INFLUENCING THE MEDIA

INFLUENCING THE MEDIA

Very often, when we critically examine media, we are left with the feeling that there is much that we do not like, for whatever reason, but that there is little we can do about that state of affairs other than to choose not to use the medium (i.e., watch the program, read the paper). Just as we cognitively interact with the media in understanding it, so can we behaviorally interact with it to help effect change in desired ways. Commercial and political interests have long been doing this, and it behooves concerned and interested individual media consumers to learn to do likewise.

Individual Efforts

Individual complaints do have disproportionate impact, in that those who receive them assume that each complaint represents a similar view of many others who did not write. Certain types of letters are more effective than others. A reasoned, logically argued case has a lot more impact than an angry tirade. For example, one brand of club cocktails once advertised in Ms magazine with the slogan “Hit me with a Club.” The company received over 1,000 letters of protest, arguing that the ad contained a suggestion of violence toward women. The company responded that such a connection was never intended or imagined, yet they were concerned enough by the letters to withdraw the ad (Will, 1987). Complaints do make a difference! Letters from Michigan homemaker Terry Rakolta and her supporters concerned about negative family values once caused Kimberly-Clark, McDonald’s, and other sponsors to pull their ads from Married With Children.

Jamieson and Campbell (1992) suggested three types of arguments that are particularly effective when writing to a network, TV or radio station, or publication. First, a claim of inaccuracy or deception elicits immediate

Handling Media 372

concern. Publishing or broadcasting inaccurate information is seldom intended and must be quickly corrected or balanced to avoid a loss of credibility and possible legal trouble as well. Second, a claim that an item violates community standards or general good taste causes concern. The press is very loath to offend, for example, with overly explicit sex, violence, or raunchy language. A sufficient number of people with such concerns may lead to the fear of loss of advertising dollars, the lifeblood of the enterprise. See Box 12.6 for an example of an ad that offended people and was withdrawn due to their complaints. Third, a claim of lack of balance or fairness is serious. This includes obvious concerns like lack of fairness in covering a political campaign or the use of an unfairly misleading ad, but also claims such as unfairly stereotyping some group or unfairly exploiting the cognitive immaturity of children to encourage them to request certain products from their parents.

Once in a great while the efforts of a single individual can result in policy change or the emergence of organizations to counter heavy media use to promote particular views. For example, in the 1960s John Banzhaf III persuaded the FCC that the Fairness Doctrine required television to run antismoking ads to counter cigarette ads on TV at the time. (Tobacco ads were discontinued in the U.S. in 1971.) Pete Shields, who lost a son to a handgun homicide, and Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim was permanently brain-damaged in the assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981, became active media users in gun control lobbying efforts. Millionaire heart- attack victim Phil Sokolof took out large newspaper ads pressuring big food corporations to change their practice of cooking in cholesterol-rich tropical oils. This campaign and the ensuing media coverage helped cause 12 large food corporations to begin using healthier oils within two years. Sokolof then turned his campaign on McDonald’s to encourage them to reduce the fat content in their burgers (Dagnoli, 1990).

BOX 12.6