Hi, everyone! This is your first "real" blog assignment, and it's worth up to 20 points on your final grade (note that I'll probably offer a little more than 100 points of blog assignment opportunities). Your assignment is to answer these questions: Does Anthony Downs's issue-attention cycle provide a good explanation for the making of policy? Is it a good explanation for how politics and public opinion work more generally? Why or why not?
In order to answer these questions, you should consider our class discussions on Downs (as well as any other relevant topics), and you should read these two articles:
http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/Downs_Public_Interest_1972.pdf
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=jss
The first of these is Downs's original article. The second attempts to apply his theory to explaining public opinion about terrorism. You should also think a little more about whether Downs succeeds in explaining environmental regulation.
Your comment should be 2-3 short paragraphs. Better answers will address the two articles, offer links to other work on this question, and perhaps address (politely) the comments of your colleagues. Feel free to go back and make an additional comment to respond to others. Assignments are due (and I will close the comments) at 3 pm on Monday, February 9. If you have questions, please feel free to email me at berchnorto@msn.com
Anthony Downs's issue attention cycle does provide a good explanation for the making of policy, as well as it is a good explanation for how politics and public opinion work generally.
ReplyDeleteDowns's originally created this model for domestic issues, specifically ones about the environment. Originally many probably did not care about the environment, however, once a surprising "discovery" was published, more people became aware, and became emotionally attached to the subject. This led people to want the government to do something to possibly regulate areas that affect the environment. This is how it may influence policy. Now politicians running for offices will make policies that affect the environmental "crisis."
This also works for foreign policies as well, as seen in the second article with terrorism. At first it wasn't such a big deal to Americans, then a huge event happened that made Americans grow emotionally attached and want something to be done about terrorists.
Some may argue that a select few control the media, however this model proves a good point. Even with terrorism, there wasn't much coverage about it on the news, then when 9/11 happened, the news reports sky rocketed. Then people realized the costs of battling it, and then the topic slowly became less popular. In the graph given it is shown how the media didn't report as often about it. This cycle goes to show how topics come and go in the media.
So the cycle is a good explanation for the making of policy as seen when many people want something to be done, the politicians are forced to listen. Also it goes to show how the media works in most cases.
Downs’ Isssue-attention cycle attempts to explain what happens as social and domestic “issues” pass through different stages. I think his stages are reflective and accurate of what seems to typically happen and lend themselves to a decent explanation of policy making.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is that although Peterson makes a strong connection with the attention cycle surrounding international terrorism, both he and Downs’ himself hint that there may at times be no solution to such issues and these issues will certainly not be resolved with the “simple fixes”. Downs’ says that during the alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage, the implication is that “every obstacle can be eliminated and every problem solved without a fundamental reordering of society itself”. The fact that Downs’ points this out as an implication hints that he knows this to not be true; that is to say that he believes a reordering of society does need to occur for any true solutions to arise. Similarly, Peterson agrees when he says that if the “cycle can be disrupted, then perhaps the core problems can be addressed”. Both are saying that the issue attention cycle does exist and can indeed be applied to different areas of policy making. Brian Hogwood even goes so far to say that changes in U.S. federal government activity (via the issue attention cycle) is an indicator of policy activity in his article In Search of the Issue Attention Cycle.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0d2bd919-7eca-48dd-b7a4-395772eb80c4%40sessionmgr4002&vid=5&hid=4212
I think that Downs’ cycle does provide a good explanation as to how politics and public opinion work. We see Peterson and Hogwood apply the cycle to other realms (international terrorism and the bureaucracy) and see that all investigated issues not only undergo the various stages of the cycle, but fit Downs’ three criterion.
My classmate Quincy also does a good job in pointing out that this provides insight to the media and news cycle. While Downs’ explains how the issue attention cycle in a sense perpetuates the 24 hour news cycle, Peterson points out that (particularly regarding public opinion and foreign policy) the media frames issues to get a strong reaction from the public. People often think issues are far more complex than they actually may be and some would argue that the media coverage leads to an even more uneducated public.
I believe that Down's theory offers a sound explanation on both the making of policy and how politics and public opinion generally work.
ReplyDeleteOne example as to how it explains both of these things is the legislation passed after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. With the general public fearful in the weeks after the attack the USA PATRIOT act was drafted and voted upon with a tally of 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. (More info about the USA PATRIOT act can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm )
This act was brought on because of public pressure on law makers.
While I do believe that Down's cycle fits the terrorism issue well, I also believe the "Decline/Shift in interest" stage was brought on by media distracting the American public from real issues such as terrorism with trivial social debates within our country.
I do not think that Down's theory fits environmental regulation. I believe it fails to fit at the fourth step... In today's society, bureaucratic overreach is one of the reasons I'd say this is true.
http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/in-the-news?ID=6e690611-ea5a-4617-9428-ebd921242909
This article accurately explains the point I am getting at with environmental issues. Washington continues to funnel federal money into finding "clean alternatives" for energy. If they were to put half of the money spent on that into improving our existing sources the southern part of West Virginia wouldn't be doing nearly as bad as it currently is and workers who are out of a job wouldn't be forced to commute out of state to find work.
In brief, Down’s issue-attention cycle, although designed around the environmental issues that impacted a 1972 United States, still has practical application for the creation of policy in 2015.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States today, the constant demands of the 24-hour news cycle seem to fuel Down’s theory. As he stated in his original article, titled Up and Down with Ecology – The “Issue-Attention Cycle” (1972), “This increase in our environmental aspirations is part of a general cultural phenomenon stimulated both by our success in raising living standards and by the recent emphases on the communications media.” Down’s belief that the media fuels a majority of the issue-attention cycle could not be truer today. The media is constantly churning out stories that generate interest amongst the mainstream audience. Ratings, coverage and viewership all drive the media to seek out the ‘hottest’ story of the day, and as a result, many issues can be pushed to the front, in a brash manner, and then moved to the back when the public stops taking an interest in the subject.
For example, the issue of ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, went through the Down’s issue-attention cycle. In 2012, then Presidential-candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public about the danger of a breakdown in the security of Iraq following the U.S. withdraw and scale back that took place during President Obama’s first term. Inherently, the issue was one that was of no interest to the public, and the threat of ISIS and other extremist organizations in the area lead to much pre-alarm in scholastic communities about the threat of such organizations. Following the beheading of American journalist James Foley, the issue was propelled onto the international stage, with the United States and other world countries attempting to form a ‘broad coalition’ to combat ISIS.
However, in retrospect, the issue, which was catapulted via the media and the gruesome execution video that accompanied Mr. Foley’s death, only lasted from late-July to mid-September because of the sudden alarm and reaction that the general public experienced. Then, when a decision had to be made, many in Washington, D.C. realized that a ground invasion or any serious action that could be taken against ISIS could result in a higher cost that originally anticipated. At the time, many politicos made calls for the Obama administration to act on the issue, but once the costs were realized ISIS seemed to fall out of the limelight, just in time for another crisis to come in to play.
Down’s issue-attention cycle is a good indicator of how public opinion and the formation of public policy work. My classmate, Quincy, does an excellent job of pointing this "media hype" phenomenon in regards to terrorism and the environment. Usually, in U.S. politics, legislators tend to try and be representative of the views and beliefs of the citizens and special interests. If an issue comes up that sparks passion amongst the general public or special interests, then the legislators in return are going to have to react via the implementation of policy that resolves the issue or conflict at hand. However, the fickle manner of the public opinion (and the special interests checkbooks) sometimes results in policy that is residual – or is left over after the public opinion on a certain issue changes.
