©Greenslade; DOI: 10.1177/0956474819891937; [2019/12] 30:4; 67-69; http://bjr.sagepub.com In October 1995, I attended an Oxford university lecture in the hope that the speaker would confirm what so many people thought to be the truth: it was The Sun wot won the 1992 general election for the Tories. It became clear that the lecturer – Martin Linton, then a Guardian journalist and later a Labour MP – had spent considerable time and effort on his paper. He made a good fist of his case, stretching every psephological sinew, but he fell short of providing convincing proof. There have been seven general elections since that unexpected 1992 victory for John Major over Neil Kinnock, all of which I have monitored closely in terms of the relationship between national newspaper coverage and the results. None, despite my wish to prove otherwise, has provided definitive confirmation that publishers and editors persuaded readers who to vote for. This would not surprise Kenneth Newton. He dismisses cause-andeffect notions of media influence while dispelling a variety of conventional myths. His wide-ranging and perceptive dissection of the literature includes a valuable section, drawing on experimental psychology research, about “belief persistence”. This is the inability of people to change their minds in spite of being given factual information that refutes their belief. People “reject simple logic, hard facts and compelling argument”, he writes, by overlooking, forgetting or misinterpreting media content that doesn’t accord with their deep-seated view. People deploy a set of mental mechanisms that reinforce their opinions in spite of evidence that should change their minds. In so doing, they defy logic, scientific evidence and “experts”. How else are we to explain people’s reluctance to respond to repetitive media warnings about smoking, over-eating, sun-bathing, excess alcohol and the risks of drugs? Then, of course, there is the Donald Trump phenomenon. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, millions of Americans chose to ignore facts presented by the majority of mainstream media, which pointed to any number of falsehoods Less powerful than we think

中文翻译：

---

没有我们想象的那么强大

©格林斯莱德；DOI：10.1177/0956474819891937；[2019/12] 30:4；67-69；http://bjr.sagepub.com 1995 年 10 月，我参加了牛津大学的一次演讲，希望演讲者能够证实许多人认为的真相：是《太阳报》赢得了 1992 年保守党大选. 很明显，讲师——马丁林顿，当时是卫报记者，后来是工党议员——在他的论文上花费了大量时间和精力。他对他的案子很认真，伸展每一个心理肌肉，但他没有提供令人信服的证据。自 1992 年约翰·梅杰 (John Major) 意外战胜尼尔·金诺克 (Neil Kinnock) 以来，已经举行了七次大选，我密切关注全国报纸报道与结果之间的关系。没有，尽管我想证明，已经提供了明确的确认，即出版商和编辑说服了投票支持的读者。这不会让肯尼斯·牛顿感到惊讶。他驳斥了媒体影响的因果概念，同时消除了各种传统神话。他对文献的广泛而敏锐的剖析包括一个有价值的部分，利用实验心理学研究，关于“信念持久性”。这是人们无法改变他们的想法，尽管他们得到了反驳他们信仰的事实信息。人们“拒绝简单的逻辑、确凿的事实和令人信服的论点”，他写道，通过忽视、忘记或误解与他们根深蒂固的观点不符的媒体内容。人们会部署一套心理机制来强化他们的观点，尽管有证据表明他们应该改变主意。这样做时，他们无视逻辑、科学证据和“专家”。我们还能如何解释人们不愿回应有关吸烟、暴饮暴食、日光浴、酗酒和吸毒风险的重复性媒体警告？然后，当然，还有唐纳德特朗普现象。在 2016 年总统大选前夕，数百万美国人选择忽略大多数主流媒体提供的事实，这些事实指向任何数量的谎言 没有我们想象的那么强大