Content Analysis
Lofflin’s Media Analysis and Criticizm
Kellen Potter
11/21/2017
Word Count: 4249
Abstract
The present study was conducted to analyze implications of televised anti-drug advertisements. The study identifies a commonly disputed media message, then by dissecting the evidence quantitatively, research-based conclusions are drawn. This study’s message, popularized by former first-lady Nancy Reagan’s 1980’s anti-drug campaign, is to “Just Say No,” when respondingto someone offering drugs. The main question of this study examines whether the majority of these ads are directed toward adults or children/teenagers, and speculates upon correlations between ads, which may suggest clues regarding the message’s chronological progression, by distinguishing plausible research-based inferences. The hypothesis maintained here proposes that the majority of anti-drug commercials are directed toward children/teenagers rather than adults. Articles are available online from studies suggesting PSA’s can cause curiosity in the viewer to try a drug. However, no content analysis was located that conclusively proved anything.
Method
This study was conducted to figure out whether anti-drug public service announcements are directed more toward children or adults, and to see how these messages have changed over time. The method of study was content analysis. A code sheet was developed by the researcher to identify certain characteristics, ideas, words, and themes in various anti-drug commercials.
The solitary researcher for this study watched 30 commercials and each one was coded with the same code sheet. This study is limited to 6 commercials from each era: 60’s/70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s and after 2010. They were chosen randomly by picking the first 6 pertaining public service announcements over 30 seconds long and under 2 minutes when searching YouTube for “drug commercials” in each of the various eras. The commercials were identified by the date, the time length, the name of the video and what type of drugs are mentioned. Each commercial was then coded using 20 codes making the total number of items coded 500.
Results
The proposed hypothesis stating that the majority of anti-drug PSA’s are being directed more toward children/teenagers, rather than adults, was conclusively supported by the research to be valid. The results show only eight being directed towards adults and the other 22 were directed toward children/teenagers. Notably, only three commercials utilized cartoons and three different commercials alluded to peer pressure. 10 of the commercials used in the study contained celebrities and that method was most popular in the 1980’s with famous people in five out of the six ads. Eight of the commercials showed people using drugs, however none of these occurred in the 80’s. One was in the 90’s, one in the 2010’s, two were in the 2000’s, but four of them were in the 60’s/70’s.
Seven of the 20 codes searched for were strictly vocabulary terms. The words/ideas included were: destroy, ruin, waste, die, gateway, opportunity, and peer pressure. Only one commercial contained a metaphor that referred to a form of “gateway”, however 13 contained some other kind of metaphor. Only one of the advertisements contained the word “destroy”. Two commercials contained some form of the word “die”, butdeath was a theme in 6 ads meaning four of these suggested death without specifically using any morbid words. All four of those were in the 90’s and 2000’s except for one from the 70’s. The terms ruin, waste, and opportunity were not contained in any of these commercials.
Consequences proved to be the highest counted variable, however only three ads mentioned police. One of them was in the 90's which contained jail, and the other two were from after 2010. 18 of the studied commercials contained a consequence of some kind. The 1980’s mentioned consequences in five out of six, which werealso the same 5 from that era containing celebrities. 16 of the commercials contained music which was the second highest counted variable. None of the 1980’s PSA’s contained any music. Four of the musical ads contained dancing in some form, but no dancing was coded in the 80’s or after 2010. The 60’s/70’s was the only era containing PSA’s against alcohol and tobacco. 10 mentioned marijuana, 6 for cocaine/crack, and 2 for heroin.
Discussion and Implications
The only two ads specifically against heroin were both after 2010, which may suggest an increase in heroin use since the espoused notion of this destructive drug’sepidemic was first presented publicly during the Vietnam era. Action may have been more recently warranted by resurrecting the unresolvable issue as considerably pertinent, arousing contempt for the heinous activity by placing heroin use back into the forefront of people’s minds. This may have been a calculated attempt to piggy-back on the cut and dried assumptions made by an ignorant public, who has formed their schema around a blend of facts and fallacies based on the overwhelmingly negative connotations commonly associated with the use of this drug in various pejorative print media. This also points to the theory that the taboo surrounding heroin abuse has lifted enough on the subject for the media to not only recognize it as a serious problem, but to profess this delinquency in a way that could possibly be more effective in spreading the message than previous methods. It has possibly been commercialized enough to become an acceptable topic for widespread discussion, with one of these commercials even being broadcast during the Super Bowl.
