1. Selective Processes—This perspective on how
humans “see” the world is based on individual differences of upbringing,
race, gender, socioeconomic status, life experiences. Individuals are
exposed to different experiences and influences—some profound (like
nationality or gender) and some subtle (like bigtown/smalltown)—that
help shape how they see and make sense of the world, people, issues,
culture, society. The result of these differences is that people
perceive and interpret the world differently. Recognizing shared
perceptions of the world is essential to understanding how individuals
form communities.
• Selective Exposure: Based on how we see the world, individuals tend to pay attention to different kinds of information that is more or less relevant and familiar to their own experience. This concept also relates to the media choices we make—which news sources we read & view (e.g., Fox News or PBS News Hour, NPR or Rush Limbaugh, Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News), entertainment viewing (TV, movies—Dexter or CSI, Girl with the Dragon Tatto or Disney), music (Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith). The media choices we make influence our perception of reality.
• Selective Perception: As a result of these difference background and formative influences, as well as media choices, individuals see and make sense of the world differently; we all create our own meanings of events around us, filtering information that reaches us through our own prejudices and prior knowledge, framing information so that it makes sense in our own context.
• Selective Retention: Some information flies right past us; some sticks. We tend to remember best the information that confirms our beliefs and values, and forget the information that contradicts our values and beliefs.
2. Gatekeeping—There are gatekeepers in any communication system—interpersonal, written, mass communication. These are elements that make constant decisions about what information is or isn’t important enough to pass along—what information gets through the “gate” from the sender of a message to a receiver of that message. Not only does gatekeeping occur in deciding the end message (e.g., what stories get into the newspaper), but also as a reporter decides what stories to cover, what sources to interview, what questions to ask, and what parts of her reporter’s notebook are important enough to make it into the story. So there is both “front-end” gatekeeping as a media message is created, and a “back-end” gatekeeping as an editor decides what stories to put in the paper, on what page, with what headline, and what part of the reporter’s story gets edited out. Clearly, individual perceptions of the world and what things are important in it (selective perception) are in play in this process. The ultimate gatekeeper in the mass communication process is the news reader/viewer—what do they think is important/relevant enough to permit through the “gates” of their conscious minds? In this context (and under agenda-setting, below), the media do not reflect “reality”; they filter, shape and construct a “reality.” (Remember the principles of media literacy.)
3. Agenda-Setting—This theory holds that although the mass media can’t tell us what to think, the media are stunningly successful at telling us what to think about. That is, through their selection or de-selection of what is “news” (gatekeeping), the mass media serve to create an agenda for social discourse. When there were only three major national TV networks, and some 70-80% of Americans watched them nightly, a very clear national agenda of what’s most important was created. Even in such a monopolistic and dominated mass media system, the networks couldn’t make people think in certain ways (because of individual selective perception), but they were and are able to focus attention of some issues while ignoring others. (The Project Censored story is an illustration of what stories did not make the public’s agenda/consciousness.) Examples of how agenda-setting worked in society include: The OJ Simpson murder trial; the Clinton impeachment hearings following Zippergate; WMDs and the Iraq War/War on Terrorism. Consider the implications of agenda-setting for public policy debate and creation of laws. Another question: Who sets the agenda for the media agenda-setters?
4. Framing—This theory concerns how news and information are “framed” or presented once through the news “gate” and on the public agenda. A media “frame” is the central organizing idea for a news story that supplies a context and emphasizes certain aspects of a story while minimizing or ignoring others. As media literacy theory tells us, media messages are constructions or representations of “reality.” It is impossible for a media message to be anything more than a summary or representation of the world. Thus, the question for message consumers is always: “What aspects of this story are not being told?” “What information lies outside the ‘frame’ of this message?” and, perhaps most importantly, “What might be the intent (ideological, intentional or inadvertent) of the senders (gatekeepers) of this message?” So framing suggests that the bottom line in news coverage is not just what to think about (agenda-setting), but how to think about it, based on how the story is presented. Framing is not a conspiracy to skew the news (although it can be done that way); individuals, based on their selective perceptions, not only select different things as important, but inevitably frame them in different ways to conform to how they see the world. But what is the effect of that framing on the receiver of those messages, and on the larger society?
