source of news about Britain, and about the world, though not about their region/locality, came from television, far in excess of those nominating other media.(26) This decline of the British press needs to be understood in the context of what social science investigation, over two generations, reveals about the nature of media influence. People are not blank slates on which the media impose their views. On the contrary, people have opinions, values and sense-making ‘schemata’ formed through early socialisation and the powerful influence of social networks. This gives rise to selective media exposure (Guardian readers tend to be left-wing, Telegraph readers to be right-wing), selective interpretation and retention of media information strongly influenced by prior disposition. Put simply, people are difficult to influence.(27) So why do politicians pay so much attention to the press? Is it because they view the press as a proxy for public opinion? This seems unlikely since empirical evidence reveals a large and recurring mismatch between how people vote and how newspapers vote (measured in terms of circulation) for over half a century.(28) In any case, politicians have had access to more reliable data about public opinion than press comment ever since the 1940s. Perhaps, the only explanation for the enigma of press power is that the press influences the political class more than the public. Press coverage affects the standing of politicians among their peers. The press also influences TV broadcasters who do matter. Television does not dictate what people think but it can influence what people think about, and also influence their framework of understanding about public issues (especially among those with limited interest in politics, low ego investment in holding a particular view, and among those who are cross-pressured).(29) Anti-Monopoly controls But politicians deal with the ‘reality’ of power, as they see it, and are unlikely to change radically their working perceptions. For the dysfunctional relationship between politicians and the press to change, the underlying structure that distorts it - the concentration and centralisation of press power – needs also to change. I support the Enders proposal that no media corporation should be permitted to control more than 15% of the total revenue of the core media industry.(30) This is framed by the
source of news about Britain, and about the world, though not about their region/locality, came from television, far in excess of those nominating other media.(26) This decline of the British press needs to be understood in the context of what social science investigation, over two generations, reveals about the nature of media influence. People are not blank slates on which the media impose their views. On the contrary, people have opinions, values and sense-making ‘schemata’ formed through early socialisation and the powerful influence of social networks. This gives rise to selective media exposure (Guardian readers tend to be left-wing, Telegraph readers to be right-wing), selective interpretation and retention of media information strongly influenced by prior disposition. Put simply, people are difficult to influence.(27) So why do politicians pay so much attention to the press? Is it because they view the press as a proxy for public opinion? This seems unlikely since empirical evidence reveals a large and recurring mismatch between how people vote and how newspapers vote (measured in terms of circulation) for over half a century.(28) In any case, politicians have had access to more reliable data about public opinion than press comment ever since the 1940s. Perhaps, the only explanation for the enigma of press power is that the press influences the political class more than the public. Press coverage affects the standing of politicians among their peers. The press also influences TV broadcasters who do matter. Television does not dictate what people think but it can influence what people think about, and also influence their framework of understanding about public issues (especially among those with limited interest in politics, low ego investment in holding a particular view, and among those who are cross-pressured).(29) Anti-Monopoly controls But politicians deal with the ‘reality’ of power, as they see it, and are unlikely to change radically their working perceptions. For the dysfunctional relationship between politicians and the press to change, the underlying structure that distorts it - the concentration and centralisation of press power – needs also to change. I support the Enders proposal that no media corporation should be permitted to control more than 15% of the total revenue of the core media industry.(30) This is framed by the
Final-Witness-Statement-to-Leveson-Inquiry.docx