Assess the view that the media does not have a direct effect on the audience
OCR
A Level
2020
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
Introduction
This essay will assess the view that the media does not have a direct effect on the audience. It will analyse different theoretical perspectives on the media's influence, including the 'direct effects' model and its criticisms, and discuss the complexities of mediating factors such as audience interpretation and selective exposure.
AO1: Knowledge and Understanding
Indirect Models of Media Effects
Alternative models propose that media effects are indirect and mediated by various factors. Cultural effects suggest that media shapes cultural norms, values, and beliefs, influencing audience behaviour through a long-term process. The two-step flow model posits that media messages are first received by opinion leaders and then disseminated to the wider audience, demonstrating a less direct influence.
Audience Interpretation and Decoding
Katz and Hall's encoding/decoding model emphasizes that audiences actively interpret media messages based on their own social and cultural backgrounds. This suggests that even if a message is intended to have a direct effect, its impact may vary depending on how it is decoded by the receiver.
Audience Control and Selective Exposure
Klapper's selective filter models and uses and gratifications theory highlight audience control over media consumption. They argue that individuals selectively expose themselves to media content that aligns with their existing beliefs, interests, and needs. This implies that the audience is not passively influenced but rather chooses what media they engage with.
Postmodern Perspective
From a postmodern perspective, the media is seen as a product of audience demand, with content driven by consumer preferences. This view suggests that the media is shaped by the audience and not the other way around.
AO2: Application
Applying this knowledge to the debate about direct effects, it is clear that the relationship between media and audience is not straightforward. Studies like those by Gauntlett highlight the difficulties in isolating the influence of the media from other factors, such as parental guidance, education, and peer groups. This supports the argument that attributing direct effects to the media is overly simplistic.
Furthermore, Gamson argues that political views are shaped by complex social and cultural forces, making it challenging to claim that media has a direct influence on political opinions. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the interplay of various factors shaping individual beliefs.
AO3: Analysis and Evaluation
Evidence for Direct Effects
While many theories emphasize indirect effects, some research suggests that media can have direct impact. Studies on violence and media, like Bandura's work, suggest that exposure to violence in media can lead to more aggressive behaviour in children. Newson's "drip drip" theory argues that prolonged exposure to violence in media desensitizes audiences, potentially leading to increased tolerance of violence.
Anderson, Hall, and Hardcastle's studies on the influence of music and lyrics have shown a direct connection between explicit content and increased aggression in listeners. This suggests that specific types of media content can have direct effects on behaviour.
Alternative Interpretations of Direct Effects
However, some argue that the relationship between violence and media is not necessarily direct. Feshbach and Singe propose a cathartic effect, whereby watching violence in media can actually reduce aggression by providing a safe outlet for pent-up emotions. Young suggests that media violence can sensitize audiences to the realities of violence, making them less likely to engage in it themselves.
The Power of Advertising
The power of advertising is another example of media's potential for direct effect. Packard argues that advertising can directly influence consumer behaviour through persuasive techniques and emotional appeals. This demonstrates the media's ability to shape individual desires and consumption patterns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate about media effects is complex and multifaceted. While there is evidence for both direct and indirect effects, the reality is likely a combination of both. The media's influence is shaped by a multitude of factors, including audience interpretation, selective exposure, and the interplay of cultural, social, and individual factors. Attributing direct effects solely to the media is an oversimplification, and it is crucial to recognize the complexities of the media-audience relationship.
Does the Media Have a Direct Effect on the Audience?
The assertion that the media exerts a direct and unmediated influence on its audience is a subject of ongoing debate within sociology. While some argue for a direct, hypodermic needle model of media effects, a closer examination reveals a more complex relationship between media and audience. This essay will argue that the media does not have a direct effect on the audience, drawing on evidence from various sociological perspectives and studies.
Indirect Models of Media Effects
Sociologists have proposed various indirect models to explain the complex ways in which the media influences audiences. The two-step flow model, for instance, suggests that media messages are first filtered and interpreted by opinion leaders within social networks, who then disseminate their interpretations to others. This model highlights the importance of interpersonal communication and social influence in shaping how audiences receive and understand media messages.
Katz and Hall's encoding/decoding model further emphasizes the active role of the audience in interpreting media messages. This model argues that producers encode messages with preferred meanings, but audiences decode these messages based on their own social backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs. This means that the same media message can be interpreted in multiple ways by different audience members, challenging the notion of a single, direct effect.
