2.5 Media Studies Controversies
Learning Objectives
- Explain some of the major objections to specific media theories.
- Identify ways media studies are used to support political opinions.
- Differentiate between proper and improper use of media studies.
Important debates over media theory have questioned the foundations and hence the results of media research. Within academia, theories and research can represent an individual’s lifework and livelihood. As a result, issues of tenure and position, rather than issues of truth and objectivity, can sometimes fuel discussion over theories and research.
Problems With Methodology and Theory
Although the use of advanced methodologies can resolve many of the questions raised about various theories, the use of these theories in public debate generally follows a broader understanding. For example, if a hypothetical study found that convicted violent offenders had aggressive feelings after playing the video game Overwatch, many would take this as proof that video games cause violent acts without considering other possible explanations. Often, the nuances of these studies get lost when they enter the public arena.
Active versus Passive Audience
Media studies theorists remain divided over the belief of whether audiences act passively or actively when receiving mass media messages. A passive audience, in the most extreme statement of this position, passively accepts the messages that the media send it. An active audience, on the other hand, has full awareness of the complexity of media messages and makes informed decisions about how to process and interact with media. Newer trends in media studies have attempted to develop a more complex view of media audiences than the active versus passive debate affords, but in the public sphere, this opposition frames many of the debates about media influence (Heath & Bryant, 2000).
Arguments against Agenda-Setting Theory
Many criticisms have dogged agenda-setting theory, primarily that studies dedicated to the theory cannot prove cause and effect; essentially, no one has truly shown that the media agenda sets the public agenda and not the other way around. An agenda-setting study could connect the prevalence of a topic in the media with later changes in public policy and may conclude that the media set this agenda. However, policymakers and lobbyists often conduct public relations efforts to encourage the creation of certain policies. In addition, public concern over issues generates media coverage as well, making it difficult to tell if the media is responding to the public desire for coverage of an issue or if it is pushing an issue on its agenda (Kwansah-Aidoo, 2005).
Arguments Against Uses and Gratifications Theory
The general presuppositions of the uses and gratifications theory have drawn criticism. By assuming that media fulfill a functional purpose in an individual’s life, the uses and gratifications theory implicitly justifies and reaffirms the place of media in the public sphere. Furthermore, because it focuses on the personal and psychological aspects of media, the theory cannot question whether media artificially imposes itself on an individual. Studies involving the uses and gratifications theory often include sound methodologically, but the overall assumptions of the studies remain unquestioned (Grossberg, et. al., 2006).
Arguments Against Spiral of Silence Theory
Although many regard the spiral of silence theory as useful when applying its broadest principles, it appears weaker when dealing with specifics. For example, the phenomenon of the spiral of silence manifests itself most visibly in individuals who fear social isolation. Those less fearful of such isolation remain less likely to stay silent if public opinion turns against them. Nonconformists contradict the claims of the spiral of silence theory.
Critics have also pointed out that the spiral of silence theory relies heavily on the values of various cultural groups. A public opinion trend in favor of gun control may not silence the consensus within National Rifle Association meetings. Every individual considers themself a part of a larger social group with specific values. Although these values may differ from widespread public opinion, individuals need not fear social isolation within their particular social group (Gastil, 2008).
Arguments Against Cultivation Analysis Theory
Critics have faulted cultivation analysis theory for relying too heavily on a broad definition of violence. Detractors argue that because violence means different things to different subgroups and individuals, any claim that an entire audience would unanimously characterize acts of violence in the same way is false. This critique would necessarily extend to other studies involving cultivation analysis. Different people understand media messages in varying ways, so making broad claims can cause problems. Cultivation analysis still serves as an important part of media studies, but critics have questioned its unqualified validity as a theory (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999).
Politics and Media Studies
Media theories and studies afford a variety of perspectives. When proponents of a particular view employ those theories and studies, however, they often make oversimplified claims, which can result in contradictions. When politicians and others employ media studies to validate a political perspective, this often happens.
Media Bias
Media can bolster political opinion through its coverage, which leads to the debate over media bias. One 1985 study found that journalists had a greater liklihood to hold liberal views than members of the public. Over the years, many have cited this study to support the opinion that the media holds a liberal bias. However, another study found that between the years 1948 and 1990, Republican candidates received 78 percent of newspaper presidential endorsements (Hanson).
