Influence of television on voters’ choice of candidates in the Nigerian 2007 presidential election

Copyright© 2014 Editors and Contributors

Publisher: Canada University Press Concord, Ontario, Canada.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passage in a review.

ISBN: Cased 978-0-9733879-6-4 Soft 978-0-9733879-7-1

Cover Design: Olasukanmi Arowolo

CANADA UNIVERSITY PRESS

lV

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments................................. ................. ....................... viii Introduction.................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER ONE TheN ature Of National Narratives: The Press and The EvolutionOfModernNigeria - Adebayo WILLIAMS .......................... .. .......................................... • 17

CHAPTER TWO The newspaper as witness and window on society: A historian's reflection -Ayodeji OLUKOJU ........................................................................ 31

CHAPTER THREE News and news reporting for sustainable democracy: A sociological Perspective -Tokunbo AlexADAJA.......................... .. ........................................ 40

CHAPTER FOUR Trends in beat reporting in the nigerian press -Bisi Olawunmi .................................. .... ........................................ 56

CHAPTER FIVE Conflict sensitive journalism in the Nigerian context -fide JIMOH ..................................... .. .. .. .. .. ...................................... 69

CHAPTER SIX Being "international": a critique of contemporary philosophies and Practices ofYoruba language Journalism in Nigeria -Victor AYEDUN-ALUMAand Ganiyat TIJANI-ADENLE .......... 84

CHAPTER SEVEN Media ownership and objectivity: issues involved and the future direction -AminatADEJOLAand Semiu BELLO........................................... 101

CHAPTER EIGHT Media Ownership and The Marketplace Ofldea: Is True Democracy Possible? -L. K. Mustapha, M. B. Ahmad And I. Y. Abubakar ........................ 115

v

CONTENTS

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Re-defining The Public Sphere In The Digital Era -Olunifesi Adekunle SURA!..... ... ................ ........ ... ...... .. ..... ....... .. ... 327

CHAPTER NINETEEN Journalism And Mass Communication Education In Nigeria: In Search of the Right Pedagogy -Dele ODUNLAMI .... .... .... ..... .. ..... ... ............... .... ........... .. .... .. .... ..... 352

CHAPTER TWENTY Mass Communication Research Trends In Nigerian Universities (1980-2006) -Balarabe MAIKABA ........... ....... .. .... ................... ... ... ..... .. ........ .. ..... 363

CHAPTER TWENTY ONE Influence Of Tv On Voters' Choice Of Candidates In The Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election -Stella ARIRIGUZOH ................ ....... .. .. ....... .. .... .. .. ..... ... ..... .. .... .... .. 386

CHAPTER TWENTY TWO Media And Politics: A Study Of Nigerian 2011 General Elections -Ismail Adegboyega IBRAHEEM........... ............. .......... .. ..... .... .. ...... 410

CHAPTER TWENTY THREE Politics, Continuity And Change In The Development of Radio Nigeria Kaduna -Umaru A. PATE and Sama'ila SHEHU ........ .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. ............ 428

CHAPTER TWENTY FOUR Newspaper Readership in Nigeria: Challenges, Prospects and the Way Forward -Idowu SOBOWALE, Niyi SOWUNMI and Richard EMMANUEL 468

V II

CHAPTER TWENTY ONE

INFLUENCE OF TV ON VOTERS' CHOICE OF CANDIDATES IN THE NIGERIAN 2007

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

INTRODUCTION

Television is a mass media channel that informs, educates and entertains its audiences. It broadcasts news, commentaries and pictures. According to Bittner (1989), television's overwhelming popularity is due to its combined power of sight and sound. Ross and Nightingale (2003) remark that television attracts and holds public attention by what it chooses to or not to show to its viewers. It is a general knowledge that most people may neither meet the leaders of their countries nor participate in national political debates. However, they meet these leaders and participate in the debates by watching these on television in the comfort of their homes.

Since many people spend more time watching television than they spend on other media channels, politicians and other strategists have used it to arouse political interests among voters through the information it gives. In other words, television can be purposefully engaged to influence the decisions of those that vote. The information television gives can make voters to vote for or against a candidate and his political party during an election. Aspirants to political offices commonly attempt to use the mass media to make the best of their chances of winning at the polls.

Since television provides a direct and sensitive link between politicians and the electorate, politicians have used it in the hope of influencing voters'

386

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

decisions in their favour. Television is also the primary source of public affairs information. The information provided by television may attract or discourage voters from the polls.

Background to the Study

Through the years, the mass media have built an interface with politics: propagating political ideals. Shields, Goidel and Tadlock (1995) write that mass media contents affect voters' decisions. The mass media are major players in electoral processes. They provide the platform that enables political parties and their candidates to pass across their messages to the public and for this public in tum to get information about these candidates. Political activities rotate around the quest for power in a civilian government.