An interesting article that I found while researching Down’s issue-attention cycle was from 2010, following the disastrous earthquake that devastated the small island nation. Essentially, we, as Americans, took much interest in helping with disaster relief, and many celebrities (25 actually) went as far as recording “We Are the World” to raise funds for relief. This article points out that the issue, which still lingered (and lingers) for the Haitian people, exited the realm of American’s minds pretty quickly.
http://www.salon.com/2010/04/30/haiti_short_attention_span/
Anthony Downs provides an excellent explanation as to how policies are created. When an issue arises in the United States, it is almost as everybody "hops on the bandwagon" and wants change immediately, that is why in a time of crisis or national epidemic, it is easy for the government to pass acts with ease because there is not much opposition within the government and there is plenty of citizens that are pushing for change at that time. Downs' second step of the "issue attention cycle" does a good job recognizing this.
ReplyDeleteThe "issue attention cycle" does a great job showing how politics and public opinion correlate, especially in terms of how the media shapes public opinion and actions. Since the media of the United States is mainly focused on profit, one issue is never on the news for too long because eventually the issue bores the audience and the media recognizes this. Before any major change can be made, the news already has a new "hip" issue for its audience to start being concerned about, however while the issue being discussed, that is when the government will push for change with the support of the brainwashed audience.
As for the issue of the environment, i do not believe it will ever reach the fourth step therefore it cannot be labeled as part of the "issue attention cycle." Companies such as automobile manufacturers are still trying to have the most environmental friendly car with the most gas mileage. Tesla is also trendy because it is an electric car and is better for the ozone layer and whatnot. What i am getting at is that because the environment is a global concern, it will always be relevant in years to come, if not an even bigger issue as we get older.
Anthony Downs's issue-attention cycle does provide a good explanation for the making of policy because it shows the influence the US public opinion has on changes in policy making. When a problem reaches the stage called the “Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm”, elected officials have to change policy or create new ones in order to respond to the pressure of much higher concerns from the public opinion. This was typically what happened with 9/11. As shows in Karen K. Petersen’s article, the public opinion felt an emotional aftershock that led to a mobilization for the “War of Terror”. Particularly, this awareness and euphoria from the public explain, for example, one of the great change after 9/11: the air travel security. Right after the attack, the attention on flight security was so high that in less than two months, the Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act which put stricter passenger and luggage screening.
ReplyDeleteDowns’ cycle is certainly a good way to explain how some policies are created or changed. It tries to show the mechanisms behind the making of some policies, how elected officials vote according to their constituency’s main concerns. However, generally, public opinion does not explain changes in politics.
If we take the public opinion as the average voter, we would come to the fact that he/she has no interest or knowledge in politics. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to take interest groups and media (especially television) as important factors in policy making and in politics in general. When it comes to issues that affect less people than terrorist attacks (that can happen everywhere and at any time), elected officials pay more attention to interest groups’ pressure and spotlights of the media.
Downs’ issue-attention cycle does make sense in terms of the news and its fast pace. When a disaster occurs or someone makes headlines every source of media is broadcasting the details and researching the cause of the event. I do think that Downs’ cycle provides a solid explanation for making policy. When something happens that brings about an issue, regardless of the public’s initial awareness, people everywhere will begin to look into the issue. As the cycle suggests, people take an interest, hoping to find a solution. In the article “Revisiting Downs’ Issue-Attention Cycle: International Terrorism and U.S. Public Opinion,” Petersen the attack on the World Trade Centers as an example. That was a tragic event that blew up the media and is still effecting politics and foreign policies, now fourteen years later. Again, following Downs’ cycle, the American public immediately began searching for a solution to the attacks, whether it was a way to restore the security that was take from us through the many acts and policies that were established, or a retaliation. Both were responses from the U.S., and both followed the cycle.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, we know that events drive public interest, and public interest drives the media as well as the government in many ways. As classmate, Sophia Enriquez explained in her post, the issues that receive interest from the public produce opinion and controversy which push the government to make make adjustment to society by way of policy. Downs makes it clear several times that this reordering is neccesseary for solutions to be played out effectively. However every case is different. Issues and events that lead to foreign policy are not equal in how they are formed. Even when addressing the same issue, different stages will receive different levels of attention depending on what the issue is. I do agree with Downs. His cycle does supply a good explanation or how issues become of public and political interest, thus forming public opinion.
I believe that the Down’s issue-attention cycle provides a good explanation for the making of policy in general. An immense amount of public issues go through this cycle, however there are always cases that should go through the process that do not. We are so easily influenced by the media and other’s opinions surrounding us that issues do become a major problem to the citizens of the United States. A very recent example I can recall is the Ebola epidemic. It seemed like one week everyone was terrified for their life and it was the next black plague, and the next there was nothing more said about it and everyone acted like nothing ever happened and it was never an issue. Obviously this outbreak went through the Down’s issue-attention cycle and went through every stage clearly with no ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteI would not agree to say that the issue-attention cycle is a good explanation for how public opinion and politics work more generally because even in Down’s own article, he admits that not all problems go through the cycle. If this is the case, I would not go on to say that it is a good explanation for public opinion because it is apparent that not all public opinions and politics work in this cycle. When one learns new terms, issues need to be concrete and I do not believe the issue-attention cycle is concrete in any way because there are far too many exceptions to the rule. You cannot foreshadow how American citizens are going to act in times of crisis simply because people and situations are unpredictable.
Downs’ issue attention cycle was probably a fairly accurate depiction of the American public’s treatment of issues in the 1970s. That was in the days prior to mass globalization and the 24-hour news cycle. There was sufficient time for informed debate, and news coverage consisted of the three TV networks and newspapers. Debate in those forums was rather more curated in the 1970s than the unlimited free-for-all that ensues today on cable news and the internet. Issues in the age of globalization also pit sizeable minorities against each other for limited resources; the global poor compete for resources from the global wealthy, and are forced into self-destructive competition.
ReplyDeletePetersen makes an excellent modification to the issue cycle, transforming it into a kind of feedback loop where issues can be stoked by outside events. With the issues furnace continually stoked, it is possible that the public will become better educated about issues. However, Petersen exhibits a great deal of optimism in theorizing that education will encourage the public (and therefore voters) to support more nuanced solutions to issues. I don’t think anyone has ever lost a bet by assuming voters would choose the dumber of two options, so the idea that they would choose educating themselves by watching CNN every night instead of the Kardashians seems unlikely.
If anything, I think the last ten years of the War on Terror show that the public indeed became more fatigued, not educated about terrorism. The issue attention cycle was only prolonged. While some of that fatigue probably stems from the contemporary recession, I think it is fair to say that the current reluctance in confronting ISIS is a reflection of the fatigue that comes from a prolonged issue cycle. Prolonging the cycle is leading to a paralysis by analysis that prevents even the incremental progress of Downs’ original stages.
Anthony Down's Issue Attention Cycle does a decent job of depicting American Public Opinion and American Public Policy, past and present. The Issue Attention cycle was originally created to analyze environmental issues in the 1970's. However, it still has a lot of relevance to today's society.
ReplyDeleteOne of the requirements for this cycle is for an issue to be of no interest to the public and another requirement would be for that issue to, very rapidly, receive a mass amount of attention due to some sort of traumatic event or media tactic.
An example of this would be the 'Kony 2012' movement and phenomenon. In this case, a video posted by 'Invisible Children' grabbed and won the attention of millions of Americans towards an issue that has been going on for a long time. Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, had been committing horrific crimes, especially against children, for decades, but this had never really made headlines on a large scale. The 'Kony 2012' movement, however, gave it that attention and millions of people started donating to the cause and wanted to get involved.
However, following another step of the Issue Attention Cycle, this issue and the attention it received from the video started to swirl around something else: The costs. It was discovered that no one really knew where Kony was, or if he was even alive anymore. It also became clear that there was not really a clear path to saving the children of the African countries that were scarred by Kony's horrific crimes. Not long after, another step of the process started occurring: Distractions. The 'Invisible Children' organization that catapulted this issue to national and international attention soon found itself wrapped in controversy.
