According to Baran (2012) mass communication can be defined as “the process of creating shared meaning between the mass media and their audiences.” This essay aims to discuss the degree to which we are shaped by our interaction with the media. In order to achieve the aforementioned aim of this essay I will focus on the following: limited-effects theory, two-step flow theory, attitude change theory and agenda setting. The limited effects theory sets out that media influence is based on individual and social characteristics. An example of this is Lazarfelds two-step flow theory. Baran (2012) states that “behaviour was limited by opinion leaders – people who initially consumed media content on topics of particular interest to them, interpreted it in light of their own values and beliefs, and then passed it on to opinion followed, people like them who had less frequent contact with media.” This theory can only go so far as in this day in age there are so many different mediums used to convey media information.
There are positive and negative impacts of mass media, which we must see as a dependable individual of a general public. We don't frequently consider how significantly the broad communications impacts the lies we let ourselves know. On TV, in films, and in promotions, we are fed information about how we should react in culture (Warren, 2014). A number of us have the expression; beauty is in the eye of the each person's preferences, however we know who the viewer truly is. The impact of mass media, referring to technologies of bill boards, bill-boards to radio, on the
Discourse does not have a general definition , but Foucault ( as cited by Mills, 2004) have stated that the most effective ways of think of discourse is" practices that systematically creates the object which they speak" (p. 61). In other words, what we say and think are two different things. Discourse is also an idea that language is planned according to different areas of social life, and a way of talking about and understanding the world (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Discourses are made up of practices, forms and objects (Mill, 2004). It depends on the understanding that there are much more meanings when people communicate than simply just transferring information (University H., 2008).
The Uses and Gratification theory by Elihu Katz came into existence when the theorist concocted the idea that individuals utilize the media to their advantage. The point of view rose in the mid 1970 's as Katz and his two associates, Jay Blumler and Michael Gurevitch kept on extending the thought. The theory was contemporary since it repudiated more seasoned perspectives that expected the gathering of people was an inactive gathering. The Uses and Gratifications Approach sees the gathering of people as dynamic, implying that they effectively search out particular media and substance to accomplish certain outcomes or delights that fulfill their own needs. The wellsprings of the media picked are unmistakable.
The theory explains “how individuals use mass communication to gratify their needs” (Burgeon, Hunsaker and Dawson, 1994, cited in Udende and Azeez, 2010, p. 34). The theory holds that “people influence the effects that mass media have on them” (Anaeto et al, 2008 cited in Edegoh, Asemah and Nwammuo, 2013, p. 23). The assumption of the theory is that people are not just passive receivers of media messages; rather, they actively influence the message effects. Media audience selectively choose, attend to, perceive and retain media offerings on the basis of their needs, beliefs, etc., thus, “there are as many reasons for using the media as there are media users” (Anaeto et al, 2008, p. 71). Uses and Gratification theory has also been used in models that attempt to identify how people choose among media.
Gerbner (1998:198) defined cultivation as “the independent contributions media viewing makes to an individual’s conceptions of social reality.” This theory explains how an individual’s perception of social reality can be changed if they perceive the real world according to what they viewed in the media, or especially on television (Holstrom, 2004:197). Morgan and Shanahan (2010: 337) described the media as indoctrinating a woman’s opinion of her body image over time through repetitive and frequent viewing. Levine and Smolak (1996:250) stated that the continual repetition of certain values, as well as the exclusion of certain types of people, actions and stories powerfully influences and adapt viewer’s conceptions of social reality. Tiggemann
The theorist says that a media user seeks out a media source that best fulfills the needs of the user. Uses and gratifications assume that the user has alternate choices to satisfy their need. Theorists: Blumler and Katz Date: 1974 Uses and Gratifications Theory 1. Uses and Gratifications theory Most of the theories on media explained about the effects media had on people. It is the theory which explains of how people use media for their need and gratification.
where he has termed the media as a: window; interpreter; platform or carrier; interactive link; signpost; filter; mirror; screen; and barrier. The theories too are many in number. Here also McQuail sets the tone for a discussion of media theories by postulating that there are two versions of media theories: media-centered and society-centered. The former, as the name suggests, stresses the means of communication as a force for change either through technology or the typical content carried. Other hand it is also the emphasises the dependence other forces in society like politics and money may considered hare as an example.
This debate reflects a wider, familiar issue in the research literature concerning whether children are active media savvy consumers, or vulnerable innocents. For example Buckingham’s (2007) main argument is that this polarisation is indeed constructed and that the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two. He contends that the growth of a consumer society is a complex social development which cannot be understood, explained or blamed solely on advertising and marketing. This polarisation of the debate is seen again in the gap between industry research on marketing, and sometimes highly critical blame-led academic research. It seems that the research field between the two should be explored more, as this would help construct a balanced debate and contribute towards consistency in the conceptualisation of the issue and measurement techniques (Sandberg 2011).
In our everyday life, we come across people or institutions that try to exercise power over us, making us to what they want. Lukes (1974) explains that compliance can be secured by the use of force or by people choosing to surrender to others. When people choose to accept the will of others as legitimate or right, we can describe the relationship as one of authority (Lukes, 1974). Assumptions and beliefs that are embedded in the culture teach us learned responses to various problems of survival in any given society (Schein, 1992). In this regard, in 2006, Cuff and Francis discuss Karl Marx’s concept of alienation in which he suggests that those who are in power design cultures in a way that will only benefit them, leaving the others in a state
The focus of his research and academic publishings was Media; what it can be used for, how it can be used, and effects that are a result of using media (Pelkey “Media and Ideology 1”). McLuhan theorized that the medium used to promote a message affects the way in which the message is perceived, coining the phrase “the medium is the message”. “The medium is the message because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. For the ‘message’ of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (Pelkey “Media and Ideology 1”). If a product is advertised on the radio, the perception listeners have will be different from the perception of those who see the same product on a television advertisement.