 |
 |  |
|
| The Guardian
Project
 Softcover, $14.95 Digital Edition, $4.95 Preview available. |
|
|
| |
|
| The Guardian
Project
Softcover, $14.95 Digital Edition, $4.95 Preview available. |
What do cigarettes, movies, junk food, video games, alcohol, and comic books have in common?
These are all examples of products whose advertisements offend and frighten various politicians and "public interest" groups. The mass media messages we see and/or hear on television, radio, film, the World Wide Web, music CD's, newspapers, books, and magazines are used by these watchdogs to justify restrictions on what mass media can or cannot portray for public consumption.
Because of such criticism, that long-time spokes-animal for Camel cigarettes, Joe Camel, has disappeared into the electronic ether. Also, after they were targeted for complaints, not much has been heard from the Budweiser frogs. (Perhaps they croaked?) These symbols of mass-marketed consumer products are not alone in receiving bad press from those who seek to control that press.
In order to better understand this situation, I will examine some of the history behind these media-related controversies. Two social science theories attempting to explain these phenomena have competed for prevalence for nearly eighty years: the strong or powerful effects model and the weak or limited effects model. Each views human nature in radically different ways. Each leads to divergent conclusions. Only one has dominated political thinking in this and other countries.
Those practical consequences of accepting a particular abstract theory are ones to which we should pay close attention. What we face is a direct assault on not only the foundations of our Constitutional government but on what it means to live in a free society. Our campuses, our work places, even our entertainment choices are being threatened by this trend.
Mass media can be defined as avenues for messages that are created for consumption by large numbers of people. These "message consumers" are physically separated from one another (to distinguish a mass medium audience from, for example, attendees at a pro football game). They are also diverse in terms of their interests, values, and other demographical characteristics.
The first mass medium was books. When Gutenberg produced those Bibles with his movable type press, he set the stages for a revolution. No longer would books be produced by hand solely for the edification of the rich, privileged, and powerful. For the first time in history, printers made books -- and the ideas they contained -- available to citizens of more modest means.
This spread of "dangerous" notions frightened rulers who depended upon a compliant and uncomplaining populace for their power and prestige. Those who dared defy these monarchs by marketing their mass wares faced burning, burial alive, and seizure of their property.
Despite these harsh penalties, books continued to spread. Eventually, they contributed to Martin Luther's "heresy" and the formation of the Protestant Church.
Even today, books continue their subversive ways.
For centuries, mass media were limited to books, newspapers, and magazines. The dawn of the Twentieth Century saw an explosion in new ways for writers, business owners, and others to reach large numbers of people. Thomas Edison's hand-cranked films led the way to silent movies, followed by "talkies" in 1925 and "3-D" extravaganzas in the 1950's. Now movies are distributed not only in theaters but via television, videocassettes, DVD's, and for short pieces, even through the Internet.
Before TV, however, radio spread throughout the country. From the Twenties through the Forties, families gathered around their clunky AM radios and listened to variety shows, news programs, adventure serials, and soap operas. After the introduction of TV, radio shifted its focus more towards music, news and, especially in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, so-called talk radio. Again, as with movies, distant radio programs are now available on the Internet.
In the Fifties, a number of people feared that television would kill movies just as some thought it would lead to the demise of radio. Neither happened. More consumers now view films on TV than in theaters. With the advent of cable TV and satellite dishes, ever-expanding options are available to viewers. As broad band Internet connections become more commonplace, TV will also likely appear on the Internet scene.
As the world moved from the Nineteenth to the Twentieth Century, music at last achieved mass medium status. Phonographs made classical and popular music available to anyone. Edison's cylinders gave way to 78 rpm discs. Long-playing 33 rpm records, single discs at 45 rpm, tape cassettes in various formats, CD's, and now MP3's continue the evolution of music for the masses.
As should be clear by now, the Internet and the World Wide Web are, in many ways, merging these disparate mass media. Now anyone can electronically publish a book or article for access by distant readers. Magazines and newspapers post electronic versions or eschew print entirely. Production and transmission of films, music, TV, and radio continue to evolve on the Internet.
No doubt new and as yet unthought of types of mass media will be invented. The increasing reach of mass media makes it even more imperative that we properly understand their influence on the public.
The advent of penny papers, film, and radio at the start of the Twentieth Century caused concern for many observers. In the late 1920's, 40 million young people in this country -- 17 million of them children under fourteen years of age -- went to the movies every week. Adults anxiously worried that such mass viewing undermined parental controls; that those flickering images on the wall taught immoral behavior; and that they created a hazard threatening the stability of traditional culture.