The founder of the organization, Justin Russell, was arrested for lewd behavior and his group was accused of pocketing money from this campaign for themselves. These distractions proved to be too much and prevented anything from being done on this issue. This is where the Issue Attention Cycle fails. It does a good job in pointing out the flaws in American Media and the American citizens when it comes to public policy, but it fails to solve that problem. This also occurs with environmental issues, such as climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/14/321853244/the-kony-2012-effect-recovering-from-a-viral-sensation
David Leviev
Crises in the United States do not reflect real conditions of harms but reflect how the issue is heightened with public interest which in turn allows policy to be created carelessly and with no regard to the root cause of the crisis or ill. Anthony Down’s issue attention cycle provides an overall good explanation for how policy/institution creation is dictated by public interest in a social ill or crisis. Down’s interrogates the way public interest reacts to social ills or crisis’s through the lens of the issue attention cycle. This cycle hypothesizes that when a social condition is dramatically discovered by the public through a crisis or series of intense events, public opinion drives the creation of policy or regulation until the cost of fixing such ill is discovered. Upon discovery of the cost, the problem diminishes in public view. I believe this provides a good explanation of the making of a policy because of how the United States is fundamentally structured. The Constitution created a government where the power is derived from the people. With this in mind, the attention cycle provides an explanation for when the people believe there is a social ill they want the government to fix it. Yet inherent in human nature is the inability to look beyond oneself in certain situations. This fosters an environment where citizens do not want to fix a problem particularly when they realize the problem or social ill generally results from an arrangement that benefits someone. In an attempt for a quick fix, Congress will carelessly throw together a policy that appears to fix the crisis or social ill without accounting for the real problem behind the policy. By this point, the first problem at hand is out of public view and the next problem is in the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Down’s issue attention cycle provides an accurate explanation of the making of a policy the next step is to address if this is a good way to make policy. Downs and Petersen do indicate that they believe a restructuring of society does have to occur in order to truly mitigate and fix harms, yet I do not believe they do enough to address how to foster an environment where a restructuring could happen. I believe education is the key to creating a restructuring. Currently, if public perception of an issue changes when the cost of fixing a problem is realized, the true root cause of the problem can never be solved leading to worse harms. Petersen points out that increased education resulting in increased public knowledge of an issue could change the way an issue receives attention which could result in a policy that would actually begin to solve a true harm. Increased knowledge production in society is important in addressing the root cause of crisis and harms. In the United States the power comes from the people so by addressing how people receive an issue, the issue could potentially actually be solved. Without it addressing this, policies will continually be made that appear to mitigate harms but in actuality create worse harms by allowing the problem to continue.
I believe Down’s issue-attention cycle provides a good explanation for policy changes in some areas, but cannot be applied to all events. I believe domestic problems are more prone to follow the issue-attention cycle than foreign policy issues, the biggest reason for this being that many domestic problems present a direct and pervasive threat to a minority of the population, while not harming the majority. An example of this would be, as Downs points out, racism and inequality in 1960’s America. This issue clearly follows the three steps Downs says “issues must go through” to be included in the issue-attention cycle. In contrast, international terrorism, particularly the 9/11 terror attacks, affected the majority of the American population rather than just a minority. As Dustin points out in his post, the American public’s panic over the attack persuaded congress to pass immediate policy changes. However, the threat here was to the American public at large; everybody in America believed they could be next if terrorist organizations were allowed to run free in America, so they were willing to pay the costs (wars, money, freedom) to immediately obtain the security they desired. As opposed to the issue-attention cycle, all Americans felt threatened as opposed to a minority being oppressed and the majority having to give something up to help them. I also think this event jumped right from stage 2 to something past stage 5, as huge changes were made immediately before there was any decline in interest, so saying this follows the issue-attention cycle really doesn’t make sense.
ReplyDeleteI believe this idea of the majority being affected also applies to environmental regulations, because for the most part, all Americans are more or less equally affected by bad environmental practices. However, unlike terrorism in 2001 which presented a perceived threat of immediate danger, Americans have been less likely to pay the costs for a slower moving and less immediate threat such as cleaning up the environment. I also believe Downs is too quick to place an endless amount of different problems into one over-reaching category of environmental concerns. There are simply too many different problems that require a variety of different costs in order to solve to simply say that “environmental concerns” is a single issue. If it were, according to Down’s theory, the realization of costs would be so great that the American public would’ve long since given up on it and lost interest, and the issue would’ve moved into stage 5. This is how I view environmental policy at large, but I think specific environmental issues do follow the issue-attention cycle, such as the DDT issue that we discussed in class. This is because there was a minority (eagles) being hurt and the majority of the population was willing to pay the costs of higher pesticide prices to save the eagles.
Downs’ issue attention cycle (presented 43 years ago and based on a limited and repetitive set of anecdotal evidence) is no longer a relevant tool for explaining the dynamics of public opinion or related public policy. The advent of the Internet and its accompanying demolition of traditional forms of media has shed new light on how the public perceives and reacts to information regarding significant events across the country and the globe.
ReplyDeleteWhen Downs presented his model for the public’s collective attention span the country was a very different place. The only sources of news and information were media outlets controlled by the elites of society; television, radio, and printed media such as newspapers and magazines were alone and unchallenged in their ability to inform the public of what was relevant. By consciously directing the flow of information the parties in control were able to artificially focus the eye of the public on whatever aspect of society they wished; the consumers of mass media were powerless in deciding what was experiencing “euphoric realization” and what was in “post-problem” stage. As a result Downs’ theory attributed to the public a non-existent ability of being capable of driving the pace that issues underwent while on the national stage. The issue attention cycle proposed by Downs is therefore less about how the public functions and more closely resembles the most profitable way for the key players in the mass media to deliver content.
Internet use since the beginning of the 21st century has experienced an unprecedented rise and has delivered devastating blows to the prevalence of existing mass media tools. Media consumption when Downs’ model was introduced was directly linked to how and when media was produced; people read about what was happening when the morning paper arrived and again when the evening news was on. After the Internet’s rise one now has the capability to spend 24 hours a day reading and learning about what is happening in the world and can decide what is important based on their own experiences and beliefs. The media now has to react to what people are saying and what they are interested in if they want to keep viewers which was not the case when Downs produced his theory. In 1972 the media was the sole supplier of important information and had very little incentive to listen to what the consumers were saying; the people had no capability to learn of current events in an alternative fashion. The media as a result drove the artificial cycle of attention in much more significant ways than the public was capable. Now if the masses are unsatisfied or uninterested in what is being reported by the popular news outlets they can abandon them altogether by educating themselves with a personally tailored collection of information.
There are certainly still issues that very closely follow Downs’ issue attention cycle, however the theory is not relevant or consistent enough to warrant widespread application. Recent fascination of the public with happenings such as Joseph Kony’s reign of terror (#Kony2012), the Ebola crisis, Muammar Gaddafi’s alleged utilization of chemical weapons and Russia’s attempted annexation of Ukraine have mirrored Downs’ model very efficiently. His theory however fails to explain the public’s recurring interest (or lack thereof) in broader issues like poverty, economic inequality, education, welfare, vaccinations, overseas military campaigns, the equality of the sexes, the respective bubbles of social security and student loans, or the government’s fiscal activities. These issues are the ones that dominate elections, legislators’ agendas, and public policy debates, not those characterized by a single event that Downs’ theory supports. None of these reigning topics require a provocative documentary or eye-opening book to renew their validity. The public now chooses what it finds interesting and does not need a cataclysmic event to fuel that interest, and public opinion moves in a much less cyclical fashion than Downs observed half a century ago.
