After the 1995 presidential election has sometimes been said that of Puppets the news had contributed to the victory of Jacques Chirac by making nice. Today, we question the same way: Puppets are they going to influence the presidential election by making Sarkozy dislike? The political cartoon is a special form of comment. It derives its strength from its accessibility (a drawing is more easily understood than a speech), economy of means (a puppet replaces lengthy explanations), simplification of reality (the cartoon magnifies certain aspects of things and deliberately obliterated in others). By using humor, the cartoon has a dual function: it gives pleasure and makes the public good provision, it allows statements that otherwise would not be acceptable.
Watching the Puppets?
In this campaign period, the Horns are viewed daily by 2.5 3 million viewers (1). We know that their audience is quite typed: young (more than half of viewers are under 35 years), male (over 2 / 3 men), higher grade than the rest of the population (40% have at least level Bac + 2), significantly more interested in politics than the average voter.
is also a public rather anti-Sarko: 58.5% of those who watch Canal Plus between 19h and 20h30 say they are entirely agree with the proposal "Nicolas Sarkozy is disturbing" (17 against 5% of those who watch 20 hours of TF1 and 34% of those who watch the 20h de France 2 (2).
But the hearing of the Puppets is likely well beyond télépectateurs are watching TV, because we often tell friends or colleagues cartoons or sequences the most significant issue.
The Puppets influence people: yes, but the others!
In 1995, during a survey, voters were asked if they thought the French Horns had an influence on the vote of the people. Answer: yes and 56% (22% very and 34% somewhat). But when asked if these same people had Guignols influence their own vote, we had only 12% Yes (3).
This result is consistent with many surveys, many people think that the media have a strong impact on others but not themselves personally.
This does not mean that the Horns have no influence.
They are one of many information sources that contribute to shaping the image of candidates. But not alone: voting is a complex process that reflects both the social environment to which we belong - and sometimes family traditions - the candidates' positions on certain issues that are important to heart or our appreciation of their personality according to their behavior or statements at key moments of political life.
In general, the information that we receive during the campaign only moderately affect our voting intentions. They play mostly on the choice of a candidate within one political camp or our intention to participate or not to vote. Our prior political orientations
play consistently as a powerful filter that leads us to disregard the information unfavorable to the candidates that we like to retain more or those that reinforce our beliefs. But sometimes an event occurs particularly strong during the election campaign that brings us to substantially modify our assessments of candidates.
Sources:
(1) Médiamétrie, week of 26 March to 1 April 2007. March 28, the hearing was thus 5.2% (1 point = 560,000 viewers).
(2) Barometer policy CEVIPOF , 4 th wave.
(3) Louis Harris Poll conducted February 9, 1995 among a representative sample of people aged 18 and older.
More images of candidates and the effects of the media?
The book How does one become President (e) of the republic? The strategies of the candidates (Robert Laffont). particular chapter 6, which analyzes how images are formed of candidates and Chapter 7 which explains what we know (and pourqoi we know so little) on the effects of media.
Tags: Puppets - influence - vote - media
0 comments:
Post a Comment