Sociology

Level One
Essay Course 1B

STUDENT NO: 2025623G

TUTOR: Giuliana Tiripelli

QUESTION NO: 2

WORD COUNT: 1500

SUBMISSION DATE: 21/03/2013

Question 2: What evidence is there that media influence

audience beliefs and understanding?

2025623G

Media has become a powerful tool allowing the communication and sharing of
information throughout the world. It has been studied by academics through media
content and audience reception studies raising the key issue of the extent to which
media influences audience beliefs and understandings. Various theories have been
based on this issue differing between each other on how they characterize audiences
and their capacity to resist messages from the media, creating their won. Throughout
this essay, the focus will be on finding evidence of this influence to audiences through
analysis of examples in the media. Media content should simultaneously be considered
with audiences reception measured through opinion polls (Philo, 2013), to successfully
find influence evidence.
It is primarily important to highlight the main sociological studies that have focused on
the audience reception of media. All audience theories have inherent assumptions
about power: whether it works on us directly, or works through us in more subtle ways
(Gillespie, 2005). The first theoretical work goes back to the 50s with the Hypodermic
Theory Model (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) suggesting a complete direct influence on the
receiver that acts as a powerless passive audience. Later, Hall S. established his
Encoding and Decoding Model (1980) presenting distinctively an active audience able
to contrast dominant ideologies presented by media. This viewpoint argues media
content is polysemic meaning its reception can be different according to audiences
social class, gender and ethnicity. The audience is so forth empowered casting their
socially constructed ideologies against representations in media, opposing to the aim of
demonstrating media manipulation of their audience. Active audience theories have
tended to mystify rather than clarify in audience reception research (Seaman, 1992).
However, theoretical perspectives were slowly developed for example with Morley
(1980). He introduced the idea of preferring mechanisms used by the media
unconsciously received by audiences, also concluding that social situations were more
important than a persons class, race or gender in interpreting content (Morley, 1986).
On the other hand, a more significant development of these theories strongly
empowered media and their ability to influence the beliefs and understandings of
audiences. The Glasgow University Media Group (1976) made prominent development
to research both into the creation of media content and audience reception. Their main
scope was to show the fundamental error made in past theories of suggesting possible
rejection of messages by audiences (Philo, 2004). Active audiences were seen in
different perspectives, incapable of fully rejecting messages from the media but
actively interpreting and being affected by them, often in similar ways. Also, the issue
of media power was often missed due to this focus on audience individuals. Dominant
ideological influence may be more or less effective according to many social factors,
but it will always be there (Fiske, 1987) to alter audience beliefs to some extent.
Research on the creating of specific beliefs and understandings within the audience
was done with the aim to look at media content and find causes of these influences.
Observing television programs it was found that the audiences understanding was
determined by the meanings immanent in their texts (Curran, 1990) and this behavior
influence could vary depending on the content.
Audience understanding of news is shaped by the media as it is the biggest source of
information on what is happening in the world. Therefore, media is a key element in

2025623G
the construction of overall public understanding (Philo, 2013). Specific evidence of
media influence is using its content to limit audiences understanding of underlying
causes and background events reported. This is achieved by presenting simple facts
with no detailed analysis causing a partial understanding. Examples of this negative
influence were discovered for various current affairs, like covering news about
government policy on tax spending and budgets (Philo, 2008). The results illustrated
how the media failed to give a clear explanation causing the audience to have little
knowledge on specific reasons to government actions. A possible purpose of media
wanting to achieve this was suggested by Lewis (2001), stating that not giving full
reports of the available data generated a weaker public opinion and less pressure on
political leaders and governments. Another example of inhibiting public understanding
was within the news coverage of the Israeli Palestine conflict (Philo, 2004). Similarly,
little analysis of the history and causes of the conflict led to an incomplete account
received by the audience. This had strong effects on their ability to critically choose
who was in the wrong: Palestine or Israeli. In this case, historical invasion of Palestine
lands wasnt portrayed while the media focused on current Palestine violence, often
within biased content, antagonizing them to the audience. Audiences were influenced
to believe that Israelis had most casualties, while it was the opposite. Media was able
to impose a view of the conflict by focusing their information stream on particular
current events giving no broader picture. Researches on audience attitudes towards
the media also support this, finding the main reason for lower TV programs standard
was the constant repeating of same information (Ofcom, 2012), used in forming
specific audience beliefs. In contrast, it can be described as Hostile Media
Phenomenon (Vallone, 1985) stating that biased might not actually be present in media
content but created by audiences. Nevertheless, this view still sees it as an influence to
beliefs and understanding although peculiarly generated by the audience itself.
Not only can missing media content prevent understanding and create false beliefs, but
also affect importance of an issue to the general public depending on its coverage
amount. This was observed with an extensive amount of research specifically on
climate change news reporting. A significant difference between discourses of the
scientific community and the US prestige press regarding global warming was
evidence that media was purposely mistranslating this information to influence
audiences (Boykoff, 2004). A social constructionist approach led to recognizing this
failure was due to media used as political purpose and not scientific. In 2010, a
significant dip in media attention of climate change gave greater focus to economic
recovery causing audiences belief in climate importance to drop (Philo, 2012). Lower
priority together with confusion had strong negative effects on audience consideration
of climate change causing disengagement. Audiences became skeptic to seeing
information given as reliable and taking actual decisions on climate change
(Lorenzoni, 2006), due to media not delivering clear scientific facts and instead have
its content influenced by political interest groups.
Contrary, effects of positive awareness can also influence audiences. Awareness of
AIDS and its prevention in media content helped bring understanding to audiences that
before the 1980s had never even heard about the problem (Miller, 1998). This showed
how mass media coverage of an issue could influence audiences to better
understanding from knowledge gained. The process still wasnt perfect causing
unfounded fears like risk of transmission through saliva showing how simple messages
conveyed to audiences can be distorted to an altered influence. In general, participants