The “Issue-Attention Cycle” developed by Anthony Downs effectively summarizes the process by which public opinion regarding specific issues evolves. It also serves as a tool to better understand how public policy is established. The cycle is certainly a good explanation for public opinion trends in general. There are plenty of examples that demonstrate the accuracy of the cycle. These examples stretch from issues discussed in the attached articles, such as environmental issues and terrorism, to issues discussed in class, e.g. seatbelts, the meat packing industry, etc. The cycle makes sense, a concern is brought to light, interest grows, solutions are pitched, the public realizes the impracticality of eradicating the problem, and attention to the issue diminishes.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent example that demonstrates the accuracy of Downs’s cycle, as stated by fellow classmates, surrounds the African warlord Kony. Kony was utilizing children soldiers in his fights so there was clearly a problem. A film, Kony 2012, brought the problem to the public’s attention and went viral. The American public became fascinated and intrigued with the issue, and it gained more importance than ever. Then as Downs suggests, the issue was put on the backburner by the American public. An NPR article (http://www.npr.org/2014/06/14/321853244/the-kony-2012-effect-recovering-from-a-viral-sensation) almost exactly discusses the latter stages of the cycle with people realizing the costs of solutions and losing focus on Kony. The Kony 2012 movement is just one of many that closely resemble Downs’s issue-attention cycle, so it is fair to say it is a good explanation for politics and public opinion in general.
In order to value the issue-attention cycle’s impact on policy making, one must accept that public opinion has a profound impact on policy. While this relationship can be exaggerated at times, it nevertheless exists. Politicians desire reelection. To be reelected, politicians must enact policy that pleases their constituents. Hence, politicians will focus on, frame, and prioritize issues that are of the most interest for their constituents (Public Choice Theory comes into play here as well and can be coupled with the cycle to better look into policy making http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html). In this way, the issue-attention cycle helps explain policy making. The cycle doesn’t directly affect policy making, but it helps explain public opinion which in turn helps explain policy making.
Downs’ issue-attention cycle has many good explanations to how policies work. It also explains how political and public opinion work generally.
ReplyDeleteMy classmate Helene Ham gives a good example of how the officials are pressured by the public. It explains how the public doesn’t get the problem when it is in its first stage, but when it hits the second stage “Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm,” the public moves towards trying to influence the government. Then the government has to proceed in making new laws to prevent the problem from happening. This explains how political and public opinion work.
The "issue-attention Cycle" was mainly created for domestic problems. Down's talked about the problems with the environment and how cars affect the environment, but to prevent people from driving is a bigger problem. So they have to work on enhancing how transportations operate. I think when it comes to environment Downs’ cycle is a bit weak.
I think that the cycle is better presented foreign than domestic. This is because Downs’ explains minorities and how not all problems enter the cycle some do not and to do so they would have to go through the 3 characteristics. For example that was in the article. Racism is still a big problem and millions suffer from it, but it doesn’t enter because it is only 15% from the entire population. In the other hand, when 9/11 occurred the all of the population were alerted and knew what happened and wanted solutions. So Peterson gives more reason with how the cycle works internationally rather than domestic issues with Downs’.
The cycle will have different problems and each problem different than the other with the 5 stages. Some problems pass the stages easily others like 9/11 stay for a while. My classmate Sierra Feazell gives a good example of Ebola and how it went through the stages with no problem. Others stay depending on public interest and how it might affect them.
An example of Downs’ cycle is gun control. In the past years when Virginia Tech shooting occurred a lot of news stories were published and in the news. The public gained attention because it mattered to a large percent of the population. The public demanded for gun control, but as time went by it is like the shooting never took place. The public over all has the majority of what news is to be high concern and changed with new laws and, which news to not be given high concern.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-media-will-quickly-forget-about-guns-unless-washington-stops-them/
I find that Downs’ issue attention cycle is very true in many aspects, however I feel as if there is one issue that is not touched on in the 5 stages. The cycle states that " the public thus begins to realize the part of the problem results from arangements that are providing significant benefits to someone often to millions" and that is the core reason why people begin to shift away from the issue. However I believe that it is more then that. The average person does not sit down and read company log books and scientific studies on air pollution for example so it isn't due to the fact that they are informed on how expensive or inconvenit it would be to fix the issue rather it is the the rapid flow of information tied in with the slowness of the system to achieve anything
ReplyDeleteWhat do I mean by this?
Basically most people are uninformed in regards to upper level regulations and scientific data that would support the issue. Most also aren't away of all the complexities of resolving the issue at hand, the costs, the man hours, and if it will truly change anything. So with this being said, People in my oppion don't lose interest because of that rather they loss interest because of the fast pace news networks that we have and the time it takes to fix old issues.
One day we hear about ebola and the dangers that go along with it and it is thrusted into the public eye, however the issue of adminstering aid and finding a cure, funding it, and so on takes alot of time to do. During that time something like ISIS emerged and is no thrusted into the public eye. making it important.
So rather then information being the corner stone of the public losing interest it is rather the fast pace news coverage and the delay from when an issue arises to the time in which it can be resolved.
I think that Down's issue attention cycle is pretty accurate as to what we actually see in a lot of public policy. For some issues we can clearly see the 5 stages that these problems go through that Downs talked about. One of the more recent events that I think fits this cycle is Ebola. Before it came around recently very few people in the public really cared about Ebola or even knew what it was. But once the outbreak started in Africa and some people who were infected came over to the United States you saw a public outcry for policy on Ebola, and whether or not it was smart to bring people over for treatment and for the prevention of outbreaks in the United States. This went on for a little while and then all of a sudden you never heard about Ebola anymore. It is in the Post Problem stage right now and you never really hear about it in the news anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think it also accurately shows how public opinion works for a lot of issues. There is a period where no one either cares or knows about a certain issues until a few people bring it up and the public hears about it and then there is widespread support for a certain view on the issue and they take it to the government where they work on it and come up with some possible solutions and they turn out to be costly. Then it goes into the post problem stage where the good majority of people who were showing support for an issue forget about it and really never talk about or think about that issue again. As some people have mentioned earlier, another good example is Kony. Not many people knew about this issue until recently and then everyone got worked up and it gained a lot of public support and some solutions were brought about, and within a year most people had already forgotten about the issue.
I think that Downs does a good job in capturing what these issues go through and does a good job explaining what happens to them in these 5 stages of the cycle. In my opinion I think he does a pretty accurate job in describing what happens and what happens to public support for these issues and for some issues its pretty easy to see it go through these stages.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Anthony Down’s issue-attention cycle provides a good explanation for the making of policy as it accurately reflects public opinion and the way in which public opinion is formed and disperses. In the first article, Downs argues that only once issues gain public attention they will be dealt with by our politicians due to public pressure to resolve a social problem. He later explains that after public interest has died out, there are remnants of the attention the issue once had that serve to solve the problem, such as policies and institutions.
ReplyDeleteI think this explanation is accurate in describing the process of policy making and how public opinion works to affect this process. Tying the two articles together, the second article argues that the issue-attention cycle is not only pertinent for domestic issues but international ones as well. For example, an additional article I found describes how the Haiti earthquakes (an international issue) went through issue-attention cycle within the US and as a result formed programs and institutions to help deal with disaster relief: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/30/haiti_short_attention_span/
This offers support for Dr. Peterson’s notion that the cycle is also applicable to international issues and can serve as an explanation as to how they are dealt with.
The author offers a modified version of the cycle to apply to the issue of terrorism. She agrees with Downs that because democracy is built on the people, it is essential to understand them and their opinion in order to form policy. She also compares the terrorism issue with the example Down’s provided on environmentalism in saying that education of the public was a key role in the success of environmental issues being dealt with. She acknowledges that after terrorism goes through the second stage, the public is not well informed enough to accurately understand the costs of solving it (stage three). She then states that if the same type of education that informed the US public of the root causes of environmental issues was applied to terrorism, the public would finally fully understand the costs of fixing it. This in conjunction with sustained interest may find the best-fit policies for dealing with terrorism rather than the short term easy solutions currently in place. However, I agree with classmate Kalea Gunderson that every case is different, and attention on issues that lead to policy are not uniform or “equal in how they are formed.” This can help to explain not only why the issues of terrorism and environmental problems received different amounts of education to the public, but also why the education environmental issues received may not be the only solution in finding better policy towards terrorism issues.
