914-1915)
• British public could not handle bad news
• Eye witness appointed officers
• Identifying armbands and uniforms for
journalists
• 1915 Germany War Press Office
• Most journalists from the USA, no casualties
• Best covered western front of France and
Belgium
• There was not the freedom of the old days, but
there can never be again for the correspondent.
(F. Palmer)

6
Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
• Foreign fighters from Italy and Germany first
reported by New York Times by the correspondent
who was with Francos troops
• War was both confusing and dangerous for
journalists
• Most correspondents committed ideologically
• to the Republicans
•
• Objectivity suffered as journalists joined the
Republicans on the battlefront (Hemingway, Claud
Cockburn, Eric Blair) fought against
Nationalists
• Nationalist atrocities publicized, Republican
were not

7
World War II (1939-1945) Censored war
• Selected reporters allowed special access to
battlefields
• New forms of transmission (radio)
• Censorship negated some of the technological
advances
• USA the Office of Censorship (1942)
• Office of War Information
• Press is a part of military organization
(Eisenhower)
• Reporters scattered, many battlefields

8
Vietnam Uncensored war (1961-1975)
• First television war
• No formal censorship
• Typical age of a war correspondent 25-35
• Little experience of covering unconventional
warfare
• 600 reporters at the peak (75 women)
• 45 correspondents and photographers killed in
action
• Most journalists killed in helicopter crashes or
by mines/snipers
• Most dangerous field Cambodia after 1970 11
journalists disappeared in the first week of
April alone
• 1969 Journalists at home protested against the
war
• Daily briefings "the Five O' Clock Follies
• Rising stars Malcome Browne, David Halberstam,
• Peter Arnett, Horst Faas and many others
• Four correspondents won Pulitzer Prizes

9
• "Television brought the brutality of war
• into the comfort of the living room.
• Vietnam was lost in the living rooms
• of America--not on the battlefields of
Vietnam." (Marshall McLuhan, 1975)
• "The press in Vietnam began with a kind of
innocence," observed Bernard Kalb recently, "and
developed a kind of deep-rooted skepticism that
remains with us today."

10
Falklands war (1982) Abbreviated war
War between Great Britain and Argentina
Exclusion of war correspondents by the British
military
• Control of number of journalists as well as
organizations - only 12 journalists (BBC, ITV,
Reuters), no foreign journalists allowed
• Some journalists agreed to the Officials Secret
Act
• Military censors American experience with media
coverage of the Vietnam War
• Daily briefings by PR official spin
• Technology similar conditions as in
Victorian-era,
• Military was reluctant to facilitate live
transmissions

11
Gulf War I (1990-1991) Unseen war
• A new era in war journalism
• Instantaneous news in real time
• Satellite journalism
• CNN viewership reached more than 1 million
(nightly audience about 7 million worldwide)
• Emerging stars Peter Arnett, John Holliman
• Media were skillfully manipulated and kept away
from the battlefield
• Censorship and pool system superficial
coverage
•

Images high-tech, no blood or dead bodies
12
Peter Arnett 1934, New Zealand
Pulitzer price for reporting in Vietnam (for AP)
• First Gulf War vilified as Baghdad Pete,
turncoat, traitor and Joseph Goebbels of
Saddam Husseins Hitler-like regime for his
coverage from Baghdad during operation Desert
Storm (for CNN)
• He reported on the bombing of Baghdad, likening
it to a July 4 fireworks display
• His biggest scoop US military destroyed a
shelter killing more than three hundred Iraqi
civilians
• Bush administration suggested that he was a
conveyor of propaganda

13
Celebrity journalists
• Henry Stefan Oppert Blowitz
• (1825 1903)
• One of the early war / political reporters
• an incurable romantic with a taste for melodrama
• and a love of the sensational,
• the facts collapse under the sheer weight of a
powerful imagination
•
• Christiane Amanpour
• John Simpson
• Do you know John Simpson?