2025623G
across a wide range of groups were found to have common understandings
prominently contradicting a polysemic approach. However, other research show their
interpretation of media statements about AIDS were drawn on a mixture of personal
experiences and understandings of wider issues such as illness, sexuality, morality and
death (Kitzinger, 1990).
Leading to the last point on influence evidence that is specifically related to personal
experience construction supporting polysemy of media. The experience of audiences is
one deeply embedded in the varieties of individuals own lives and not a mass
experience (Abercrombie, 1998). Therefore, if influence is based on experience it will
differ within audiences. The study of media portrayal on the mentally ill (Philo, 1996)
sought to research prejudice of violence created by media in audiences. A major issue
exposed was this about the ability of personal experience with mentally ill to contrast
their media representation. Once again, media influence was proved to be powerful, to
the point that it overcame direct experience. Although there was no past evidence,
media content influenced beliefs and emotions of violence creating a constant
underlying fear. To some extent this diminishes the activeness of audiences to fully
contrast content, since no matter their present reality, media will have partial influence
of its dominant ideology.
Two main conclusions can be made after this essay. The first is the abundance of
evidence from academic research on media influence of audience beliefs and
understandings. Audience attitudes towards certain issues can be fully constructed
using content released in specific ways. The second conclusion regards a more
theoretical and critical point of view that is less straightforward and arguable. The
argument questions the extent audiences can use social constructed opinions to contrast
media content. Whether or not these other factors will be considered, the main point is
that media will always influence to some extent. Whatever model is chosen, it should
be taken as flexible since belief systems differ between individuals and cannot be
generalized. With modern technology nowadays, I believe research will focus more on
the audiences and their ability to influence media through new ways of communication
like the Internet and social networks.
References:
1. Abercrombie N. & Longhurst B. (1998) Audiences: A Sociological
Theory of Performance and Imagination, London: SAGE Publications.
2. Boykoff, M.T., Boykoff, J.M., 2004. Balance as bias: global warming
and the US prestige Press. Global Environmental Change 14, 125
136.
3. Curran, J. (1990) The New Revisionism in Mass Communications
Research: A Reappraisal, European Journal of Communication,
5(2/3): 135-64.
4. Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture, London: Methuen
5. Gillespie, M. (2005) Media Audiences, Open University Press.
6. GUMG (Glasgow University Media Group), (1976) Bad News, London:
Routledge.
7. Hall, S., Hobson D., Lowe A. (1980) Encoding/Decoding, London:
Hutchinson/CCCS.

2025623G
8. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955), Personal Influence, New York: The
Free Press.
9. Kitzinger, J., (1990), Audience Understandings of AIDS Media
Messages: A Discussion of Methods Sociology of Health & Illness,
Vol. 12 (3), 319-335
10.Lewis, J. (2001) Constructing Public Opinion, New York: Columbia
University Press.
11.Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N.F (2006) Public views on climate change:
European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95.
12.Miller D., Kitzinger J., Williams J., Beharrell P. (1998), The Circuit of
Mass Communication, London: SAGE Publications.
13.Morley, D., (1980), The Nationwide Audience: Structure and
Decoding, British Film Institute.
14.Morley, D., (1986), Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic
Leisure, London: Routledge
15.Ofcom, (2012) UK audience attitudes to the broadcast media: A
summary of findings, August 2012
16.Philo G., Berry M. (2004) Bad News from Israel, Pluto Press.
17.Philo G., Happer C., Froggatt A. (2012), Climate change and energy
security: Assessing the impact of information and its delivery on
attitudes and behavior. London: UKERC Publications.
18.Philo, G. (1990) Seeing and Believing London: Routledge.
19.Philo, G. (1996) Media and Mental Distress London: Longman.
20.Philo, G. (2008), Active Audiences and the Construction of Public
Knowledge, Journalism Studies, Vol. 9 (4), Taylor & Francis.
21.Philo, G., Miller D. & C. Happer (2013) Circuits of Communication
and Structures of Power: The Sociology of the Mass Media,
Contemporary Sociology, Polity Press.
22.Seaman, W. (1992) Active audience theory: pointless populism,
Media Culture Society, 14: 301.
23.Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media
phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in
Coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, pp. 577-585.