The Issue-Attention Cycle is very interesting and offers a lot of insight into the reason policies are made as well as the cycle that important problems go through in the eyes of the public. Downs originally used environment as the main example and it was a very good choice for a variety of reasons. The elites of society were well aware of the harm that was being done to the environment but the common person paid no attention to the matter while he or she enjoyed the daily privileges that were causing this problem. As this problem gained national exposure, policies were then put into place to address these matters and attempt to bring immediate change in the eyes of citizens. I think that the cycle itself is beneficial but some issues are not treated properly to completely fix the problem. The environment, for example, is constantly being harmed as a result of progressing technologies, There will always be events involving the environment to constantly keep it in this cycle.
ReplyDeleteMatters that are recurring make the issue attention cycle seem much more beneficial than some other items. These matters are constantly being reviewed and requiring policy makers to take an extended look at how to treat them. Terrorism was another key example that was used in the second article. The elites of our nation were well aware the dangers that we faced every day. The common citizen was unaware until the events of 9/11. Following 9/11, the citizens demanded terrorism to be attacked head on and terrorism was now in the middle of the five stage cycle. Terrorism will also have some sort of to remain relevant and recurring in the issue-attention cycle.
In conclusion, this cycle is dictated by the citizens. An important event will take place and citizens will demand that policy makers focus their attention on that matter in order to find an immediate solution that benefits the people. While I like the idea of this, many events are not focused on enough and the policies are quickly made to simply please the citizens briefly and keep their support. Many policies and crucial matters require much more time and more complex solutions to create a long term successful way of handling the issue. The description of the cycle by Downs is excellent and is broken down great. He is very detailed and makes the cycle extremely to understand for readers.
Downs issue attention cycle does reflect an accurate representation of how public policy is created in the US. This is shown by the wide range of issues it can be applied to.
ReplyDeleteIn his original article, Downs uses his attention cycle to illustrate how issues involving the environment came to the forefront of the American media and eventually fell from the public eye. In his five-stage cycle, issues surge into popularity with some sort of cataclysmic event and eventually decline from a mix of cost and loss of interest with new policies possibly being created. The real strength of Downs theory lies in the conditions for its applicability, specifically the notion that the issue can only affect a minority of the population. Issues that affect a wider range of people do not enter the Issue-Attention Cycle and are dealt with more directly (FDR and New Deal reforms come to mind). The second condition is also extremely important, as it provides the major roadblock in the policy making that results in the decline in interest/realization of costs stage. Something that must be paid for by the majority and only benefits a minority will most likely gain little traction in policy-making regardless of whatever epic event coincides with it. Downs third condition appears to be the least important, as what is deemed interesting is all reliant on the eye of the beholder.
Proof that Downs theory does actually represent the interplay between public opinion and policy-making is found in the wide range of issues that apply to it. Terrorism, environmental issues, health-care, and immigration are just a few examples of issues that can be applied to the cycle. There is also a natural variation in the cycle that gives it flexibility to apply to even more problems. As the second article pointed out, issues can be caught in certain stages of the cycle and bounce in and out of prominence without ever having a resolution. For example, terrorism has jumped from alarmed discovery to gradual decline in interest many times since 9/11/2001.
While the cycle is very wide-reaching, I would argue it does not make up the entirety of how public opinion and policy intertwine. The second article briefly mentions the "Cascade effect," which explains how information follows a top-down model. This certainly is involved in policy making and could even be used to the administrations benefit within the Issue-Attention Cycle. At any given moment the government most likely knows more than its people, which could be exploited through the Downs' cycle. If the administration can tweak and control the timing of alarmed discovery and other stages it can use that to advance partisan agenda. I would point out the recent immigration battle between congress and the president. The alarmed discovery of the imminent deportation of thousands of people was used by both parties for their own benefit. The Democrats used it present the president as a knight in shining armor saving children from expulsion while the Republicans used it to put the president in a more totalitarian and dictator-like light. Thus the Downs model does provide a framework for how policy comes into being, but the public opinion that drives that policy is often tampered with by the administration through the timed release of certain information.
Downs issue-attention cycle provides one possible explanation for not only the making of policy in some cases, but also abstaining from. His cycle explains how topics can have a punctuating event(he describes the LA Riots in his model) that brings the issue in question to the forefront of America. This is seen by policymakers and politicians as an opportunity to move on the scene and attempt to remedy the problem in a way that would be beneficial to their agenda since the public is passionate about a solution. A real world example of this would be the PATRIOT act. The PATRIOT act was shoved through congress at a time post-9-11 where you would be chastised for not voting on something that enhanced security of the United States against terrorists, despite the act having lots of opportunities of lost personal freedoms for most Americans. The IAC would place the passing of this policy in the “Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric Enthusiasm” section, which the policymakers were most likely aware of at the time of its presentation. If the PATRIOT act were presented any later time, such as steps 4 or 5 where interest is lost in the situation, a different outcome would have been most likely.
ReplyDeleteTo address the second half of the question, I do think that the IAC helps describe the small portion of the agenda that policymakers change or appear to change based on a passionate public opinion. In a way, the function of the issue attention cycle benefits the policymaker more than it does the public for a number of reasons, the largest being that we basically give them a spreadsheet of what would make us happy at the given moment allowing them to win votes or support for their own campaigns\projects\bills. When we narrow our focus to one or two major media happenings it becomes alike to a shark seeing blood in the water. During the turmoil it is hard to see the true intention or effects of the proposed solutions (as seen with the PATRIOT act).
Although Downs "Issue Attention cycle" provides a good explanation on the policy making process as a whole, i also believe that it's not the public who affect policy making and change, its the media that holds all the power within this cycle, the public only really affects the post problem stage of this cycle in my personal opinion. The pre problem stage is relevant to most issues in our society, issues such as poverty,immigration, terrorism, drug trafficking and many other, rather dormant, problems, but nobody is really paying attention to these issues because the media doesn't shine much light on them. The media controls this "Issue attention cycle" because they are the ones who attract our immediate attention, if it wasn't for the media many (not all) issues would stay in the pre problem stage of this cycle. The Alarm discovery stage is when the media informs us on a particular event that has occurred, the euphoric enthusiasm is the way the public reacts to this alarm discovery. The way the public reacts to these issues that the media gives attention to influences the government to then make appropriate changes to policy, or create new policies relevant to the situation.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time that interest was focused on a particular problem, new institutions, programs, and policies may have have been created to help solve it and as Downs states, usually these entities always persists and often have some impact even after public attention has shifted elsewhere, This shows that we can make policy to help somewhat solve a problem but because of ulterior reasons stated in stage 3 (high costs, major sacrifices by large groups in the population, arrangements that are providing significant benefits to someone often to a specific amount of people would be at risk), no problem will ever be completely eliminated.
Much of the reason, in my personal opinion, for the lack of interest after the post problem stage is because the public assumes that the issue will be taken care of even without doing anything,although policies and programs are many times put into place during this cycle to help potentially solve it, in many situations tragedy of the commons theory is very relevant as well, where people, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, can ultimately deplete a shared limited resource. The Kony movement and Ebola are good examples of this, everyone seemed to be so concerned about the kony movement at the time because the media shined so much light on it but no one really did anything about it, they just expected some kind of solution to arise and they can reap the benefits of satisfaction of a solution to the problem. Same with Ebola, it has always existed, but nobody payed any attention to it because it was not relevant in America until recently, once it was found here the media blew up about it and we went into panic mode, but no one actually did anything, it was the researchers and different medical teams that helped solved the problem. Now medical teams know how to deal with Ebola in the future (stage 5) and the media doesn't talk much about it anymore so we see a decline in interest/relevance of Ebola (stage 4) but that doesn't mean that in the future there wont be other diseases exposed to us from another country that we aren't used to dealing with before, which nevertheless will make the cycle start all over again.
