News coverage of Washington politicians and their rhetoric appears to have less influence on the American public compared to other news coverage, according to a political scientist. Using the news media as a bully pulpit to influence public opinion has decreased, though the groundswell of media support for Sen. Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign might lead many to believe otherwise.
Corwin Smidt, assistant professor of political science at Michigan State University, studied media coverage of two issues, one minor in modern times (gun control in 2000) and one controversial(national health care reform in 2009) and in both cases found that stories focusing on Washington debate had little to no effect on public opinion polls. .
But news coverage of protests seemed to strike a chord. For example, coverage of the Million Mom March in 2000, designed to rally support for stricter gun-ownership laws, he regarded as highly influential in shaping the public agenda, according to the study - it made no difference in any laws but it got people talking. He also considered news stories highlighting high-profile gun crimes as influential in opinion polls, although less so than protests.
Being in the social sciences and humanities, Smidt said he didn't look at why the news media covered certain stories, but rather how the public reacted. While some believe the news media sets the public agenda, he said that may not necessarily be the case.
"The news media are still the gatekeepers – in that if they don't cover something we probably won't hear about it – but everything they cover does not have the same effect," Smidt said. "It actually may be the storyline within the news that provokes opinion."
His study appears in the research journal Public Opinion Quarterly.