Media effects pm media
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Media effects pm media






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Media effects pm media Media effects pm media Presentation Transcript

    • Possible effects of playing GTA IV
    • Possible ideological effects – influences how you think
      • Playing a game where you are rewarded from living a life of crime will have the effect upon you that you think that a criminal lifestyle is one to be valued.
    • Possible emotional effects – influences how you feel
      • Playing a game which offers many opportunities to engage in violent behaviour which is immediately rewarded by making further progress in the game – making more money, moving on to the next mission – may make you feel more aroused and / or aggressive, which in turn may lead to behavioural effects…
    • Possible behavioural effects – influences how you behave
      • Playing a game where you are rewarded from living a life of crime will have the effect upon you that you start to become a criminal – you steal cars, randomly assault people in the street and kill people.
    • Or possibly, none of this will happen…
    • What How might playing GTA and similar games have an effects on your ability to devise a strategy and constantly revise for successful achievement of your goals?
    • Videogames are going to have some type of effect or influence on their audiences / players
    • As audiences / players , we want videogames to have an effect on us, otherwise there would be no point in playing the game
    • However, it is very hard to be precise about what type of effects they are going to have
    • All of the scenarios here could happen, but equally there many more type of effects scenarios which could also happen - we all bring slightly different ways of interpreting texts depending on who we are
    • The media inject messages into their audiences
    • The audience is seen as passive and unable to resist these media messages
    • Theory associated with Marxist academics, such as the Frankfurt School
    • Marxists are traditionally hostile to the media – seeing it as vehicle to enable ruling class to maintain their dominance over society
    • Frankfurt School witnessed Hitler’s rise to power in Germany in the inter-war period, partly because of how Hitler and the Nazis used the tools of mass communication to stir hatred against the Jews
    • Theory first articulated in a different era to our own – a time when the mass media was still relatively new
    • Perhaps most readily applies today to advertising, stirring up feelings of ‘I want it’ / ‘I must have it’ – but does it apply equally, to everybody, all of the time, or perhaps to certain ‘vulnerable’ groups? E.g. Children
    • 4 uses and gratifications that audiences / consumers make from their interactions with the media
    • A reversal of the position of hypodermic needle theory – not about what the media do to you, but what you do with the media
    • Sees the audience as active, not passive – audiences / consumers make deliberate, informed choices about the use and interaction with media texts / products
    • Halloran (1969) – We should focus on what audiences do with the media, rather than on what the media do with people – a tipping point in media effects theory
    • Blumler & Katz argue that the 4 uses and gratifications are:
      • Surveillance
      • Diversion
      • Personal identity
      • Personal relationships
    • A long-term effects model, offers the theory that media messages work over the long term and not simply immediately – in that sense different to both hypodermic needle theory and uses & gratifications theory
    • George Gerbner – Through repetition of media messages audiences come to take in these messages and adopt them as their own views / messages
    • The theoretical equivalent of water torture – works on a ‘drip, drip, drip’ approach – in the end you come to accept the messages and values being offered to you by the media
    • The invasion of Iraq – in the months preceding the invasion by US / UK troops, both President Bush and ex-Prime Minister Blair (amongst other world leaders) repeatedly went on TV telling us that Saddam Hussein and his government had WMDs and subsequently was a threat to global peace and stability – a possible example of cultivation theory in action
    • Also, just about any advertising campaign is too – companies advertise to drive brand awareness as well as to sell individual products
    • Ultimately sees the audience as something that can be manipulated, therefore, ultimately sees the audience as being passive in the long term
    • Focuses entirely on what users / consumers / audiences do with media texts
    • Argues that meaning lies in the hands of the readers
    • Elvis Costello (singer) – ‘You can only control what the words look like, not what they mean’
    • John Fiske – audiences / consumers act as ‘semiotic guerillas’ who configure their own meanings from the texts produced by media institutions
    • Consider how people can react differently to the same stimulus – different people have different tastes in what is funny / disgusting , acceptable / unacceptable, as the recent furore about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross shows…
    • Web 2.0 and the melting of the line between producers and audiences – the age of YouTube and post-modern ‘mash up’ culture and blogs and the ‘anti-journalists’ who work out side the system and outside the rules – audiences are the masters now
    • As such, reception theory offers a complete rebuttal of hypodermic needle theory and challenges both the uses & gratifications model through being more audience-centred and challenges cultivation theory because of its central basis on what the media does to audiences
    • http://