This issue attention cycle helps show how politics and public opinion work generally together mainly because if a particular issue isn't getting the publics attention, it's not going to get the government's attention either, therefore no potential change will be made. But for the public to catch an issues attention, the media has to be the one to make that particular issue worth the publics attention.
The perspective that the issue-attention cycle provides, allows Anthony Down’s to accurately explain the reasoning behind the making of policy, and it further depicts the relationship that both politics and public opinion hold with policy.
ReplyDeleteEach stage of Down’s cycle shows how a new issue or problem moves through the political structure as well as the public view. Overall, the focus of this cycle lies with the public. Both articles explain that the processes of fear and media coverage turn public opinion and thought into expected action, thus a policy or institution is created to meet the public’s expectation. Down’s shows that politics and public opinion play off of each other to create ideal resolutions.
At first, I thought that the issue-attention cycle could only be applied to domestic policy issues. One reason for this thought was that too many outside variables would cause unpredictable outcomes and that the five stages would have to be modified to account for these variables. After reading Petersen’s piece on terrorism, I found that all of the same aspects apply even when so many outside variables are introduced. Each of Down’s five stages still apply, and each of the three conditions must still occur.
A modern example where the issue-attention cycle can be applied is the EBOLA scare. Looking back, I see how quickly the issue went through the cycle. It was very abrupt. First it was a problem in Africa, therefor, not yet a direct problem to the American public. Then, a case occurs in the U.S. causing public fear and alarmed discovery. The majority begins to realize that the cost is financially worth taking. Hospitals around the country take severe precautions and renovate specific parts of the hospital so that people infected may be treated properly, and the government goes to great lengths to keep it contained. Interest declined and now it is in the post-problem stage where we hear about the issue one every while. A problem occurred, raised interest, implemented policy, and is now on its way out of the public’s eye.
Downs' explanation of the "Issue Attention Cycle" provides the reader with good idea of how policy is constructed. Americans are increasingly demanding more instantaneous results from their elected policy makers. It only makes sense that policy is affected by this process. Some politicians may already be working on a problem while it is in the "pre-problem stage" and are only benefited by the issue entering the "alarmed discovery" phase. Having a head start on the issue I would think is the sign of a good politician and policy maker. Most of the work would be done the time the public reached stage three, and after that the policy would reach the point of no return so the public couldn't really off put by the high cost of fixing the problem. In this scenario, stages four and five would happen because the problem would be fixed not because of waning interest.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, assumes that politicians are able to predict what issues are going to be big. Today policy is much more reactionary to public opinion. This reactionary nature falls right in line with the process Downs describes in the reading. According to article by Petersen, these issues sometimes make a reemergence. Where Downs has an issue is in explain what happens to these issues if they do reemerge. Do they start the whole process over? Do they start at phase three because it is the same old story to people? Or do they garner a decreasing amount of support each time they are introduced to the public forum? These are all questions that Downs doesn't make clear. So, although Downs makes a great case for how public opinion effects policy initially, there are still areas for his process to expand.
In the end, I believe the underlying premise of the Issue Attention Cycle is that we as people in society have many different things vying for our time and attention. Our lives are full and busy, and in the end we can only be bothered by so much. Objectively, everyone knows there are starving people in the world, but it does not occupy most people’s daily thoughts. As Downs describes, a sizeable minority must be affected in order for attention to remain on the issue. Downs asserts that issues over 15% are considered important enough they do not fade from our thoughts, yet issues that are under that number are ignorable and subject to the Issue Attention Cycle. Everyone knows pollution is bad, but do 15% (or more) of us feel the effects of pollution on a daily basis? Not even a little bit.
ReplyDeleteAs Karen Petersen describes, terrorism and foreign affairs are similarly subject to this cycle. Often our alarmed discovery is a traumatic event like 9/11, hostage situations, etc. We then commit ourselves to taking down Al-Qaeda, taking down ISIS, etc. Until we realize the costs – invading Afghanistan, the deaths of American soldiers, and the years it takes to properly establish a counter-insurgency – and think, hmm…maybe we aren’t as committed to this as we thought. Over time we realized that no, we couldn’t just kill Osama Bin-Laden and head home. As much as people might have been in for the long-haul, unless you’re in a military family, you probably didn’t feel the effects of the War on Terror directly. So as the media directs its attention to newer stories, it fades from our collective consciousness.
Petersen attempts to improve upon Downs’ cycle by adding another layer for the different topic of international terrorism, wherein the issue stays stuck in steps 2-4, cycling through alarm (ex. Another attack), realizing it will be hard to solve the problem, and shifting our focus to something else, and never reaching stage 5. In the end it’s a shame, but I would like to add that instead of never reaching stage 5, some issues instead reach an alternate stage 5, whereupon we give up entirely and realize the problem won’t be solved at all. Recent example here being our withdrawal of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as ISIS (who seems to be an even more dangerous foe than Al-Qaeda), moves in and claims land for themselves. The only recognizable victories being the deaths of Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein (who was replaced with a hollow, weak regime). In the end we realized we could not easily defeat terrorism, and so we have essentially given up for the time being.
Downs's theory starts with the example of environment, as Mr. Toler states above. However you can place any crisis in that position that has gripped the national consciousness in our lifetimes. You could use the Ferguson example. Michael brown is shot and killed by a police officer, and for a few days it's not major news. This is the pre-problem stage. But then it blows up, and you can't open up a newspaper, or turn to a news channel without hearing some mention of what happened in Ferguson. The euphoric enthusiasm stage. Everyone cares about what is happening, or at least they think they do. The story grips the country, ad the entire nation is in protest. They push for the lawmakers of this country to make changes. But nothing happens. It fades away.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that policymakers are too strong, and the people are too weak to fight it. It is a rare thing where things actually go the way the people want things to go. Obviously 9/11 is an example. But events like 9/11 don't happen often. It takes something like 9/11 for the issue attention cycle to work.
Sure, policymakers can listen to public opinion, but public opinion can be divided, and unpredictable. Anything could become a major story that requires changes. And even if the nation collectively gets behind a movement, it still takes a lot for the policymakers to make a change that supports that movement.
The problem, at the moment, is chiefly Congress. They have an extremely low approval rating. No one likes Congress at the moment. But we still vote for the same people, year in and year out. So nothing will change. Politics and public opinion should go hand in hand, but they don't. And they won't. The issue attention cycle does work up to a point, but can only apply to the rarest of events.
S
Does Anthony Downs's issue-attention cycle provide a good explanation for the making of policy? Is it a good explanation for how politics and public opinion work more generally? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAnthony Downs’ issue attention cycle is both a good explanation for how policy is made, and for how politics and public opinion work. While Downs initially introduced the issue attention cycle to better explain the American public’s growing interest in the early 1970’s green movement, the cycle has managed to stay relevant because it can be used to explain and show the connections between politicians and the public on a large variety of issues.
The cycle as Downs imagined it suits most domestic problems, he felt that issues that go through the five stages needed to possess three characteristics the first being that a “numerical minority” of the population must be affected not a majority, the second characteristic is that another small group benefits from the problems faced by the affected group, and the third characteristic is that the public attention to the problem will surely fade if the media stops reporting on it. The “War on Drugs” is a good example of how the issue attention cycle works because it not only follows the cycle as most issues do, but it also includes the three vital characteristics that Downs talks about. While it is a somewhat tricky subject to look at because of how long it has been around for, and because of how massive the war’s effects have been, if one were to look at it in its simpler form such as the prison population because of the “War on Drugs” this issue does cover the characteristics that Downs listed and it does follow the cycle. America’s strict drug policy has helped lead the country to having the largest prison population in the world. The small minority in this case would be the incarcerated non-violent drug offenders, and the benefitting minority in the scenario would be law enforcement and the prisons because they continue to receive funding for the capture and containment of prisoners. The third key characteristic is that this issue is easy to shift focus away from.