Distinctively, television has lent itself easily to use during elections. Its pictures and the words convey information and emotion to the viewers. Its impact in politics lies in its ability to influence viewers by directing and persuading them to make specific voting decisions. In Nigeria, television has played various roles in presidential elections. Particicularly, it has provided information to voters who may not actually know a political candidate beyond what they have read or heard about him. This is in line with Dann's (2003, p. 3) remarks that many of these voters are ignorant of the real persons running in elections because they lack the opportunities of meeting them. Most Nigerian voters see the candidates on television, hear about them on radio, and read about them from the newspapers or the Internet. Some others, especially the illiterate ones, rely on local opinion leaders, families and friends .

Television enlightens vot3; the informed, uninformed, uninvolved and ignorant, about those desiring public offices. It also establishes the feeling of direct contact between those seeking elective offices and the electorate as well as offering the viewers the opportunity of forming images of the office seekers. The pictures of the candidates may influence voters' behaviour. As Oshagan (1988) points out, first impressions can be very important as voters form their opinions about the political candidates. Dominick (2005) shares the opinion that the media have considerable oblique influence on both the electorate and the politicians. Therefore, political campaigners

387

Influence o(TV on Voters' Choice of Candidates in The Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

mostly seek to enhance the status of their own candidates and at the same time discredit the opposition.

Nigeria has held six presidential elections since television's advent into the country. The last one held in April2011. Expectedly, television was strongly used to stir up voters. It brought into millions of homes the presidential aspirants' debates, for example, the 1993 debate between M.K.O. Abiola, the flag bearer of the Social Democratic Party (S.D.P) and his National Republican Convention (N.R.C.) opponent, Alhaji Bashir Tofa. In 1999 the major television stations arranged debates for the contestants. In the 2007 elections, television was very visible as the political parties and their candidates spent millions of naira in political advertising.

This study concerns itself with finding out if voters in Ado-Odo/Ota were influenced in their choice of candidates that they voted for in the 2007 Nigerian presidential election due to their exposure to television broadcast on the election.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The information available to the members of the electorate may determine electoral results. In an election, the media's role is to supply information to the voters on the contestants, the issues they canvass, voting procedures, dates for voting and related issues. As McLoed, Rush and Friedrich (1968) note, the mass media help to provide political knowledge. What the mass media publish has an effect on the political knowledge of the voters. Wattenberg (1982) claims that party politics and even candidate prominence are determined by the mass media. Norpoth and Baker (1980, pp. 1-14) assert that the mass media affect electoral choice and voting stability.

Television has been broadly used by politicians to reach millions of voters at the same time. They assume that their appearances on television improve their chances of securing more votes than they would have if they did not appear. Television observes and reports on the various candidates and what the ~oters think. It is common knowledge among journalists and political scientists that the camera's prying eye can change a lot of things in politics, including the race for the presidency. Gerbner and Gross (1976) observe television to be the dominant force shaping the contemporary society. According to them, television's power comes from its continuous

388

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

show of real life drama that runs hour after hour. They nickname it the institutional storyteller giving a "coherent picture of what exists, what is important, what is related to what and what is right" .

Although Minow and Mitchell (1986) point out that presidential elections cannot be predicted, they however share the view that candidates go on television to advertise themselves through professionally produced spots and during programme presentations. Television electioneering includes "candidates' commercials, candidates-engineered news clips, special interest broadcasts and quibbling over televised debates conditions". O'Cass (2001), Hayes and McAllister (1996) confirm that most political parties and their candidates have progressively moved to television advertising to inform and influence voters during elections.

What is the effect of these pieces of information on voters' behaviour? Why must their behaviour be understood? Hayes and McAllister (1996) offer two reasons. The first is the considerable economic and social costs associated with electoral choice. The economic and social functioning of a nation depends on the policies that the elected politicians implement. The second is the millions of naira that are budgeted for campaigning on television.

What is the role of television in the electioneering processes in emergent democracies like Nigeria? Did television broadcasts influence residents in Ado-Odo/Ota in their decisions on the candidates that they voted for as president in the 2007 Nigerian presidential election? Following the low level of media literacy among most Nigerian voters and voters apathy to electoral issues, were these voters able to make meanings out of the numerous television broadcast spots and similar contents to improve their decisions on their choice of candidates? Were voters swayed by what they saw on television to actually vote for or not to vote for a specific candidate? It is against this background that the problem for investigation was refined to finding out if television broadcasts determined the presidential candidates that voters in Ado Odo/Ota voted for in the 2007 Nigerian presidential election.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The main objective of this study was to examine whether television influenced the behaviour of voters' resident in Ado-Odo/Ota in Ogun State.

389

Influence of TV on Voters' Choice of Candidates in The Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

This means finding out if these voters chose to give their ballot to a particular presidential candidate in the 2007 elections because of what they watched on television. This involves: I Seeking to knowiftelevisionaffected the voters' perceptionofthecandidates; ii Finding out if what was watched on television determined the

candidates voted for;iii Determining whether what was watched on television changed the voters' minds from the candidates that they initially wanted to vote for;

iv Identifying if television helped the voters to maintain their decisions to vote for the candidates that they had earlier made up their minds to vote for.

