RTV 3007 EXAM 4

Media Theory & Effects p.4

Basic Model of Communication Communication can best be described as a process. Before looking at a number of mass media effect theories, let's break down the communication process into a basic five elements. Pioneering Communication scholar Harold Lasswell described these core components of the communication process. Media Theory and Effects studies look at one or more of these elements. lasswell.pngHarold Lasswell Originators of messages are the "who," or the creators of messages. These are the gatekeepers that select and shape what we see in mass communication messages. Content of messages are often studied in content analyses. This is the "what" of mass communication. Channels of information refer to the medium, or channels in which messages can reach audiences. This can refer to any type of transmission device or platform, including TV, various apps, cable, etc. Audiences then receive messages. Audience analysis research is interested in what audiences see/ listen to what content and channels. Time spent with various media is also a topic of study. Effects of messages. This is the culminating question asked by media effects researchers - What effect does receiving these messages have on audiences? Originators of messages, the content of messages, the channel on which they are delivered, the unique audience characteristics all contribute to the the general question of "to what effect?" Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect? model.jpg Early Media Effects Research Researchers began studying the effects of the mass media because they were afraid of various propaganda efforts during the World Wars of the 20th century. There were even anti-propaganda, propaganda campaigns, as seen below, ha! propoganda.jpgexample-canadian.jpg After WWI, the extent to which all countries had used propaganda campaigns in an attempt to influence their own citizens and citizens of other countries became apparent. Concerns grew about individuals being mindless drones that soaked up any information put in front of them. After the war, commercial radio began and was in the homes of every American - furthering concern that messages were getting inside the heads of Americans and they were likely to be influenced by. The dominant view during the 1920's and 1930's was one of a strong media effects on largely passive audiences. Researchers assumed information (and misinformation) had an injection, or bullet-type effect: Strong messages were directly absorbed by audiences. This simplistic view of strong media influence on passive audiences is referred to both as the hypodermic needle/ injection theory or approach and the magic bullet theory of mass media effects. What about this perspective may be wrong, or fail to capture the whole picture? Well, most of us don't think we're passive, unthinking targets, who upon hearing a message automatically believe it and adjust our behavior accordingly. Surely media messages have some influence on some people (otherwise commercial media would be in big trouble - if advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry). Today's view of society and media effects is quicker to adapt assumptions that audiences are active - that they make choices about content and mediums and can critically evaluate media. A magic bullet perspective also doesn't account for individuals' experiences, intelligence, opinions, personalities, etc. - factors we now know effect media influence. In the 1940's mass media effects research saw the addition of an intervening variable in the simple process of communication first introduced by Lasswell. Katz and Lazarfield introduced the concept of opinion-leaders. Two_Step_Flow_Theory-1-1.png The two-step flow model of communication basically posits that media influence often passes through influential opinion leaders. Interpersonal influence is often a mediator of effects between messages and individuals. This model maintains that individuals play a greater role than media messages for people's attitudes and behaviors. Media Effects research Moving Forward The field of communication was built on these basic principles. Then, in the 1970's a burst of different mass media theories were hypothesized and subsequently supported by empirical research. These theories are based on different assumptions than those in the 1920's through 1950's. First, most theories assume that media influence happens over time, and that media influences are reinforced by new media experiences and interpersonal influences. Effects of media are often powerful, but they are hard to isolate and measure Researchers recognize that selective exposure and selective perception are a large part of media effects. Basically, people select and attend to media content that that already fit in into their attitudes and perspectives. thus selective exposure to media reinforces previously held attitudes and perspectives. In the next few pages, We summarize some of the big ones and pay special attention to an issue in the media that always gets a lot of attention: Violence.