While I would agree that the cycle is better suited for tracking domestic issues, I think it is also worth pointing out that it can be applied to many international issues. A good example of an international issue that went through the attention cycle was the events of 9/11, its aftermath, and the public’s and lawmaker’s reactions to the terrorist attacks. The public’s sudden focus on what went wrong on that day, and the outcry for more security in the short time period after the events led to the quick passing of the Patriot Act and the creation of new government agencies such as the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. The media’s involvement in reporting on terror was very low before 9/11 but naturally skyrocketed when the events transpired, the graph provided in the second reading shows how gradually the news reports on terror slowed as the general public began losing interest in the issue.
Downs’ cycle does not provide a good explanation for the making of policy. There have been some policies written where you could trace it through Downs’ steeps but it is not all policy. Sometimes an issue gets to the decline in interest without policy ever being made about it or some things that never become major issues go through policy.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Downs’ issue attention cycle does provide a good explanation for politics and public opinion making and becomes even more true with adaptations like discussed in Petersen’s article. Downs’ article does easily explain his focus of environmental issues and the realization of costs was discovered and easily fits all the steps in the process from there. Petersen’s article about changing issue attention cycle to fit international affairs and terrorism adds one very important part beside realization of cost being “asymmetry of understanding" which adds an important level of high level policy makers have the understanding of an issue of the public may not upon sudden realization.
I feel like the Down’s “issue-attention cycle” is sufficient as an explanation for the making of policy. This cycle shows the relationship between major events like 9/11 or environmental issues and how once an issue gets exposure to the public, policy starts to reflect the concern people feel. This cycle of exposure and action provides a good explanation on how policy is implemented in America.
ReplyDeleteIn our fast pace, technological lives in the 21st century we have become inundated with massive quantities of events and news stories and once a new one comes along that captures our attention, we lose interest and motivation on a matter we once felt strongly about. A most recent example that comes to mind, -Although no policy was enacted due to it- I think of Ebola and the awareness and enthusiasm to handle the situation that ensued because of it. Many people were worrying of flying or any person entering the country that could be contagious. This issue entered the cycle with a high alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm. However, instead of realizing the cost of progress, people felt the issue wasn’t as significant as made to seem and now is rarely, if at all covered with enthusiasm by the media.
I do believe the cycle provides a good explanation for how politics and public opinion work more generally. If you look at any aspect of culture, we can see this cycle – modified- everywhere we look. This cycle of discovery and enthusiasm, followed by cost of progress, followed by decline of interest can be seen in any major event in any aspect of society. Whenever a visible person in society –Politician, athlete, actor, etc.- has done something wrong, this cycle of alarmed discovery leading to decline in interest happens all the time. Sometimes, depending on the severity it can lead to change in policy and conduct. When I think of this I think of Ray Rice and the NFL. His domestic violence video comes out and everyone is shocked and drastic action is demanded by the people – stage 2-. Because of this the NFL and society more general, start anti violence and domestic violence campaigns to spark awareness. This cycle continues until another event like deflategate comes along and focus has declined on a major event onto another. I believe this is the same with policy and politics, which is highlighted by Downs’ cycle.
The “issue attention cycle” provided by Downs and modified by Peterson, provides a good explanation on how politics and public opinion work. With necessary modification for application, this Cycle can be helpful in isolating any issue attention cycle in many aspects of politics and public opinion.
Some interesting reads I found through Petersons bibliography was-“'The World Changed Today': Agenda-Setting and Policy Change in the Wake of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks," Review of Policy Research, by Thomas Birkland and "Changing Homeland Security: The Issue-Attention Cycle," Homeland Security Affairs by Christopher Bellavita
Anthony Downs hit the bull’s-eye with his theory and – unbeknownst to him – formulated the basic theory of interaction between media and public attention in a hyper-stimulated, over-saturated age of media and news developments in the 21st century. With the 24-hour news industry, you realize how the media is constantly taking on a role of storyteller rather than informer. This is further shown by the revelation that Brian Williams lied about being in a helicopter that was pierced by an RPG missile in Iraq. The media feels like it has to tell an interesting story. Because as Downs eloquently puts it, “the piteous sight of an oil-soaked seagull or a dead soldier pales after it has been viewed even a dozen times”. We have become desensitized to these images so Williams felt like he needed a way to stimulate the public even more – making the danger feel like it was even targeting the very person we were listening to. This is the danger of the modern media.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Downs’ theory needs to be reinvestigated in light of the modern culture. It seems as if the 3rd step – realizing the limited capabilities of solving the issue - is no longer that relevant. Even for issues that can be solved, the response by politicians is usually to put a bandage on the wound rather than seek to actually treat the cause of the wound itself. And politicians seem to understand this. For example, Boko Haram. A very small-scale terrorist group that has devastated areas of Nigeria. We get a public campaign with the #BringBackOurGirls. A small fighting force could very well have secured the nation and rid it of these scum. The public feels as if it has contributed by simply posting a hashtag on social media. As the blogger from http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/08/30/issue-attention-cycles/ explains, it serves as a cathartic washing of our hands from the issue. Just like sharing a few articles about Darfur rid us of any real guilt or seriousness about that issue. But for a large part, these issues continue unanswered. There has been no serious threat to Americans as a whole or even just a majority of us (a requirement of Downs’ theory). With the attacks of 9/11, that threat was on our soil. But for foreign acts of terrorism, we simply become outraged and move on until the media shared another moment of outrage. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands get slaughtered behind the scene with no video evidence and we simply are too enchanted with what Katy Perry wore at the Grammy’s or the alley-oop Blake Griffin gave to actually give any real attention to these issues. It’s devastating. As an American-Syrian, it’s hard seeing what has befallen my family members in Syria and then go to school and see girls more worried about Kim Kardashian’s new hair-do. That’s the danger of modern culture of media – we become emotionally detached with attention spans resembling that of a kitty with yarn.
Down's Issue Attention Cycle captures the great ability the Media has in influencing policy today. Each stage of Down's Issue Attention Cycle list's details of exactly how an issue would begin to cause policy change. For the most part I agree that Down's cycle is very accurate in describing how policy change occurs, however I find his cycle not to be perfect. Down created a cycle of policy change for the masses, and seemingly suggests that masses can only cause policy change.
ReplyDeleteThe explanation from Down's Issue Attention Cycle of how policy change occurs I view as very accurate. The preamble of a problem that shines light on how necessary policy change is for a certain issue is very important in changing public policy. Down understands shifting public opinion is the greatest tool in changing public policy. There correlation is very significant, and Down looks to exploit this relationship through his Issue Attention Cycle.
Down does a good job explaining politics and public opinion and how they work. Downs issue attention cycle in a sense portrays the 24 hour news cycle. Many of my classmates have pointed this out and have given great insight and explanation. Peterson also gives a wonderful example of this by pointing out that the media, mainly dealing with public opinion and foreign policy, depicts certain issues to get the public flustered. The public is majorly ill informed when it comes to the issues brought alive by the media, because of the public being ill informed many people can and will argue that this leads to a major percentage of the public who are uneducated.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Anthony Downs issue attention cycle provides a good explanation for making policy, but only for certain issues. I believe this because if an issue is important enough things can change. The media only reports on hot button issues because they generate the most money, whether it’s a national crisis, disease, or environmental issues. If the media decides to make an issue of something it will most likely will. This means that people will be interested and more likely to have an opinion. The policy makers are most likely to take advantage of this. There is also the possibility of the media raising an issue and nothing really of any significance happens with that issue. A great example is the Ebola virus. In October and November it was a hot button issue, but wasn’t affecting the American people. Now the virus is still killing people, but we aren’t talking about it because it didn’t affect the majority of the American people.