• Frames (Robert Entman, 1993)
a. Frames determine whether most people will notice a story
b. How they understand the story and evaluate the story
c. How they respond to the story
• Framing Strategies in News
a. Placement: Front page, above or below the fold, lead story on network news, etc.
b. Headlines: Influence whether people decide to read the story and ultimately, how they interpret the story after reading it.
c. Repetition: How often is the story repeated. Example: "The Dean Scream"
d. Length of story: How much column space, minutes in broadcast story.
e. Word choice: Language choices are very powerful in influencing public perceptions and interpretations. Examples:
• Katrina flood victims captioned "Looting" vs "Finding"
• "Illegal aliens" vs. "Undocumented immigrants"
f. Images: Research demonstrates that we remember images much longer than the words we read.
Examples:
• Time vs. Newsweek covers of OJ Simpson's mug shot.
• Time vs. Newsweek covers of Elian Gonzales
• Toppling of Saddam statue in Iraq
g. Omissions: "[F]rames simultaneously direct attention away from other aspects. Most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include (Entman, p. 54).
5. Cultivation Theory—The images and impressions and topics (and how they are framed) that appear in the mass media serve to “cultivate” in all of us certain impressions of the world. These messages and the way they are framed—if they are a stable set of images consistent over time—may serve to change our own individual perceptual frame of the world around us. The mass media build and maintain a stable set of images—stories about our culture, our society, who we are—that govern our lives and how we see the world, and influence the decisions we make. Ultimately, mass media messages in sufficient accumulation may influence our behavior, attitudes, decisions and life choices. This has wide implications for both individuals and for societies. One example is Gerbner’s “mean world syndrome,” in which research found that heavy viewers of news tended to perceive the world as a more dangerous and scarier place than light TV viewers. Based on the amount and kind of stuff we include in our mass media diets, we may over time start to “cultivate” new perceptions of people, ideas, issues, etc., with which we have little direct involvement. In short, the cultivate media “reality” may become more real to us over time than real reality. This has important implications for mass media producers and consumers, and for the society in which we live—advertising, consumerism, society anxiety, racism, sexism, etc.
Cultivation Theory Definition: Long-term exposure to media may affect how we perceive the world. TV reality may seem more real than our actual life experiences. These images and perspectives work to “cultivate” how we see and think about the world, people and issues.
Central Concepts:
• How media build and maintain a stable set of images about society—the stories of our culture.
• These images influence our lives—how we perceive reality.
• Media images influence the decisions we make.
These mediated perceptions of the world and the opinions we form and decisions we make—may influence our attitudes and ultimately, the choices we make.
Example #1:
1. Stable set of images: Iraq possessed WMD and Saddam Hussein had direct links to al Qaeda and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
2. Influence our lives—how we perceive reality: Iraq and Saddam Hussein are terrorist threats to the U.S.
3. Influence our decisions: Support the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.
4. Decisions influence our behavior: Vote for candidates who supported the 2001 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Example #2:
1. Stable set of images: Excessively thin women as the ideal body size.
2. Influence our lives— How we perceive the reality: Thin women are more popular, happy, successful, get the guy.
3. Influence our decisions: Need to diet, exercise to lose weight.
4. Decisions influence our behavior: Begin dieting in effort to look more like media ideal, may become obsessive dieter, exerciser.
• Also may influence how we feel and act towards others-whether they conform to media ideal
6. Third Person Effect Theory (TPE)—Rather than examining media effects in terms of how media may effect the way individuals think about issues and people, TPE theory examines our beliefs about how media effects us and others. In other words—rather than taking the approach that media affect our perceptions, TPE considers how our perceptions shape our ideas about media effects. Research shows that most of us have the perception that media will not have its strongest impact on us—but on other people. In other words, media will influence other people—but have little influence over me personally. One result of this attitude/perception, according to research, is that people who have this perception, tend to overestimate media’s potential impact on others and underestimate potential impact on self. Another result of individuals’ perception that media will significantly influence others, is that these individuals are more likely to believe media need to be restricted and censored in order to avoid the media’s harmful effects on others
• Selective Exposure: Based on how we see the world, individuals tend to pay attention to different kinds of information that is more or less relevant and familiar to their own experience. This concept also relates to the media choices we make—which news sources we read & view (e.g., Fox News or PBS News Hour, NPR or Rush Limbaugh, Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News), entertainment viewing (TV, movies—Dexter or CSI, Girl with the Dragon Tatto or Disney), music (Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith). The media choices we make influence our perception of reality.
