There is still a lot of debate about how the media affects people’s opinions of their political institutions, such as how much they trust them or how they think they’re being shady, in general.
This is just a “birds-eye” view because it doesn’t consider how different people’s views are in and across countries and communities. Other things that affect how people think about corruption are also being examined in literature (Heywood and Rose 2014). The literature on this subject focuses primarily on things that people think are corrupt that aren’t directly related to their own experiences. According to these studies, people’s views on corruption are very much influenced by their age, gender, education, job, and country’s size, development, and level of democracy.
Learn more about the Karen Bass mayor corruption case and how it ties in with USC’s social work program. Get all the latest news and updates on the Karen Bass corruption case here.
The important things to ponder on here
According to Wothappen When it comes to how media affects people’s views of corruption at a trim level, there is a lot of debate in the literature. Press freedom is a factor in many cross-country comparisons of public perceptions of how corrupt people are. People who do multi-level analyses often include this as a macro-level variable. Examples: For example, Costas-Pérez et al. (2012) look at how internet searches for corruption or the availability of the internet affect people’s views and how they act when they see corruption in different parts of the world. This is what people say: Consequently, people’s views of corruption can be influenced by many different media sources and mediums, which can affect how people use the media and how they use it. There hasn’t been a lot of research done on how media consumption by people affects how public institutions are viewed.
This study fills in a knowledge gap and makes a theoretical argument that the source of one’s news has a long-term effect on how people think about corruption. It builds on a long history of political science and social psychology research about how media affect political opinions and behavior. In our study, we want to look at how “conventional” media (like TV shows or radio shows that are paid for) and “social media” (like YouTube videos, blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter) affect people’s perceptions of how corrupt people are. First, how people get their news is likely to affect how people think about corruption in the world. Second, the different ways people get their news might make their views more or less polarized. It’s explained in great detail how each effect works below.
There is always an impact when people think about things in the way they do
They think that the way someone thinks about politics and what they do is directly linked to the media source they get their information from. According to Putnam’s (1996) work on the decline of social capital in the United States, television is the main culprit.
Other people have questioned this conclusion (Norris 2000).
Researchers have been studying how people’s trust and social capital are affected by the sources of information they get, such as traditional media and the internet. This includes both traditional media and social media. Cross-country research by Ceron (2015) shows that people who get their news from more traditional sources have more trust in the government than people who get their news from newer social media sources. According to other research (Oser et al., 2013), there are significant differences between how much people do online and how much they do offline when it comes to politics. This could mean that people’s trust levels change depending on how much time they spend online.