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

The following hypothesis is to be tested in this study: H1: Television broadcasts were the main influence on the voters'

choice of candidates in the 2007 presidential election.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The mass media have three basic functions. Lasswell (1948, pp. 37-51) describes these as the surveillance of the environment, correlation of the different parts of the society in responding to this environment and the transmission of the social heritage from one generation to the next. The surveillance function is the media's collection and distribution of information. The correlation function is the interpretation or analysis of events in the society. The transmission function is the communication of values, norms and styles across time and between groups. Wright (1959, p. 16) adds the entertainment function.

The mass media act primarily as the conveyor of information from the candidates, their parties and the voting public. Communication facilitates the operation and maintenance of political systems. Tichenor, Donohue and Olien (1990) call attention to the press functioning as an instrument of significanc~ because it is an essential part of the society and of the political structure. The three main actors clamouring for space on the public stage are the government, citizens and the media. Light (1991), cited in Edwards and Wood (1999) writes that the media are " ... a bridge to the political environment". McAllister (1992) says the Australian mass media are the

390

o a

hey

tes; the

hed

that

heir

2Up

·ters'

7-51)

f the ithe The

n of >is of Jn of 59, p.

n the itates tohue

entof litical

stage Nards

·litical re the

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

'central link between the parties and the voters'. The candidates and the

parties follow in their order of importance of affecting electoral results. Lippmann (1922, p. 3) adds that the media are the mediator between "the world outside and the pictures in our heads" because they are the primary sources of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is "out of reach, out of sight, out of mind". He argues (1922) that this is so because "the real environment is altogether too big, too complex and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" which people are not equipped to deal with! However, Behr and Iyengar (1985) argue that not all the world is out of reach! What people know about the world depends largely on what the media decide to tell them. Explicitly, this mediated observation of the world translates to the main concerns of the media strongly becoming the priorities of the public. Whatever is prominent on the media agenda becomes prominent in the public mind.

The mass media play active roles in influencing happenings in the political sphere. For example: a former American President, Franklin Roosevelt, used his fireside chats on radio and hundreds of press conferences to win

support for his policies. Political communication is important because it produces results or influences, as for example, by altering our choices in an election. Roskin, Cord, Medeiros and Jones (2003) pertinently observe that every political action is a reaction to a form of communication. The role of the mass media in the political process is dependent on how they affect the different groups in the society as the media offer contrasting viewpoints on the same issue.

Lippmann (1922) on the other hand writes that the media inform by defining

Our world, not just the world of politics during and between elections, but almost all our world beyond our immediate personal and family matters. The issues, personalities and situations towards which we hold feelings of endorsement or rejection, those points of attention about which pollsters seek the public sphere pulse are things about which we depend on the media to inform us.

Lippmann believes that the media have the power to persuade and change the voter's attitude. Media persuasion is not the mere putting of ideas into media consumers' heads, but the search to draw out emotional responses

391


from them.

Hybels and Weaver (2004) believe that communicators can persuade or influence their listeners. According to them, the source of the information is the main influence in the persuasion process. Persuasion involves changes in attitudes or beliefs. It can be emotion-based. Goleman (1986) says that emotional appeals focus on the listener's needs, wants, desires and wishes even when these are not stated. The person wishing to persuade must understand the feelings of his listeners without letting his own feelings get in the way. Hybels and Weaver (2004) warn that although persuasion has consequences, it is impossible to escape it. They add that changes occur whenever persuasion takes place. According to them, persuasion serves five purposes: to change or reinforce beliefs; make a person to take an action; continue doing what he is already doing; avoid doing something else or remain inactive and indifferent.

The media are present in the society to act as the mirrors that reflect the happenings in the society. According to Huggins and Turner (1997), our modern day society is pre-eminently media-based with an increasing growing use of personal computers and telemedia, thus signalling a new era of media pervasiveness. West and Turner (2004) point out that very few institutions affect our lives more than the media. They observe that media presence not only invades our lives, but that it follows us everywhere. In democratic societies, the media are more popular channels of communication between the office holders and the citizens. Adeseye and Ibagere (1999) say that the essence of communication in politics is for those who are vested with the opportunity of exercising political power to get information about those over which such power will be exercised. At the same time, the governed receive information about how political power is exercised over them. The two writers explain that this two-way flow of information is necessary for the formulation of policies by the governors and for the governed to understand those policies and consequently decide whether to accept or reject them. However, the rel~tionship between the governors and the media is at times adversarial. Indeed, an ex-American President, George Washington, burst out in 1792 over this role in the following manner:

"if the government and the officers of it are to be the constant theme for newspaper abuse, and this too without condescending to investigate the

392

'<

..... _

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

motives or the facts, it will be impossible, I conceive, for any man living to manage the helm or to keep the machine together".

Interestingly, another former American President, Thomas Jefferson, in his 1787letter to Ed ward Carrington had expressed a contrary view:

I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the peopl~ will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves ... (if given) full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and . . . these papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and where it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

In 1820, Jefferson (as cited in Buchanan 1991, P. 19) further emphasized that even if the members of the public are not enlightened enough to exercise control in the society with good discretion, the answer does not lie in taking away information from them, but in giving them more to inform their discretion. Without the requisite information, the voters face what Lupia and McCubbins (1998) call the democratic dilemma because they may not be able to make reasoned choices. Without knowledge, Madison writes that:

Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by any other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people (Madison, Federalist 10).

thus he advises that:

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.

