Unintentional editorial priorities still yield enormous political consequences

Evidence

We do not mean our results to be taken as an indication of political mischief at the networks. In deciding what to cover, editors and journalists are influenced most by organizational routines, internal power struggles, and commercial imperatives (Epstein, 1973; Hirsch, 1975). This leaves little room for political motives. Unintentional though they are, the political consequences of the media’s priorities seem enormous. Policy makers may never notice, may choose to ignore, or may postpone indefinitely consideration of problems that have little standing among the public. In a parallel way, candidates for political office not taken seriously by news organizations quickly discover that neither are they taken seriously by anybody else. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1497 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Moral conscience cannot justify political editorial decisions — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 490; Unintended media prioritization still wields enormous, uneven political power. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 1497; News coverage prominence shifts how heavily people weigh issues in political judgments — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1404 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Media agenda-setting shapes policy regardless of journalists’ intentions #corroborates (0.93) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1497