Media Theory & Effects p.5

Below are snapshots of several theories discussed in your text, such as Spiral of Silence theory, the third-person effect, agenda-setting theory, uses and gratifications, and the elaboration-likelihood model. Please be sure to read more details about each of these theories in the text. While you are reading about these theories, it will be helpful to ry to think of the types of research questions about media and humans that each theory could help you understand better. Spiral of Silence This theory basically says that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority. This theory was based heavily on an individual's fear of isolation for expressing a minority opinion, based in information conveyed in the media about what the dominant opinion is and how pervasive it is. It assumes that audiences are subject to strong effects from the media - they basically shut their mouths when they perceive that their opinions are in the minority (note - this is based on their perceptions of public opinion, not actual opinions). Continued research on this topic has demonstrated that a number of individual difference variables actually influence willingness to speak out. So, this theory was created in a time way before the Internet and social media - how might more voices being heard contribute to perceptions about dominant public opinion about various civic issues? Do you think that there are more voices and safe places for people to voice minority opinions, or do you think that more mediums and channels of information only serve to reinforce the dominant view? Sample study idea using Spiral of Silence: If you were interested in opinion-sharing about presidential candidate preference on twitter, you could examine what various people on twitter perceived to be the dominant favorite, and then how likely they were to tweet about their own opinion and look at differences in whether they perceived theor opinion as being the dominant or minority one. Third-person Effect This is a relatively simple phenomenon: A person exposed to a persuasive communication in the mass media sees it as having a greater effect on others than on himself. I'm not effected by it, and you might not be effected by it, but THEY are. None of us think that we're more violent because we watch violent content, and none of us think that we are so naive to be persuaded by campaign ads; likewise, none of us would think we show any of the documented negative effects of watching pornography (including decreased satisfaction with sexual partners and unrealistic views of body image and types). We tend to think that individuals more socially distant are the most likely to be effected: Those most unlike you and me (who are way to smart to be effected) could be persuaded or suffer negative effects. This is an important, well-documented with empirical data finding. Can you think of a time you thought that media content might influence others, but not yourself? Maybe sometimes it can (i.e., children are susceptible to various effects adults aren't because their brains aren't done growing). However, this exaggerated belief of the media having negative effects on distant others could have important policy ramifications related to access to content and censorship. Sample Study Idea using the Third-person effect: If you were interested in how people thought the violence portrayed in Skyrim - a violent video game - increased aggression, you could do a survey that asked players and non-players if they thought the game had a negative effect on them, on their friends, on the general public etc. You would expect that people would say they weren't influenced negatively by the game, but that others - with increasing social distance - were. Agenda-Setting Agenda-Setting is a theory by McCombs and Shaw first published in 1974. These researchers thought that the news media didn't have all powerful, magic-bullet type of effects on potential voters but were interested in examining how, in fact, does the news media influence individuals? The hypothesis that they set out to test - and then found support for and built a theory around is simple: "The Media doesn't tell you what to THINK, but it does tell you what to THINK ABOUT." In other words, the news media has an extraordinary power to set the relevant agenda items of the day. If you read and watch about the government shut-down every morning and night - it is not rocket science for you to interpret that the government shutting down is an important news item. However, balanced media coverage of the government shutdown is not incredibly effective of telling you who to blame for the shutdown. We are not robots who believe the first opinion we see on the news - but round-the-clock coverage transfers salience, or importance, to certain issues. Because of the gatekeeping function of the press - they let some news in and keep others news out - the news media has the ability to select what gets covered - and how much importance the weight of that coverage receives. Agenda-Setting theory does NOT propose that the news media presents political news and it automatically shapes political attitudes - just that by conveying the importance of the issues at hand, the news media is able to signal to individuals what issues should be attended to, and should be used in their attitude formation and change. The media is what sets the focus on "Jobs" or "The economy" - but stops short of telling you exactly what to think about the issues. News content agenda items (e.g. "Jobs," "unfinished construction," "immigration") largely matches up with what the public thinks are the pressing issues of the day. The original research accompanying the theory set out to examine if what Chapel Hill area voters said were the key issues of the campaign, matched up to the key issues presented in the mass media during the campaign period. So, they surveyed 100 undecided voters on what they saw as the key issues of the campaign, and then performed a content analysis on the top information sources for campaign information: Newspapers, newsmagazines, & evening news broadcasts and looked for overlaps in topics/ issues. So, what did they find? While candidates spent differential amounts of time on each issue - voters' salient issues reflected all media coverage - not just what one candidate is saying. The public's perceptions of important issues were those that were more prominent in the media. Additionally, the media spent a lot of coverage just talking about the campaign itself. What about Agenda-Setting theory might be different in today's media technology environment? Sample Study idea with Agenda-Setting Theory: If you were interested in how local media highlighted various local issues, for example, homelessness or the new Sunrail line, you could examine what was covered in local news and then ask citizens of the area what they think are the most important issues of the day facing Orlandoians. You would expect the list of most-covered topics, and topics judged to be the most important to have a lot of overlap. Uses & Gratifications Basics Uses and gratifications is a theory from the academic communication literature introduced by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch in 1974. It was developed in a time that psychological approaches - looking at an individual's attitudes, emotions, thoughts, existing knowledge structures, and other differences across individuals - was just coming into vogue. So, when U&G came out with the basic premise that media users actively seek out specific media to meet their needs, or gratifications, it really was a novel idea in the field, based on the previous prominence of the magic bullet theory and other simplistic models of large effects on passive audiences. It may make complete sense to us in today's current media landscape, but especially in an environment where there was considerably less media choices to make and considerably less interactivity, it has been an important first step in exploring how and why individuals make choices about the media they do. There are several important assumptions of uses and gratifications theory: Media users are active audiences - communication behavior is goal-directed and motivated. People are not passive sponges who absorb all media messages. Behavior is functional and it has consequences People select media to meet their needs. The Media doesn't use people, people use the media - this puts the locus of control in the human-media interaction firmly on the humans' side. Social & psychological factors influence individuals' media behaviors, Personality, predispositions, our environments, and interpersonal interactions shape media choices. These various social and psychological factors filter the media we choose and use. Media compete with other forms of communication. There are functional alternative ways of meeting our needs or satisfying gratifications. Media compete among themselves but also with interpersonal interaction to meet needs. Other people, i.e. Interpersonal Communication, are often more influential than media. U&G is traditionally about not at all or less interactive media. How does that translate in a world of computer-mediated communication? So, to use Uses & Gratifications in a study, researchers typically look at the Gratifications Sought from various types of media use. Gratifications Sought can be defined as "the seeking of a valued outcome, mediated by the expectancy of obtaining that outcome" (Palmgreen & Rayburn). This is what drives people to use media, or some other communication tool. Some common TV-viewing GS are: To learn something As a habit/ to pass time Companionship Escape Arousal, excitement Relaxation When these needs are met by the media or communication tool we select, we can use the term Gratifications Obtained to describe them.GO, then, can be defined as, "the perceived outcome of engaging in a particular behavior" (Palmgreen & Rayburn). So we might have the Gratifications Sought of escape and arousal/ excitement and decide to watch a show to meet those needs. One or both could be met, and become Gratifications Obtained, if we successfully feel like the episode of Pretty Little Liars, or Breaking Bad allows us some degree of escapism and excitement - we're able to feel transported even. However, Gratifications could not be obtained if the power goes out and you have to stop watching, or if your roommate keeps bothering you, or, (God forbid) the episode just isn't that great and you don't feel a sense of escapism or excitement. Like "The Fly" episode in a previous Breaking Bad season :) We can use a particular type of content, or a particular media technology/ medium (e.g. TV, twitter, hulu) to meet our needs, or gratifications (e.g. learn something/information-seeking, to pass the time, to relax). Understanding what the "Uses" and what the "gratifications" are is the first step to fully understanding this approach. Sample Study Idea with uses and gratifications: If you were interested in why people of different ages used Facebook, you could do a survey with all ages of people which asked them why they used facebook (ex. to connect with geographically distant others, to relax, to kill time, etc.) Then, you could look at differences across age groups. Elaboration Likelihood Model Is a theory detailing HOW A source (e.g. expertise, attractiveness) A message (e.g. number/ quality of arguments) And Context (e.g. distractions, ability, individual differences) Impact attitudes toward objects, issues, and people via 2 routes to persuasion: the Central route the Peripheral route Which route to persuasion is enacted is largely determined by a person's motivation and ability to process the message. The images below detail the difference in the two routes to persuasion, or types of processing. Which route do you think we use more? Well, the world is too complex to use central route processing in response to every persuasive message we see, so we typically only use the central route to persuasion when an issue is salient or personally relevant to us. Messages that processed via the central route lead to stronger, more resistant to change attitude change. Slide05.png Slide06.png Slide07.png Sample study idea using the Elaboration Likelihood Model: If you were interested if Sharper Image (a technology/ gadget store) ads were more persuasive if they either showed a half naked Megan Fox who acted as a peripheral cue, or if ads presented strong arguments to customers who were interested in the product that encouraged central route processing, you could do an experiment where you exposed participants to the two different types of ads and measured how persuasive each of them were. In the next couple of modules, we'll conclude this section of the course on media effects by examining theories that are used to explain relationships between media exposure and aggressive behavior.

