Mass media effects

I. Read and translate the text.

One of the longest running disputes in communication and media theory is the question of how much the media influence their audiences and how persuasive communication can be. Some academics study the psychology of individuals to understand different responses to messages such as advertisements or health campaigns.

Academics study the connections between violence on television and violence in society. There are those who argue that the media have a powerful role to play in shaping public opinion, and others who say it is actually very hard to persuade others, especially via the mass media. Early theories of media effects were heavily influenced by the Nazi use of new media such as cinema as propaganda.

The Frankfurt School of academics who fled Nazi Germany in the early 1930s carried overwhelming fears that mass media would generate mass effects and that whoever controlled the media would control their society. Their view is sometimes described as the ‘hypodermic model’, suggesting that audiences are passive and react in a uniform manner to a media message. But US social scientists (especially the Yale School) after the Second World War – also concerned about the power of propaganda – conducted extensive research into voter behaviour which suggested that people are actually more likely to be influenced by their friends and neighbours or other ‘opinion formers’ than the papers they read. This was called the ‘two-step flow’ theory and was developed by Katz and Lazerfield.

This idea dominated discussion of the media and communication effects and stimulated more research into the psychology of individuals and how people respond to messages. Questions of attitude formation and change, beliefs, values and opinions were investigated as part of the research into persuasive communication. However, in the 1970s, some academics (including the Birmingham School) returned to the ideas of the Frankfurt School and re-examined them. They looked at the effect of the media on society and on class and found that the media tended to support the interests of capitalism (and its owners, of course).

Researchers found negative media images of working people, women, ethnic minorities and others with less power in society. At this time ideas such as ‘agenda-setting’ were developed, where journalists select what is important to publish according to their implicit or explicit views of society. Unlike the Frankfurt School or the Yale School, this group looked at effects on society as a whole, rather than on individuals. Their more subtle description of effects has gained continuing currency,

Unit II Mass Media

while questions of effect on individuals – such as those exposed to violence – are still unclear.

Other theorists rejected the idea that the media promotes a particular point of view, but suggested that there might be a more neutral ‘agenda-setting’ effect, whereby media reporting does not influence what people think, but what they think about.

(By Ian Somerville)

II. Read and memorize the following words and phrases:

agenda-setting - установление повестки дня

argue v.- обсуждать, спорить

attitude – отношение

belief - вера

dispute – спор

explicit - явный

flee (fled) v. – бежать, спасаться бегством

implicit - неявный

investigate v.- исследовать, изучать

minorities - меньшинства

overwhelming - непреодолимый

persuade v.- убеждать в чём-л., уговорить

persuasive – убедительный

promote v.- продвигать

reject v.- отвергать, отклонять

response – ответ, отклик

support v.- поддерживать, подтверждать

unlike - в отличие от

violence – насилие

voter - избиратель