8 of the commercials studied were non-specific in identifying any certain drug as their primary motivation behind such messages, generalizing their concern by encompassing any or all forms of drugs. Interestingly, only one from the 70’s and one from the 80’s mentioned anything about pharmaceutical drugs which could suggest that some form of supreme gatekeeping has cornered the eyes of the consumer market in a way that doesn’t deem these drugs as potentially dangerous and disheveling the way “street drugs” are portrayed. This information funnel poses the radical juxtaposition of vastly-accepted ethicsbased purely on the “Because I said so,” clause, versus theremarkably noble, yet immensely unlikely, fat-chancepipe-dream of a righteous citizen’s brigade of underdogs,somehow managing to ascend invincibly through a coarse weave of despairing enemies as the phoenix deity of veracity, emerging from the smoldering ashes of false information, beneath a blinding inferno of agenda setting manipulators, collapsing the flaming house of cards within the trailing wake of immense sonic energy, shattering their frozen system of diligently placed mirrors to purposely keep revolt at bay and the delusional prisoners confused from inside their fun house of conformity. In other words, if these ideas were examined under intense scrutiny in the mainstream media by classifying the entire system as dishonest with urgent need to reform, society could actually force into retirement a corrupt system of power currently suppressing ideas that may damage corporations tied to the empowered ones writing their checks. For example, if an anti-Xanax commercial premiered on cable television, Xanax would potentially lose millions of dollars in sales revenue and it could establish a bad reputation among consumers. Encouraging alternative considerations outside the use of prescription narcotics is something that would financially devastate these moguls, just like the legalization of marijuana, which is primarily being fought by big pharm and law enforcement on every conceivable level. Ultimately, this would leave any party involved in airing this campaign subject to legal repercussions,including the possibility of risky and lengthy court battlesthat might result in bankruptcy for either Xanax or a Mother Goose company such as Viacom. This wouldundoubtedly spark a frenzy of chaos among the vulnerable cable networks in an attempt to stay lucrative, thereby rupturing into a division of power that would be critically detrimental to the current conglomerates. This kind of upheaval is regularly avoided because the monopolizing pharmaceutical companies have invariably cradled the networks into a deviant Mobius strip stranglehold, suffocating them into pure submission strictly by the size of their pocketbooks. Unfortunately, this stems down the vine to consumers as problematic because the entire public is spoon-fed the same utopian model for their opinions through the curtains of a tiny glowing window, only allowing what is carefully rendered as acceptable into prototypical context that shan’t disturb the placid wave of pseudo-serenity shrouding the herd of blind lemmings prone to reside within the clutches of gullibility.
Another conclusion that could possibly be drawn from this study is that the majority of these commercials is not only dedicated to a young audience, but they are also directed toward a white audience. Rarely were any persons of a different race appearing in these commercials, which suggests that the target demographic for these ads is white America, with an objective to keep them squeaky clean. This may also be construed as a discriminatory way to keep the minorities on drugs, the same way things like HUD housing is keeping the lower-class segregated from the wealthy and middle-class by making the affordable residences in areas with notably higher crime rates and a higher capacity for occupancy. This could be an intentional use of misdirection, the same way a magician will talk to you and shake your hand as he steals your watch, to make certain audiences identify and others reject the promoted ideas behind the anti-drug advertisements.
