Identify and discuss the key features of the media effects debate.

Why is the question of media effects so important to our understanding of the role of media in society? Theories of media effects are numerous and often contradictory. Collectively these theories occupy a continuum from those whose adherents believe in powerful effects on the audience, to those confident there are only minimal and or short term effects.

The question of how the media affects society is important because it often lacks accountability and transparency protocols. The influence of the media must be examined in order to protect the integrity of our democratic ideals. This issue is especially pertinent in Australia where ownership is so condensed (Pearson et al., 2001).The recent rise of vast, international media businesses such as News Corporation1 allows 'moguls' almost unprecedented ability to influence media content around the globe (NewsCorp). Even if media influence is relatively minimal this presents a worrying level of control over the flow of information on a global level (Arsenault, 2008) and, if media effects are powerful, then these media empires have enormous potential power.

The earliest media effects theories2 were the 'hypodermic needle' or 'magic bullet' models (Scheufele, 2007). These theories posited an extremely powerful effect; that media influenced all audiences in a direct and quantifiable way and that the effects were the same, or similar, for all audience members (Twente). This view of the media, as a hugely powerful force, directly influencing vast and diffuse audiences, gave way in the 1940s to, almost diametrically opposed, 'minimal effects' theory. Minimal effects theory argued that: The mass media are all pervasive but not particularly persuasive (Shaw, 1979). Media, according to this theory, generally reinforced existing attitudes rather than changed them (Scheufele, 2007) and the influence of the media was seen as contingent on social filters and interpersonal cues (Bennett, 2008).
1 Rupert Murdoch's media empire. 2 Which first appeared in the 1920s (SCHEUFELE, D. A. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57, 9.)

The 1970s saw another major paradigm shift (Scheufele, 2007) with new research suggesting that the media was capable of strong effects on audiences. Agenda setting theory, introduced in 1972 (McCombs, 1972), has been described as the cumulative effect of news coverage (Ward, 1995, p. 49) and claims that the media may not be successful in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling people what to think about (Cohen cited inWard, 1995). In essence the theory claims that gate-keeping judgements3 determine societies' perceptions of what is important (Ward, 1995, p. 49-50)4.

The 'spiral of silence' theory (NoelleNeumann, 1974) espoused the idea that society was being conditioned into believing some ideas legitimate, and suitable for public expression, and others not. His paper was prefaced by a quote5; More frightened of isolation than of committing an error, they joined the masses even though they did not agree with them (NoelleNeumann, 1974). NoelleNeumann believed that the masses will self censor in order to not stray from general consensus. So a mass media bias6 misrepresents the public consensus, and in doing so silences opposition7 (NoelleNeumann, 1974).
3 Decisions about what is and is not reported and the prominence it is given. 4 Opponents of agenda setting theory claim that research data is inconclusive because many agenda setting studies have established... a correlation between issues given news coverage and those which people regard as salient but correlation and causation are not synonymous (Ward, 1995, p. 52). Even if causality could be proved it is claimed that any agenda setting effect may vary significantly from issue to issue (Ward, 1995, p. 52-53). 5 Apparently from de Tocqueville, 6 According to Noelle-Neumann the bias is decidedly left-wing (NOELLENEUMANN, E. 1974. The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of communication, 24, 43.) 7 This tendency he saw as a self perpetuating, and self exacerbating, cycle given that the more people were dissuaded from sharing their opinions, through fear of going against the consensus, the more the apparent 'consensus' of society became skewed Ibid..

Cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1974) identified conservative media conglomerates... promoting commercially motivated worldviews as the source of media bias (Scheufele, 2007). Cultivation theory is based on a belief that television distorts rather than mirrors the real world (Ward, 1995, p. 46) and that heavy viewers developed a distorted view of reality8. Cultivation theory also emphasises the homogenising effect of media; how heavy viewers come to view themselves as middle class and to converge towards moderately conservative political views (Ward, 1995)9.

Since the 1980s there has been a proliferation of new approaches with the resulting theories becoming increasingly complex as the media environment has evolved. Two theories which stand out in the vast literature are 'priming' and 'framing'. Both theories assume that the media has great potential power but the strength of these effects are mitigated by predispositions, schema, and other characteristics of the audience (Scheufele, 2007).

Priming theory claims that media content suggests to... audiences that they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and governments (Scheufele, 2007). Some argue that priming is simply an extension of agenda setting because both hold the assumption that attitude formation is based upon the most readily available, salient information

8 Derived from data comparing actual crime rates with public perceptions of crime rates, cultivation theory said that
television's focus on violent crime was gradually cultivating an inaccurate view of their world as being dangerous, violent and criminal (Ward, 1995, p. 43-45). Gerbner's findings appeared to show that viewers who watched television extensively were more likely to exaggerate their own chances of being involved in some type of violence (Ward, 1995, p. 44) 9 Cultivation theory's opponents argue that, rather than a strong correlation, the data points to a very modest cultivation effect (Cook, 1983) or that, while 'cultivation' may occur, it is short-lived and influenced dramatically by other factors (Berkowitz & Rogers cited in Ward, 1995).