Communications Act, Licensing, & Structural Regulation p. 3-3

Broadcast Licensing In addition to licensees being U.S. citizens or corporations owned primarily by U.S. citizens, there are three major qualifications licensees must meet: Character - licensees must have no criminal background or "defects in character" Financial resources - licensees must demonstrate the ability to construct and operate for 90 days without revenue Technical ability- licensees must show how the proposed station will get maximum physical coverage without causing objectionable interference to existing stations. There are several ways to get a station license. Most often, station licenses are renewed without issue. However, proceedings to deny renewal and petitions to deny renewals are rarely heard as well. (See Exhibit 11.d on p. 245 for an example). As described on the previous page, the FCC can revoke licenses given violations of the policies it sets - however, these are long processes and stations are ensured many avenues to make sure the due process clause is being met. Cable "licensing" or franchising follows a pattern different from broadcasting. It is licensed at the local and state (rather than federal) level due to using streets and public property. Although local franchising is the norm around the country, in 2007, Florida began licensing cable at the state level through the Department of State. Of course, federal cable laws that contain provisions covering subscriber fees, ownership rules, equal employment opportunities, programming, customer service, and technical standards still apply to all. Basically, the Cable Communications Act of 1984 created a new Title VI of the Communications Act that established a loose deregulatory framework for cable TV. Then, the 90's saw a seesaw, or going-back-and-forth swings of more cable regulations or more cable deregulation. Several specific things to know about cable regulations and franchising are: Local stations still have the right of must-carry, the simple stipulation that makes cable systems responsible for carrying the signal of locally licensed stations Retransmission consent goes a step further than must-carry. It is a stipulation put into place in 1992 that allows full-power local stations to give cable systems consent to carry their signal - following negotiations where the station proposes the cable system operator pay cash in order to carry their signal, or ask for some other type of consideration/deal. When you hear about Time Warner, or Bright House, or Comcast dropping CBS because of retransmission consent issues, it is because they can't settle on a price. In such a case, CBS is likely trying to increase the fees for its O&Os and other channels like Showtime but the cable providers (Time Warner and Bright House) are refusing to pay the asking price. It is in the best interest of stations, networks, and cable system operators to come to an agreement on this. A TV station that broadcasts on a specific channels (ex. 2, 9) can demand carriage on the same channel from the cable system - so WESH 2 is always WESH 2 - whether you have U-Verse, Bright House, or an antenna. Regulation of basic tier cable services is allowed by the FCC, but premium/pay-cable (ex. HBO, Showtime) is not. To Regulate or Deregulate? First Amendment theory stresses the value of information and opinion: It promotes "a marketplace of ideas" and prevents the monopolization of the electronic media, Government limits the number and kinds of media outlets that any one entity can own. For about 50 years beginning in 1940, regulations prevented a company from owning more than one station of one type (VHF vs UHF) in a market. That kind of restriction became a thing of the past beginning in the 1980s. Deregulation policies were championed by people who sought to discard outdated rules, simplify unnecessarily complex rules, ensure that rules which remained could actually achieve their objectives, to lighten admin agency loads, and to encourage rapid development of new technologies. The trend in the current media landscape is definitely that of increased deregulation. What are some positive effects of deregulation? It has sped up FCC actions, which are often criticized for being long and cumbersome It can eliminated outdated rules It may encourage development of new technology - an over-regulated market can stifle creativity and put a ceiling on growth and innovation It has given audiences more program choices However, there are points on the other side as well. What are the negative effects of media deregulation? It tends to put business interests ahead of public, for example, regulating basic tier cable services helps safeguard consumers from exorbitant prices, it doesn't help cable systems make money. It has led to industry consolidation - which might serve to stifle new voices and creativity as well No matter how economically functional it is for for media businesses to consolidate, media consolidation leads to loss of jobs for media professionals Decreased media competition - we've talked earlier in the semester about how viewer voices have implications on the voices and perspectives we see in the media.

Constitutional Issues and Content Regulation p. 1

Constitutional Issues and Content Regulation In this module, we'll cover the following issues: First Amendment Rights & Broadcasting's Limited Rights Obscenity & Indecency Political and Public Access Children's Broadcasting regulations Copyright The First Amendment While chapter 11 covered the limits and regulations that the government -- through the FCC -- imposes on media, chapter 12 starts with a discussion of the rights of individuals and organizations to speak and write freely. The source of many Constitutional issues involving broadcasting that provide for these rights is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . ." Freedoms of speech and press were intended from the start to encourage a wide-open marketplace of ideas. An ability for a variety of voices to be heard is an important part of the democracy in which we live. In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that "there is no such thing as a false idea." This encourages disagreement and opposing viewpoints, and it protects statements that fall short of inciting "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil." Free speech and free press is very basically freedom from government censorship and from prior restraint, i.e., preventing someone in advance of making statements or otherwise publishing something in the future. Are broadcasting and print treated equally under the law in terms of the 1st Amendment? No. Broadcasting faces more imposing, or strict legislation. Each new communication medium must be judged on its own unique characteristics. So, why would broadcasters be treated differently than newspapers or cable services? Scarcity. Broadcast TV is held to different standards in part because there is a limited amount of space on the electromagnetic spectrum. There could plausibly be any number of newspapers. Conflict in licenses. Due to scarcity, stations must serve the public interest in some way - a vaguely stated goal of broadcast stations that does not have to be present for cable, print, or Internet media sources. Intrusive nature. The broadcast signals are everywhere. They are in our homes all the time and we can't choose not to have them in our homes. All a person needs to do is turn on a receiver (radio or TV) and they have the broadcast. The receivers are ubiquitous -- TVs and radios are available in nearly every home. Newspapers, books, and cable TV are all invited into your home. You have to take a variety of steps (including paying a fee of some sort) to have access. Even though most consumers at home don't worry about whether the TV station they're viewing is cable or broadcast, several differences between them often makes cable TV content less regulated than broadcast TV content. First Amendment Issues? Do you remember the Don Imus scandal from several years ago? Here is a short news story and video: http://www.today.com/id/18072804/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/cbs-fires-don-imus-radio-show/#.U0b0r_ldV8E (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. recapping the events leading up to the National Association of Broadcaster's Hall of Fame radio host being fired after calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed hos." Similarly, do you recall the Paula Deen scandal from more recently? The Food Network cancelled Deen's show (and she lost several endorsement deals after she testified to saying the N-word and saying that having waiters dressed as slaves for an antebellum-themed wedding sounded "lovely." Here's a quick link to that scandal information: http://www.eonline.com/news/434299/paula-deen-scandal-timeline-everything-we-know-about-her-career-threatening-n-word-controversy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Were these cases First Amendment Issues? alg-radio-don-imus-jpg.jpg Paula-Deen.jpg No, not really. The First Amendment provides protection from governmental action - not from action by private parties. Neither of these figures said something that is classified as obscene or "fighting words." The government didn't step in and say that these figures couldn't say the things that they were saying. Editorial control is not censorship. They said things that offended the public - which in turn resulted in advertisers pulling out of each of their shows - which in turn meant less money for the radio and TV networks to keep them on - so they cancelled their shows, at least for some period of time. Like everything else in commercial media, utilizing editorial control when your content becomes controversial and/or offensive to your audiences comes down to the bottom line: making money.