393

Influence o{TV 011 Voters' Choice of Candidates in The Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

It is the work of the mass media to give the public these pieces of information. Miller (1994) says that political knowledge is gained through such mass media as television, radio, the press and online services.

Ladd (1989) writes that the press' involvement in the political process applies specially to party political and electoral campaigns. Electoral campaigns are crusades aimed at getting the contestants elected into the offices they are contesting for. For example, Temin and Smith (2002, p. 587) point out that Ghana's December 2000 presidential and parliamentary elections were successful because of the lively contributions of the media. The opposition led by John Kufour's New Patriotic Party won, defeating Jerry Rawling's incumbent National Democratic Congress.

Raskin, Cord, Medeiros and Jones (2003) also point out that the media are recognized components of politics all over the world and have been used to reach millions of voters simultaneously. They emphasize that the mass media yield greater voter or public opinion returns. Berelson, Lazarsfeld and McPhee (1954) underline the importance of the mass media in political communication. They observe that the political candidates do not go in person to the people, but rather through the mass media. Lang and Lang (1966) assert that the information the mass media provide may be the only contact some of the people will have with politics. They explain that all the promises and pledges of the candidates, reported as stories, in the newspaper columns or presented as editorials constitute the information base from which individual voters make their decisions.

Patterson (2004) remarks that no other act of political participation takes more of the people's time than does news consumption. According to him, news is important for citizens' participation, and that for such participation to be effective and intelligent, it must be based on their awareness of what is happening in their communities, nations and the world.

Why are there increases in using the mass media in political communication? The mass media disseminate political knowledge. Democracy depends on informed citizens and most of these citizens look to the mass media for information. Miller (1994) emphasizes that the mass media "facilitate the public discourse necessary to make the system work". The mass media provide information through news reports, programmes, editorials and commentaries. Allan (2004) writes that what the mass media

394

iS

tl e ')

y I.

g

e )

s i

1

y

'

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

offer as news goes beyond the reporting and presentation of the political processes to include the interpretation or breaking up of stories and events into digestible bites that viewers can swallow. The media create plausible backgrounds against which the information they provide are interpreted to the people.

Roskin, et. al. (2003) offer another reason why the mass media are getting more involved in politics. They write that the mass media reach an infinitely larger audience than face-to-face communication. This means that they reach greater numbers of voters than the politician would have reached with a one-to-one communication. They explain that a speech that is carried on television can reach millions of people at the same time than a speech given at the largest rally that may only be heard by a few thousand people. Roskin, Cord, Medeiros and Jones further say that even if a small percentage of the television viewers positively respond to what the speaker says, this response can become thousands of voters, and that is enough to win an election!

Allan (2004) calls journalists the pre-eminent storytellers of modern society. According to him, their news accounts of happenings outside our immediate horizons shape our perceptions of the outside world. He claims that many people get to know what is happening around them and in the society through journalists' reports. They also get to know what they should care about from the news stories the journalists tell.

Olukotun (2002) highlights another role the mass media play in political communication in the following observation:

the current wave of democratization has reaffirmed the importance of the media as a vital artery of civil society in

delegitimizing autocracies, in fostering transition projects as well as in consolidating and sustaining democracies.

This confirms Aiyar' s (1979) assertion that in a democracy the media should function as the voice of the masses and as a force to remind the powers-thatbe of their duties to the society. Aiyar believes that the whole direction of the government should follow public opinion. Momoh (2000) asserts that the press must be the direct channel for iden~:fying, determining, promoting and sustaining the national interests or keeping the national dream alive.

395

Influence o(TV on Voters' Clroice of Candidates in Tire Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

He therefore agrees that the press is the authority vested with the responsibility of defending the national interest.

Broder (1970) agrees with all the foregoing authors but he adds that the members of the press also act as talent scouts who screen the candidates; convey their judgments of which of the candidates are promising or not; and tell the public how the political contest is going on. He also points out that the media professionals see themselves as self-appointed public defenders on the mission of exposing what they consider as the frailties, duplicities and sundry inadequacies of the candidates. Broder accuses them of occasionally slipping into the roles of assistant campaign managers by informally or publicly advising the candidates or promoting their causes. Ross and Nightingale (2003) observe that the news media do play a part in shaping the voters' attitudes by framing the political parties either positively or negatively; by their choice of stories; their slants and their perspectives. Nightingale and Ross' observation is a source of concern when placed alongside Ladd's (1989) comments that the media, not the parties, are the major sources of information on the candidates and the progress of their campaigns. Ladd writes that the parties cannot compete effectively against the pervasiveness, visual force, immediacy and the general audience reaches of television. According to him, the media bring into many homes the different campaign personalities and issues.

