ABSTRACT
In the Introduction to Part II, I discussed the psychological reasons why umbrella social categories such as the ‘media’, ‘policy-makers’ and ‘the public’ are important. These three categories are the key entities in the triad illustrated in Figure 4.1 (see Introduction to Part II of this book). As Figure 4.1 illustrates, there is continual communication between policy-makers and media organizations/ workers, between media and the public, and between the public and media. Are media organizations the original point of that communication? This chapter will address that question by discussing literature postulating that the media is pivotal in setting the agenda for policy-makers. I will review some studies testing that ‘agenda-setter’ perspective concerning the role of media and consider whether media organizations sets the agenda for some, but not all, types of policy issues. I will then discuss the idea that media organizations, as a crucial ‘actor’ in the feedback loop, act as a de facto referee between policy-makers and the public. I will discuss the characteristics of the media profession and media organizations which help facilitate their refereeing role in policy-making. In terms of working practices, I will discuss media workers’ mental scripts about their profession’s public role and the relevance of organizational identity. I will then discuss the characteristics of media organizations that determine whether (and how) they engage in policy refereeing. In particular, I will discuss differences between broadsheet and tabloid organizations, as well as differences between public and private media organizations. This will lead to a consideration of whether the important differences between media organizations involve their level of ‘seriousness’ (or public accountability) together with their corporate interests. Having considered organizational factors, I will then discuss the psychological circumstances under which policy-makers are prone to media influences. Specifically, I will discuss the use of heuristics in decision-making. I will consider whether policy-makers are most susceptible to media influences when there is ambiguity about the correct policy decision and/ or when the stakes/threats associated with making the wrong decision are low. I will also consider individual differences which makes policy-makers susceptible to media influences, in particular individual differences concerning political ideology and cognitive style in decision-making. Additionally, I will consider whether policy-makers are prone to media influences when specialist knowledge is required to make a policy decision. Under such circumstances, policy-makers can be susceptible to novel information.