Media Theory & Effects p.7

Cultivation Theory One observation regarding the effects of violent media is summer up in the observation that increased TV exposure has been linked to increased fear of crime. This is an offshoot of the work pioneered by George Gerbner's Cultivation Theory. First, let's look at the theory's basics and assumptions, and talk about some empirically found relationships. Cultivation Theory Assumptions (these are assumed by the theoretical perspective - not necessarily tested) Created by George Gerbner and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania in the mid-late 1970's. It started as a three-pronged approach to studying media violence. First, by studying the people creating, producing and showing the content, second, by doing widespread content analyses of network TV content to count and characterize TV violence. And lastly, and the largest of the approaches - examine the effects of TV viewing across Americans by surveying them on TV, media use, and a host of variables about their opinions and views toward crime and other disparities between the "TV world" and the "Real World." This theory of media effects came about in a cultural environment dominated by TV - specifically by the Big 3 Networks - ABC, NBC, and CBS. The media landscape was much smaller - it afforded much less choice, and much, much less interactivity. The theory views television viewing as a mass ritual & ritualistic in nature. More important than any one show or type of show, is that viewing TV is treated as part of the routine of every day life. TV is the great storyteller of our times - a role that used to be filled by religion, cultural groups, and older family members passing down stories through the generations. TV presents a coherent set of images and messages - designed to appeal to mass audience. Their content analyses typically did not show much variability in amount of violence portrayed across the three networks. Over time, the researchers working within this approach recognized that it was no longer "Big Three" Network era, but maintained that there's no greater diversity in content. TV especially is still target toward a mass audience, and greater media concentration now than ever before leads to a smaller set of voices creating all of the content- which makes it homogeneous. The Basics of the theory are that those who spend more time with TV are more likely to perceive the real world as more similar to the TV world than those who view less TV. The TV world differs from the real world in several ways, but key among them is that the TV world is much more violent than the real world. Research asks survey respondents about how much TV they watch and then ask them a number of items about crime - namely about how often acts of violent crime occur, or how likely any one person is to be victimized by violent crime, and about perceptions of the world being a mean, scary place. Overall, there are small, but significant effects, that demonstrate that increased TV viewing (across all genres and channels) was related to increased estimates of real world violence and increased fear of violence and that the world was a dangerous, mean place. Cultivation theory basically proposes that the more time you spend with TV, the more your view of the real, social world around you is shaped by what you see on TV - which is close enough to the real world for you to associate the two, but is not truly representative the real world. In addition to findings about the heavy viewers (here, always compared to lighter viewers of TV - there were very few complete non-viewers in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.) overestimate the prevalence of violent crime, some other general findings were found in differences in views about the real world among heavy and light viewers of TV. For instance, heavy viewers of TV were more likely to be optimistic about marriage than light viewers, but they were also more likely to have a balanced, realistic view of marriage - one that included ups and downs. Heavy viewers are more likely than light viewers to desire occupations with both lots of time off for vacation, but also that make a lot of money. One can easily see how this is a norm portrayed more clearly on TV than in real life. (Most high-status, well-paying jobs don't also offer premium amounts of vacation time). Heavy viewers are also more likely to endorse stereotypical gender role views. This follows content analyses that show women and men are often placed in much more gender-specific jobs on TV than there are in the real world. For instance there are a lot of nurses and school teachers on TV (which are largely female-dominated fields in TV and in the real world) as well as top business owners/ CEOs and police/ firemen (fields largely dominated by men, on TV and off). Heavy TV viewers also tend to know less about science and the environment than light viewers of TV - although maybe something like this has changed with all of the additional content in the History channel, Discovery, etc. - it could be an interesting research study! More recent cultivation theory-inspired work (in the past 10-15 years) has found more evidence that the type of content a person views matters in making reality judgments about the real world based on the TV world. This may be an effect of the great increase in content choices we have. Instead of research finding convincing evidence that overall TV viewing leads to overestimates of violent crime in the real world, some recent research has found that the viewing of local TV news and crime dramas, specifically, is related to an increase in estimates of violence and fear of crime. A different study that those who were heavy viewers of reality dating shows, as compared to those who were occasional or non-viewers of reality dating shows, were more likely to report an increased belief in a sexual double standard (where women are penalized for promiscuity but men are heralded for it), and increased belief that physical appearance is very important in dating, and an increased belief that "dating is a game." Interestingly, although beliefs about dating, relationships, and sex were affected by the viewing reality dating shows, actual sexual and dating behavior was not - there were no differences in behavior across the two groups. Well... that's a lot of information. Be sure to take the time to read the text and understand these theories and concepts.

Media Theory & Effects p.6

If we are going to discuss media effects related to violence, we need to address some basic questions first. What does violence look like on TV? So, just how violent is TV content? (Source: Henry Kaiser Foundation) Violence is present in 57% of all TV programming (all day parts) During prime-time, 67% of Broadcast; 64% of Cable, & 92% of all premium cable shows have some violence The average person is likely to watch 100 acts of violence on TV in a week - almost all of ti sanitized or camouflaged with humor. Less than 5% of shows with violence showed a pro-social message emphasizing alternatives to violence or consequences for violence Average kid watches 2 hours of TV/day → 10,000 violent acts/year: This is what concerns parents and motivates public debate. Why is there so much violence on TV? One simple reason is that it is an easy dramatic device to employ. Most entertainment content, and nearly all narrative entertainment content revolve around actions leading up to a conflict and then follow the resolution or aftermath of a conflict. When violence serves as part of the action sequence, it is clear to viewers that this is the part of the story with violence. What does this violence look like? The reading suggests that how violence is portrayed is much more important than If we define violence as physical acts of aggression directed toward some living being what do these types of violence say about what we watch for entertainment? The clip below is a highlight reel of cartoon violence as featured in the age-old Tom & Jerry cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWHvysF9IBw (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. What shows on TV do you think are particularly violent? This is a promo for Criminal Minds. I find it disturbing - you may choose not to watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wer2tyByzWI (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. I find that promo and the show in general to be extremely violent - it seems like every week they're showing new ways to torture women who are tied up in cellars. In any one episode of Criminal Minds it isn't that a extremely large number of people are hurt or killed, but the nature of the presentation of violence is particularly graphic and offensive - the two main criteria used by the public to rail against violence in the media. How violence is portrayed matters quite a bit. Action/Adventure sequences differ from graphic depictions of violence. Think about how less offensive a good shoot 'em up action sequence is as compared to a torture scene. It is much easier for most people to watch action sequences where people often get shot and then just disappear off screen. Think about what death looks like in James Bond movie, in films with action stars like Schwarzenegger or Stallone, as compared to the torture scenes in Zero Dark 30, or gory scenes in things like The Hills Have Eyes, Saw 17, or The Texas Chainsaw Murder. We tend to ignore violence that is NOT offensive (i.e. eliciting a negative response). Sanitized violence is that with the graphic-ness removed. And, we ignore violence camouflaged in humor. Let's consider a number of important Context Variables that influence how violence in the media is perceived by viewers: The nature of the perpetrator. Is it the good guy or the bad guy perpetrating violence? Who we are rooting for matters here. How much we identify with a character influences how we perceive violence. If we identify with the victim of violence, we perceive the violence as more wrong than when we identify and root for the person committing violence. Justification of violence. why would we root for someone to be violent? Sometimes, it is just cool (see Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta's characters in Pulp Fiction), but often times we like to see people get what they deserve. We often find violence to be justifiable if it is perceived as righting some wrong or some necessary sacrifice to and end. No huge giveaways from the Breaking Bad series finale, but there was one death that was relatively gory that I almost felt bad for enjoying as much as I did. I really enjoyed it. (I am not a monster I swear). Rewards & Punishments. People's perceptions of violence depend on if those acts of violence are rewarded or punished. Most violence goes unpunished in entertainment TV. When violent acts are punished - it is most often punished with more violence - and the "bad guys," not the "good guys" suffer consequences from being violent toward others. Presence of weapons. The presence of weapons makes portrayals of violence almost inevitably more graphic and perceived as more negative. Degree of Realism. Some awful things happened to some nice enough animals in that cartoon violence clip. But, it obviously wasn't perceived as negative and scary as it would have been if those were actual, real people. Cartoons are low in perceptual persuasiveness (an important reality dimension here). The more real the violence seems - the more true to every day life and plausible - the more distressing those portrayals may be. Some researchers such as James Potter call attention to the nature of violence portrayals and the "irony" of sanitized violence: What is ironic about the type of violence people complain about? Potter says:People complain about graphic, offensive violence in an attempt to pressure programmers to eliminate it - but what they should be complaining about is the large majority of violence that doesn't offend them - when violence doesn't offend us, that is the best evidence of violent media having an effect on us over time. That a large majority of violence goes without complaint is evidence of desensitization to violence, or a diminished or lack of response to the same emotionally significant stimuli over time. Sanitized violence - that which is shown as less graphic by showing less harm to the victims or masks harm with humor - is very prevalent, and a big problem according to this view. This presents an opinion that is somewhat in opposition to the common calls for the media to cool it with portrayals of violence: Seeing the effects of violence in a realistic way should NOT harm individuals (of an appropriate age) - Seeing the awful consequences of violence should make us think seriously about it. If we really saw the aftermath of what a human body goes through after a gunshot every single time a person was shot with a gun, it may serve as a powerful reminder of what guns and other firearms are actually capable of.

