Talk:Influence of mass media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Media influence)
Jump to: navigation, search

Current Changes (2016)[edit]

The talk page has been consolidated into subsections to allow for easier discussion. The discussions are placed oldest first, newest at the bottom in Wiki style (with the exception of this first heading, since this indicates present ongoing changes). New edits by yours truly will focus on editing for clarity, removing bias and updates with media studies on digital media.

New proposed outline will incorporate existing content with more expansive subsections

I'm editing this page for Wiki Education project as a sociology student at Florida International University.--Rebeccashumway (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


UPDATE (March 29, 2016): I've added a new section: Key media effects theories. I will be fleshing out this section over the next few weeks, linking back to existing in-depth articles. The purpose is to summarize all salient media effects onto this one page, so a user can venture off to specific pages for more detail. I am not intending to exhaustively detail every possible study, but rather highlights and overviews. For a list of my sources, see below. I am also using other online sources, where possible, so a user can directly link to a digitally published scholarly paper.

As I've mentioned above, this is for course credit at Florida International University, so I will be actively adding to this article over the next few weeks. I do not foresee changing the article outline much, but rather fleshing out at this point.--Rebeccashumway (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

We can be addicted to the mass media even though we don't use it all the time. I know this for a fact because I am also addicted to it. I always use my cellphone, television, and radio. But Media is a big part of our daily life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.179.100 (talkcontribs)


-I'd like to see some statistics included in this article, and details on the researches themselves. Think of it as if you're writing an essay. There will need to be sufficient detail on both sides of the opinion, evidence as to why, and the conclusions that can possibly be drawn form those evidences, on the various different points of view. The more detail as to how that conclusion is reached, the better. Weighing logic against logic, while still maintaining nuetrality. Right now, the article is a tad indiscriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.38.241 (talkcontribs)


This article needs sources. It states that "It has been suggested that the extent to which an audience engages with a media text can be roughly split into three degrees." By whom? Why did we wikilink the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary involvement if we don't know what we're talking about? Also, wikifying doesn't mean wikilinking every single word (such as security, information and short term).--– sampi (talkcontribemail) 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


The following are academic texts on "media effect theory," which is the scholarly term for "media influence." In fact, "media effects theory" redirects to this page. All of these will provide sources for existing contents in this article. They will also provide a scholarly framework to reworking the article and contents to be more concise and authoritative.

Mediating the message : theories of influences on mass media content [1]

Media effects : advances in theory and research [2]

Mass media effects research : advances through meta-analysis [3]

Media effects and society [4]

Media effects [5]

This source will provide a counterpoint to make this article balanced: it is a modern text (2015) that discusses the gatekeeping influence that journalists have had on media, but in the sense of quality control, not mind control (if you will). It also discusses the modern demise of the gatekeeping quality with the rise of digital media. Citing from this source will provide a) a counterpoint and b) modern update to media effects theory.

Gatekeeping in transition [6]

--Rebeccashumway (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Reese, Pamela J. Shoemaker, Stephen D. (1995). Mediating the message : theories of influences of mass media content (2nd ed. ed.). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman. ISBN 9780801312519. 
  2. ^ Zillmann, edited by Jennings Bryant, Dolf (2002). Media effects advances in theory and research (2nd ed. ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Elbaum Associates. ISBN 0805838635. 
  3. ^ Preiss, Raymond W. (2006). Mass media effects research: advances through meta-analysis (Repr. ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 9780805849998. 
  4. ^ Perse, Elizabeth M. (2001). Media effects and society (Repr. ed.). Mahwah, NJ [u.a.]: Erlbaum. ISBN 0805825053. 
  5. ^ Potter, W. James (2012). Media effects. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781412964692. 
  6. ^ Vos., edited by Tim P.; Heinderyckx, François (2014). Gatekeeping in transition. [S.l.]: Routledge. ISBN 9780415731614. 

