Media Effects - theories and countertheories

Cultivation Theory

Explanation of Theory: Gerbner’s cultivation theory says that television has become the main source of storytelling in today's society. Those who watch four or more hours a day are labeled heavy television viewers and those who view less then four hours per day, according to Gerbner are light viewers. Heavy viewers are exposed to more violence and therefore are effected by the Mean World Syndrome, an idea that the world is worse then it actually is. According to Gerbner, the overuse of television is creating a homogeneous and fearful populace. Theorists: George Gerbner Date:1976

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORY

Explanation of Theory: Blumler and Katz’s uses and gratification theory suggests that media users play an active role in choosing and using the media. Users take an active part in the communication process and are goal oriented in their media use. The theorist say that a media user seeks out a media source that best fulfills the needs of the user. Uses and gratifications assume that the user has alternate choices to satisfy their need. Theorists: Blumler and Katz Date: 1974
 

Agenda Setting Theory

Explanation of Theory:

The Agenda-Setting Theory says the media (mainly the news media) aren’t always successful at telling us what to think, but they are quite successful at telling us what to think about. Theorist: Maxwell McCombs and Donald L. Shaw Date: 1972/1973  

SIX COUNTER THEORIES FROM DAVID GAUNTLET'S 'TEN THINGS WRONG WITH MEDIA EFFECTS THEORY' (1998)


1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards'
Behaviour dictates media, not other way around.
In a study of 500 children, Hagell & Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders watched less television and video than their counterparts, had less access to the technology in the first place, had no particular interest in specifically violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same material as non-offending teenagers or were simply uninterested. This point was demonstrated very clearly when the offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be someone who appears on television, who would you choose to be?'

2. The effects model treats children as inadequate
Children are not as stupid as we think. Some projects have shown that children can talk intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham, 1993, 1996), and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical and 'media literate' video productions themselves (Gauntlett, 1997).

3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by barely-concealed conservative ideology
The systematic derision of children's resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader conservative project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the mass media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability today.
The condemnation of generalised screen 'violence' by conservative critics can often be traced to concerns such as 'disrespect for authority' and 'anti-patriotic sentiments' (most conspicuously in Michael Medved's well-received Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (1992)). Programmes which do not necessarily contain any greater quantity of violent, sexual or other controversial depictions than others, can be seen to be objected to because they take a more challenging socio-political stance (Barker, 1984, 1989, 1993). This was illustrated by a study of over 2,200 complaints about British TV and radio which were sent to the Broadcasting Standards Council over an 18 month period from July 1993 to December 1994 (Gauntlett, 1995c). This showed that a relatively narrow range of most complained-of programmes were taken by complainants to characterise a much broader decline in the morals of both broadcasting in particular and the nation in general.

4. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence
If the antisocial acts shown in drama series and films are expected to have an effect on the behaviour of viewers, even though such acts are almost always ultimately punished or have other negative consequences for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the antisocial activities which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such apparent consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects.

5. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses
The idea that it is unruly 'others' who will be affected - the uneducated? the working class? - remains at the heart of the effects paradigm.
George Gerbner and his colleagues, for example, write about 'heavy' television viewers as if this media consumption has necessarily had the opposite effect on the weightiness of their brains. Such people are assumed to have no selectivity or critical skills, and their habits are explicitly contrasted with preferred activities: 'Most viewers watch by the clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or follow established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose a book, a movie or an article' (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986, p.19). This view reveals the kind of elitism and snobbishness which often seems to underpin such research.

6. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media
To assert that, say, 'media violence' will bring negative consequences assumes that the medium holds a singular message which will be carried unproblematically to the audience. In-depth qualitative studies have unsurprisingly given support to the view that media audiences routinely arrive at their own, often heterogeneous, interpretations of everyday media texts (e.g. Buckingham, 1993, 1996; Hill, 1997; Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash & Weaver, 1992; Gray, 1992; Palmer, 1986). Since the effects model rides roughshod over both the meanings that actions have for characters in dramas and the meanings which those depicted acts may have for the audience members, it can retain little credibility with those who consider popular entertainment to be more than just a set of very basic propaganda messages flashed at the audience in the simplest possible terms.