Media Theory & Effects p.3

Important Distinctions 1. Relationships among variables in our data can be described in 2 ways: They are associated or they are causal. Associations - Two variables are statistically related beyond chance. Ice cream sales and violent crime are associated. Falling asleep with your shoes on and waking up with a headache may very well be associated. Causation - A causal relationship between variables demonstrates a directional influence of one variable over another. This goes a step beyond association and it must determine that the influencing variable came before the thing being influenced. Causation can be inferred from experimental design or theory. It is much harder to demonstrate. The variable causing an effect in another is called the independent variable, and the variable being explained by, or caused by, the independent variable is called the dependent variable. So, a simple survey that looked at pre-teen boys' trait aggressiveness (by administering previously validated scales) and exposure to violent media content (by asking them and their parents about time spent with various types of media) could find a statistically significant effect such that the more time boys spent with violent media, the higher trait aggressiveness they demonstrated on the scales. That would be an association, but they didn't establish a time-order relationship between aggressiveness and violent media exposure. Surveys are notoriously difficult if not impossible to use to establish which thing caused another thing to happen. Even though the survey found a relationship that exists beyond random chance, the date does not tell us if exposure to violent media makes boys more aggressive, or if aggressive boys seek out aggressive content more. An experiment could expose a number of boys to violent media and then measure how aggressive they behave in a subsequent activity, like a video game, or face-to-face interaction - but, that doesn't get at long-term effects. See how quickly looking at just two concepts can become very messy? Many things are associated that are not caused by one another. For instance, murder rates and ice cream sales increase during the same months and decrease during the same months. Does eating a whole pint of Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia cause people to commit murder? No. Warmer weather brings out increases across the country brings out higher murder rates and ice cream sales. 2. The second important data distinction to understand is the significance vs. the magnitude of a given effect. Significance: A research result is significant when the difference found is due to an actual difference in the population (i.e. one you're looking for) and not due to a bad sample of your population. Referred to as p, when p<.05 (often marked by an asterisk) it reaches the criteria to be called significant. Findings are not more or less significant. They either meet the .05 criteria or they do not. Magnitude: The magnitude of a finding is how big of an effect there is. A finding can be significant, but have a small effect size, or magnitude. This makes it less helpful in a practical sense. The larger the magnitude of an effect denotes the extent to which the predictor variable exerted influence over the variable being predicted. Language to look for here includes "variance explained," as well as t and F values. You can compare the relative weights of multiple predictor variables influence on the predicted, or dependent variable. OK, now, please read this very short article about TV ratings and twitter (Only read it once):http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/206199/twitter-has-solid-impact-on-live-tv-ratings.html#axzz2bINyvgIq (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Did you understand if the relationship between tweets and ratings was associated or causal? Which one caused the other? Was it a significant effect? A large effect? doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif WHO KNOWS? It is a horribly reported article. The article author doesn't seem to understand "significance," so it is placed in scare quotes. There is no effect size, or magnitude of the effects listed, nor a description of the relative weights of influence, so we don't know how important of a finding this is. I don't expect you to understand complex multivariate stats (and I won't in this course, relax), but a clearer explanation of how tweets can both influence ratings and ratings can influence tweets is definitely needed. What is the direction of tweets influencing ratings, or ratings influencing tweets?The article effectively says the chicken dropped the egg and the egg born the chicken. They misrepresent 48% on the first mention - that high of a number was only found for reality shows as it clearly states two graphs down. The headline and last paragraph overstate the effect as a thing that happens - their own numbers say that it only effects 29%- 49% of shows, so actually, in most cases, there's been no demonstrated relationship between tweets and ratings.