• Selective Perception: As a result of these difference background and formative influences, as well as media choices, individuals see and make sense of the world differently; we all create our own meanings of events around us, filtering information that reaches us through our own prejudices and prior knowledge, framing information so that it makes sense in our own context.
• Selective Retention: Some information flies right past us; some sticks. We tend to remember best the information that confirms our beliefs and values, and forget the information that contradicts our values and beliefs.
2. Gatekeeping—There are gatekeepers in any communication system—interpersonal, written, mass communication. These are elements that make constant decisions about what information is or isn’t important enough to pass along—what information gets through the “gate” from the sender of a message to a receiver of that message. Not only does gatekeeping occur in deciding the end message (e.g., what stories get into the newspaper), but also as a reporter decides what stories to cover, what sources to interview, what questions to ask, and what parts of her reporter’s notebook are important enough to make it into the story. So there is both “front-end” gatekeeping as a media message is created, and a “back-end” gatekeeping as an editor decides what stories to put in the paper, on what page, with what headline, and what part of the reporter’s story gets edited out. Clearly, individual perceptions of the world and what things are important in it (selective perception) are in play in this process. The ultimate gatekeeper in the mass communication process is the news reader/viewer—what do they think is important/relevant enough to permit through the “gates” of their conscious minds? In this context (and under agenda-setting, below), the media do not reflect “reality”; they filter, shape and construct a “reality.” (Remember the principles of media literacy.)
3. Agenda-Setting—This theory holds that although the mass media can’t tell us what to think, the media are stunningly successful at telling us what to think about. That is, through their selection or de-selection of what is “news” (gatekeeping), the mass media serve to create an agenda for social discourse. When there were only three major national TV networks, and some 70-80% of Americans watched them nightly, a very clear national agenda of what’s most important was created. Even in such a monopolistic and dominated mass media system, the networks couldn’t make people think in certain ways (because of individual selective perception), but they were and are able to focus attention of some issues while ignoring others. (The Project Censored story is an illustration of what stories did not make the public’s agenda/consciousness.) Examples of how agenda-setting worked in society include: The OJ Simpson murder trial; the Clinton impeachment hearings following Zippergate; WMDs and the Iraq War/War on Terrorism. Consider the implications of agenda-setting for public policy debate and creation of laws. Another question: Who sets the agenda for the media agenda-setters?
4. Framing—This theory concerns how news and information are “framed” or presented once through the news “gate” and on the public agenda. A media “frame” is the central organizing idea for a news story that supplies a context and emphasizes certain aspects of a story while minimizing or ignoring others. As media literacy theory tells us, media messages are constructions or representations of “reality.” It is impossible for a media message to be anything more than a summary or representation of the world. Thus, the question for message consumers is always: “What aspects of this story are not being told?” “What information lies outside the ‘frame’ of this message?” and, perhaps most importantly, “What might be the intent (ideological, intentional or inadvertent) of the senders (gatekeepers) of this message?” So framing suggests that the bottom line in news coverage is not just what to think about (agenda-setting), but how to think about it, based on how the story is presented. Framing is not a conspiracy to skew the news (although it can be done that way); individuals, based on their selective perceptions, not only select different things as important, but inevitably frame them in different ways to conform to how they see the world. But what is the effect of that framing on the receiver of those messages, and on the larger society?
• Frames (Robert Entman, 1993)
a. Frames determine whether most people will notice a story
b. How they understand the story and evaluate the story
c. How they respond to the story
• Framing Strategies in News
a. Placement: Front page, above or below the fold, lead story on network news, etc.
b. Headlines: Influence whether people decide to read the story and ultimately, how they interpret the story after reading it.
c. Repetition: How often is the story repeated. Example: "The Dean Scream"
d. Length of story: How much column space, minutes in broadcast story.
e. Word choice: Language choices are very powerful in influencing public perceptions and interpretations. Examples:
• Katrina flood victims captioned "Looting" vs "Finding"
• "Illegal aliens" vs. "Undocumented immigrants"
f. Images: Research demonstrates that we remember images much longer than the words we read.