Editing for Clarity[edit]

In the second paragraph, the following quote should be deleted because it does not really say anything: "Connecting the world to individuals and reproducing the self-image of society,".
The criticism section needs heavy adjusting both in terms of paragraph positions, and concepts within each paragraph. I think Chomsky should be the first reference mentioned under criticism. A mini bio of Professor Gauntlett is provided at the outset of the criticism section, yet with all due respect, Gauntlett is lesser known than Chomsky. I propose adding a brief few lines about Chomsky's "filter" concepts, which is found in the Durham article. In this case, I would move this from the further reading into the references section.
The mass media and a free enterprise society section is first of all not an intuitive sub-title. It touches on how television networks need to cover their production costs, but one concept that I feel should be mentioned in this article is capitalism and it's effects on mass media content. Namely, television networks and in turn media producers must answer to advertisers. For example, a television network would not publish a scathing interview that is detrimental to the image of its advertising client. One of Chomsky's "filters" accounts for this media bias, and would be a valuable addition to media influence/effect. --Austenten (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections to this? My note about the criticism section has been up for over a month now, so I will implement a few edits to said section.
--Austenten (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


I have suggested transferring the "Media Influenced Violence" section of this article (previously just titled "Criticism"), under a different article, Media Violence. Here is a link to my discussion topic on that article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_violence_research#Transfer_Content


An editor has added the "essay" template to the article. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR are applicable to material that is not reliably sourced. Specific tags or discussion here may help clarify what the editor was referencing when he placed that tag. Specific "clarify" or "fact" tags may help. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the entire thing is written as an essay, not as an encyclopedia entry. Most of it is written in a "literature review" style. Since no relevant changes have been made, I've replaced the tag. Hairhorn (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


--Austenten (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This page has declined into an unreadable mass of nonsensical, unsourced nonsense. I'm no Wiki editor, but this page looks and reads awefully. For such an important topic, it seems terribly neglected. 76.78.120.59 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty bad. I'm not sure where to start. The media and violence section is damn near gibberish. I suggest perhaps that section should get truncated to a bare minimum and direct readers to the media violence page. That would take care of that at least. I'll wait to see if there are any objections before making such a drastic change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)



Editing for Bias[edit]

This article basically calls Nixon ugly, by saying that Kennedy was considered handsome, ESPECIALLY compared to Nixon. 149.4.115.3 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Is anyone aware of the obvious political leaning in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.227.71 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Answer: There is no political leaning in the definition of democracy. The same applies here, profiling and providing cited sources on the ideas and theoretical models of media influence and media effects does not entail that that long definition is biased or has a "political lean". --Austenten (talk) Yes, this is definitely biased article. It should be renamed to "media influence according to left-wing intelectuals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.48.98 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Guys, I am interested in the topic and I started translating the page in Bulgarian, but it looks like the personal opinion of the authors. There are no sources specified. For example I would like sources about these:

  • critiques in the early-to-mid 20th century suggested that media would destroy the individual's capacity to act autonomously
  • Mid 20th-century empirical studies, however

--Zearendil (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


Paid spokesmen and researchers, like the proverbial printing-press owner, enjoy an advantage over ordinary citizens in open discourse. What is the term for sabotage of media diversity and reliability, by drowning out legitimate information with prodigious quantities of partisan content created by subsidised propaganda hacks, puppets, or shills for interests with deep pockets? This strategy of disinformation swamping/flooding/drowning/whitewash/flacks/spin doctoring seems to be missing from this article. Examples:

  • smokescreen/greenwashing by influenced content creation (e.g. Big Oil, China's human rights record)
  • subsidised experts or others who create a semblance of controversy (e.g. tobacco, climate change)
  • regulation/research/publishing/reporting biased against people who question whoever pays the bills (e.g. Big Pharma, consolidation of media ownership)
  • columnists and influential social media presences receiving products and services as long as they keep producing positive reviews and stories about product or brand (e.g. corporate-influenced mommy bloggers, Wikipedia meat puppets)

--Egmonster (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally found the word: it's Astroturfing. I still think it needs a section in this article.Egmonster (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm Stephanie

It would help if the article had references to support the facts which are provided. I've noticed that the majority of the article is based on personal opinion than citing experts. Perhaps citing references from experts to support your opinions. The article seems biased by limiting the opinion of just the writer without actually having the opinion of other experts. It is mainly to provide references from other experts, other than that the article relates to the topic which is being presented.