(Hastie, 1986)10.

Framing theory11 has its basis in both psychology and sociology and in experiments in 1979 and 1984 ((Kahneman, 1979, Kahneman, 1984) which examined how different presentations of essentially identical decision-making scenarios influence peoples choices and their evaluation of the various options presented to them (Scheufele, 2007). The idea is that the modern world exposes people to so much stimulus that they must apply interpretive schema or 'primary frameworks' to... interpret it meaningfully (Scheufele, 2007) and that these 'frames' can be manipulated through repetition of messages. A knowledgeable viewer will be less affected because they have more salient information on which to draw (Scheufele, 2007).

The rate of change in modern media makes it increasingly difficult to conclusively measure media effects, in large part because a plethora of new media sources have fragmented the audience. Fifty years ago nearly everyone got their news from a small handful of sources and the norms of ethical journalism meant that coverage was almost identical (Bennett, 2008). People now have twenty-four hour access to media from all over the world and many have drifted away from traditional news media (Bennett, 2008). In the 1960s, an advertiser could reach 80 percent of U.S. women with a prime-time spot on the three networks. Today, it has been estimated that the same spot would have to run on one hundred TV channels to reach the same number of viewers (Jenkins cited in Bennett, 2008).

Despite audience fragmentation, media's effect on public opinion remains critical. The plethora of
10 Separating the two theories is difficult because By making some issues more salient in peoples mind (agenda setting), mass media can also shape the considerations that people take into account when making judgements about political candidates or issues (priming) (Scheufele, 2007). 11 Also sometimes called schema theory or information processing theory.

media sources allows viewers to avoid information that does not interest them. This increases the knowledge gap (Bennett, 2008) and can lead to group polarisation which can impede the functioning of democracy (Sunstein, 2002, Cason, 1997)).

It has been claimed that 'balanced' media is a myth and media bias is widespread (Baron, 2006). Media can also represent a bias without behaving unethically; it has been shown that on the issue of climate change the norm of 'balanced' journalism has led to an informational bias as the views of a vocal minority are given equal weight to that of the vast majority of the scientific community (Boykoff, 2004, Oreskes and Conway, 2011).

With media evolving so quickly, it is difficult for any one theory to fully explain the complexity of media effects. In order to build a more conclusive and comprehensive picture the study of media effects needs to take social change into more account (Bennett, 2008) and researchers need to put more thought into the interplay between competing media effects theories (Scheufele, 2007).

Regardless of the lack of a unifying theory, the general consensus among media and communication researchers today seems to be that the media has powerful and potentially damaging effects on society and that we ignore its influence at our peril.

Bibliography ARSENAULT, A. 2008. Switching Power: Rupert Murdoch and the Global Business of Media Politics. International sociology, 23, 488. BARON, D. P. 2006. Persistent media bias. Journal of public economics, 90, 1. BENNETT, W. L. 2008. A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of communication, 58, 707. BOYKOFF, M. T. 2004. Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125. CASON, T. N. 1997. A Laboratory Study in Group Polarisation in the Team Dictator Game. Economic journal, 107, 1465. COOK, T. D. 1983. The implicit assumptions of television research: An analysis of the 1982 NIMH report on television and behavior. Public opinion quarterly, 47, 161. ESSER, F. 1999. Tabloidization'of news. European journal of communication, 14, 291. GERBNER, G. 1974. System of cultural indicators. Public opinion quarterly, 38, 460. HASTIE, R. 1986. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological review, 93, 258. KAHNEMAN, D. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 263. KAHNEMAN, D. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. The American psychologist, 39, 341. MCCOMBS, M. E. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion quarterly, 36, 176. MCRANEY, D. 2011. You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself, Penguin Group USA.

NEWSCORP. News Corporation [Online]. Available: http://www.newscorp.com/ [Accessed 22/08/2011]. NOELLENEUMANN, E. 1974. The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of communication, 24, 43. ORESKES, N. & CONWAY, E. M. M. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Bloomsbury USA. PEARSON, M., BRAND, J., ARCHBOLD, D. & RANE, H. 2001. Sources of News and Current Affairs. Available: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1099&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1#search=%22sources%20news%20current %20affairs%22 [Accessed 22/08/2011]. SCHEUFELE, D. A. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57, 9. SHAW, E. F. 1979. Agenda-setting and mass communication theory. The international communication gazette, 25, 96. SUNSTEIN, C. R. 2002. Republic.com, Princeton University Press. TWENTE, U. O. Hypodermic Needle Theory. Available: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass %20Media/Hypodermic_Needle_Theory.doc/ [Accessed 22/08/2011]. WARD, I. 1995. Agenda-setting and other theories of media effect. The Politics of the Media. South Yarra: Macmillan.