The voters' attitudes affect a party's ultimate success at the polls. Ross and Nightingale (2003) add that the media can make or break politicians and their parties by controlling the messages they disseminate about them. Peri (1998) stresses that the media can undermine the credibility of the politicians in three ways: by making it their business to challenge their political rhetoric, adopting melodramatic strategies designed to hinder serious political debates and reducing the potency and seriousness of political debates. Jones (1995) observes that politicians and their parties can also manipulate the media. However, he points out that the ruling party's relationship with the news media has always been a useful pointer to its chances of winni:og in another election. Petrocik and Desposato (2004) do not agree, following their study, on the impact of incumbency on voter choice ul}der varying short-term, election-specific conditions. They say that although incumbency is an anchor that diminishes the influ~nce of short-term tides on voters, yet its influence is not stable enough because of

396

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

changes in short-term political tides. Why is there a need for political communication? Samovar and

Mills (1998) give three reasons. The first is that people must be heard if democracy is to succeed. Second, for democracy to work, each citizen must take part in the process of governing. Third, to help to rule, there is the need to speak in a lucid manner. Words must be used appropriately to promote or defend ideas in a clear and persuasive manner. Howard and William (1972) say that the politician has communicated successfully when he has passed across his thoughts to his listeners and they affect these listeners.

Because of the roles the media play in politics, it has become necessary to recognize that the media now have what Zelizer (1993) calls media power. Zelizer makes clear that this power is resultant from the media's persistent presence because the media are unquestionably involved in contemporary public discourse as arbiters of events in the real world. Etzioni (1968) defines power as the generalized capability of the actor to overcome resistance and introduce change in the face of opposition. Braungart (1976) prefers to see it as the probability of imposing one's will or institutional authority of another individual or institution despite resistance. Etzioni and Braungart's definitions assume wider dimensions when placed alongside Ross and Nightingale's (2003) observation that journalists' invitation of particular politicians and their parties to expound their views place the media in a most powerful position; the position to determine the relative visibility of the political candidates and advancing their own arguments and party agenda. While it is important to point out that the mass media may exert power in the political arena, this power is limited. Raskin, et. al. (2003) detect that the mass media are one-way avenues of communication. Thus, a viewer who dislikes the speaker can quickly change channels.

Cook (1998) writes that politics and the media feed off each other. He illustrates that the mass media operate as institutions in the political industry as well as act as sources of influence on the electorate that decide what happens in the political sphere. The political arena is a public sphere. It is doubtful whether if either can exist without the other. The media and the politicians operate in the public sphere. What is a public sphere? Habermas (1974) responds that it is what results when "private individuals assemble to form a public body" in which that may "confer in unrestrained

397


fashion." The public sphere is the place where communicative actions are taken to determine what happens in lhe society. Example: good governance. Individuals and groups come together to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, reach a common judgment. The public sphere hinges on participatory democracy turning public opinion into political action. Pradip and Zaharom (2005) explain that the public sphere is characterized by a broad communication that gives everybody the opportunity to participate irrespective of ethnicity, religion, gender, economic status and power status. The participants can place their concerns on the public agenda for transparent public deliberation. Oyero (2008) adds that communication is the instrument that guarantees effective participation.

THE RESEARCH DESIGN The research design specifies how the data for this study was collected and analyzed. The survey design was used as it conveniently lent itself to this study involving large human samples and the aggregate of their views on their choice of presidential candidate. The survey design made it possible to study the sample. This research method proved useful in determining the relationship between the variables in this study. A few members of the group considered representative of the voters in Ado-Odo/Ota were studied to find out television broadcasts influence on their choice of candidate. From them, conclusions concerning the whole population were drawn.

STUDY POPULATION The population for this study comprised all the registered voters, in the 2007 Nigerian General Elections, residing in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government above the age of 18 years at the time of the 2007 presidential election.

Ado-Odo/Ota is one of the Local Councils in Ogun State. This local council was purpo:;ively selected because of its uniqueness. It combines the characteristics of urban and rural communities and is strategically located near metropolitan Lagos. Lagos is the nation's economic, commercial and industrial nerve-centre. Indeed, urbanization and city development are rapidly moving from Lagos to Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area. It is home to all the major ethnic groups in Nigeria. Residents receive television

398

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

signals from twelve television stations like Gateway terrestrial television, Abeokuta, Africa Independent Television (AIT), Alagbado; Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), Tejuosho; and Victoria Island; Galaxy, Channels, Silverbird; Muri Television (MITV); Degue Broadcasting Network (DBN); Lagos State Television/Lagos Weekend Television, all located in Lagos.

The population of this study comprised the 187,391 registered voters in the two constituencies of this Council. The sample frame for this study was the compiled list of polling stations from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). INEChas divided OgunState as well as every other state into constituencies. Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area has two constituencies - I and II. Each constituency haseightRegistrationAreas. Sampling

PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE SIZE

Sampling procedure is the method or procedure used in drawing or selecting the voters from the wards for the study. Wimmer and Dominick (2003) remark that the sampling procedure is the scheme used to select respondents. The sampling technique used is the systematic random probability sampling technique. It guarantees every element of the population an equal and independent chance of being included in the sample drawn randomly. It follows that if all the elements in the population have an equal chance of being selected, there is an excellent chance that the resultant sample is a close representation of the whole population. The probability approach ensured that every voter had an equal chance of selection. Thus, voters were picked from Constituencies I and II at random without any element being given any priority. The sampling procedure used was the multi-stage cluster sampling technique. The voters were already gr_ouped or divided into different clusters or wards based on the geographical location of their wards. There were 16 such clusters representing each of the registration areas. Six of these wards were picked- three from each constituency. The systematic sampling method was used to select the wards to be sampled. The wards chosen from Constituency I were Ota 1, Sango and Iju. For Constituency II, Ado-Odo II, Ketu/Adie-Owe and Agbara II were chosen. Five per cent of the registered numbers of voters from these wards were sampled on the assumption that they would provide a large enough sample for meaningful analysis. Thus

399

Influence of TV 011 Voters' Choice of Ca11didates i11 The Nigeria11 2007 Preside11tial Electio11

3,635 voters were selected for the study. The individual respondents were picked from the households. In each household, a maximum of two respondents were sampled. Where there were more than two registered voters in a household, the respondents were randomly selected. Where only one respondent was found, only him/her was sampled. Each Registration Area/Ward has a cluster of polling stations attached to it. Constituency I had 150 polling stations. Constituency II had 127 polling stations. These add to 277 polling stations.

Below are the percentages of respondents that claimed that television broadcast swayed or influenced their decisions on who they voted for in the presidential election.

VARIABLE Percentage(%)

Whether TV influenced who was actually voted for 40.3

TV influencing candidates' change 41.3

TV as the primary influence on choice of candidate 48.0

TV causing respondents' change to vote for specific candidate 39.1

TV causing respondents' change from voting for specific candidate 44.4

TV significantly changing respondents' minds to candidate voted for 47.6

TV influencing respondents' choice of candidate 45.5

N=3064 It can be seen that more than half of the respondents agreed that television broadcasts influenced them in their choices of presidential candidates that they voted for. Television broadcasts influenced the actual persons that they voted for in the Nigerian 2007 presidential election. The same

400

I

·~

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

broadcasts also influenced these respondents to change from the candidates that they had initially made up their minds to vote for. In consequence, they voted for the other rival candidates seeking the same office. For those who had not crystallized their decisions on the specific candidates to vote for, television broadcasts helped them to make firm decisions to vote for specific candidates. It is also important to point out that television broadcasts influenced the candidates that residents of Ado-Odo/Ota actually voted to occupy the presidential office. It is obvious that most of the voters have confirmed that television broadcasts were the primary influence on their choices of candidates that they voted for.

This means that media managers must sustain television electioneering and pay more attention to this medium. If television broadcasts actually influenced who was voted for and caused respondents to change their minds from one candidate to another, it makes sense to package and air only beneficial messages to the candidate that they are working for. These candidates must be camera ready, appear friendly, nice and most poised. At the same time, the campaign managers should give out information that should limit the success of the opposition. In other words, they may use negative advertising to ruin the chances of other candidates, provided they stay within the ambits of the law.

CANDIDATE 1 2 3 4

Pearson Correlation 1 .454** .396** .487** 1 Sig. (2 tailed 3,064 .000 .000 .000

N 3,064 3,064 3064 Pearson Correlation 1 .477**

2 Sig. (2 tailed 3,064 .000 N 3 064 Pearson Correlation

1 .437**

3 Sig. (2 tailed .000 N 3,064 3064 Pearson Correlation

4 Sig. (2 tailed 1 N 3,064

**Correlation is significant at the O.Ollevel (2-tailed).

Where: 1= Television primarily influencing the choice of candidate

respondents voted for

401

Influence of TV on Voters ' Choice of Candidates in The Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

2 = Respondents voting specific candidates because of what they saw on television

3 = Television influencing respondents' choice of candidates voted for

4 = Respondents voting for particular candidates because of what they watched on television on the election.

EXPLAINING THE ROW CELLS There is an association between the respondents' exposure to various television broadcasts and their eventual choice of presidential candidate voted for in the last election. The Table above shows that all the variables tested for television's influence on candidate choice indicate positive and significant correlations. In other words, the more of television the respondents watched, the more they followed television agenda to vote for the candidates portrayed by the silver screen.

Thus, there is a correlation of 0.454 between television as the primary influence on the respondents' choices of candidates voted for and the respondents voting for specific candidates because of what they saw on television. Similarly, there is a correlation of .396 between television primarily influencing the respondents' choice of candidate voted for and what they saw on television influencing their choices of the candidates they actually voted for. There is also a 0.396 correlation coefficient between television as the primary influence on the choice of candidate respondents voted for and what respondents saw on television influencing their choices of candidates voted for. In a similar fashion, a correlation coefficient of 0.487 is established between what they watched on television on the election making them to vote for particular candidates and television as the primary influence on their choice of candidates voted for. These correlation values show that without doubt television certainly influenced the choices of candidates the respondents voted for because of their significance. However, the extent of this influence is just moderate because these correlation values are below the mean of+ 1 and -1.