One of the first of tens-of-thousands of such studies, the Payne Fund Studies, was conducted by the Motion Picture Research Council in 1929. The researchers wanted to investigate this new mass medium and determine whether alarm was justified. To everyone's horror -- though perhaps not their surprise -- their dire suspicions seemed to be confirmed. Youthful moviegoers imitated the behavior of movie stars, unintentionally learned things their parents might prefer remain hidden, and found themselves emotionally moved by what they viewed.
These studies, however, suffered from methodological shortcomings. One problem they faced is still debated today: do movies reflect social values or do they create them? If the former, then the results are nothing more than a post hoc fallacy: the belief that because event X occurred before event Y, then Y was caused by X.
Nevertheless, skepticism of movies' influences continued. In the 1930's, for example, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Code determined what kinds of images could be shown, what kind of stories told, and what morals revealed. In an era of burgeoning numbers of immigrants, increased levels of urbanization and industrialization, and a progressively modernized society, the culture was less homogeneous and less reliant on tradition than ever before. People suffering such "alienation," such socially isolated lives seemed ripe for films to subvert.
The strong or powerful effects model states that mass media effects are significant in magnitude, uniform across audiences, immediate in influence, and -- too often -- harmful. Such effects generate false images of the world's nature in consumers' minds. They also encourage unacceptable behavior in the form of "copycats" who mimic what they see and hear, for example, drinking and smoking. These media effects are thought not only to be highly effective as tools of persuasion for both children and adults but also (in a negative way) to dominate our political system.
In this theory, mass media messages are viewed as "magic bullets" that miraculously bring about a desired result unattainable in any other fashion. Mass media have a kind of "hypodermic" needle effect, in a sense "injecting" messages into the psyches of viewers and listeners.
This theory essentially grew out of Darwinism. In that era, human behavior was thought to be guided in basically the same manner as that of lower animals, that is, from inherited instincts. This uniform set of instincts ensured people would receive and interpret mass media messages in similar ways. With such a direct connection between message and action, the results would also be uniform, immediate, and powerful.
This stimulus-and-response view posited human action as not being under rational control. The notion that humans are infinitely malleable in the hands of a master sculptor led later to B. F. Skinner's work in behaviorism as detailed in his book, Beyond Human Dignity.
If this theory were correct, freedom of the press as guaranteed by the Constitution might well be a bad idea. Such a dangerous capacity for mischief should be restricted for the good of all citizens. Many Americans agreed then and agree now with such fears. If mass media messages can so readily harm people -- indeed, control them -- then they should be controlled themselves and subject to censoring.
Unfortunately for the (scientific) acceptance of the powerful effects model, two studies in the 1940's appeared to spell its demise.
In the 1940 presidential election, in Erie County, Ohio, sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet conducted a study on how media messages influenced voting. They found that, yes, such messages could persuade people but only in a select, limited fashion. The scientists discovered that the media of the time activated people to vote, that is, got them to do what they planned to do anyway.
Media also reinforced the beliefs some people already had, strengthening their positions. Few individuals actually engaged in conversion, that is, changed their votes. Membership in one's social group and the relationships one had with friends and families proved more significant. (A modern example of this is the fact that teenagers who begin to smoke are influenced to do so more by peers than by cigarette advertising.)
The second set of studies was done by the U.S. Army during WWII. Filmmaker Frank Capra produced a series of seven films collectively entitled, "Why We Fight." Shown to soldiers, the hope was to create resentment of Japan and Germany while simultaneously increasing confidence in the United States and the justice of its battles.
To the chagrin of the top brass, the soldiers learned facts about the conflict but experienced only minor changes in opinions. When changes did occur, they were linked more to the soldier's level of intelligence and his schooling than the messages per se. While this result supposedly killed the magic bullet theory, as we will see, its influence continues half-a-century later.
The limited effects model offers a number of explanations for its predictions. While it readily acknowledges that mass media can and do influence people, an influence is not the same as a primary cause. Factors other than the message itself are more important determinants of how people will respond to that message.
Variations in individual psychology and values, membership in a particular social category, disparities in income, religion, age, gender, and other demographic characteristics can and often do overwhelm a mass medium message. In contrast to the strong effects model, the weak effects model contends that people not really isolated but interact socially with family, friends, and co-workers.
These kinds of distinctions lead to differences in what individuals will find of interest and what messages they will select to consume (i.e., what they will choose to be exposed to); how closely they will focus upon or attend to those messages; how those messages will be interpreted; and how those messages will affect them. Given such a universe of possible combinations, any given mass medium message will have only limited effects on the public overall.
No wonder successful persuasion in such arenas as advertising is a headache to producers!