14
Arnett in Iraq in 2003 Speaking with enemy
• In March 2003 Arnett fired by NBC for
anti-American bias after giving an interview to
state-controlled Iraqi TV and criticizing US war
plan and praising Iraqi officials
• Arnett later apologized to American people for a
misjudgment and decided to stay in Baghdad,
writing for the Daily Mirror.
• Arnett is a veteran journalist who has covered a
handful of major wars..Why he chose to cross of
the footlights and climb onto the stage and be an
actor in this story is beyond me. All the worse,
his performance was pathetic. (Bob Steel)
• "Peter Arnett became the story. That was a
mistake." (Dennis Patrick of National
Geographic)
• Any pretense he ever had of being a fair
reporter is gonehe definitely put the nail in
his professional coffin. (Kathryn Jean Lopez)

15
Arnett on his sacking in the Daily Mirror, 1
April 2003
• I am still in shock and awe at being fired I
don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy -
I just want to be able to tell the truth
• I came to Baghdad with my crew because the Iraqi
side needs to be heard too I'm not here to be a
superstar. I have been there in 1991 and could
never be bigger than that.
• Some reporters make judgments but that is not my
style. I present both sides and report what I see
with my own eyes ...
• But I want to tell the story as best as I can,
which makes it so disappointing to be fired.

16
24-hour pressure
• In the old days, we had time to think before we
spoke. We had time to write, time to research and
time to say Hey, wait a minute. Now we dont
have the time to say, Hey, wait a nanosecond.
Just because we can say it, or do it, should we?
• (Gralnick, covered the Vietnam War for CBS News)
• James Forlong, Sky News
• March
• a missile launch from a
• submarine in the Gulf

17
The war on journalism
• November 2001, seven western correspondents
killed in Afghanistan in one week
• Are journalists becoming legitimate targets?
• Attacks on Al Jazeera's office in Kabul in 2001
and in Baghdad
• Should journalists carry guns?
• 42 journalists killed in 2003 (14 in Iraq)
• US soldiers were main danger to journalists-
• ultimate act of censorship (J. Simpson)
• How friendly can friendly fire be ?

18
Iraq War
• Invasion was a media event
•
• 600 journalists were carefully "embedded" with
American and British troops
• Centcom heavy on message, light on news
• Sound bites Operation Iraqi Freedom, shock
• and awe
• Iconic images and stage events
• Jessica Lynch rescues manufactured by the
Pentagon's "Combat Camera" crew

19
Coverage of Iraq War
• The UK media lost the plot. You stand for
nothing, you criticize, you drip. It is a
spectator sport to criticize anybody or anything,
and what the media says fuels public
expectations.
• The media thought they were going to get a
one-hour-45-minute Hollywood blockbuster and it
is not like that. War is a dirty, disgusting,
ugly thing, and I worry about it being dignified
as infotainment.
• (Air Marshal Burridge)
• BBC admits daily mistakes in Iraq
• Use of language

20
Media battle
• "News organizations should be in the business of
balancing their coverage, not banging the drum
for one side or the other. This is something
which seemed to get lost in American reporting of
the war," said Mr. G. Dyke (BBC)
• "News organisations should be in the business of
balancing their coverage, not banging the drum
for one side or the other. This is something
which seemed to get lost in American reporting of
the war," said Mr Dyke.

21
Why do some many journalists want to cover wars?
• Excitement (physical danger and personal risk
without public disapproval)
• The awful truth is that for correspondents,
war is not hell. It is fun. (Nora Ephron)
• Commitment
• When you go on an assignment.usually it is
quite lonely, it is against advice of your
family, your editors are reluctant and you do not
do it for the thrill of it but for the commitment
you have. (Boustany)
• Financial rewards
• Career boost

22
Wartime propaganda and the media the patriot
versus the witness
• Youre either with us or against us President
George W Bush
• Japanese government warns media not to obstruct
its mission in Iraq (January 16, 2004, AFP).