Constitutional Issues and Content Regulation p. 2

Limited Rights of Broadcasting It's important to remember that the First Amendment.protects a person against infringements of the right to voice their opinions and criticize the government. As Paula Dean and Imus found out, although the First Amendment gives us a right to free speech, our free speech rights are not absolute -- you can't simply say anything you want. There are three general categories of things you can not say, i.e., unprotected speech. They are: Defamation (includes libel and slander) Invasions of Privacy Obscenity Libel is defamation by published untrue words that may expose their subject to public hatred, shame, or disgrace. Whereas, Slander is spoken defamation. In media, even if the the defamatory words are spoken on TV or the radio, it is considered libel because the words are published as part of the broadcast. Libel and slander do not cover opinions and satire. So, anyone can say that they don't like a politician. A person can say that a politician is a jerk, or an idiot, or any other number of negative things. What that person can't say, when it is untrue and intended to cause them harm, is that a politician accepted bribes or committed adultery - these are not opinions, they are stated as facts. And when they are untrue and meet the condition of actual malice, they are defamatory. Please see Exhibit 12.b (p. 261) on NY Times vs. Sullivan for the background leading up to the actual malice condition of libel and slander. This is a key distinction. Is defaming someone on broadcast (TV, cable, radio) considered libel or slander? It is actually considered libel, for two main reasons. First it is publishing the untrue, harmful speech: there is a publishable record of it that could be re-played over and over again. Secondly, broadcasting defaming speech carries the message far and wide - to many different audiences in different locations. Libel and slander should be illegal because a country has an obvious motive for protecting it's citizens. However, the ability for investigative journalism to protect citizens from dishonest practices and people is also an important part of our democracy. Libel and slander suits are typically settled before going to trial - Even when the media win, libel suits can be very expensive and can have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. Other Restrictions on Broadcasting Invasions of Privacy: Individual rights of privacy are implied n the Fourth Amendment. Although these rights have not been as clear as libel law, several individual privacy rights have been identified, including the right to physical solitude, protection from intrusion on private property, or publication of a person's private life, protection from being presented in a "false light," and protection from unauthorized use of a person's name for commercial gain. Importantly, public officials, performers, and people involved in news events have less of a right to privacy based on legitimate public interest in the events surrounding them. However, privacy laws still limit the media and generally support individual privacy rights. One current issue in the news that I've seen recently that touches on both privacy rights and fighting words are various "ex revenge" websites. These sites host a variety of information that individuals supply about their ex-partners, which often include pornographic or naked photos or video, or everyday details about a person - where they work, live, etc. Most often lawsuits by the ex's whose privacy has been violated are tried in civil suits because criminal law is playing catch up with applying privacy laws to a new medium (and, as we can recall from the chapter, each new medium has to be treated uniquely). Here is a brief story detailing a big victory for privacy laws in a recent civil suit: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Jury-awards-500-000-in-revenge-porn-lawsuit-5257436.php (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Do you think this is an invasion of privacy? How should the law handle cases such as these? "fighting words:" It is illegal to say things that are likely to lead to injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. Traditionally, it's talked about as the yelling fire in a crowded movie theater example. You can't do that. AF101fire-in-a-crowded-theater.png Free press vs. Fair trial: There are limits placed on coverage of news trials that try to balance the notions of a free press and the rights of individuals to due process and a fair trail, both present in the Constitution. In general, cameras and video are permitted in criminal cases, but not in federal courtrooms. Broadcast Hoaxes: The FCC can take action against a broadcaster for intentional hoaxes. This dates back to Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938, which resulted in widespread panic across the country. You can't make up serious news stories and scare people and divert emergency resources. Because. Illegal lotteries: These can be punished with fines and jail time and have changed how broadcasters design promotions. Promotional contests now do not have a price or consideration for entry, choosing of winners (as compared to winning by chance), nor do they have prizes of value.

Constitutional Issues and Content Regulation p. 3-3

Obscenity and Indecency What is indecent speech and is it protected under the First Amendment? FCC Indecency definition: ..."language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent speech IS protected; Obscene speech is NOT. Defining obscenity is based on 3 parts from the 1973 Miller Supreme Court case. FCC Obscenity definition: "works which, as a whole, appeal to prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" Obscene content has absolutely mo First Amendment protection. So, censors can not condemn an entire work due to several vulgar words, they can not use outdated standards no longer prevelant in a community, nor can they apply standards of a hypersensitive person, etc. In short, Miller case gives censors very clear guidelines on making decision on whether something is obscene or not. The obscenity test considers the following considerations: Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find the work appeals to the prurient interest Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value While indecent material is protected under the First Amendment, it is still subject to limitations. Indecent material may be restricted in order to avoid broadcasting it during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. this led to the development of the "safe harbor" of 10 p.m. - 6 a.m., where airing of indecent material is permitted. Broadcasting (radio and network TV) of indecent material outside of the safe harbor can result in hefty fines. What prompted the creation of the safe harbor? The Pacifica court case. Pacifica was the licensee of WBAI-FM in New York, which broadcast "Filthy Words," a stand-up set on the words you can't say on television by comedian George Carlin in 1978. You do not have to watch the clip - but if you're interested in just how indecent the stand-up set was, here's a link to a video highlight of Carlin performing the same material live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. A complaint was made by a man who heard the broadcast - complete with 106 mentions of the seven words Carlin joked you could not say on TV in 12 minutes - with his teenage son. The man was associated with an a group called "Morality in Media," and was the singular complaint about this broadcast. A complaint was filed by this man and the FCC responded by fining the network (Pacifica). In Supreme court, the FCC argued that children must be protected from objectionable content by channeling it to a part of the day when children are least likely to be in the audience. The High Court agreed: broadcasting content like this 1 p.m. would not be permissible, because it is likely that children could be listening/ watching. And so, safe harbor law was adopted. Over time, standards concerning profane language (defined as "language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."have loosened over time. Many cite cable programming as a large cause of increased acceptance of profane speech. There seems to be evidence - in terms of viewer ratings and support of programming that highlight profane language - that there is a growing audience that wants edgier material. With the advent of content creators like Netlfix and any number of online sites that are completely unregulated by the FCC, it becomes more normal for audiences to see content with "profane" language. Regulating profanity can be a tricky issue, and the FCC has been viewed as going back and forth on regulations over the years. For example, before 2004, the FCC did not fine stations that aired an occasional offensive word (a "fleeting expletive") when it was used as adjective or interjection. But after Bono accepted Golden Globe award and made one such fleeting expletive remark, the FCC was besieged with complaints. The FCC ruled it wasn't indecent but bowed to pressure, and ruled that henceforth, such language would be actionable. However, the tougher policy has been overturned in higher courts. Regulating non-broadcast media has proven to be no easy feat either. The law goes back & forth on cable regulation - currently, the Pacifica decision and test does not apply, and the Justice Department is federal authority on obscene content on cable. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 made indecent/obscene content available to children via Internet illegal, however, the court later struck down the indecency portion because it was too vague and unenforceable.

