Examining the Influencers of Our Media - Entry 4

Hello again, today I will be focusing on yet another linkage institution. Believe it or not, the media is a type of linkage institution. Media today is the most powerful influencer in shaping public opinion and the primary source for public awareness on issues regarding our democracy. Media can influences voting behavior by choosing what their audience hears and watches witch limits the information their viewers have on a subject. The one common criticism of the media is the amount of bias that is weaved into every news story it provides which could include tainted or false information to promote an agenda. Since the 2017 election, the media has been separated into two relative political ideologies - Liberal vs. Conservative. For this blog entry I will be looking at 2 news sources on either side of the political scale and how they provide information regarding marijuana. The first source I will be evaluating is this video by HBO's Late Night Show with John Oliver on the current issues from marijuana regulations. This show has a target audience of people with similar liberal beliefs that do not appose marijuana and people who are open to liberal ideas on subjects like marijuana. The second source I will be looking into is this news broadcast from Fox News on the consequences of marijuana. This specific Fox News broadcast, The O'Reilly Show, targets an audience who have either liberal or conservative beliefs against marijuana. 

From a brief overview of John Oliver's video, one could gathered that his stance on marijuana is that it is necessary in cretin medical cases that our current policies on marijuana are preventing. In other words, the current regulations preventing marijuana use are unnecessary and should be change in order to positively influence current medical circumstances. The relevancy of this article is credible because it was published this year and covers marijuana issues people are still struggling with today.

Throughout his video, Oliver provides examples of people who have seeked medial marijuana to sooth a particular medical conditions such as paralysis, epilepsy, and post-war paranoia. Oliver presents to his audience with a clip of Brandon Coats, a paralyzed man who was fired from his job for failing a drug test despite possessing a licences to purchase and use marijuana for medical purposes, a family in Michigan that was denied custody of their daughter based on the fact that the father used and grew marijuana to help treat his epileptic seizures, and a veteran by the name of Danny Belcher who explained to the Kentucky legislator in 2014 that marijuana was the only drug that helped significantly relived his depression, paranoia, and night terrors compared to the great deal of medication subscribed by his psychologist. Oliver used these clips to gain empathy from his audience and convey through real life situations how anti-marijuana laws have unreasonably disciplined these people for attempting to sooth their disabilities with marijuana. The use of pathos is an effective way to argue because it allows an audience to empathize with real people by putting themselves in that other person's shoes, which in turn, convinces Oliver's audience that this is a serious and frustrating issue to the people in these cases and other like them. Oliver also uses logos by investigating the anti- drug laws of these individual cases and questioning their purpose. This logical method encourages Oliver's audience to question the reasoning and value of these laws they weren't as aware of before now. Since a majority of Oliver's viewers are of a young demographic, he uses other tactics such as humorous metaphors and jokes. These specific tactics are used to make his videos entertaining enough to keep his audience continuously interested and focus throughout his videos. Overall, these real life examples seem to be convincing to the general public based on his tactics and the 125k approval rating (thumbs up) on the video as apposed to the 6k disapproval rating (thumbs down) out of 8,888,155 viewers. 

The limitations of his argument comes from the lack of acknowledgment for the general opinion of people who promote ant-marijuana polices. Oliver only selected cases that were negatively effected by these policies which is one tactic used based off bias. An example of this is when Oliver shows specific clips of Jeff Sessions talking about Lady Gaga's addition to marijuana to make his argument on this subject seem more comedic then it is. Instances in his video like this, makes his video seem one-sided. Another aspect I noticed in the beginning of his video is when Oliver displays an alleged recording of Richard Nixon's stance on marijuana but openly reveals his humorous altercation at the end of the recording. This makes it seem like Oliver's use of evidence can be untrustworthy and used to be manipulated by his own personal beliefs. Although he made it clear that it was false information, it did not seem necessary for the context of this video. Despite the positive appeal his humor may have on his audience, the humorous strategy could also present to his audience a lack of professionalism and importance of this particular subject.

Regarding my second new's source, a breif overview of this broadcast is a conversation with the host of the O'Reilly show Bill O'Reilly, former congressman Patrick Kennedy, and author of the book What Addicts Know : 10 Lessons from Recovery to Benefit Everyone Christopher Kennedy-Lawford on why marijuana should not be legalized. These three men come to an agreement that marijuana with target teenagers and current addicts, making it easier for marijuana suppliers to prophet off of their fast influence, which will help create a whole new commercial industry as well as be adding to the existing list of the two most damaging legal drugs on the planet - alcohol and nicotine. The relevancy of this article is credible enough because it was published only 3 years ago and addresses the current concerns of people who appose the legalization on marijuana.

Based of the use of evidence given by Patrick Kennedy and Christopher Kennedy-Lawford, this news source is somewhat convincing. These men use persuasive rhetoric in order to argue the importance of the safety for young adults and current addicts through pathos but do not provide any statistical evidence or reliable resources in their claims. These men also already have a pre-existing bias based off their experiences of being victims of addiction. Its safe to assume that Bill O'Reilly picked these two relatively well known men specifically based on their previously unfavorable backgrounds with this issue. Additionally, by showcasing like-minded guests, O'Reilly is not only limiting his audience to a one-sided view of this issue but setting up a conversation where the only likely direction will end in an agreement with his opposition with marijuana. O'Reilly does briefly mentions the beliefs of people who are advocates of marijuana to his quests but does so in an exaggerated tone and use of vocabulary such as the usage of the word "harmless". This is also a detection of bias by falsely portraying the other side of the argument.

These tactics O'Reilly uses in his broadcast have the potential to impact his audience by subjecting their thoughts to only one specific ideas, letting his opinions think for them instead of giving them the option to create their own thoughts. O'Reilly also caters to his demographic of people who are of the age to have had children by emphasizing the effects this drug could have on their children. Lastly, by exaggerating the opposing sides ideals, O'Reilly has the potential to falsely influence his audiences perspective of the other side of the argument.