LO6- Negative effects and active audience theory

“The media effects debate is an outdated concept”. Discuss the statement in relation to a media product you have studied. Use examples to support your answer”

Media effects refers to the influence of media exposure on people, and these effects can be positive or negative. The media effects debate is where some people believe that media products such as video games and social media, can have an impact on an audience and can normalise negative behaviours. The other side of the argument is that media products don’t impact an entire audience and still keeps society normal. These people are named as either a passive audience, where someone views a media product and thinks nothing of it no matter how violent or disturbing, or a active audience, where someone will comment and interact with a media product to judge or point out something that isn’t morally correct. In this essay I will be talking about media products like video games, social media, films and newspaper articles to argue both points of the argument. The first 3 paragraphs will be arguments FOR the statement therefore agreeing with it.

Firstly, the media effects debate is an outdated theory as the Uses and gratification theory by Denis Mcquail which states that an audience uses media products for their own purposes and know the difference between fantasy and reality. For example, people will play video games like Call of Duty or GTA as a way to get away from the real world. This is called escapism. It allows people to venture away from problems they maybe facing in their life. Another example is people using social media like Instagram and magazines to build their personal identity so they can try and improve themselves. 

Secondly, the media effects debate is outdated as encoding and decoding (Stuart Hall, 1980) means audiences have different opinions on certain content in media products due to their upbringing, culture or political standpoints. There are 3 ‘positions’ an audience may take. These are a preferred reading, where an audience accepts the dominant viewpoint of the story. A negotiated reading, where the ideology of the producers message is agreed with in general, although the message is negotiated or picked apart by the audience, and they jay disagree with certain aspects. And finally an oppositional reading, when the producers message is understood, but the audience disagrees with the ideological perspective, in every aspect. For example, the sun released a paper with the headline ‘Muslim convert beheads woman’ which tried to give Muslims a bad reputation by being savage murderers. This would be the preferred meaning. The negotiated meaning would be they understand why the headline is like that but also understand how it offends an religion. Finally, the oppositional reading would be Muslims feeling offended that their whole religion is being perceived in a evil way. 

Finally for the FOR arguments, the media effects debate is outdated because of the fandom theory by Henry Jenkins in 2012. This theory is where media products have a developed relationship with an audience to the extent that thy add further meaning to the product through an immersive relationship. For example, if someone watches a tv show like love island, they may build a relationship with a character and start to feel empathy towards them therefore adding a extra meaning to that product. 

Now I will be arguing the points AGAINST the statement.

Firstly, the media effects debate isn’t outdated as the hypodermic syringe theory by Adorno and Horkheimer in 1947 shows that audiences believe everything that they see or hear as part of the ‘culture industry’. For example, if someone watches a violent or disturbing films like the purge or joker then they will be subconsciously impacted by product. Sometimes, an audience may really enjoy a certain character and try to be like them in real life as it worked in the movie so they think it must work in real life. An example of this would be that when the film Joker was released, people dressed an acted like him which caused fear for public and started panic. https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/all-the-joker-controversy-and-threats-explained.html

Secondly, the media effects debate isn’t outdated because of the cultivation theory by Gross and Gerbner in 1976. The cultivation theory is where the more the audience sees reports and documentaries on how the world is a bad place the more they will believe it. For example, if someone were to watch a documentary on how global warming is destroying the planet then they are more likely to react and try and prevent it from happening. If a whole audience sees the documentary and does something about it then the world can become a better place. This also could impact negatively as social media creates an unrealistic expectation for how both men and women should look. This can cause an audience to feel like they are unattractive or depressed at the fact they don’t match the ‘perfect body’. https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherleighton/2019/12/13/is-instagram-bad-for-your-mental-health-body-image/?sh=28a3e13b1e55

Finally, the media effects debate isn’t outdated because of desensitisation which is where an audience constantly views violent images and content in media products that it becomes normal to people and they don’t feel fear or horror as they should. For example, GTA V is played by millions of teenagers who shoot people and rob people in the game and they do it by choice. This means, they have no remorse and don't feel what they’re doing is wrong despite it just being a video game. People also believe that this makes younger men more violent in real life and potentially cause them to commit real crimes. For example, a young man named Daniel Petrie once shot his own mother and attempted to murder his father because they would allow him to play Halo. https://mycrimelibrary.com/daniel-petric-teen-killer/

In conclusion, I believe that the effects debate is outdated as people use media products for enjoyment and entertainment. Also, it is rare for a video game of a film to influence a crime as most people know the difference between right and wrong. The crime may not be because of media products anyway as Stuart Hall states that people have different opinions and reactions to content in media products so it may have been impacted by their upbringing or political views. https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/violence-health-news-787/movie-violence-doesn-t-make-kids-violent-study-finds-741747.html