The hoary theory of eighty years ago continues to surface under other guises. One such example is the theory of American media and cultural imperialism. This essentially Marxist concept says that mass media messages reflect "a deliberate policy designed by powerful economic and political interests to transform and dominate the cultures of other people." (DeFleur and Dennis, p. 420)
Countries in opposition to the United States are said to be specially targeted for undermining. Imported media messages create social change and alter the course of normal national development. By controlling what news people hear, the U.S. is able to dominate domestic media and other economic producers. Because native peoples have limited choices in what media are available to them, they are exposed to what superficially appears to be an attractive alternative to their own way of life. Media messages "instill" or "create" needs and wants for consumer products that citizens don't really need and can't afford.
Such unsatisfied desires can then lead to political unrest and exploitation by more sophisticated Western powers.
The responses to this theory are visible in a number of nations. In France, certain American words are outlawed. In Canada, the supply of American videos, movies, or TV is restricted in favor of locally produced products. China controls satellite dishes; Germany outlaws Nazi-related items on the Internet (viz their suit against Yahoo!); and Arab countries complain about encroaching Western hairstyles, clothing, personal behavior, and speech that is offensive to their religious sensibilities.
What is deemed "proper," of course, is to be determined solely by the politicians.
Realizing that media consumers are active individuals capable of exercising their free will is not popular with the leaders in our (or any other) country. To do so would be to limit them in their attempts to exercise more political control. One need not look far to find examples in which politicians operate from -- and impose laws based upon -- the discredited powerful effects model.
"Excessive" violence in the media is a perennial boogeyman trotted out by politicians for each new election cycle. Whether on TV, in movies, video games, comic books, the Internet, or music CD's, our national leaders view "violence" (however poorly defined) as a prime excuse for censorship and state oversight.
While there is evidence that such media-portrayed violence can influence certain children, usually such kids are more aggressive to begin with. As the limited effects model suggests, there is no strict causality between media violence and subsequent real-life violence perpetrated by media consumers.
The fact that actual violence abounded long before mass media were around does not deter the prohibitionists and the censors. Wars, rapes, kidnappings, and murders are staples in human history. What the anti-violence crowd cannot explain, for example, is the recent decrease in youthful violence even as make-believe violence in films and games has increased.
Nevertheless, the fear of "copycat" crimes pushes politicians and others to act. V-chips are installed in new TV's to "protect the children"...whether you have offspring or not. The publisher of the book Hit Man pulled the title after being sued for "inspiring" a murderer. TV and game producers "voluntarily" label their products before the government can impose such ratings.
Coverage of the mass murders at Columbine and elsewhere transform gun advertisements in magazines and innocent products such as toy soldiers and toy guns into deadly threats that can only be dealt with by draconian "zero tolerance" policies in our government-run, mandatory schools. "For the children," images of guns are expunged from movies and cartoons. "Violent" lyrics in music are blamed for the murder of police officers.
Not much has changed since Fredric Wertham's 1954 book, Seduction of the Innocent, lambasted EC Comics and led to the creation of the Comics Code Authority. In the eyes of such fear-mongers, only media can explain and be responsible for any and all violence perpetrated in this country.
If anything, sexual images in mass media are viewed as even more dangerous than violent ones. Pornography is a favorite whipping boy. In the Nineteenth Century, even literature discussing contraception was deemed "pornographic" and worthy of censorship. From the Comstock Act of 1873, to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the federal government has taken it upon itself to protect the public (and, again, children) from sexual oriented materials. As pointed out in the movie, "South Park," you can get away with mass killings in the media more easily than you can dirty words.
In her book, The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf discussed "How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women" (her subtitle). According to this thesis, the diet, cosmetic, and pornography industries promote false images of proper feminine beauty. "Psychologically weakened" women fall prey to these "hallucinations" and suffer such ills as bulimia, anorexia, economic and sexual exploitation, powerlessness, low self-esteem, and, again, violence.
In this scenario, women are helpless pawns in a capitalist game waged by Revlon and Weight Watchers. Somehow, though, despite the irresistible influence of media messages on women, Ms. Wolf herself somehow managed to escape being brainwashed.
Reminiscent of the concerns expressed in the Twenties, mass media today have been blamed for promoting such things as the breakdown of family values (viz, the Murphy Brown vs Dan Quayle controversy); relativistic morality; rudeness; and parental authority. As in that earlier time, the debate as to which came first -- the problems or the depiction of those problems -- wages on.
Never loath to seize an opportunity, our government has passed legislation outlawing same-sex marriages and wields the tax code as a means to encourage what it views as proper family arrangements and social behavior.
Despite the fact that the dangers of tobacco have been discussed for centuries, the recent lawsuits against "Big Tobacco" acted as though consumers of such products were naifs incapable of resisting the lure of the Marlboro Man. Even worse, Joe Camel "seduced" children into the vile habit of smoking.
