The Limits Of Media Power

The present situation offers stunning proof. If ever bad news should have mattered, it's been in the last three years. Editors and reporters didn't have to contrive adversity. It arrived spontaneously: the popping of the stock bubble, September 11, corporate scandals, steady layoffs, the war in Iraq. By all logic, confidence should have collapsed. It hasn't. In previous recessions, consumer spending often dropped; in this one, it actually increased. Americans didn't abandon the mall. They took advantage of lavish auto "incentives." They bought new homes and, with interest rates low, refinanced mortgages on old ones. Despite a weak labor market, most Americans think their jobs are safe. (A Gallup poll in August asked respondents whether they were worried about being fired; 81 percent said no, 19 percent yes. The results in 1997 were almost identical--80, 20.)

People just don't heed the media that much. What they absorb represents one factor in what they believe and how they behave. Their experiences, habits, views and prejudices count for more. They trust their judgments, not ours. Because the media are everywhere--and inspire much resentment--their influence is routinely exaggerated. The mistake is in confusing visibility with power, and the media are often complicit in the confusion. We embrace the mythology, because it flatters our self-importance. The truth is that we echo, amplify, influence and refine public opinion but rarely create or manipulate it. In a democracy, that's just fine.

© 2003