Race and Crime in the Media: Research from a Media Effects Perspective

2007 ◽  
pp. 421-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Oliver
2011 ◽  
Vol 140 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim E. Moody

This article considers how a range of personal characteristics (media scepticism, political interest, need for cognition and media gratifications) influence the political information choices of Australians. Data collection was conducted in Brisbane via a postal survey during March and April 2008. The data revealed that the characteristics associated with information quality have very little influence on media use patterns, indicating that use of the media appears to occur simply as a consequence of other everyday life practices, rather than as an information-seeking activity. People regularly use media they do not trust to find out about politics, calling into question the previously assumed centrality of trust to information choices. If convenience trumps credibility in information selection, the importance of media literacy is heightened. The findings also emphasise the need for more holistic contexts for media research, which consider the broader social contexts and practices in which media-oriented behaviours occur.


2007 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Potter ◽  
Karyn Riddle

Author(s):  
Shanto Iyengar

This chapter discusses the progression of mass media effects research from early preoccupation with attitude change through minimal effects paradigms to the current resurgence in persuasion research. Implications of contemporary changes in the media environment on media effects research are considered. After surveying and classifying definitions of media effects, the chapter discusses how fundamental transformations in the media environment brought about by information technology may work to reshape scholarly understandings of the relationship between news sources and audiences. The availability of multiple sources makes it possible for consumers to be more selective in their exposure to news programs. Selective exposure means that people with limited interest in politics may bypass the news entirely, while the more attentive may tailor their exposure to suit their political preferences. Both these trends imply a weakening of persuasion effects.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gennadiy Chernov ◽  
Maxwell McCombs

Abstract This paper explores the philosophical orientations within which agenda setting operates, and agenda setting’s place within the broader framework of the media effects tradition, specifically in comparison with framing and priming. It also responds to earlier criticisms of agenda setting for its supposed lack of theoretical richness and narrowly understood underlying mechanisms. Both ontological and epistemological statuses of the agenda-setting theory are analyzed in order to place agenda setting into the communication discipline’s broader context. This paper demonstrates that the most important distinction between framing and agenda setting is that they are based on different ways of knowing. While the epistemological bases of priming are similar to the theory of agenda setting, the paper argues that further progress will depend not only on practical studies of different aspects of agenda setting, but also on theoretical and philosophical conceptualizations in the future.


Author(s):  
Robin L. Nabi

Emotion has been incorporated into media effects research in multiple ways, which can be broadly summarized as considering emotion as a predictor of media selection, an outcome of media exposure, and a mediator of other psychological and behavioral outcomes resulting from media exposure. Specifically, evidence suggests that the desire for particular feeling states influences the media that people choose to consume. Much research also considers the feeling states resulting from exposure, including fright reactions and enjoyment. Finally, there are well-established lines of inquiry into how emotional responses to media influence the processing of those messages in terms of attention, processing depth, and cognitive and behavioral outcomes. More contemporary research is extending these research programs, examining how emotional media messages are socially shared with others as well as the positive emotional effects that may emerge in response to media exposure.


1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Field

SummaryThis article sets the debate about the effects of media violence in the context of broader media research. A direct and simple ‘cause and effect’ model between media violence and violence in society does not stand up to scrutiny. It relies on an obsolete model of media influence which stands outside current, theoretical developments in mass communication research. It has diverted attention away from more relevant accounts which see the media as having ‘a primary function’ of ‘legitimation and maintenance of authority’. These suggest a no less powerful but infinitely more subtle model of media influence which finds wide support in other areas of mass communication research. Ironically, since popular debate about media violence has been – and still is – based almost exclusively upon experimental research, it too seems to serve this same legitimation process.


2016 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 906-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Sherrick

Prior research in the third-person effects domain has shown that people who believe in harmful media effects are more willing to engage in preventive or accommodative strategies, such as censorship. This research extends that supposition by testing a thus-far unstudied strategy: negative evaluations of media companies. Results show that an overall belief in harmful media effects is connected to negative evaluations of the media companies potentially responsible for those effects. The third-person perceptual gap is not related to these negative evaluations of media companies, suggesting important differences between third-person effects research and influence of presumed media influence research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Miroshnichenko

This article probes into Trumpism using McLuhan’s idea of figure/ground analysis. To make visible the hidden ground behind a salient figure (or figures), the dichotomy of instrumental and environmental approaches to media effects is introduced. The widely used instrumental approach is rooted in the long-standing Lasswellian tradition of communication studies (‘who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect?’). The instrumental explanations of Trumpism are unavoidably reductionist, as they focus on figures and, therefore, overemphasize rationality and agency in media use. On the contrary, the environmental approach focuses on hidden ground and explores what environmental forces originate from new media’s proliferation and how these forces reshape habitat and inhabitants. To apply this view, the article examines the environmental factors within the news industry and social media that are favourable to Trumpism: the commodification of Trump by the media, the morphological conflict between broadcasting and engaging modes of agenda-setting, the built-in polarization of social media and others.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document