Hi everyone! The topic for this blog post will be on the flaws of the media effects model. As we all know, the media can both be a negative and a positive influence to its audience. More often than not, the media is usually the one to blame when violence have occurred around the world.
David Gaunlett has pointed some of the key factors that proves there are certain flaws in the model, stating that the methods used are either unfair or wrong, resulting in unreliable outcomes.
It tackles social problems “backwards”, trying to link criminal behavior with the media first instead of social factors e.g poverty, unemployment, housing etc. Those who were violent offenders have limited access to television and had no particular interest in any specific violent programme. The offenders also did not identify themselves with any characters on television and therefore, there is little to no influence of media.
Not only that, the model deemed children as inadequate, meaning that young people who are part of the experiment did not have the opportunity to express their abilities, intelligence and free will. This may seem to the case as biologically, their frontal lobe of the brain is still developing, hence deeming the experiment as unethical. Also, children are not as gullible and naïve as they seem to be. They are capable at filtering out portrays violence and foul language, even though there are countless of television shows that portrays as such. Now in the 21st century, children are smarter than ever, with the presence of technology as soon as they are born. There are many instances whereby they are able to unlock an iPhone and play gaming apps.
To add on, it is often based on artificial studies. This could mean that the researchers conducted the experiment in unusual settings such as a laboratory or if they put in enough effort to conduct in much normal setting, a classroom. One example will be Bandura “bobo” doll experiment. Three groups of children aged 3-6 are observed for three conditions; aggressive, non-aggressive and no model shown (control). The group of children who has been exposed to watch an aggression video on the doll displayed aggression more than the other 2 groups. This study simply shows that children are more likely to behave based on what they have seen, especially if the behaviour is shown by an adult. It is likely that displaying acts of violence can be caused by long-term trauma such as having abusive parents/guardian, lack of attention etc.
Shannon and Weaver Communication Model
Shannon and Weaver communication model is used to describe how the sender encodes a message and how the receiver will decode the message. However, there are inconsistency whereby there can be misinterpretation between the sender and receiver. It is shown as “noise” which acts as a barrier and it could mean language barrier or the different lingos used. Knowing that human to human interaction can be very complex, the context of the message can easily be misunderstood.
A penny for my thoughts
Growing up, my childhood has been blessed with watching a plethora of television shows that kids nowadays will not treasure. Shows like Pinky Dinky Doo and High 5 may not necessarily portray violence, there are countless of other television shows that display acts of violence, be it cartoons or not. I even had plastic swords to play and it did not once made me feel the need to act aggressive or violent. In my opinion, blatantly blaming the media for “producing” violent people is simply ignorant as there are many other factors that actually affects them in their daily life and usually are the factors that made them think being violent is the only answer.
What are some questions to ask about the role of media today, in the shaping of mass opinion (in the age of the internet)?
How can the media infiltrate the negative posts more effectively?
Is the media generating more negativing or positivity in this day and age of internet?
Will the media be the main medium for netizens to voice out their opinions?
Aisah's Blog 
Hi Aisah, JY here 🙂 You did a great job summarising the points David Gaunlett made. I also agree when you mentioned that children nowadays are not as naive as they appear to be. I have a niece who can play with my instagram filters and it really shows that media is one of the main element in their childhood. You mentioned that you played with plastic swords when you were young. I played with NERF guns with my brother and we both grew up well too. I also agree with you when you said that most people are ignorant when it comes to blaming media for violence. It really shows how many people still have an aversion towards media.
Overall, I enjoyed reading your blog post as it is neat and informative. Looking forward to your next post.
LikeLiked by 1 person