In a similar fashion, a correlation of 0.410 exists between respondents voting for specific candidates because of what they saw on television and what they saw on television influencing their choices of the candidates they voted for. There is also a 0.447between respondents voting for specific candidates

402

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

because of what they saw on television and what they watched on television on the elections making them to vote for particular candidates. In other words, the respondents' exposure to television broadcasts swayed them in their choices of candidates voted for, but this influence is not very strong. There is a positive and signifkant correlation of 0.437 between what the respondents saw on television influencing their choites of candidates voted for and what they watched on television on the election making them to vote for particular candidates.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE HYPOTHESIS The Table above shows there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between respondents' exposure to television and their choices of the presidential candidates that they voted for in the 2007 presidential election. All the correlation coefficients indicate that television broadcasts influenced candidate preference. These values are 0.454, 0.396, 0.487, 0.410, 0.447 and 0.437.

They are significant and fairly strong positive correlations between respondents' exposure to television broadcasts and the respondents' choice of candidates. These mean that what the respondents saw on television definitely influenced the specific candidates that they voted for. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis that television broadcasts were the main influence on the voters' choices of candidates voted for in the election is accepted. However, this acceptance is with some reservation because television broadcasts were not the only influence on the voters' choices of candidates voted for in the election. Other sources of influence include political party identification and affiliation, opinion leaders, family, friends and peer groups. Television messages were mediated by forces outside it. Although the correlation values are positive and significant, yet they are not very strong because they are not up to 0.500 or- 0.500.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Television broadcasts influenced the decisions of voters in Ado-Odo/Ota community of Ogun State on the choice they made on who became the president of Nigeria in 2007. These television broadcasts include spots, slick commercials, editorials, candidate appearances in programmes, airing of media events and similar things. Specifically, television broadcasts influenced the choice of candidate respondents voted for; made the voters

403

Infhtence of TV on Voters' Choice of Candidates in Tl!e Nigerian 2007 Presidential Election

to vote for specific candidates because of what they saw on the silver screen; influenced respondents' choice of candidates voted for and made these respondents to vote for particular candidates. Similarly, television broadcasts made some of the respondents to change their minds from one candidate to another.

Nevertheless, the voters in the urban areas were more influenced by television than the voters in the rural areas. They still live their rustic lives: deeply valuing interpersonal relationships with strong family ties. Friends and families are seen as most significant in the life of the individual and the communities. Most of these areas have no electricity. The few that have power generating and television sets and who watch television may tell others what they have seen. What they may re-tell may be embellished or watered down to suit their own purposes. Unfortunately, for most of these indigenes in these areas, their political sophistication is very low. It is not surprising that television influence in these regions was not so impactful.

The correlation coefficient values show that television broadcasts actually influenced the voters' choice of candidates. However, these values were just below the mean value. This means that even though television broadcasts were influential, yet the influence was not greatly outstandingly to decide the respondents' choice of candidates. Nevertheless, the television broadcasts made some respondents to vote for some specific candidates. It may be advisable for future contestants to properly package themselves for television so as to garner more votes in future elections, since it has been demonstrated that television broadcasts lured some of the respondents to vote for specific candidates.

From the foregoing, it can be drawn that television broadcasts did influence the decisions of some of the respondents. But it was not the only source of influence. As Dominick (2005) has observed, a person's decision to vote for a particular candidate is not influenced by the mass media only, but also by social and psychological factors. However, he points out three possible media effects on the individual voter. These effects are conversion, reinforcement and crystallization. In conversion, the voter changes from, say, voting for Candidate A to Candidate B after a media exposure. Dominick says this is unlikely to happen. According to him, it is difficult for the media to persuade a voter whose mind is already made up to vote otherwise. In reinforcement, the media furnish the voter the information and opinions supporting his decision to vote in a particular manner. In

404

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

crystallization, the media provide the voter the information or opinion that will clarify his vaguely held attitudes and disposition. Dominick elaborates that the voter who is undecided or neutral on who to vote for may have his ideas crystallized after some media exposure. However, that voter who has already made up his mind on who to vote for will have his decision reinforced by the media.

CONCLUSION Television broadcasts influenced some of the voters in Ado-Odo/Ota community in their particular choices of the presidential candidates that they voted for in the 2007 presidential election. Some voters were influenced by what they saw on television to actually vote for some specific candidates. Others were affected by these broadcasts to change their minds from their initial decisions to vote for other candidates. Thus, television can be effectively used to influence voters' behaviour in Nigeria. However, television was not the only influence. Other sources of influence were family members, friends, opinion leaders and party identification.

405


REFERENCES Adeseye, F. & Ibagere, E. (1999). Communication and man: A theoretical base for

the student. Akure: Ola-Olu Enterprises.

Aiyar, R. (1979). Quest for news. New Delhi: The Macmillan Company.

Allan, S. (2004). News culture (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

Behr, R.L. & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues and

changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38-57.

Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F. & McPhee, W.N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Bittner, J.R. (1989). An introduction to mass communication (5th ed.).

Englewoods, New Jersey: Prentice/Hall. Braungart, R.G. (Ed.). (1976). Society and politics: Reading in political sociology.

Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice/ Hall Inc.

Broder, D.S. (1970). Political reporters in presidential politics. In C. Peters &

T. J Adams (Eds.), Inside the system: A Washington monthly reader (pp. 3-22). New Yolk: Praeger.

Cook, T.E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dann, P. (2003). Rhetorical criticism and theory in practice. New York: McGraw Hill.