Examples:
• Time vs. Newsweek covers of OJ Simpson's mug shot.
• Time vs. Newsweek covers of Elian Gonzales
• Toppling of Saddam statue in Iraq
g. Omissions: "[F]rames simultaneously direct attention away from other aspects. Most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include (Entman, p. 54).
5. Cultivation Theory—The images and impressions and topics (and how they are framed) that appear in the mass media serve to “cultivate” in all of us certain impressions of the world. These messages and the way they are framed—if they are a stable set of images consistent over time—may serve to change our own individual perceptual frame of the world around us. The mass media build and maintain a stable set of images—stories about our culture, our society, who we are—that govern our lives and how we see the world, and influence the decisions we make. Ultimately, mass media messages in sufficient accumulation may influence our behavior, attitudes, decisions and life choices. This has wide implications for both individuals and for societies. One example is Gerbner’s “mean world syndrome,” in which research found that heavy viewers of news tended to perceive the world as a more dangerous and scarier place than light TV viewers. Based on the amount and kind of stuff we include in our mass media diets, we may over time start to “cultivate” new perceptions of people, ideas, issues, etc., with which we have little direct involvement. In short, the cultivate media “reality” may become more real to us over time than real reality. This has important implications for mass media producers and consumers, and for the society in which we live—advertising, consumerism, society anxiety, racism, sexism, etc.
"Since the 1950s, children have been
exposed to ever-increasing amounts of television, and because the
increase has been gradual, it has avoided intense scrutiny by the
scientific community for potential adverse effects. It is similar to the
situation in which a frog, when thrown into hot water, jumps out
immediately because he knows it is toxic to him. But if you take the
same frog and place it on the stove and heat it slowly, he will stay in
the pot until he is turned into soup."
William Hayes, president, New Jersey Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1996
Cultivation Theory Definition: Long-term exposure to media may affect how we perceive the world. TV reality may seem more real than our actual life experiences. These images and perspectives work to “cultivate” how we see and think about the world, people and issues.
Central Concepts:
• How media build and maintain a stable set of images about society—the stories of our culture.
• These images influence our lives—how we perceive reality.
• Media images influence the decisions we make.
These mediated perceptions of the world and the opinions we form and decisions we make—may influence our attitudes and ultimately, the choices we make.
Example #1:
1. Stable set of images: Iraq possessed WMD and Saddam Hussein had direct links to al Qaeda and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
2. Influence our lives—how we perceive reality: Iraq and Saddam Hussein are terrorist threats to the U.S.
3. Influence our decisions: Support the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.
4. Decisions influence our behavior: Vote for candidates who supported the 2001 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Example #2:
1. Stable set of images: Excessively thin women as the ideal body size.
2. Influence our lives— How we perceive the reality: Thin women are more popular, happy, successful, get the guy.
3. Influence our decisions: Need to diet, exercise to lose weight.
4. Decisions influence our behavior: Begin dieting in effort to look more like media ideal, may become obsessive dieter, exerciser.
• Also may influence how we feel and act towards others-whether they conform to media ideal
6. Third Person Effect Theory (TPE)—Rather than examining media effects in terms of how media may effect the way individuals think about issues and people, TPE theory examines our beliefs about how media effects us and others. In other words—rather than taking the approach that media affect our perceptions, TPE considers how our perceptions shape our ideas about media effects. Research shows that most of us have the perception that media will not have its strongest impact on us—but on other people. In other words, media will influence other people—but have little influence over me personally. One result of this attitude/perception, according to research, is that people who have this perception, tend to overestimate media’s potential impact on others and underestimate potential impact on self. Another result of individuals’ perception that media will significantly influence others, is that these individuals are more likely to believe media need to be restricted and censored in order to avoid the media’s harmful effects on others
No comments:
Post a Comment