Well, billions of settlement dollars later and after Joe has retired to the desert, smoking among young people -- and particularly girls -- has continued to increase. That will not alter the mind-sets of those politicians and citizens who view banning cigarette advertising in all media as the only logical means of blunting the creation of new smokers.
The Budweiser frogs are castigated for making drinkers of children by being too "cute and funny." Hard lemonade is said to be packaged to "attract" and confuse young people. Liquor ads -- while not banned by the government -- were "voluntarily" abandoned by the industry. It remains to be seen whether recent forays into TV liquor advertising will attract the attention of regulators.
Meanwhile, politicians push to eliminate junk food and soft drinks from our schools lest they "corrupt" the dietary habits of our children. Serious calls are made to ban fast food advertising and ads for sugar-laden cereals. This particular trend has only just begun to gather steam.
Most important to consider are how ideas in mass media are treated by the state.
Unlike most countries, our First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to keep the politicians out of this realm. (Though, of course, the examples cited above also technically fall under this general heading.) Past governments exercised prior restraint, either preventing publication of "bad" ideas or jailing, fining, or censoring producers of messages the government didn't like.The case of John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, set the stage for the First Amendment. When he criticized the British government, he was tried for "seditious libel" but was found not guilty because the jurors believed that what he said was true.
Unfortunately, the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." is more honored in the breach than in its observance.
The licensing of radio and television broadcasters; requirements that they act responsibly and improve their communities; regulation of permissible content in terms of language and plot; the now-defunct fairness doctrine; and the role of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in policing the media are but a few examples of those who do not understand all the facets of "no."
Despite the lip service given to freedom of expression, the public is less inclined to give that approval out of principle. Too many people are far too ready to say "there ought to be a law" whenever their favorite ox is gored.
"Generally,...support of freedom of the press is often based not on the idea that the government simply has no right to control the press, but on the belief that a free press is the best method for ensuring a well-informed public and a stable democracy. When the press appears to be doing a poor job of informing the public, support for its freedom is likely to diminish." (DeFleur and Dennis, p. 497)
Though people often recoil from images of Hitler and Goebbels (who headed the bureau of "Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda"), close to half of today's public agrees that "offensive" language should be prohibited. The virus of "politically correct" speech and verbal "sexual harassment" continues to spread from academia to the general public. Such views have ruined more than one individual's life and crippled more than one business's operations.
Calls for "campaign finance reform" that prevent people from expressing their political views prior to an election continue this depressing thread.
As mentioned earlier, no one disputes the fact that mass media can help alter behavior and beliefs. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that most of those effects are small and, if truly effective, accumulative. In other words, tiny bits of information add up. Repetition of a message, its consistency over time, and apparent corroboration can help shift public opinion over the long-term.
This process has helped change attitudes and behavior in a variety of contexts, some for the better, some for the worse. For example, few people now think that drunk driving is a proper thing to do. So, too, has smoking lost much of its mystique (though the backlash has gone much too far the other way). Technical inventions and innovations from home computers to microwave ovens to cable TV took years to become fully accepted. Media stories helped bring about those changes.
While disdain of littering and pollution is a useful result of media campaigns, the pendulum in favor of "the environment" has swung too far into fantasy. New media messages challenging such dogma as recycling, global warming, and the ozone hole have yet to push aside the dominant images people see and hear. Hopefully, time, truth, and fresh mass media outlets will correct the imbalance.
Despite its view of humans as irrational, stimulus-response automatons, the strong media effects model continues to serve as a convenient tool for those seeking to limit our freedoms. As long as we remember that we possess free will and moral autonomy, however, those reactionaries will eventually lose.
For the vast majority of boys and girls who play cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, spacemen or soldiers, Barbie or teacher; who imagine themselves as Davy Crockett, a member of the Beatles, Madonna, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, or a Power Ranger, the short-term imitation of the actions, words, and dress of the people they admire does no permanent damage...and may, actually, help them survive into adulthood.
Mass media are here to stay. So, too, are the struggles over their control.
Perhaps the best tool to keep mass media in their proper place is the one discovered after researchers studied Orson Welles's radio production of H.G. Wells's "War of the Worlds," in 1938, for the "Mercury Theater of the Air." In those studies, the single greatest factor influencing whether the broadcast was taken literally or not was...the ability to think critically.
That's a media lesson we all need to learn.
DeFleur, Melvin, and Everette Dennis. Understanding Mass Media, 6th Ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Smith, George. Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1991.
Trenholm, Sarah. Thinking Through Communication, 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. New York: William Morrow, 1991.
|
|
