The theories we'll be looking at here are largely described as 'Effects Debates' - and that describes exactly what they are - models, arguments and theories which examine exactly what kind of effect the media can have on an audience.
Many of these theories are very old (starting from as long ago as the 1930s - Yikes!) and as you will see, many of them can be considered as outdated and in fact are obsolete.
You may then be asking, why do we look at them at all?
Well, the answer is simple yet a little depressing. Unfortunately many of the arguments we look at are still used by the news and other institutions to blame the media for all kinds of terrible things that happen in the world.
Just for a moment consider the following slide...
Depending on how you responded when you considered which statement you most agreed with on the last page - you would either agree with the fact that these four media texts have been blamed for some terrible things, or you may have been an audience to some, or all of them and not carried out similar things yourself.
The arguments used to blame these media texts for violence and for dumbing down are all arguments that have been time and time again...
Here are the arguments that are often used by the press to convince us that the media is pure evil - the blue boxes after the theories should make you think about what the problems are with these arguments...
The Hypodermic Syringe model was used for years to convince us that the Media could weald a terrible and dangerous influence over our lives. Essentially it works around the idea of 'Copycat' - that is to say that it assumes the audience will copy whatever they see on screen.
There are lots of examples whereby this has been used to persuade us that the media is dangerous - as mentioned above the tragic murder of James Bulger was blamed on horror film Child's Play 3, whilst there was certainly some doubt over whether or not the boys had seen the film, there was a lot more evidence to suggest that there were many other significant factors which caused them to commit this terrible crime.
Problems with the Hypodermic Syringe model...
- Ignores people's free will
- Ignores people's personalities
- Ignores your environmental situation - what are you doing? Where are you consuming this text?
- Doesn't consider the cultural upbringing that people have
- Neglects to consider an individual's moral compass
- Suggests the audience is PASSIVE
The hypodermic syringe model has been refuted for many years. So theorists looked for ways in which the media might have a more long term effect on an audience.
And this is what they came up with...
There are lots of things that may have been considered taboo years ago that the media now shows us on a regular basis. There are things that are considered bad or wrong or as vices today which we have repeated messages of, for example...
- Sex and promiscuity
- Drug use
- Alcohol use
- Swearing
- Violence
In many ways the repetition of seeing these things, does make them less shocking - we probably are immune to them. Most of us will be able to watch people swig booze, and take drugs without being appalled. We can watch violence without covering our eyes or hear swearing without covering our ears. And unless we're with our parents most of us can tolerate sex being discussed or portrayed without blushing.
Some of these things have even become normalised - but does that mean that we are going to carry out these acts?
The Innoculation model was used when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 school children and one teacher at Columbine High School. It was suggested that a combination of violent video games, watching violent movies and listening to the music of heavy metal band Marilyn Manson, over the course of many years made them go out and massacre thirteen people.
The problems are self-evident as we probably all know someone who has a similar diet of media and yet they haven't been involved in such a terrible thing. Why didn't they?
So the problems with the Innoculation model...
- Despite certain things becoming normalised by the media - we are not all drug addled, violent alcoholic nymphomaniacs!
- People have free will to decide what they do
- Ignores changes in culture - e.g. attitudes to swearing change over time, not just because the media has more bad language
- Your personality and cultural upbringing are likely to be much more influential on your behaviour than the media
- Treats the audience as PASSIVE
- Why shouldn't the opposite be true - why wouldn't people be shocked out of doing something?
Hold on a second... here are two more effects theories...
Last things first - the problems with the Sensitisation model are exactly the same as the problems with the Innoculation model - as it's just the opposite.
With the Narcotising Dysfunction model...
...well I would explain why it's not particularly relevant, but then again maybe I can't be bothered. I'm too busy consuming the media, albeit creating a website whilst listening to the radio, with the telly on in the background...
...are you a couch potato as well?
The last couple of theories are a little more sophisticated and may be closer to the truth in the way that we consume the media and the way in which we look at the world.
Firstly...
This model is not suggesting that the media rules our lives or makes us do things - it states that we have a set of existing beliefs - these are our ideologies - and that the media can reinforce those ideologies.
Think about the stereotyped views you may have of certain nationalities because of their portrayal in the media - if you have never met anyone from that group of people, how can you be sure that it is not just a creation of the media?
e.g.
- The French are all romantic
- The Italians are all hot-headed
- Teenagers are all violent
- Pensioners are all old fashioned
This is not to say that the media creates our perspectives on these ideas - but it may reinforce our ideas through stereotypes used in advertising, characters in sketch shows and sitcoms, stock characters used in films and so on.
You will find that some of the beliefs you have in your life are reinforced by lots of different types of media. Let's look at an example ideology....
Friendship is an important part of our lives.
Seems like a pretty reasonable belief, most people share this ideology. But what media reinforces this idea to us...
As we consume more media, you'll see just how much it reinforces the different ideologies we have in life - deciding how much of an influence it has in reinforcing those ideologies to us, will be up to you.
The last effects model in this collection...
Whilst this model still suggests that we rely on others to help us understand messages, and that others influence how we consume; it is not treating the audience as entirely passive.
There are many Opinion Leaders in the media - amongst these are filmmakers which have a point to make - one such filmmaker is American documentary director Michael Moore.
Read the two slides below and then watch the first hour of his Oscar winning 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine.
Make sure you answer the questions as you go along...
So what are the techniques used by Michael Moore? Here's a few that you will probably have spotted...
- Humour (irony, sarcasm)
- Montage (sequences edited together with music playing over the top)
- Letting interviewees contradict and ridicule themselves
- Using shocking footage
- Juxtaposition (making a point by showing two contrasting things next to each other)
There are lots of examples throughout the film - but particularly watch the 'What a Wonderful World' montage for an excellent example of juxtaposition.
Moore shows us that the news tried to blame a variety of different media - some specific texts (such as South Park) some extremely vague (Entertainment?!) - but none more so than shock rocker, Marilyn Manson.
All in all, the argument that the news basically used at the time to blame the media for Columbine was the Innoculation model. The suggestion being that Harris and Klebold had consumed so much violence through video games, films and heavy metal that they thought it was ok to do what they did.
Michael Moore sweeps this argument away in a number of scenes. Here's just a few ways in which he discredits the Innoculation model...
- Compares the US to other countries which don't have as much gun crime but do have violent media texts
- Reminds us that the USA was actually bombing countries overseas and implies that this may have been an influence
- Interviews Manson, who is articulate and thoughtful - makes a good case for himself and is genuinely sympathetic
- Asks why bowling wasn't also held responsible considering it was the last thing that they did before going to school!