ReplyDeleteIt is a good example about how politics and public opinion work. It uses the environmental regulation as a good example. The article explains that even though environmental problems exist for everyone, not enough people care enough and or don’t have the money to support fast direct changes. With that being said society as a whole does little thing to make small gradual changes, and are politicians also do little things like EPA regulations. If the people are riled up about something the more likely congress can make changes.
Downs' Issue-Attention cycle certainly goes a long way in explaining the way public interest influences policy and how policy is formed. The Issue-Attention cycle is an overall accurate representation of the policy process.
ReplyDeleteI find stage 3 to be the most interesting idea presented in the Issue-Attention cycle because it explains why some public interests see change in policy and some do not. With many issues the public loses interest much more quickly because it realizes it does not want to pay the costs to combat a problem. This is true with environmentalism, while Americans would agree something needs to be done about the environment not many are willing to give up on driving their car to prevent air pollution.
While I do agree with the Issue-Attention cycle for the most part I feel that it may be less accurate since the rise in use of the internet and the birth of social media. At the very least I feel the cycle may be extended. It is hard for an issue to die when there is still a small group campaigning on social media sites. I think it is perhaps more likely that interests will now fade from the center only to resurface at a later time through a storm of social media support.
I think that Down's cycle offers a good explanation for the policymaking. His cycle can be applied to both policy making and public opinion. Policymaking and public opinion both influence each other in a way or another. If the public has a specific opinion on a topic, elected officials will be more willing to make a policy that goes with this opinion. Unless policy makers do not want to get re-elected, they will have to make policies that are approved by the majority of the public opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe cycle could be applied to 9/11, Ebola and many other crisis that happened in the past. Later, this cycle could be applied to the ISIS situation once the problem is solved. People could be easily dragged to focus on an issue and they will influence the policy making. Once the public forgets about an issue, policy makers are not likely to make policies about it.
Anthony Down’s issue-attention cycle does in fact provide a good explanation for the making of policy. A major component to the cycle is the issue of public support, interest, and engagement. Policy makers to a large extent must be conscious of popular support in order to maintain a favorable reputation and prolong their life in the political arena. The response article by Dr. Karen K. Peterson addresses this when discussing the policy implications of the issue-attention cycle. She states that public support impacts the type of response issues are given. If an issue lacks public interest or understanding then the response will often be short and largely ineffective, and as a result the issue is not fully or properly addressed. On the other hand if an issue garners a tremendous amount of public support and it is political advantageous for policy makers then there is a greater probability of an issue being handled more appropriately.
ReplyDeleteThe issue-attention cycle developed by Down’s does provide a general explanation for how politics and public opinion work. Certain issues may be discussed in political or academic circles, but not being relevant or at the forefront of general public opinion or have the flair to feature in primary mainstream media outlets. The pre-problem stage can generally be assigned to a multitude of issues which do not impact a majority of Americans. Domestic and international crisis and issues arise and without majority interest largely go unaddressed. It takes a traumatic event or realization of the masses to create initial support and popular influence on those in political office who can address the problem. The third step of realizing the costs is also prominently seen in what issues receive popular support. If the costs do not out way the benefits for the majority or ruling political party then it isn’t going to have political or popular support and eventually be phased out.
The issue of gun control which has been mentioned by some of my colleagues is an interesting example. I would say it fits the criteria for the model to a certain degree. It usually does take a traumatic event like a school shooting or the 2002 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in order to gain mass media attention and political and public support. The problem lies in the political divide which exists in the U.S. A portion of this country is unwavering on their position on the issue and will not change regardless of events. Groups such as the NRA could also trump public opinion and hinder its influence on politics. If America is too politically polarized then the effectiveness of this cycle is weakened.
The public interest schema that Mr. Downs presents seems to me a good topical explanation of how policy is made. But I see it as only that; topical. It seems to hold true in many cases, but there is a current that runs under this theory that Downs only eludes to in his exposition of the first stage. "...Some highly undesirable social condition exists but has not captured much public attention, even though some experts or interest groups may already be alarmed by it." It is key that experts and interest groups are savvy to the problem prior to wide spread interest.
ReplyDeleteAs any good political scientist will tell you, legislators don't write bills: bills which, when signed (possibly the only work of a legislator), are then policy. Bills are written by interest groups, experts, think tanks, even corporations that have stakes in policy outcomes. So, in essence, there are lines of bills waiting for the right time to pop onto the floor. A good example of this is, and I see it as an interesting coincidence that this paper was published just before, the Patriot Act. If you're looking for outside reading, check out the Nuremberg Laws. Point: the Patriot Act wasn't wrote in an evening. It was on the shelf waiting for the right circumstances to garner votes. Point 2: if the bill was written before the circumstances, then the circumstances are inconsequential.
Conclusion: the attention cycle might help to elucidate the aggregation of votes, but does not elucidate the processes before hand, which seems like it would be more important since many laws and bureaucracies that are set up in lieu of these laws maintain a presence even after the public has lost interest. These dinosaurs then are free to set their own agenda once there is no more problem or interest in it. And if the experts and interest groups knew of the problem before the public, it is plausible that they knew the extended impact of such policy making.
Anthony downs issue attention cycle does a good job explaining policy because it shows the influence public opinion has on policy today. He originally made this for domestic issues specifically for environment issues but it does a good job with issues like international terrorism, specifically 9/11. International terrorism was an issue very few people knew about or even cared about until 9/11 happened. After that people were all for going to war and being behind our government without really knowing how much it would cost. For example, in the second reading it says “ the third stage involves the realization of the high costs and the low probability of success.” The leaders and the public had two different numbers in mind but since because the attack was recently everyone was just ready for a war. Then after a while the issue wasn’t viewed as important as it once was. Media has a lot to do with this stage. I believe framing is a huge issue why problems go through these 5 steps so quickly.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is a good explanation to describe policy because it just doesn’t apply to one specific issue. It has been shown that it can apply to most issues. In the second article it gives three specific characteristics that the issue needs to have to go through the entire cycle. The one that I found to be most relevant is that for the media to keep profit it needs to continue to find new, more exciting and entertaining issues to keep people paying attention to them. Media has a lot of influence on what people know about politics. For example, Ebola was huge for about two weeks (if that) and then the media stopped talking about and so did
I think to some degree, Down's issue attention cycle does play a role in the public's opinion on certain issues and does result in certain policies being made. I think the american public is obsessed with fads. In clothing, electronics, cooking, and in public issues, Americans are always looking forward to the next new thing. Down's cycle shows you the different stages of how that process takes place. Wars, violent crimes, economic issues and the environment. These are the issues that produce ratings on news channels so the most current issue in each of these subjects is what gets played on repeat on major news stations. People see the footage and learn some of the scary facts of this issue and they care for about two weeks until the next issue comes up. Politicians then see potential voters carrying about one certain issue, then throws their support in favor of the majority. At election time, voters remember the politician that showed favor in the direction they stood on issues and votes this person into office, thus affecting the political landscape of this country and not just the social landscape. When Americans get bored of any one story, they quickly move to the next tragedy while the old one that was gaining so much popularity and coverage, dies out and goes back to being a concern to only a minority of the population.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, the issue of ISIS was brought up and when the twin towers were hit, this brought terrorism to the eyes of a majority of Americans who had no idea that there were people out there that wanted to harm Americans. Condolezza Rice said that terrorism had existed for a very long time, it wasn't just the twin towers, it was that attack the brought terrorism to the eyes of the majority of the population and that's why terrorism has been in the public eye ever since. With the issue of ISIS, people were in fear for some time but eventually they lost interest and the news began to show other issues, whenever a terrorist threat story comes up, the media is all over it for a week or two but then it loses interest but they"re always popular because of the twin towers and the attention it brought.