Mr. T was the only black celebrity discouraging the use of drugs in any of these commercials, and it was also one of only six using some form of humor in the advertisement. Humor was not identified in any of the ads directed toward adults. Based on analysis, humor was the closest category to suggest the glamorization of drug use. There was no humor intended in any of the commercials after 2010. Perhaps at some point it was realized that this type of message is being misinterpreted by certain viewers in a completely backwards way, actually encouraging the use of drugs unintentionally, by giving the illusion of a common or acceptable practice to viewers who would otherwise be generally uninformed about a drug. For example, there is a commercial (not used in this particular study) which portrays pot-smoking as the cause of death due to negligent driving, when a car full of smoking teens leaves a fast-food drive-thru and runs over a bicycling child. A viewer who has never smoked pot may be affected by this commercial in a way that, in their mind demonizes anyone using this drug as an extremely dangerous risk to society, especially to those who have children. Oppositely, if another person who has never smoked but knows that this is an outlandish and highly unlikely portrayal of the consequences, they may react only to the humor, bearing the conclusion that these commercials are ridiculous, and there’s no way smoking a joint would ever cause them to mistakenly run over a child. This type of PSA may even spark the curiosity in some to actually take the drug as a form of emulation to have as much fun as the actors, or to somehow prove to themselves that the commercial’s claims are not relative to the actual experience.
Conclusion
The main reason this study is important, and should be considered as such, is that it’s an attempt to combat a portion of the mass amount of misinformation people have and are receiving about the use of drugs. In the eyes of the law, both marijuana and heroin are Class A narcotics, along with LSD and cocaine. This grouping is vastly misleading to the general public who, based solely on this, rather than any experience, widely assume that one is just as bad as the next, and this gives the impression to many that smoking a joint is somehow equivalent to shooting heroin, or someone else may conclude that pot is no big deal, so neither is cocaine. These bizarre connections are ones only a complete fool would make, but unfortunately they remain accepted because there aren’t enough people demanding change or even research based facts. People hear insane stories about instances that may or may not have really happened on drugs which causes their state of equilibrium to bedisrupted thereby discouraging their curiosity in potentially positive experiences such as taking LSD. Proven to be one of the most powerful mind-altering chemicals ever invented, LSD has been blacklisted by the DEA as a major threat to society, not because this drug has ever physically caused death by overdose in a human, but mainly because it can cause an intelligent person to think for themselves and question the integrity of the entire system. In certain scenarios LSD can cause susceptibility to suggestion in the weak-minded such as,in the case of Charles Manson who allegedly convinced some young girls to commit murder. All official laboratory research halted and the substance was outlawed in the 1960’s when the counterculture of hippies began overwhelming the nation’s security with ideas of things like anti-war and free love. This severely threatened a society built on profits made by war, and scared the older generations, mostly by the fearful thought of moral degradation theoretically ending inuncontrollable anarchy.
Ideally, just like racial equality and suffrage was demanded, a solid resurgence of mistrust with a desire to take intense action is the best chance of prevailing over the puppet masters. A herded generation of misinformed and distracted youth feeding off their own misery is the goal of the enemy, to keep the public going in circles,arguing with themselves about insignificant matters, of which many are portrayed with a dire relevance. The only way to combat this is by unanimously making a decisionto work together in order to reverse our position of disempowerment, by not only demanding results, but expecting that history can and will repeat itself for better or worse. The human race may very well be doomed to keep one hand pointing fingers, and the other hand pulling triggers, but with a sincere motivation to move forward as a unit, rather than continuously glorifying anti-social behavior and solidarity, humans can use the rapid advancement of communication technology to pull themselves together for the greater good and put the power back in the hands of the people, where it should be,instead of watching cat videos and arguing about the President’s tweets.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, with an overflow of optimistic intentions and sparking the inspirational ascent of an entire subculture up the monumental ladder of the individual’s personal exploration and evolution, Dr. Timothy Leary professed the phrase, “Tune in, turn on, and drop out.” However, if he could see what has happened, in the past 20-30 years, to a decaying breed of enormously selfish and conceited screen fiends who have lost themselves in an ocean of convenience and instant gratification through no direct fault of their own, Leary can easily be imagined rolling over in his grave as hestarts whistling a different tune. Perhaps his new motto would be, “Tune out, turn off, and drop acid.”
