The experiment is aimed at showing that the strategic metacoverage which refers to politicians using paid media to package them as popular and selling their strategic policies. It is also viewed as the media having a say in the political issues. This has been viewed as a method which raises public cynicism in aspects of politics and politicians. many experiments have been carried d out trying to justify the above theory y. o one has ever taken into consideration that most people have known the media to be used by unscrupulous politician to spread their policies (Angelo, 2000).
The media can also have a vendetta against a politician or paint a policy as bad whereas as it is good. The media has made it known that they help shape up politics and either make or break the studies shows that the pre-occupation of the media with politics can breed cynicism among those exposed (Angelo, 2000).
Different media will have varied opinions on issues . there is an argument that persons with higher levels of political awareness are least likely to be swayed although they will be exposed. Critique to the Experiment To critique the experiment which showed a great correlation between metacoverage and increase in cynicism, we start with the stimuli used. Only two issues were used these are liberalization of health care sector and security measures in air travel.
The two topics being in the political landscape then were likely to elicit cynicism as all was needed was a framed story (Brown and Melamed, 1990). Only one story was introduced in each condition. Logically people read about the same condition from different media and make their choices. The data base from where the data was drawn from may not have been updated on al the socio demographic indicators. The sample size is small and statistically the larger the sample size the more accurate the results are.
By including the male only this is the sample is gender biased and cannot be used to depict the right opinion. Having informed the participants that they would be involved in a study on current political l affairs already builds on their cynicism. The information given by the participants in the pretest questionnaire being exposed to the story is what is used to describe the stand of participant before being exposed to the framed story. The participants can lie about their political knowledge, interest, efficacy and trust in government.
Clearly, this does not mean that the posttest questionnaire they will be filling later can be used to test for cynicism by comparing it to the pretest one. By quoting the story to have appeared in the Dutch national newspaper an opinion is formed by the participants as some people view some media as telling the gospel truth, while others see them as blatant liars. This will influence how the participants will an answer the posttest questionnaire depending on how they view the Dutch National newspaper.
When it comes to the stimuli, the air line safety story on sharing information on passengers touches a very sensitive nerve and raises a lot of cynicism. If the story used as stimuli was in the least bit less sensitive the results would have been different as any private information should never be leaked out to anyone without consent. By inserting the frames for the generic strategic version on a commissioner whose political prestige is on the line it exposes the participants to a formed opinion that politicians are cynical (Brown and Melamed, 1990).
The press strategy frame does not make matters any easy by painting the commissioner as a man with an adversary relationship with the media. by describing him as a commissioner of damage control, the strategy has already made the participants to be cynical towards the commissioner. The commissioner is seen as a rogue politician trying to boost his image by using a spin doctor to sell a proposal that is not good (Brown and Melamed, 1990).
By depicting him as an enemy of the media and saying he spoke with rehearsed sincerity and terming the media event as a tightly scripted public offensive, will drive the participants to a great level of cynicism and the desired results will be achieved. Some damning stories are bound to drive even the strongest person to be cynical towards politicians as they sound so selfish and generally people are sympathetic towards the media. They are various variables used in the experiment e. g. independent and dependent variables.
Dependent variables are the liberalization of the healthcare sector and security measures in air travel. Both of them are going to be subjected to similar treatment that is by introducing a framed story on terms of generic strategy ,press strategy with some control and results are expected they are dependent on other variables such as ages of different people of different ages have diversified views on both issues. Also gender creates a great variation and so does political knowledge (Brown and Melamed, 1990).
People with less political knowledge may be influenced to change opinions after reading the truth than those with more knowledge (Brown and Melamed, 1990). This is not necessarily true as it has bee n proved the experiment carried out on this was ambiguous. People who support antiterrorism measures will be keen to know the measures the government is taking to ensure their safety. People who are interested in politics will be interested to know what politicians are saying about different policies that affect them. Supporters of health care liberalization will be interested to know any beneficial information on this crucial sector.
Ideology also counts and the level of trust will also influence an individual cynicism towards it. The above named variables are dependent on these factors . the independent variable are support for antiterrorism measures, Political interest, political efficacy, Ideology, Support for health care liberalization ,age, gender, education ,political knowledge and trust in government (Brown and Melamed, 1990). They are described as independent because they are not correlated to one another and none of them exerts an influence on another.
An example is just because someone is younger it does not mean they are less politically informed than their older counter parts. A person who is highly education is likely to have less knowledge on the care health liberalization. Conclusion The above critiques proves that no study can be error free as most of the conditions that are use d to derive the results can always have a certain degree of error. As much as the treatment that the dependent variable are exposed to is the same there are always some loop holes and the statistics may give a different result from what is happening in real life.