Mass Media Research Paper

This essay sample essay on Mass Media Research Paper offers an extensive list of facts and arguments related to it. The essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and the conclusion are provided below.

It is generally believed that daily newspaper’s, television, radio, films, the Internet, or any form of message communication that is targeted at a large audience has an influence on behaviour, (Moore 1996) but to what extent? How much influence do the ‘mass media’ really have on society and the individual’s within a society that have now become a media ‘loyal’ audience? (Moore 1996) and how do people gauge the extent of this influence? The aim of this essay is to look at the theories of the mass media effects.

Such effect theories as the ‘hypodermic-syringe’ model, the ‘cultural effects’ theory, the ‘two-step flow’ model, and the ‘uses and gratification’ theory, and then determine from these theories the true extent of the mass media influence upon society. The ‘Hypodermic-syringe model’, that is also referred to as the ‘silver bullet model’ (Schramm & Porter 1982) is the idea that the mass media are so powerful that they can ‘inject’ their messages into the audience.

Or that, like a magic bullet, they can be precisely targeted at an audience, who irresistibly fall down when hit by the bullet.

In brief, it is the idea that the makers of media messages can get people to do whatever they want them to do. (Schramm & Porter 1982) Whilst it could be argued that no media analyst holds such a view today, it remains popular amongst the public and the media moralists.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified

Proficient in: Communication

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

For instance, in the aftermath of the murder of a young child, Jamie Bulger, in the United Kingdom in 1993 by two young boys, the video of ‘child’s play 3’, in which a similar kind of murder was to be seen, was evoked as a cause of the murder. Macionis & Plummer 1998 p593) Whilst it is possible to say that the film may have played a part, along with other factors, it cannot be said to have simply caused the two boys to murder the young child. (Macionis & Plummer 1998)

What Is A Mass Audience

Another factor was that the senior police officers that interviewed the two young boys at the time agreed that there was no evidence that either child had even seen the video of ‘child’s play 3’. (J. Petley 1994) Many theorists believe that it is really more of a folk belief than a model. Chapman 2000) It could be argued that methodologically, the model is very weak because it ignores the fact that social characteristics of audiences differ in terms of class, age, gender and ethnicity. (Chapman 2000) But still the theory that people are passively injected with media messages crops up repeatedly in the popular media whenever there is an unusual or grotesque crime, which they can somehow link to supposedly excessive media violence or sex and which is then typically taken up by politicians who call for greater control of media output.

If it applies at all, then probably only in the rare circumstances where all competing messages are rigorously excluded, such as in a totalitarian state. Nazi Germany being a prime example, where ‘Dr Joseph Goebbels’ centrally controlled the mass media, and in doing so, he influenced a country into believing that Adolf Hitler was the ‘saviour’ of Germany. (Wistrich 1997) As you read through the various approaches however, it could be argued that a rather weaker version of the ‘hypodermic syringe’ model underlies many of them, notably in the ‘cultural effects’ approach.

The ‘cultural effects’ approach or the ‘mass-culture’ theory, as it is otherwise known implies that ‘some’ of the media audience will accept media messages rather uncritically and in other cases resist media messages. (Haralambos & Holborn 2000) Clearly this suggests not only different types of media messages but also the idea of different audiences. (Haralambos & Holborn 2000) It could be argued that the media actually target these ‘different’ audiences, these cultures, and effect the way these people look upon the world.

The idea is that the mass media have created a mass culture in society, but, at the same time, they have the effect of maintaining cultural individuality. (Burton 2002) The idea that the mass media has created a mass culture in society is particularly associated with Marxism. (Chapman 2000) Marxists argue that the once popular cultures or folk cultures used to be the product of the family and revolved around such activities as folk music, dancing, folk tales and carnivals, but now, in a capitalist society, they argue that it is no longer a product of the family but more down to mass production, or more commonly, the mass media. Chapman 2000) It is seen by Marxists, such as ‘Marcuse’ in particular that people have become passive recipients of culture rather than actively participating in it. (Chapman 2000) Marcuse believed that people consequently ‘absorb’ mentally, such things as violent images from movies or television, and then, just as any advertising is seen to do, it gives an appetite for things that the viewer cannot have, and therefore fuels crimes. (Chapman 2000)

Although Marxists such as Marcuse have argued that this type of popular culture is responsible for stifling creativity, imagination and critical thought in society, (Chapman 2000) a number of the ‘mass-culture’ arguments have come from other directions. Pluralists argue that the pre-industrial folk culture has been over romanticised by the Marxist critics and they also argue that the mass media in modern society has also had a positive effect on people. They claim that literacy has been encouraged, and knowledge and awareness of the world around them has been encouraged.

