The Year of the Flood By Thomas Petersen page5

Consequently, as already outlined by Lazarsfeld, opinion leaders now have a head start when it comes to topics of discussion primarily addressed in informational TV shows. Such topics include typical campaign issues like the national debt, economic growth, and unemployment, which dominated the federal election campaign till spring 2002, just as they had during the 1998 and 1994 campaigns.

There is no reason to assume that the two-step flow of communication does not continue to function today as it did in Lazarsfeld’s time with respect to these kinds of issues; that is to say, information and opinions flow from the media to opinion leaders, who then pass this information on to others.

It seems likely, however, that other rules apply in connection with topics that are not addressed solely or primarily in informational TV shows, but also on other programs and channels normally reserved for entertainment. The general population is exposed to these topics just as quickly and intensively—under certain circumstances, perhaps even more quickly—as opinion leaders are.

This is precisely what may have happened with the flood of the century in Eastern Germany. An analysis of the TV guide printed in the regional daily newspaper Südkurier for the seventeen-day time period from August 15 to September 1, 2002, shows that the five leading television channels in Germany broadcast three major special programs or benefit galas on behalf of the flood victims during primetime after 8:00 pm, along with eighteen special programs on the flooding that were added to the normal broadcasting schedule.

Moreover, the flood was also the focus of another twenty-nine shows included in the regular TV schedule—for example, popular magazine shows. This tally does not include all of the special reports and programs that were added to the schedule at the last minute—something that several major channels did practically every day during the latter part of August—or shows that focused on the flood but were not explicitly listed as such in the TV schedule. We must assume, therefore, that the actual number of special programs and shows focusing on this natural catastrophe was substantially higher.

Given the intensity of media coverage, which went far beyond the normal scope of reporting on the usual TV news programs or in the politics section of the newspaper, opinion leaders no longer had a lead over the remaining population when it came to information on the flood. This was compounded by the fact that, although opinion leaders are interested in a greater number of topics than other people, they are not particularly interested in “human interest” stories. When Gabriel Weimann tested the strength-of-personality scale in an Israeli kibbutz in 1994, he found that opinion leaders engaged in conversations about all topics more frequently than other members of the community did—except when it came to gossip.

This finding was confirmed by surveys conducted by the Allensbach Institute during the 2002 federal election campaign. When respondents were asked in early September which topics they had discussed recently with friends and acquaintances, the flood was cited in first place by both opinion leaders and the remaining population. Yet opinion leaders did not talk about this topic—which has both political significance and an especially strong “human interest” element—appreciably more often than other respondents did. All other topics with a political slant, however, were discussed by opinion leaders considerably more intensively than by the remaining population (Table 4).

For the latter, the catastrophic flood practically became the sole, overriding theme for awhile, influencing party preferences. For opinion leaders it was just one important topic of many. Only after a noticeable lapse in time did those persons who otherwise function as opinion leaders let themselves be swept along by the general mood.

All this suggests that the opinion leader theory needs to be revised with regard to one point. In The People's Choice, Lazarsfeld comments:

It is commonly assumed that individuals obtain their information directly from newspapers, radio, and other media. Our findings, however, did not bear this out. The majority of the people acquired much of their information and many of their ideas through personal contacts with the opinion leaders in their groups. These latter individuals, in turn, exposed themselves relatively more often than others to the mass media.

Due to the media system and new patterns of media consumption today, the chain of influence described above is no longer fully functional in all cases. It continues to apply to “normal” election campaigns in which political issues play a central role. Under certain circumstances, however—namely, when a campaign is dominated by massive reporting on “human interest” topics, with information being conveyed not only via political programs but entertainment shows as well—there are now many indications that the majority of people obtain the information that ultimately has a decisive impact on their voting decisions directly from the mass media. Under these special circumstances, the two-step flow of communication seems to be largely inoperative.