Review of Literature
According to Harold Lasswell, “The mass media are an important influence on politics because they regularly and rapidly present politically crucial information to huge audiences.” (Graber 26) Lasswell also states, “Media images are especially potent when they involve aspects of life that people experience only through the media.” (Graber 2) These are important ideas which express a need for media images that reflect real life to the viewers in a truthful and recognizable way so they are not misconstrued, especially to those who only understand a subject such as drugs through their perception of what the media presents to them.
Graber makes an interesting point that touches on the same topic, “The news reflects reality, but it seems badly out of shape and proportion.” (Graber 120) This short but poignant statement emphasizes the need for systematic reform in journalism. “Television deals with larger, more heterogeneous audiences and requires pictures to match story texts. Unlike newspapers, which rarely have competition in the local market, television must compete for attention with multiple other electronic outlets.” (Graber 119) Anti-drug PSA’s can be considered a form of news, since they relay information deemed as important enough by someone in a position of power tofund the initial production and for networks to run them pro-bono during commercial airtime which would otherwise be filled with profitable client spots. Just like any other commercial, they are fighting for the viewer to focus their attention long enough to bypass an urge to change the channel or otherwise disengage from message digestion.
Lasswell says, “Electronic media, especially television broadcasts, provide a greater sense of reality, which explains why audiences find electronic media more credible than print media.” (Graber 4) This is a notable theory that has probably attributed very much to the popularity of PSA’s and could be the main reason why citizens are not finding postcards in their mailbox signed by Leonardo DiCaprio urging the recipients not to take drugs.
Doris A. Graber said, “Average people, when presented with clashing viewpoints, often feel confused and find it extremely difficult to determine the truth.” (Graber 113) This is one of the most important quotes regarding this study. The majority of people already have some schema for drugs in which they relate information presented and decide what is relevant or irrelevant. A person’s schema is generally not something that is simply changed by a media message like flipping on a light switch. If the person has a schema for a drug, based on a positive personal experience, it is even more unlikely that their position will change because someone on television told them not to take drugs. When a person is comfortable believing what they think about a drug is truthful, and ispresented with a counter position such as a PSA, the likelihood of adjusting their schema to believe the TV over what they’ve grown familiar with from parents, friends, personal experiences, etc. borders nonexistence.This could explain a curiosity to experience the drug firsthand rather than take advice from the same glowing box that regularly exaggerates nearly everything, like over-emphasizing the results of weight-lifting equipment, enlarging food and enhancing colors to make it look more appealing, and glorifying nearly every woman’s physique with tight clothes and airbrushing techniques.
Graber also says “When the focus is on attracting young viewers, sensationalism and novel occurrences often drown out news of more lasting significance that lacks excitement.” (Graber 111) This is a huge reason statistical facts are rarely present in these kinds of commercials. It’s no surprise that short, energetic, colorful commercials containing attractive female actresses and a thematic storyline have almost completely cornered the market progressively over time, and commercials without these elements are less memorable, harder to relate to, and boring in comparison. “According to journalists, poor quality of news content and poor writing are the most serious threats to the profession, along with the loss of audiences and decreasing profits.” (Graber 89) Keepingthe audience engaged long enough for them to retain information is becoming increasingly difficult as the general population’s attention span decreases. The quality of the message is just as important as the way it’s presented in most cases.
Graber’s previous statement about audiences and profiting segues into Lasswell’s following statement, “The journalist’s primary purpose may be to write stories that expose misconduct in government and produce reforms. Or the chief purpose may be to present sensational information that attracts large media audiences and enhances profits.” (Graber 12) This points toward a subject that was deeply touched upon in the study. Translation of corruption is something viewers want, but journalists are not delivering these messages in a way that reaches nearly as effectively as the average recipient is sourcing elsewhere through social media. This is one of the reasons the possibility regarding a corrupt power system was thoroughly detailed in the study.
