Here is something that I wrote for a class assignment. I thought it may be worthwhile to let people on the blog read it. Well, there is one caution: what I’ve written may just go over the heads of many a reader! I sincerely hope that it won’t.

But if it does become hard to comprehend, I’ll be more than happy to clarify. Needless to say, comments are welcome. Also, it is important for me to know readers’ perspectives and opinions in order to do justice to the issue of media effects.

Here goes…

Does the society have the power to exercise judgment over media messages as the media has to send messages and influence the former?

There can be no objective, yes or no kind of answer to this question. In fact, before giving any answer to the above question, one needs to dig deep into the literature of media effects. One also needs to ask questions like, ‘who are we referring to when we talk about ‘society’?’, ‘what is the meaning of ‘the power to exercise judgment’? What are its implications?’

I shall state two perspectives as an attempt to answer the above questions.

The first perspective is called the ‘direct effects’ perspective and it postulates that mass media are powerful agents of change which can influence the society. It gives an understanding that the society is defenseless against the power of mass media and is likely to get uniformly affected by whatever media content is targeted at them. In essence, this point of view suggests that the society does not have the power to exercise judgment over media content.

The second perspective is a sociopath-psychological perspective which borrows heavily from the disciplines of psychology and sociology so as to alter the equation between media and society suggested by the ‘direct effects’ perspective. It suggests that people have certain selective processes by means of which they can select or reject media content. People are psychologically predisposed to be attentive to only certain media messages and may ignore a lot of the media content that is targeted at them. For instance, people may want to watch, read or hear only that media content that is aligned with their belief system or with the existing norms of the society. Social factors such as gender and economic class may play an important role in the selection process. Individuals may ignore media content which conflicts their values, attitudes and beliefs.

The two perspectives differ not only in what they state, but also in their understanding of the society. The first perspective regards society as a single, undifferentiated entity while the second perspective negates this point of view. One may decide on his own as to which perspective is correct, but the second perspective makes more sense to me. Society also implies diversity to some extent. It can’t be regarded as a homogeneous entity as individuals or groups within the society differ in their values, attitudes, beliefs, cultures and socio-economic status. Therefore, it would not be logical to assume that their media preferences or media consumption habits would be the same.

The Indian society in particular represents diversity of culture, value systems and socio-economic backgrounds. Thus, media power is not uniform across the society. A lot of people in India have specific preferences as to what they want to watch, hear and read. For example, gadget crazy people may have no business watching daily soaps or news channels, or even reading newspapers. Discussions on news channels and articles in the print media regarding the current trends in the news media are indicative of the fact that a part of our society is critical of the current state of news media and are concerned about its future. People having moralistic stands may even protest against objectionable media content. The question-‘How and in what ways do media affect us?’- that the community of communication and media scholars has been trying to address is itself an evidence that the society has intervention in the shaping of mass media.

However, within the society, there are certain groups that are particularly vulnerable to the power of media. These groups may lack the mental capability to analyse media content critically and are highly susceptible to media influence. Examples of such groups are children and the people living in the villages who lack the shields of knowledge and reasoning to protect them from the influences of mass media, meaning that they take media content at face value.

If an individual is unable to assess the validity of media content, then his or her worldview may be directly affected by media. Hence, most children consider what they watch on television to be real. Also, some adults fail to take note of the disclaimer which is displayed at the start of fictional television programs. To this end, it would not be wrong to say that the power to exercise judgment over media content is determined by the extent to which one’s critical reasoning and logical faculty is developed and what the level of awareness about media effects is.

However, these are not the only exceptions. The power of media has been greatly boosted by the technological innovations of the recent years. A significant percentage of media content especially films utilize graphics, special effects and various other technologies to enhance the overall impact of the content. Individuals consuming such media content register such stimuli unconsciously. The effects of these technologies on an individual’s psyche are something that is still under research and study. It is interesting to know that even an elementary variable such as a camera angle in television and films can orient responses in the viewers, that is, different camera angles lead to different perceptions of the same object. By my own experience, graphical illustrations such bar graphs showing the results of an opinion poll have a much greater impact than words spoken by a news anchor. Conclusively, there are some aspects of media presentation that can cause audiences to react involuntarily. Since this process happens subconsciously, individuals can’t exercise judgment in the same way as they can over the subject matter of the media message.

Thus, on the one hand, individuals in a society can avoid exposure to media content and thus reject its influence; on the other hand they can’t escape some of the effects if they consume particular media. Also, since the society is complex and heterogeneous, one can’t claim or dismiss its power to exercise judgment over mass media content altogether.

Related posts:

1. A kind of society it will be
2. Relation between Power, Authority and Legitimacy