Most people assume that networks hire talking heads like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann because their views resonate with a large segment of the TV audience.
Or are they given big platforms and powerful microphones because they are capable of molding public opinion?
TV's charismatic ideologues probably believe (as most people do) that their ratings are proof of the veracity and appeal of their ideas. In other words, media is a democratic institution that responds to consumer choice. But in fact, their corporate underwriters may be far more Machiavellian, banking on charisma and the "mere exposure effect" to inculcate opinion, influence legislation and sway elections.
The longstanding body of research known as "mere exposure" studies demonstrates that people are hard-wired to prefer the familiar. The brain "prefers" images, symbols and people it has seen before, even though it may not consciously remember seeing them.
In a pivotal "mere exposure" study, researchers showed subjects a series of photographs of strangers at split-second intervals. Later, the subjects had no memory of having seen any of the photos. Nevertheless, upon viewing a staged argument between person A (to whom they had been exposed in the experiment) and person B (not exposed), they tended to agree with person A, and more significantly, to believe that his or her arguments were superior.
Imagine the persuasive effect of daily exposure combined with celebrity status -- a phenomenon that is not lost on sponsors and global media conglomerates with political agendas of their own.
Take Glenn Beck's endorsement deal with Goldline. The inherent conflict of interest is far more than a bullet point in the hostile shootout between progressives and conservatives. It cuts to the heart of the illusion that media is driven by consumer choice. The synergy between Beck's political views (Stockpile gold, guns and God!) and the financial interests of his backers suggests that he (as opposed to some other "mediagenic" clown) holds his position because his views mesh with his sponsors' political agenda.
Beck's fans counter that his profiteering is a drop in the bucket compared to General Electric's manipulations, executed through its subsidiary MSNBC. In their view, GE is drumming up its own self-serving apocalypse -- global warming -- with the help of progressive commentators Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman, who (they say) stir hysteria and sway public opinion in favor of government-subsidized green initiatives that will profit GE.
By the same token, Fox News's neo-conservative commentators spew anti-government rhetoric that may have little to do with political philosophy and everything to do with Rupert Murdoch's epic battle against regulations that stand in the way of his aggressive agenda: media consolidation and cross-ownership yielding virtual control of major markets.
It's time to take a hard look at who is placed in the Big Media spotlight -- and why. Ironically, to the degree that talking heads like Beck and Olbermann depart from the dogged pursuit of fact to monger opinions and promote half-truths, they set themselves up as stooges in a larger game. The game is corporate power.