Constitutional Issues and Content Regulation p. 4

Political & Public Access Equal Opportunities - this stipulates that equal amounts of time but also access to equivalent audiences and equal financial arrangements must be made for candidates to be heard via broadcast. Congress later amended Section 315 to exempt news coverage of all candidates requiring equal opportunity (think how difficult/ weird it would be to give equal opportunity to a newcomer presidential candidate when the incumbent who planned to run again was in the news related to an actual news event and not a campaign stop). The only thing that you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine is that while based on principles still upheld by the government, it has been repealed and is no longer law. Adding to the list of also repealed guarantees of rights to be broadcast, so-called "right-to-reply" regulations are no longer law. The Personal Attack Rule mandated that if someone or group was to attack a person on the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities the station was to allow air time for person to respond. And the Political editorializing rule mandated that if a station editorially opposed a candidate that candidate have to be given air time to respond. Both of these were repealed in 2000 with the support of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. Serving Children In 1990, the FCC put a number of regulations surrounding serving children into place. Station Licensee duties include: All TV broadcasters should air at least 3 hours of educational or informational children's programming per week Educational programs must be at least 30mins in length and must regularly scheduled at times of day 7a-10p Broadcasters must file quarterly reports of the programs aired to fulfill these mandates. Program-length commercials for children are forbidden. Additionally, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated a TV program ratings system and also required new TV sets be equipped with V-Chip (V for violence) which allows parents to block out all programs of particular ratings. The V-chip, along with the ratings system have not proven to be understood and utilized by the large majority of parents. Copyright Copyright is an ever-changing issue - one in which the government is typically seen chasing after those who pirate content due to the difficulty in keeping up with emerging technologies. A few basics about copyright law include, Copyright holders license others to use their works in exchange for the payment or royalties. "Use" consists of making public by publishing, performing, displaying, or broadcasting Things NOT copyrightable include ideas, slogans, brand names, news events, and titles. Copyright length lasts for life or work's creator plus 70 yrs Copyright granted to Corporations last 95 yrs from first publication or 120 yrs from the date work was created whichever comes first After copyright expires, its public domain-can be used without securing permission or paying royalties Fair use - permits limited use of copyrighted works without payment or permission for certain educational and critical or creative purposes (see any popular media used in this class, although there are important distinctions about the percentage of the entirey some material may be used in) Copyright Infringement - those who violate can be sued. That is it for chapter 12, please review the chapter before proceeding to the quiz, due this Sunday, 4/20, at midnight.

Communications Act, Licensing, & Structural Regulation p. 1

The major areas covered in this module are: Federal Jurisdiction The Communications Act - from the 1927 Radio Act, the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act The FCC Broadcast Licensing & other types of licensing and oversight Media Regulations/ Deregulations Where does the government get its power to regulate broadcasting? The U.S. Constitution: Commerce Clause says Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes... Radio and television transmissions cross state boundaries. So, they are considered interstate. Intrastate commerce on the other hand, refers to commerce that stays within one state and it is not subject to federal regulation. In the past, telephone and utility companies that did not offer long distance services were not subject to federal legislation because they served geographical regions within one state. Cable systems are a hybrid service. They must use city streets and rights of way, so they are subject to local and state jurisdiction, however, cable systems also distribute their signals across state lines so they are subject to federal jurisdiction as well. DBS and other services that provide multichannel video/audio using microwave frequencies are regulated exclusively at the Federal level. You'll remember from chapter 6 that DBS services, like Dish, are not licensed at the local level the way that local stations/affiliates are. More details on these are provided below. The figure below (textbook Exhibit 11.a) shows the chain of command in where power to regulate comes from. Importantly, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution establishes a legal basis for federal regulation. The FCC has the force of federal law based on this. govt.png What does the term "delegated congressional authority" mean and how does it apply to broadcasting? Congress delegated regulatory duties to the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC), an independent regulatory agency that oversees the details of communications. Congress gave the FCC power to adopt, modify, and repeal regulations concerning interstate electronic media. How does the regulation of telephone and cable differ from DBS? What makes them different? Wireline: Local is intrastate but long distance is interstate. Therefore, state-based public utility commissions (PUCs) approve changes in in-state telephone rates and services. Federal oversight is needed for long distance. Cable: Cable is a hybrid service because it uses local infrastructure (streets, etc.) and distributes signals that originate outside of the state (federal jurisdiction). DBS: National transmission means such services are regulated exclusively on the federal level. Now, before getting into all the details about the FCC's duties and powers, let's discuss three major pieces of communication legislation and their importance in the past and the present in broadcasting.

Communications Act, Licensing, & Structural Regulation p. 2

Waaaayy back in chapter 2 we heard about the Radio Act of 1927. For the first time, it put some basic law & order policies into place concerning radio broadcasting. Your textbook somewhat broadly talks about "the Act." It is a piece of legislation that is updated with the times - surely you can see the need in a world where media technology moves very fast for updates to the law. I've tried to isolate important components to the first Act and two major updates below (in 1927; 1934; and 1996, respectively). The Radio Act of 1927 What is the significance of the Radio Act of 1927? It imposed order on broadcasting, but left some aspects of radio regulations scattered across several agencies It recognized the importance of scarcity in regulating radio, basically recognizing that there is limited space on the electromagnetic spectrum for radio signals. Established the need to regulate radio use "as the public convenience, interest, or necessity requires" (PICON), which remains in future versions of the Act. This is highly flexible and yet legally recognized. The FCC's definition of "the public interest" can be quite broad. Created the Federal Radio Commission (5-person). This later becomes the FCC. Broadly defined "radio" as: "transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services incidental to transmission" TV falls into it just 15 years later. The Communications Act of 1934 What is the significance of this incarnation of the Communications Act? It provides the foundation of for regulation of electronic media in the United States It established the FCC, The Federal Communications Commission and gives general guidelines on its structural organization and operations It perpetuated the importance of scarcity to support regulating radio/TV It perpetuated the need to regulate radio use "as the public convenience, interest, or necessity requires" (PICON), but many realized that the FCC's definition of public interest is too broad Title III formalized broadcasting's role as the "dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public directly." This makes private radio communications between people outside the jurisdiction of the FCC - and it makes broadcast radio not intended for private communications. So, when you call into your favorite radio show and do a shout out for your best friend's birthday or wish your friends on the high school football team a good game - you are actually breaking the law. Funny but true! It brought interstate wire and wireless communication under control of the FCC It established a long-term commitment to communications regulation (the scope of the FRC was limited when created) So, what happens to the Act when technology changes? Cable presents an interesting example: As technology changes, Congress can change the law to accommodate the need to regulate that technology. The Act was amended in 1984, where Title VI defined cable as an entity outside the FCC's authority, but then amended in 1992 - it backtracked and gave the FCC regulatory power over cable. The 1996 Telecommunications Act What is the significance of the 1996 Act? It changed many aspects of how electronic media are regulated: It increased the maximum national service area for group ownership to 35% of the U. S. population for TV (the percentage was later increased to 39%) It eliminated the national limits on the number of radio stations that may be commonly owned, and changed the restrictions on the number of radio stations one owner could have in the largest markets (the old limit of 4 was increased to 8) It allowed telephone companies to provide cable in their local service areas It required television set manufacturers to install the V-chip It removed the ban on cable/telco cross-ownership to stimulate local competition in the multi-channel video market The 1996 Telecom Act was largely deregulatory in nature - we'll end this module with a brief discussion of the positives and negatives of regulation/ deregulation.

