‘Hunger Games’ and Social Media - A Match Made in Heaven

It's no secret that "The Hunger Games" fever is sweeping the nation at lightning speeds. With less than a week before the hugely popular book series hits the big screen, excitement for the story and its characters is at an all time high. But why has it generated so much popularity over just a few months? The answer is, of course, digital media.

Keeping in mind that teens are the majority of the series' fan base, Lionsgate has spent only $45 million on advertising and hired a tiny staff of 21 people to spread "Hunger Games" hype - through a surprisingly cheap "yearlong, four-phase digital effort" focused on young audiences. By utilizing popular media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, and even iPhone games, Lionsgate marketing officials have carefully increased the internet buzz and have created a "box-office inferno" surrounding the upcoming movie. Considering the plot's tricky content (kids killing kids for a dystopian society's televised pleasure) and the number of fans it must satisfy, I'd say Lionsgate's marketing team is doing a pretty darn good job.

This is just another example of how important the internet has become to our society - politics, advertising, news in general is becoming increasingly dependent on new social media. What do you guys think about this? How could our obsession with the internet and social media hurt us, or help us, as a society?

Media Effects on the Public

According to Doris Graber, a professor at the University of Chicago, "People who are exposed to the mass media already possess a fund of knowledge and attitudes which they bring to bear on new information. Since we do not know precisely what this information is, nor the rules by which it is combined with incoming information, we cannot pinpoint the exact contribution which mass media make to the individual's cognitions, feelings, and actions"

I agree, people do approach the news with their preexisting views in mind, criticizing some bits of information and soaking up others like a sponge. I do believe, however, that they system is much more straightforward than Graber makes it sound.

It is obvious that these effects exist - just take a look at the type of political reporting done around elections. The media can and will sway voters, but just with different levels of intensity and effectiveness. Contrary to Graber's statement that there are no rules, independents and voters who are undecided are much more likely to be swayed one way or another by the media than voters with strong political beliefs on either end of the spectrum. Stated simply, the weaker your political convictions, the more vulnerable you are to media effects.

There is a hiccup, though, in the system. The most apparent way to measure the media's effects on "individual's cognitions, feelings, and actions" is to measure the public's response to certain news reports - but how do we measure the public's response other than through media reporting? This presents a conflict of interest in which Graber is absolutely right about the difficulty of measuring media's effect on the public. The most viable solution to this problem would be to collect data through polls, and measure media effects statistically. In this paper, Larry Bartels, a professor of politics, communications, and public affairs at Princeton does just that. Take a look.