Power To The Audience: Part 2 – The Obstacle Of Media Effects Theory

After a rather dismal attempt at researching the question posed in my last blog “Power to the audience”, I decide to take a much needed break and sit down with my brother to watch his most recent favourite TV show Underbelly. As a loyal fan, he endeavours to provide me with a bit of background to the show which is based on the real events of the gangland war in Melbourne (for more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_gangland_killings). Amongst his in-depth recount of the events, he explains the controversy surrounding the production and its subsequent banning from screens in Victoria. For those like me who do not know much about this, basically, a judge in Melbourne demanded that the show not be screened in Victoria because he believed it would have been prejudicial to an upcoming murder trial.

This intriguing piece of information led to a bit of my own research which highlighted two things. Firstly, that audiences continue to be spoken on behalf of as a result of existing media regulation laws and secondly, that these laws are underpinned by the argument that the media has the power to influence us (this is more commonly known as the ‘media effects’ theory) (Sternberg, 2008). Despite these regulations, the global nature and user-led content creation framework of Web2.0 (as discussed by Bruns, 2007) has led to those who are allowed to watch the show making it available online for those who are not. As a result, the first episode of Underbelly was one of the most downloaded shows online (Sternberg, 2008).

Such is an example of the struggle between the new media audience and traditional regulation of media content. Due to the global nature of the internet, local change can now only be achieved by denying the entire world (Sternberg, 2008)!

As mentioned before, one of the popular and academic ideologies that exist about audiences is the ‘media effects theory’. As described by Livingstone (2005, 9), within this theory, ‘audiences are seen as mindless, ignorant, defenceless, naïve and as manipulated or exploited by the mass media’. Consequently, those concerned with morality have reason to worry, especially when it comes to children who are ‘often considered not so much in terms of what they can do, as what they (apparently) cannot’ (Gauntlett, 1998, 122). This media effects theory, while arguably outdated, is still a very powerful ideology that drives a lot of public and political discussion (Sternberg, 2008). As described by Perse (2006, 166-169) media effects theory has evolved from the ‘magic bullet model’ to the ‘limited effects model’ and finally, since the introduction of the television, we have reached an era often referred to as ‘the return to the concept of powerful mass media’. In short, there is still a strong focus on the media’s power to bring about direct media effects (Perse, 2006, 169).

Yet another controversy highlighting how prevalent this ideology is within society was that of the ‘Shrek 3’ advertising campaign. Following its successful release in 2007, advertisers for a number of low-nutrient foods used the Shrek character in their marketing campaigns. Many of the promotions were targeted directly at preschoolers and young children. Consequently, there was a lot of hostility surrounding the campaigns as people believed that children would be influenced into choosing unhealthier foods. As one oppositionist stated: “[The campaigns] are there to exploit a relationship between a child and a character and to use that relationship to sell products, many of which are less than healthy for a developing young body” (Carney, 2007). This is a typical example demonstrating how ‘media having the power to influence us’ is an ideology that has been ‘embedded in today’s society’ (Sternberg, 2008).

In conclusion, effects theory still remains a very powerful ideology which continues to drive a lot of public and political discussion. However, in our new media environment, the audience has been realized as being more active rather than passive which brings new elements to the debate. In any case, Livingstone notes that (2005, 24), ‘we will not find a single definitive study which resolves debate’. Instead we need to realize that media preferences have connections to who we are and how we construct our identities (Sternberg, 2008) and therefore we need to ‘ask not what the media do to people but what people do with the media’ (Livingstone, 2005, 21).

Till next time,
Annelise

Reference List

Carney, S. 2007. http://youthdevelopment.suite101.com/blog.cfm/the_shrek_controversy (accessed 18th April, 2008).

Gauntlett, D. 1998. Ten Things Wrong with the ‘Effects Model’. In Approaches to Audiences: A Reader, eds. R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath and O. Linne, 120-145. London: Arnold.

Livingstone, S. 2005. Media Audiences, Interpreters and Users. In Media Audiences, ed. M.Gillespie, 9-50. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Perse, E. 2006. Models of Media Effects. In Mass Communication: Volume One, ed. D. McQuail, 166-169. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sternberg, J. 2008. Introduction to Audiences. Brisbane: QUT. [Lecture: KCB301].