23
Ethical questions
• is it appropriate to request media outlets to
refrain from reporting information that can
influence security or obstruction of the
completion of a mission?
• where does the reporters loyalty lie?
• In times of war, should the media cooperate with
and trust the government and its actions or
scrutinize them?

24
Bushs PR War
• The success of Bushs PR War was largely
dependent on a compliant press that uncritically
repeated almost every fraudulent administration
claim about the threat posed to America by Saddam
Hussein.
• The American media failed the country badly
these past eight months re the Bush propaganda
campaign,

25
Embeds vs Unilaterals
• Embedding journalists with US forces in combat
zones in Iraq
• Medals for service for embeds
• WW1 precedent produced the worst reporting of
just about any war
• You can write what you like but if we dont
like it well shoot you (Korea, 1950)

26
Impartiality
• Journalists who try to be activists do
themselves and the public no favor
• Independence is at the heart of the unique and
essential duty of journalists in a democracy to
seek and report the truth as fully as possible.

27
An uneasy marriage
• What if they gave a war and the media didnt
come?
• The media and the military seem destined to be
forever at odds.
• In a democracy like the United States, the
public expects to get news, and they expect to
get it from sources other than the government.

28
• "When I was young ... I thought of journalism as
a guiding light. A journalist's job was to bring
news,to be eyes for people's conscience.
• "It took nine years, and a great depression, and
two wars ending in defeat, and one surrender
without war, to break my faith in the benign
power of the press. Gradually I came to realize
that people will more readily swallow lies than
truth ... For all the good our articles did, they
might have been written in invisible ink, printed
on leaves and loosed to the wind.

29
• "Journalism is a means and I now think that the
act of keeping the record straight is valuable in
itself.
• Serious, careful, honest journalism is essential,
not because it is a guiding light but because it
is a form of honorable behavior, involving the
reporter and the
• reader."
• Martha Gellhorn, The Face of War, 1959