Graber described one of the positive effects generated by the use of technology when she said, “In the internet age, it has become increasingly difficult to suppress information.” (Graber 145) This is good, because an idea that expresses an injustice or corruption that is happening can be dealt to massive amounts of people, who can band together almost instantly to spread awareness and promote change, like what “me too” did for female sexual degradation on a worldwide scale in a matter of just a few hours. Unfortunately, there are some drawbacks to this as well, such as the subject’s importance being underrated in comparison to something else receiving more attention. Another problem arises when the significance is instantaneously blown way out of proportion. After peaking, the recoil occurs as fast as the rubber band can snap, almost completely disintegrating the topic shortly after the shock value dissipates. This example also happened with “me too”, after the initial flood waves crashed into everyone, the concept trickled down to less than a steady drip and rather than awareness resulting in any positive changes. It’s been chalked up as another minor passing tone between the tonic and major fifth of nearly every woman’s life ballad. These things should not only strike a chord, but strike the main nerve.
Even the Las Vegas massacre lost its shock value and media coverage in about a week. People have become so desensitized by the constant barrage of what the media shits out, that tragedy and injustice are too oftenoverlooked because the entertainment value isn’t there. Death doesn’t sell the way sex does, so until the media starts advocating necrophilia as the new great American pastime instead of baseball, the public is going to have to dig through piles of stories about Trump’s hairpiece and which Spice Girl is pregnant before they can even get to the violence in the streets, but who has time for all that when there are thirty-seven million cat videos that need watching?
Neil Postman puts it here simply, “Television gives us a conversation in images, not words.” (Postman Ch. 1) This is true of not only television, but with the internet, everyone basically has access to their own personal TVchannel, whether it be through FartBook or BoobTub or Twinker, etc. Television is a linear medium, meaning it starts with a message from the transmitter, and ends when the message is delivered to a receiver, there’s no room in the coaxial cables to send a return signal, like a one way street. The social media forms of this are a type ofresponsive medium which is more like a two-way street, or three-billion way street if you can wrap your mind around that. There is a relay of information based on the response of another, similar to a conversation, but the parameters are infinitely reaching into realms far beyondlayman’s comprehension.
What do you think the ancestors would say? The previous question is posed hypothetically, only to mention how this relay of information gives everyone the ability to speak via the same platform. Video killed the radio star, but this could kill common decency. This leads into the very important idea that could have been included, but was not part of this research study. Analyzing the video comments could possibly provide insight, which would simply involve reading the comments to get a general idea of some reactions by the folks out there in Wonderland. Without generating another code sheet, any results would be purely qualitative, and any conclusions would merely be speculation.
Gatekeeping is mentioned in the analysis, and it would be amiss not to mention these two of Graber’s simplifications on the subject, “A small number of journalists have final control over story choices. They are often called gatekeepers.” (Graber 92) “Gatekeeping also yields news that supports political and social institutions in the United States.” (Graber 114) This study attempted to scratch the surface of gatekeeping by suggesting a possibility that in order to keep the greater society in check, there are a few elitist gatekeepers in censorial positions who decide what is and what should never be presented as news. There is a table on page 18 of Laswell’s chapter titled Media Power and Government Control and a description that explains the difference between authoritarian and non-authoritarian regimes, and even though the public believes they are living in a completely non-authoritarian regime, it could be argued that the United States is already straddling the line between non-authoritarian and non-ideological authoritarian, because this young nation secretly dreams of being authoritarian when it grows up.
“Media coverage can also do harm during a crisis, raising serious questions about the responsibility of government and media personnel to consider the social consequences of freedom to publish. News messages may so disturb people that they panic, endangering themselves and others.” (Graber 135) What Graber says here is a good way to wrap this up because it makes two points, the first sentence gives a direct example of two of the biggest gatekeepers in positions to limit what is being published. The second sentence relates to the one of the ideas identified in this research study, that PSA’s may actually generate the curiosity to try a drug, not because they are in a panic from crises, but if one is to consider the war on drugs the crisis, it could be posed that the news messages or PSA’s may on some level disturb their schema enough to cause an atypical panic that sends them on a quest to locate the drug viewed on television, possibly endangering themselves and others.
“I’d hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me.” –Hunter S. Thompson
Bibliography:
Graber, D.A. Mass Media & American Politics. Washington DC: CQ, 2002
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business New York: Penguin 1986