They claim that people have much more choice of cultural products and opinions than they ever had before. (Chapman 2000) In many ways, the ‘mass-culture’ theory, or the ‘cultural effects’ approach is similar to the hypodermic-syringe model of media effects and like that model, it is also difficult to ‘prove’ an effect. (Chapman 2000) It is generally believed that a more acceptable approach is the ‘two-step flow’ theory for understanding the influence that the mass media have on their audience.

The ‘two-step flow’ model is slightly different to the previous two methods, in that it suggests that people are not influenced directly by the media. It implies that people interpret media messages through a framework of attitudes that they acquire from primary groups or ‘opinion leaders’. It was first recognised by Paul Lazarsfeld, along with Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet 1948) in ‘The People’s Choice’, a paper analyzing the voter’s decision-making processes during an early nineteenth century presidential election campaign.

Lazarsfeld found that voters, who already knew how they were going to vote in the election, had read and listened to more campaign material than the people who still did not know how they would vote. (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet 1948) The researchers found that voters who made a decision late in the campaign were not likely to be influenced by the media, but rather by ‘opinion leaders’ who swayed their vote. It as been suggested that these so called ‘opinion leaders’ are not a general characteristic of a person, but rather, limited to specific issues.

It is seen that, any Individual, who acts as the ‘opinion leader’ on one issue, may not be considered influential in regard to another issue. (Burton 2002) Their research was originally based on something like the simplistic ‘hypodermic syringe’ model of media influence. However, their investigations suggested that media effects were minimal, that the conception of a ‘mass audience’ was inadequate and misguided and that social influences had a major effect on the process of opinion formation and limited the media’s effect. (Burton 2002)

As with the other two methods, it could also be argued that the ‘two-step flow’ method also has its arguments. One being that the Influence, if any, or be it a ‘small’ amount of influence, tended to be straight across a particular social economic class, except that in the ‘higher’ social classes there was a tendency for people to find ‘opinion leaders’ in the next class up. No ‘opinion leader’ was an ‘opinion leader’ in all aspects of life. (Burton 2002) For example, a car mechanic in the local pub may not use the media much at all because he’s always working late.

Nevertheless, he knows a lot about cars and so what the rest of those in the pub ‘know’ from the media about different makes of car will be influenced by his views. Similarly, a Politics lecturer for example, may not use the media anything like as much as ‘his’ or ‘her’ students do, but the lecturers reading and viewing is targeted on political issues. Together with the lecturers broad knowledge of political theory and history, which is likely to make the lecturer the ‘opinion leader’ as far as the Politics class is concerned.

Allowing for the differences from one class to another and from one subject area to another, people could probably recognize in ‘opinion leaders’ the characteristics which Lazarsfeld suggested, in particular that ‘opinion leaders’ will be more active users of the mass media than others, (Burton 2002) As a result of this theory, attention began to turn from the question of ‘what the media do to the audience’ to ‘what the audience do with the media’, or, the ‘uses and gratifications’ theory

The ‘uses and gratifications’ theory focuses on the active use made of the media by the audience itself, to seek gratification of a variety of needs. (Chapman 2000) The standard saying is that, where effects research asks, “What do the media do to audiences? ” the uses and gratifications approach asks, “What do audiences do with the media? ” (Chapman 2000) In this theory, it is said that audiences use the media to gratify needs.

The needs being most commonly identified as surveillance, such as monitoring what’s going on in the world, or, personal relationships, family interaction, or just to escape from a ‘normal’ routine. (Chapman 2000) Readers of a newspaper for example, might open the paper, turn past the ‘hard news’ and head straight for the ‘gossip’ section, or to the ‘stars’ section because they need entertainment. Also, as with television, one person might understand their favourite ‘soap opera’ because their favourite character holds power, and they relate it to their own needs for ‘power’.

Another person may understand the same ‘soap opera’ as being mainly about ‘love and understanding’ because they have strong needs for security and choose to bring out those aspects of the story in their minds. (Burton 2002) But as with all the theories, the ‘uses and gratifications’ theory also holds arguments. The biggest argument directed at the ‘Uses and Gratifications’ theory, is that it is seen as being non-theoretical. Other arguments are that it is seen as being vague in key concepts, and being nothing more than a data-collecting strategy.

However it is still the most modern theory to date. (O’Donnell G, 1994) After looking at the theories of mass media effects, to actually determine the mass media influence upon their audience is no easy task. It could be argued that ‘modern’ theories of the mass media effect, such as the ‘two-step flow’ theory or the ‘uses and gratification’ theory show that people are more likely to ‘reinforce’ existing attitudes and behavior than to change them.

It could be argued that people’s existing attitudes act as a protective net preventing any direct effect at all. It could be said that the media has most influence when an audience lacks knowledge and clear opinions, as with the ‘hypodermic-syringe’ model or the ‘cultural effects’ theory. (O’Donnell G, 1994) Even so, after looking at these theories, there is no overwhelming evidence that the mass media actually influence’s its audience at all. However, there is more evidence, to suggest that the audience actually influence’s the mass media. (Chapman 2000)