30
• The principles of reporting are put to a severe
test when your nation goes to war. To whom are
you true? To the principles of abstract truth, or
to those running the war machine to a frightened
or perhaps belligerent population, to the
decisions of the elected representatives in a
democracy, to the exclusion of the dissenting
minorities, to the young men and women who have
agreed to put their lives at risk on the front-
line? Or are you true to a wider principle of
reasoning and questioning, asking why they must
face this risk. Let me put the question with
stark simplicity When does a reporter sacrifice
the principle of the whole truth to the need to
win the war?
• Kate Adie OBE, Chief News Correspondent, BBC
MEDIA DURING RIOTS
1. MEDIA
AND
COMMUNAL RIOTS
2. The media is the conscience and voice of the society and should adopt self control and self discipline in order to perform its duties more efficiently and diligently
3. SOMETIMES MEDIA SENSATIONALIZES ISSUES WHICH IS HARMFUL TO THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE
It should be responsive to the Society
There should be a self imposed Code of Conduct in the larger interest of the society
Censorship is harmful for the freedom of Press and media should not create a situation in which censorship become inevitable
Self-imposed code of regulation is the need of the hour and anybody violating it should be dealt with stringently by the fraternity itself
4. Remember:
Facts are sacred and comment-free
Get both sides of the story
Check your facts before writing them
But they are not enough in reporting communal riots . . .
5. The guiding rules for reporters should be:
Look for the background
Don't perpetuate the stereotype
Find residents who deal with both communities;
Corroborate victims' accounts as well as police accounts
Ascertain the role of the police, the politicians and the media
Highlight stories where communities have helped each other
6. Do not to name the communities involved (to prevent readers from getting worked up)
Bland reports about two groups clashing and one place of worship being attacked are designed to leave readers of both communities in the dark, which is good in a way
Reporting a communal event is as sensitive, delicate and challenging as the event itself
7. When reported in the media, certain events assume and induce repercussion of national, and sometimes international, character
8. The media, which enjoys the utmost freedom of expression, has a great and vital role to play in moulding public opinion on correct lines in regard to the need of friendly and harmonious relations between various communities and religious groups and thus promote national solidarity
9. The media should not to distort, or exaggerate, should not employ intemperate, inciting and unrestrained language
The local papers particularly should strictly adhere to this norm
10. The role of media in such situations is to be peacemakers and not abettors, to be troubleshooters and not troublemakers
Let the media play their noble role of promoting peace and harmony among the people in times of crises
Any trend to disrupt the peace either directly or indirectly should be considered an anti-national act
11. The media consider its reportage in the interest of the nation as a whole
12. Any news report printed or published by the print media or relayed by the electronic media in contravention of ethical norms in reporting or commenting on matters pertaining to communal harmony is likely to invite penal action under the provisions of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and allied provisions
13. The Press Council by the norms set out, ordained the media to avoid sensational, provocative and alarming headlines, avoid details that might hurt religious sentiments; as also the reports that could undermine the people’s confidence in the maintenance and restoration of peace and law and order
14. The importance of the media is in imparting to the citizens at large, information and analysis in a balanced and impartial manner
The media, as a chronicle of tomorrow’s history, owes an undeniable duty to the future to record events as simple untailored facts
15. In times crisis, facts unadorned and simply put, with due care and restraint, cannot be reasonably objected to in a democracy
However, a heavy responsibility devolves on the author of opinion articles
The journalist has to ensure that not only are his or her analysis free from any personal preferences, prejudices or notions, but also they are based on verified, accurate and established facts and do not tend to foment disharmony or enmity between castes, communities and races
16. The prime objective of Press Council of India (PCI) is to awaken the press to the need for conforming to the highest ethical standards
Even in its quasi-judicial role the Press Council does not don the mantle of a taskmaster
Its aims not to punish but to act as a conscience keeper and advisor to provoke the media to introspect on the ethicality of its reportage
This is possible, only if cooperation is extended from all quarters including the press in its own interest
17. A greater onus lies in times of crisis on the regional media rather than the national media, in restoring the faith of the public in the law and order situation and encouraging communal harmony and amity
18. The media should be well advised to give due consideration to the implications and impact of its coverage of this and similar instances when truth and factual accuracy alone cannot be the criterion to determine the suitability of a publication that could as well foment passions as douse them
19. Norm 23 of the Guide to Journalistic Ethics, reproduced as follows:
Photo-journalism is an important part of the print media. While intrusion through photography into personal grief likely to hurt sentiments or arouse communal passions, should be avoided, publication of photographs serving the larger public interest can not be termed as unethical or in bad taste
At the same time, another norm (24 C of the Guide to Journalistic Ethics) advises the press to avoid mentioning the names of communities of the victims of the riots
20. The editor should be vigilant in allowing the publication of photographs with the captions appended
Actually, no hard and fast rules can be laid down in the matter and the editor has to allow his conscience to guide him up the path of ethical rectitude
Reports and / or photographs that may directly or indirectly give away the identity of the victims / attackers should be avoided