Dominick, J.R. (2005). The dynamics of mass communication: Media in the digital age (8thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

E tzioni, A. (1968). The active society. New York: The Free Press. Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile.

Journal of Communication, 26,(2), 172-194. Goleman, D. (1986, February 18). Influencing others: Skills are identified.

New York Times, pp. C1-C15.

Habermas, J. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique 3, 49-55.

Hayes, B. & McAllister, I. (1996). Marketing politics to voters: Late deciders

in the 1992.British election. European Journal of Marketing, 30(10111), 135-146.

Howard, M. & William, C. (1972). Communication and consensus: An introduction to rhetorical discourse. New York: Harcourt, Bruce J ovanorich Inc.

406

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

Huggins, R. & Turner J. (1997). The politics of influence and control. In B. Axford., G.K. Browning., R. Huggins., B. Rosamond & J. Turner, Politics: An introduction. London: Routledge.

Hybels, S. & Weaver, R.L. (2004). Communicating effectively (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Jefferson, T. (1977). Notes on the state ofVirginia. In M.D. Peterson (Ed.), The portable Thomas Jefferson. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Jones, N. (1995). Sound bites and spin doctors: How politicians manipulate the media and vice versa. London: Indigo.

Ladd, E. C. (1989). The American Polity: The People and their government (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton&Company.

Lang, K. & Lang, G.E. (1966). The mass media and voting. In B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (2nd ed.), (pp. 466-468). New York: Free Press.

Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of Ideas (pp. 37-51). Institute for Religious and Social Studies. New York: Harper.

Light, P.C. (1991). Cited in Edwards, G.C. III. & Wood, D. (1999). Who influences whom? The president, congress and the media. The American Political Science Review, 93, (20), 327-344.

Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan. Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M.D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens

learn what they need to know? Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Madison, J. Federalist 10. McAllister, I. (1992). Party performance in political behaviour. Melbourne:

Longman Cheshire. McLoed, J., Rush, R. & Friedrich, K. (1968). The mass media and political

legitimation in Quito, Ecuador. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32( 4), 575-

587. Miller, E.D. (1994). The Charlotte Project: Helping citizens take back democracy.

St. Petersburg: Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Min ow, N .N. & Mitchell, L.M. (1986). Putting on the candidates: The use of

television in presidential elections. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 486, 146-157.

407


Momoh, T. (2000). Tile media and national interest: Report of workshop on media and democracy. Abuja: Nigeria Press Council.

Norpoth, H. & Baker, K. (1980). Mass media use and electoral choice in West Germany. Compamtii1c Politics,13(1), 1-14.

O'Cass, A (2001). The internal-external marketing orientation of a political party: Social implications of political party marketing orientation. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(2), 136-152.

Olukotun, A (2002). State repression, crisis of democratization and media resistance in Nigeria (1988-1999). Ibadan: College Press Ltd.

Oshagan, H. (1988). Looking at voting as a decisional process: what factors determine initial preference? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Oyero, S.O. (2008). Expansion of the public sphere in Nigerian democracy: The imperative of media pluralism. In F.I.A Omu & G.E. Oboh (Eds. ), Mass media in Nigerian democracy (pp. 33-45). Thad an: StirlingHarden Publishers.

Patterson, T. E. (2004). We the people: A concise introduction to American politics (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Peri, T.L.Y. (1998). Electronic journalism in segmented societies: Lessons from the 1996 Israeli elections. Political Communication, 15(1), 27-43.

Petrocik, J.R. & Desposato, S.W. (2004). Incumbency and short-term influences on voters. Political Research Quarterly 57, 363- 373.

Pradip, N.T & Zaharom, N. (Eds.) (2005). Who owns the media: Global trends and local resistance. London: Zed Books.

Raskin, M.G., Cord, R.L., Medeiros, J.A & Jones, W.S. (2003). Political science: An introduction (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Educational International/ Prentice/ Hall.

Ross, K. & Nightingale, V. (2003). Media and audiences: New perspectives. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Samovar, L. & Mills, J. (1998). Oral communication: Speaking across cultures. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Shields, T.G., Goidel, R.K & Tadlock, B. (1995). The net impact of media exposure on individual voting decisions in United States Senate and House elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(30), 415-430.

Temin, J. & Smith, D.A (2002). Media matters: Evaluating the role of the

408

1

Stella ARIRIGUZOH

media in Ghana's 2000 election. African Affairs, 585-605. Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. & Olien, C.N. (1990). Communication and

community conflict. In D.A. Graber (Ed.}, Media power in politics. New Delhi: S.G Wasani.

Wattenberg M. (1982). From parties to candidate: Examining the role of the media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(2), 216-227.

West, R. & Turner, L.H. (2004). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Wright, C.R. (1959). Mass communication: A sociological perspective. New York: Random House.

Zelizer, B. (1993). Has communication explained journalism? Journal of Communication, 43( 4), 80-88.

409

Documents

Influence of television on voters’ choice of candidates in the Nigerian 2007 presidential election