Media Theory & Effects p.2

What do we mean by Effects? Before we discuss what we know from media theory and effects research, we need to be on the same page on a number of terms and the scope of what we'll be discussing. I promise that a.) There are no calculations involved, and b.) If you understand these basics about the social science of media research, you will be more knowledgeable than the majority of practicing media professionals about interpreting research findings. Empiricism = Is a belief that knowledge is gained from experience and observation. Deals with real phenomenon in the world. We'll discuss only empirical data in this course, which can be collected in either qualitative or quantitative ways. Theory = The are causal explanations for an occurrence - they attempt to explain how and why things happen. They are statements about the relationships between concepts and patterns of predictable findings. They provide questions, methodologies, analysis techniques to researchers. Plenty of media scholars do not do empirical work - those who do "critical-cultural," "critical," "Marxist," and often "feminist" research look for examples of their ideas or patterns in media texts or media & human interactions. For example, a Marxist media scholar is always going to find a power inequity - between media owners and media consumers, between celebrities on twitter and non-celebrities on twitter, etc.They start their research knowing what they're going to find. An empirical media researcher starts off with a question and then observes real-world phenomenon and through various types of analysis, comes to a conclusion based on things that actually exist/happened. We are only focusing on empirical research in this course. A theory in the context of this course is not the "I have a theory about what makes the best type of sandwich," kind used in lay terms. Theories are somewhat specific in that they deal with certain concepts (ex. violence, persuasion, issues of access, audience choices), but are hopefully generalizable enough to transcend mediums (ex. we'll discuss Cultivation Theory which was created during the Big 3 Network Era of TV but has been applied to examine media exposure & views on real-world crime and trust issues in different mediums over time, most notable among them, video games). Good theories are informed by solid empirical data, and the most useful empirical data adds to theory in meaningful ways. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Empirical Data There is one distinction in types of empirical data that we need to be aware of. One type of empirical data is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Let's discuss qualitative data first. Qualitative Research is: Text-based - the language is based on analyzing texts - whether they're written, video, or dialogue between individuals Focuses on related trends across contexts Much more in-depth than quantitative research. Questions focus on the "Why's?" not the "How many's?" When?'s", or "How's?" Qualitative research treats individuals as unique - each has a unique, interesting perspective that is worth knowing Issues/Drawbacks of Qualitative Research: Takes a long time to collect data and provide results. Non-generalizable and subjective results - one study based on several unique perspectives does not tell us meaningful things about what other people & practices are doing. Unique stories are great - but major business and policy decisions often require "hard data," i.e. numbers. Examples of types of Qualitative Research: Ethnography - when you become part of the environment you're studying and keep notes. (Ex. A researcher lives among different groups of Amish and Mennonite in order to observe differences in media technology use). Focus Groups - Small (often non-representative of the population you're interested in) groups directed by open questions on a given topic (Ex. HBO invites 10 members of the target audience they have for a new show to watch the pilot before it airs to see what they like & don't like by having a loosely directed conversation after viewing the pilot) Field Studies - Behavior that is recorded in the "real world," without unduly intruding on or otherwise influencing participants. (Ex. A researcher observes patrons of the same bar watch an entire football season and identify patterns and unique attributes). Next, we'll discuss the more numbers-driven quantitative research. Quantitative Research is: Reliant on numbers - it quantifies, or enumerates a concept - it assigns numbers and categories to things. Dependent on studying relationships between values - i.e., how much traffic does twitter get related to TV on Sunday nights? Who is tweeting? Able to provide descriptive data, inductive data, and deductive data Usually aggregates larger numbers of people in order to make generalizations across populations Issues/ Drawbacks of Quantitative Research: Numbers are faceless, i.e. not unique individual stories Validity/reliability of measures, i.e., Are researchers ever 100% certain that they're measuring exactly what they intend to measure? Can these results be replicated? Numbers can be manipulated - and there are widely publicized cases of this that have very real effects on humans. Examples of types of Quantitative Research: Survey - Relies on self-report data in opinion polls and surveys. These can tell us about related, or associated variables, can not tell us if one thing causes another. (Ex. You complete an online survey for a professor examining personality types and types of media use by asking you a number of questions about yourself and your habits. The researchers can then answer questions like is extroversion related to watching adult content? Is neuroticism related to listening to NPR? etc.) Experiment - Researchers attempt to control all other variables in order to examine cause and effect relationships between exposure to certain stimuli and/or interactions and their effects (Ex. A researcher has 50 participants come into a lab and watch the same episode of True Blood, except half watch a version that commercials have been added to, and the other half watch a commercial-less version. Then they look at the effects of commercials on enjoyment, memory for content, and attitudes toward vampires across the two groups). Content Analysis - A systematic way of categorizing, counting, and coding media message characteristics (Ex. A content analysis of Top 10 box office hits of the past 10 years that categorizes the genre of film, whether it is a sequel or not, and the race and gender of the main characters could answer questions such as: Are action sequels more popular than comedy sequels? Are films with white/black/Hispanic/other/female/male casts more successful? Has that changed over time? Are we more likely to see minority portrayals in certain types of content?)

Media Theory & Effects p.1

What does Media Theory and Effects Research look like? Last week we covered audience analysis research and you were introduced to some related research terms and practices such as sampling, reliability, and validity. It is important in audience analysis studies and media theory and effects studies that a large enough sample is being examined so that results can be generalized to a larger population, that effects can consistently been found over time, and that research is, indeed, examining what it purports to examine. In addition to the business-related answers that audience analysis research can provide, media theory and effects can answer questions about how and why people use certain media, what effects both positive and negative media can have over individuals, and provide empirical evidence for media literacy and media regulation questions. Media researchers have often examined what harmful effects the media (especially TV) can have on individuals and society (especially children) due to public concern about these issues. Why the Media? Why might it be important to look at patterns of effects of media over individuals and societies? We spend more time with media than ever before. Here are some tidbits about the vast amount of media and information available today, which far surpasses the amount of information ever available before: More information has been generated since your birth than in all of recorded history up until your birth (that's pretty amazing!) There are 1500 books published every day Radio stations produce 65.5 million hours of original programming annually TV stations produce an additional 48 million of programming annually Not only is there more information with more media channels to deliver it to us, but we're spending more and more time with media than ever before as well. Your text mentions technological convergence, or the blurring of previously separate distinctions such as "Broadcast TV." "Cable," and "computers" as making it harder to define what television watching is, and to some extent, what media use consists of. According to this MediaPost article from a few years ago: (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/205905/media-usage-on-rise-due-to-multitasking.html?edition=63007#axzz2bINyvgIq (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.) "Overall, average time spent with digital media per day is expected to surpass TV viewing time for the first time this year. The average adult will spend over 5 hours per day online, on non-voice mobile activities or with other digital media this year, eMarketer estimates -- compared to 4 hours and 31 minutes watching television." And this is all due to media multi-tasking - we're spending more time with more screens at the same time. Given all the time we're spending with media - it makes a good deal of common sense to try to better understand what effects it has on us, and how we, in turn, change media content and technologies. In order to do that, media effects research look at human interactions with, and effects of: Media Content Media Technology The impact of the interaction among factors such as content, technology, psychological factors and sociological factors.