[[[User:Stephavila21|Stephavila21]] (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)]

Hi, Stephanie. Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you suggest any particular reliable sources we can use for this article? Either for points that are already in the article, or points that should be included to make it more thorough and neutral? Please go ahead and add what's missing if you feel confident enough, but even if you don't have time or skill for that at the moment, we'd appreciate any specific suggestions you have about where to find references to support the facts. --Egmonster (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


It would help if the article had references to support the facts which are provided. I've noticed that the majority of the article is based on personal opinion than citing experts. Perhaps citing references from experts to support your opinions. The article seems biased by limiting the opinion of just the writer without actually having the opinion of other experts. It is mainly to provide references from other experts, other than that the article relates to the topic which is being presented. Furthermore, in the section of media effects of self image, I noticed that it does not elaborate much on how media effects the self image. Perhaps having further evidence and examples how it effects the self- image. Even talking about a specific site, such as Facebook, how it effects the self-image.Stephavila21 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)



New Subsections[edit]

Social Media: There should be a section on how social media has become a game changer in terms of media and journalism. Today, anyone can be a journalist (in a sense) because of their abilities to report events and spread information about events as soon as they happen. An event such as the Arab Spring Revolution shows how influential and important social media has become so it would be an interesting topic to cover in this page titled "Media Influence". Seasaltpitachips (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)



Mergers, Renames and Redirects[edit]

This article is just a less-good version of the media effects article, and includes some material - such as the paragraph on the 'uses and gratifications' model (wrongly attributed to Denis McQuail) which is not actually on media influences as such anyway. Suggest delete this article and redirect to media effects. Sophie1975 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Whatever the problems with the article in its current state, it is plain wrong to merge it with 'Media Effects'. While 'Media Effects' traces recurring ideas about the effects (especially negative) of the media on individual behaviour, 'Media Influence' is a far more general concept of social, economic, political and historical relevance. It may take a while to develop the article, but a genuinely encyclopaedic look at 'Media Influence' would be far more informative, interesting and generally relevant than the 'Media Effects' Idea. They are not the same thing at all.

It seems like an oversimplification to merge media theory into this article, since it only covers mass media. Oicumayberight 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That page was quite confusing, I considered having sent to AfD. If someone feels that it should be re-instated I don't have an issue with that, but I would likely reccommend it be deleted. Grumpyyoungman01 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on the Talk:Media theory page, it appears that a merge with media studies was considered. If a merge is necessary, media theory seems closer to media studies than media influence. If media theory remains redirected to this article, then the media influence article should cover a broader scope than mass media. Oicumayberight 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. As these merge tags are placed and then not acted upon for months on end (whether that is a merge or remove the tags), I will redirect media theory to media studies and notify Talk:media studies. Someone from there can take what they see fit from the last version of the page. I don't ever see this article as covering more than the mass media. Grumpyyoungman01 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

therefore one can really rely on that/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.86.234 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


All external links except the first one are no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.119.62 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Also suggesting the "Canadian media effects" be merged into this. Much of the material overlaps, and I'm dubious we need a separate page for Canada (no offense to my Canadian friends). 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

Gave it a couple months. Merger now done. ~~MVGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.251 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Other[edit]

External Links: I'm writing on behalf of the Tufts University Child and Family Webguide to ask that our website be considered for an external link on this Wikipedia page. Our website is maintained and developed by a staff of evaluators who search the web for articles and sites that contain valuable information for children and their parents regarding various medical/developmental topics. This link leads to our "TV/Media" site, which contains information on the effects that media (specifically television, video games, and the Internet) has on child development. Offers information particular on how violence in media affects children.

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/30.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.134.143 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is very clear in painting a picture of what exactly the influence of mass media may or may not be. I think the hypodermic needle model was a clever way of simplifying the way we take in information. There is a good variety of information on the subject, from the history of mass media to how something may affect one individual person. One thing I wish the article had would be specific examples. I would suggest a small section in the article contain a few well-known examples. It would help to clarify the information further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)