Media favoritism again became a source of contention during the 2008 presidential race. A random sampling of campaign coverage in the run-up to the election found that 82 percent of stories featured Barack Obama, while only 52 percent discussed John McCain (Raasch, 2008). Allegations that the media favored Obama seemed to bolster the idea of a liberal bias. But other studies belied this belief. Research conducted during the election showed that favorable media coverage of Obama occurred only after his poll numbers rose, hinting that the media reacted to public opinion rather than attempting to influence it (Reuters, 2008).
Media Decency
Decency standards in media continue to change in unpredictable ways. Once banned in the United States for obscenity, scholars now consider James Joyce’s Ulysses a classic of modern literature, while many schools have banned children’s classic Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for its use of ethnic slurs. The regulatory power that the government possesses over the media keeps decency an inherently political issue. As media studies have progressed, they have increasingly appeared in the debates over decency standards. Although media studies cannot prove a word or image is indecent, they can help discern the impact of that word or image and, thus, greatly influence the debate.
Organizations or figures with stated goals often use media studies to support those aims. For example, the Parents Television Council reported on a study that compared the ratio of comments about nonmarital sex to comments about marital sex during the hours of 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. The study employed content analysis to come up with specific figures; however, the Parents Television Council then used those findings to make broad statements, such as “the institution of marriage is regularly mocked and denigrated (Rayworth, 2008).” Because content analysis does not analyze the effect on audiences or analyze how the media presents the material, it does not offer a scientific way to judge whether a comment mocks and denigrates marriage, so the research does not support such interpretations. For example, researchers performing a content analysis by documenting the amount of sex or violence on television do not analyze how the audience interprets the content. They simply note the number of instances portrayed in the sample. Equally, partisan groups can use several different linguistic turns to make media studies fit their agenda.
Media studies involving violence, pornography, and profanity often draw the interest of, some of who have also conducted their own media studies. In 2001, for example, a Senate bill aimed at Internet decency that had little support in Congress came to the floor. One of the sponsoring senators attempted to increase interest by bringing a file full of some of the most egregious pornographic images he could find to the Senate floor. The bill passed 84 to 16 (Elmer-Dewitt, 2001).
Jack Thompson versus Violent Video Games
Despite questionable use of media research, the outspoken critic of violent video games and now-disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson has made claims against the genre while referencing large amounts of additional research in this field. In an interview with CBS News, Thompson stated that “hundreds of studies” existed that proved the link between violent video games and real violence. Later in the interview, he listed increasing school murder statistics as proof of the effects of violent video games (Vitka, 2005). In light of the media effects theories elucidated in this chapter, Thompson obviously fabricated the findings of video game–violence research and made claims that no media effects scholar could confidently make.
Thompson initiated several lawsuits against Grand Theft Auto video game developer Take 2 Interactive, claiming he wanted to hold the company liable for encouraging minors to engage in violent actions. The court dismissed his lawsuits, and he eventually came to a settlement with Take 2 Interactive—who had countersued—to drop all litigation (Jones, 2007). Thompson’s frivolous use of the legal system caused the state of Alabama to revoke his license to practice law in 2005, and, in 2008, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred him for life (Hefflinger, 2008).
Jack Thompson’s actions may seem extreme, but he represents a common pattern of media study misrepresentation. Pundits, social reformers, and politicians frequently use the results of media studies to support their agenda without regard for accuracy. The use of media research to lend credence to a political opinion occurs often even as the public struggles to understand the effects of new media on culture.
Media Consolidation
Although this book will discuss media consolidation in more depth in later chapters, the topic’s intersection with media studies results deserves mention here. Media consolidation occurs when large media companies buy up smaller media outlets. Although government regulation has historically stymied this trend by prohibiting ownership of a large number of media outlets, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has loosened many of the restrictions on large media companies since the 1980s.
Media studies often prove vital to decisions regarding media consolidation. These studies measure the impact that consolidation has had on the media’s public role and on the content of local media outlets to compare it with that of conglomerate-owned outlets. The findings often vary depending on the group conducting the study. Sometimes the FCC chooses to ignore these findings.
In 2003, the FCC loosened restrictions on owning multiple media outlets in the same city, citing studies that the agency had developed to weigh the influence of particular media outlets such as newspapers and television stations (Ahrens, 2003). In 2006, however, reports surfaced that the agency had discarded a key study during the 2003 decision. The study demonstrated an increase in time allocated for news when TV stations were owned locally, thus raising questions about whether media consolidation provided a benefit for local news (MSNBC, 2006).