21. Cultural and religious symbols / images that may give away the identity of the victims or attackers should be avoided
22. References:
http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/pci/index.html
http://vibhutinarain.blogspot.com/20...ive-right.html
http://infochangeindia.org/Agenda/Re...-conflict.html
23. Thank You
SaurabhDeshpande
After 20 years of almost continuous communal violence, the basic principles of reportage -- facts are sacred, comment free; get both sides of the story; check your facts before writing them -- are not enough in reporting communal riots. The guiding rules for reporters should be: look for the background; don't perpetuate the stereotype; find residents who deal with both communities; corroborate victims' accounts as well as police accounts; ascertain the role of the police, the politicians and the media; highlight stories where communities have helped each other Journalism schools in the 1970s taught us nothing particular about reporting on communal conflict except not to name the communities involved. Probably that was to prevent readers from getting worked up. Bland reports about two groups clashing and one place of worship being attacked are designed to leave readers of both communities in the dark. The premise behind the rule was that readers would riot if they learnt the details. But does that happen? Forget the English press, would even readers of the Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna drop everything and take to the streets on learning that Hindus were being killed by Muslims? It's unlikely, given the fact that a newspaper brings the news to its readers at least eight hours after the event, at a time when readers are starting a new day. Those in the affected area already know the violence is on. Most people prefer to stay out of harm's way. Those who actually riot do so at the instigation of some party. If not party cadre, they generally have some links to the party's cultural/social organisations. Rarely do non-political people spontaneously come out onto the streets. By the time the 1992-93 Mumbai riots took place, nobody remembered this old rule. And a good thing too. When Hindu-Muslim conflict is the issue of the day, it's ridiculous to refer to them as "two groups". Readers were shocked during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots by the free use of 'Hindus' and 'Muslims' in reports. Did that instigate readers? Nobody went out and rioted after reading the English papers. I doubt anyone went out even after reading Bal Thackeray's incendiary edits in Saamna. But the reports did impact the riots --creating support among Hindu readers for the Sena's violence against Muslims. That didn't happen because the two communities were named. It happened because of the way the incidents were reported.The first task of a reporter covering a riot is to report the violence, find out how it began by talking to both sides, get the official version, try to get corroborative evidence, and present as coherent a picture as possible. Of course, this is tough to do in a day. However, though more than one reporter normally covers the violence, even after a couple of days one rarely gets a comprehensive picture.Getting the background as well as the immediate cause right -- as far as possible -- or at least publishing both sides, is important, not just because that's our job, but also because one of the fallout of communal reporting is that existing prejudices between communities get affected. The stereotype of the 'violent Muslim'/'communal Hindu' get strengthened if reporters do not go beyond the surface; the distance between communities can grow if only one side is presented; and both communities might accept the violence of groups who are seen to be protecting them.
WOMEN IN INDIAN MEDIA
Movies, or for that matter media in general, are often said to be the reflection of the society. Or at least that’s what majority of people in India consciously or unconsciously tend to believe. While it’s arguable whether the media truly reflect the society or not, there’s no doubt that media have a big sociocultural influence on the society.
The way women are shown in movies these days is hardly different than those before a decade or a few. Women have been shown to consider being an ideal homemaker as the goal of their life. Leaving few exceptions, movies of recent times have hardly shown an ‘ideal woman’ doing anything but being a housewife. Even in those movies where a woman is shown to have more decision power in hand than her husband, the wife is almost always portrayed in bad light. And at the end of the movie, she is slapped by her husband. Her husband also tells her, ‘I should have slapped much earlier’. The woman realizes her ‘mistakes’, repents of the same and the movie ends when everyone appears to be happy.
Before a few days while watching such a scene from a movie, one of my roommates actually said, ‘This is the reason why a woman should not be given power. She doesn’t know how to use it.’
As far as showing women in advertisements is concerned, things seem to have only worsened over time. In most of the advertisements of recent times too, a woman is either washing clothes and utensils, cooking, serving food to family members or trying to make her husband feel better who’s at that time reading a newspaper or suffering from cold. A woman does all this even when she’s headache or backache. These advertisements arguably encourage sexism. They reinforce the old belief that a woman is supposed to forgo her own comfort and keep on doing household chores without getting tired.
The same has remained true for the soap operas of earlier times and of recent times. While in many of these soaps, a woman has more decision power than their male counterparts, it’s very difficult to come across so many such families in real life. Moreover, those women who wear modern clothes and appear very confident more often than not have bad intentions than their conservative and not-so-modern counterparts.
I recently come across this: ‘The media should refrain from portraying women as commodities and sex objects.’ The media still portray women as objects showing whom in certain way can catch the attraction of people. It’s very amusing to see a woman in advertisements for products like cement.
Media not only portray women as mere commodities, they often unintentionally stereotype women. And this can be very dangerous, I believe.
http://www.csub.edu/~mault/publicopinion.htm
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9...torted&f=false