Audience Control and Selective Filtering
Several sociological perspectives challenge the idea of direct media effects by highlighting the role of audience control and selective filtering. Klapper's selective filter model, for example, argues that audiences are not passive recipients of media messages but actively choose what to consume based on their pre-existing beliefs and interests. This suggests that the media's influence is limited by the audience's prior dispositions.
Uses and gratifications theory takes this idea further, suggesting that audiences actively use the media to fulfill specific needs and desires, such as entertainment, information seeking, or social connection. In this view, the media's influence is contingent upon how well it meets the individual needs and motivations of its audience.
McQuail and Zillman, along with postmodern perspectives, argue that the media is increasingly shaped by audience demand and preferences. In today's digital landscape, audiences have more choices and control over the media they consume than ever before. This supports the idea that the relationship between media and audience is a two-way street, with audiences playing an active role in shaping media content and its potential influence.
Limitations of Direct Effect Theories
Gauntlett criticizes the simplistic nature of direct effect theories, arguing that they fail to account for the complex interplay of social factors that influence individual behavior. To claim, for instance, that watching violence on television directly causes violent behavior ignores the influence of family, education, peer groups, and other socializing agents.
Similarly, Gamson argues that political views are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including personal experiences, social networks, and broader societal structures. Attributing direct influence to the media in shaping political opinions overlooks these complexities.
Counterarguments and Evaluation
While the evidence presented thus far strongly suggests that the media does not exert a direct effect on its audience, there are counterarguments to consider. Bandura's Bobo doll experiment, for example, is often cited as evidence for the direct effect of media violence on children's behavior. Similarly, Newson's work on the "drip-drip" effect of media violence suggests that prolonged exposure can desensitize audiences to violence.
However, it's important to note that these studies have been subject to criticism and debate. The artificial nature of laboratory settings like Bandura's, for example, does not necessarily reflect real-world conditions. Additionally, attributing complex social phenomena like violence solely to media exposure is overly simplistic and ignores other contributing factors.
While studies like those by Anderson, Hall, and Hardcastle suggest a potential for direct effects from music and lyrics, and Packard's work highlights the persuasive power of advertising, these effects are often short-term and operate within the broader context of audience interpretations and pre-existing beliefs. Even theories like Feshback and Singer's catharsis hypothesis or Young's sensitization effect acknowledge that the impact of media violence is not uniform and depends on individual differences and contextual factors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the media undoubtedly plays a significant role in contemporary society, it is overly simplistic to assert that it exerts a direct effect on audiences. Indirect models of media effects, audience control mechanisms, and the limitations of direct effect theories provide compelling evidence to suggest a more nuanced and complex relationship. The media operates within a web of social structures, individual interpretations, and pre-existing beliefs that mediate its influence. A comprehensive understanding of the media's impact requires acknowledging this complexity and moving beyond simplistic notions of direct effects.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
AO1: Knowledge and understanding
The following list is indicative of possible factors/evidence that candidates may refer to but is not prescriptive or exhaustive:
- Reference to indirect models to explain effects – e.g. Cultural effects / two-step flow.
- Katz/ Hall - coding and decoding model
- Klapper - selective filter models / Uses and gratifications models (ie there is no effect; the audience controls the media)
- McQuail and Zillman audience control the media
- Postmodern view - the media is controlled by the audience and is guided by supply and demand.
- Gauntlett – it is difficult to measure the direct effect of the media as it’s impossible to isolate all other variables.
- Gauntlett – it’s simplistic. E.g. Does watching violence on tv make people violent? – what about the effects of parents / schools / peer groups?
- Gamson – people’s political views are shaped in a very complex way; cannot say the media directly affects views.
- Any other relevant response
AO2: Application
The selected knowledge should be directly related to the specific question.
AO3: Analysis and Evaluation
The following list is indicative of possible factors/evidence that candidates may refer to in evaluation but is not prescriptive or exhaustive:
- Studies which demonstrate direct effects e.g. violence is caused by watching violence in the media. Bandura – media could make children more violent.
- Newson – drip drip -= children are desensitised to violence in the media (this could be used to support AO1, depending on how it is explained).
- Music and lyrics have direct effects; e.g. Anderson, Hall and Hardcastle’s studies.
- Violence has and effect, but actually as a catharsis (e.g. Feshback and Singe).
- Violence sensitises the audience (e.g. Young).
- Power of advertising (e.g. Packard).
- Any other relevant response.