GAZA CONFLICT
Whether I'm up early preparing my lunch for the day or studying for classes, the first part of my morning always involves coffee and a laptop. For the next ten minutes, I browse national news sources: CNN, New York Times, NBC. Occasionally BBC. I read about Israel's claims to defending themselves, how their troops are in danger from Hamas' rockets and how Hamas' use of civilians as human shields is the reason for the high death toll.
Then I switch over to social media platforms that shout the opposite. These sites, previously filled with selfies and check-ins, now serve a greater purpose. Tweets describe Israel's sickening attacks on a hospital for the disabled, on a U.N. facility, on the Al-Jazeera office. Facebook statuses of Israelis state that the crude rockets they are being hit with are much less dangerous than the weapons their own army is using to kill hundreds in Gaza. And while the current cease-fire yields some peace, it cannot undo the casualties that multiple posts and pictures describe, now approximately 1875 Palestinians and 67 Israelis.
The inconsistency in the information is alarming, and has revealed a positive outcome of social media. No longer are journalists the unique ones receiving and sharing information through paper and ink. Millions of people are now able to reveal news, share footage and tell stories. And when you see thousands of people from a multitude of ethnic and religious backgrounds freely posting "#SupportGaza" and hear about the efforts of the Israeli government to pay their teens to counter such support, you know something is lacking in American media's reporting of the issues. "Refrain from being biased in your reporting. Be neutral and state facts from both parties involved." This fundamental lesson has been drilled into my head by every journalism professor I've come across, and its absence in U.S. media is astonishing. If this ethical rule were present, the U.S. would not be the only country to vote against the UN's call to investigation of the crimes in Palestine, with 29 countries voting for it. Society would not be pressuring celebrities such as Dwight Howard to delete their pro-Gaza statements, and condemning celebrities such as Mark Ruffalo, Selena Gomez, John Cusack and more for doing so.
It is not only the one-sided stories that bias reader judgments, but also questionable decisions made by U.S. media outlets that display their prejudices towards reporting the truth, such as the removal of journalists. NBC executives took correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin out of Gaza after his accurate coverage of the killing of four Palestinian boys on a Gaza beach on July 16. Though the network claimed this was for his safety, the claim was difficult to believe as they sent in a new less-experienced correspondent the next day to cover the continuing Israeli assault. Additionally at CNN, reporter Diana Magnay was pulled out of Israel for tweeting that the Israelis who were viewing and cheering as bombs struck Gaza were "scum." Though her word choice was inappropriate, it's appalling to think that this was the issue stimulated here and not that of people cheering when innocent civilians are being murdered. And the common factor between the two journalists? They both published information that put Israeli in a negative light, despite stating the truth.
The issue isn't false reporting on the part of American media; however, when news outlets refuse to share both sides of the story, we are failing as journalists. The integrity of our profession is deteriorating in our inability to objectively notify the public. We are supposed to give them information that will aid them in reaching their own conclusions, not make those decisions for them.
In return, it is each individual's responsibility to review the accuracy of the news they are exposed to. With information being shared so widely and quickly on both social media and news outlets, it is easy for mistakes to occur. And if you only believe what is spoon-fed to you through the Internet, television, newspaper, etc., you risk the danger of becoming misled into believing fabrications. It's imperative to know the facts and come to your own conclusions based on them.
I am not on the side of Hamas, nor am I on the side of Israel. I am on the side of humanity. I am on the side of the innocent being killed, their rights being taken away from them. I am on the side of truth. As the inscription written boldly on the main building of my university says: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Environmental factors
Environmental factors play a critical part in the development of opinions and attitudes. Most pervasive is the influence of the social environment: family, friends, neighbourhood, place of work, church, or school. People usually adjust their attitudes to conform to those that are most prevalent in the social groups to which they belong. Researchers have found, for example, that if a person in the United States who considers himself a liberal becomes surrounded in his home or at his place of work by people who profess conservatism, he is more likely to start voting for conservative candidates than is a liberal whose family and friends share his political views. Similarly, it was found during World War II that men in the U.S. military who transferred from one unit to another often adjusted their opinions to conform more closely to those of the unit to which they were transferred.
The mass media
Newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet—including e-mailand blogs—are usually less influential than the social environment, but they are still significant, especially in affirming attitudes and opinions that are already established. The news media focus the public’s attention on certain personalities and issues, leading many people to form opinions about them. Government officials accordingly have noted that communications to them from the public tend to “follow the headlines.”
The mass media play another important role by letting individuals know what other people think and by giving political leaders large audiences. In this way the media make it possible for public opinion to encompass large numbers of individuals and wide geographic areas. It appears, in fact, that in some European countries the growth of broadcasting, especially television, affected the operation of the parliamentary system. Before television, national elections were seen largely as contests between a number of candidates or parties for parliamentary seats. As the electronic media grew more sophisticated technologically, elections increasingly assumed the appearance of a personal struggle between the leaders of the principal parties concerned. In the United States, presidential candidates have come to personify their parties. Once in office, a president can easily appeal to a national audience over the heads of elected legislative representatives.
In areas where the mass media are thinly spread, as in developing countries or in countries where the media are strictly controlled, word of mouth can sometimes perform the same functions as the press and broadcasting, though on a more limited scale. In developing countries, it is common for those who are literate to read from newspapers to those who are not, or for large numbers of persons to gather around the village radio or a community television. Word of mouth in the marketplace or neighbourhood then carries the information farther. In countries where important news is suppressed by the government, a great deal of information is transmitted by rumour. Word of mouth (or other forms of person-to-person communication, such as text messaging) thus becomes the vehicle for underground public opinion in totalitarian countries, even though these processes are slower and usually involve fewer people than in countries where the media network is dense and uncontrolled.
Interest groups
Interest groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), religious groups, and labour unions (trade unions) cultivate the formation and spread of public opinion on issues of concern to their constituencies. These groups may be concerned with political, economic, or ideological issues, and most work through the mass media as well as by word of mouth. Some of the larger or more affluent interest groups around the world make use of advertising and public relations. One increasingly popular tactic is the informal poll or straw vote. In this approach, groups ask their members and supporters to “vote”—usually by phone or via the Internet—in unsystematic “polls” of public opinion that are not carried out with proper sampling procedures. Multiple votes by supporters are often encouraged, and once the group releases its findings to credible media outlets, it claims legitimacy by citing the publication of its poll in a recognized newspaper or online news source.
Reasons for conducting unscientific polls range from their entertainment value to their usefulness in manipulating public opinion, especially by interest groups or issue-specific organizations, some of which exploit straw-poll results as a means of making their causes appear more significant than they actually are. On any given issue, however, politicians will weigh the relatively disinterested opinions and attitudes of the majority against the committed values of smaller but more-dedicated groups for whom retribution at the ballot box is more likely.
Opinion leaders
Opinion leaders play a major role in defining popular issues and in influencing individual opinions regarding them. Political leaders in particular can turn a relatively unknown problem into a national issue if they decide to call attention to it in the media. One of the ways in which opinion leaders rally opinion and smooth out differences among those who are in basic agreement on a subject is by inventing symbols or coining slogans: in the words of U.S. Pres. Woodrow Wilson, the Allies in World War I were fighting “a war to end all wars,” while aiming “to make the world safe for democracy”; post-World War II relations with the Soviet Union were summed up in the term “Cold War,” first used by U.S. presidential adviser Bernard Baruch in 1947. Once enunciated, symbols and slogans are frequently kept alive and communicated to large audiences by the mass media and may become the cornerstone of public opinion on any given issue.
Opinion leadership is not confined to prominent figures in public life. An opinion leader can be any person to whom others look for guidance on a certain subject. Thus, within a given social group one person may be regarded as especially well-informed about local politics, another as knowledgeable about foreign affairs, and another as expert in real estate. These local opinion leaders are generally unknown outside their own circle of friends and acquaintances, but their cumulative influence in the formation of public opinion is substantial.