Does Mass Media Influence People?

although i assume the mere mention of Martin Amis's name will make most ILM contributors curl their top lips in elegant disdain, I did enjoy a piece by him in the wake of the Bulger murder where he argued that horror films did not make 99% of people do horrible things: they only galvanised the kind of damaged, hurt, retarded people who could only focus monomanically/obsessively on one thing. Only those whose minds were already sick enough to pulse with never ending, feverish thoughts of whatever could be morally misguided enough to emulate freddy k when he became their thing.

Don't know whether I agree with this, but I thought I'd toss into the fray.

Moving away from the extremity of child murder, as far as casual sexism, homophobia, racism go, then yes of course mass media affects people. So does non-mass media.

er, that should be toss it into the fray, ahem

Gut reaction -- no, it is not. I'm finding it hard to explain why satisfactorily, though, I've rewritten this about three times now. *thinks* Let's just say that on the basis of much of the last twenty years of combined entertainment media that if the influence was really there, we'd all be living in smoking ruins by about now. Maybe more on this later...

Some media - e.g. self-help books as mentioned in an earlier thread - is designed to be influential. Which isn't to say that it is or not.

Is media influential? Yes. Is that influence positive or negative? Yes and Yes. Is that influence quantifiable? No. So there's not much that can be done about it. My gut reaction - and as a non-expert it's all I've got to go on - is that our actions are shaped by our environment (including everything from family through media consumption to whether it's raining) but not determined by them.

So my reply. I do agree with the assessment that 99% of people are not even remotely affected by extreme-violent media, and it's only that 1% that are already insane that are "affected". I'd take it one step further though and state that those people would still perform those behaviors with or without the mass media influence; it's a crutch to put in your suicide note that you were a big fan of the Matrix or for the parents of the perpetrator to claim their son listened to a lot of gangsta rap so he killed someone. It's not a reason, it's an excuse.

But in terms of normal non-insane people I don't believe it's a MAJOR influence on anyone's behavior, for basically the same reason Ned said: if it was such a huge influence, wouldn't society be completely different? Wouldn't these behaviors have not existed before the advent of mass distribution of various entertainment forms? Things like sexism and homophobia and racism aren't exactly new, and I don't think they're any worse today than they ever were - if media causes people to be more racist or sexist, wouldn't they be more whatever- ist today than they were 50 years ago?

the media doesn't CAUSE it, it supports and perpetuates it. theoretically institutionalized racism and sexism should be dead at this point in culture but they are clearly not, and i attribute this in part to media influence. go talk to five year-old boys on a playground and they'll joke that they'd 'like to get closer to britney spears', tell you that black people are supposed to listen to 'black people music', whatever, and these are unnatural things which are put in their worldview solely by the media.

Whoa, wait a minute Ethan. Couldn't something like that 'black people' crack just as easily be a product of something learned from one's parents, some side product of 'they should keep to themselves' or something stupidly similar? I think you're drawing too quick a connection.

Differentiating between "reasons" and "excuses" seems futile (much like this debate, heh). Particularly as I dont think individuals are fully and consciously aware of the factors causing their actions and decisions.

Or, to put it another way, the hardline it-can't-be-the-media line seems to me as rigid and prescriptive - and therefore inapplicable to anything approaching human behaviour - as the glib it-must-be-the- media argument. I can see why the line is taken, because it's the firmest way to resist censorship, but it's too simplistic, even if it is more satisfying than saying "we can't generalise".

i was illustrating the thing about 'black people music' of an example of the media's continued separation of music. despite my comments in momus' class/race thread (and i really do believe the trl generation is being raised without expectations of race influencing music) but it remains a common barrier in culture even today. radio designates between 'black' and 'white' stations and that influences the racial perceptions of the population.

tom makes a good point. there's a big difference between saying 'the media can and does influence people's viewpoints' and 'the media causes people to do things that are wrong and we must stop that by censoring it'. you can't argue that art and business influence people, but you can argue about how and what to do about it.

On a world historic scale? not really. On an individual case-by-case basis? Sure. Except we can't be sure how it will influence people. A self-help book, for example, might equally well inspire someone to throw it away as to heed it. We are affected by the entire world in which we live, media included. I just don't like it when people are reduced to unthinking automitons who uncritically accept what the mass-media "spoonfeeds" them. Because, of course, people aren't like that. And, of course, the people who throw such accusations around somehow try to situate themselves above the fray, like they're the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind or something.

I think we can certainly discredit the "Hyperdermic Syringe" cause and effect models of mass media influence ie the work of George Grebner and Alber Bandura (Social Learning Theory). It is too easy to say that listening to violent music (be it Marilyn Mason or whatever) has led people to kill, and at the same time ignore the easy access to guns. There is also the counter argument to this - viewing/ being exposed to violence can lead to a 'catharis' effect, whereby aggresive tendancies are nullified.

Positive effects of the media, of course, have not been studied to such a great extent. So, the media has no DIRECT influence on people's behaviour, and that as I think Tom says environmental factors (peer group, family, physical environment) are just as important. So, if you live in a violent city are you more likely to commit violence yourself? If your friends do drugs are you more likely to do drugs? I don't think so...

There is also the extent to which mass media reflects society rather than guiding it's development, it is more reactive than proactive.

Ethan, you contradicted yourself. First you state that the idea of "black people music" is being perpetuated "solely" by the media, but then state that the "TRL generation" is growing up without this boundary line. Which is it?

It strikes me that with the popularity of Eminem and Pink, the boundary lines in terms of media and black/white music are shrinking. The idea of "black people music" is one that is sadly being perpetuated by your example 5-year-old's parents, not the television he watches.

I would like to reiterate that I did use the word "major" in my question, meaning that I concede that the media is, like any other thing you encounter in your daily life, an influence on your beliefs and what you think is "cool". However, I don't see how a tv show or album could ever be a "major" influence to stop or start a behavior.

And no one is answering whether or not certain things are more influential, jeez. Losers. Skip the hard questions and go straight for the black and white why doncha? So I'll answer: Music and television are more influential than print or film in my opinion, if they're going to have an influence, because there is a higher cultural consumption level in music and tv than there is print or film. However, I think that applies more so to the US where tv is, basically, free (unless you want all those cable channels, etc).

Magazines and newspapers are a drowning art form - does this make the Internet most influential of all?

Okay, if you argue against a media influence, it's kinda hard to then say what has the most influence. Anyhows, I think TV is in serious danger of losing plurality as channels compete more and more with info-tainment/ entertainment. Newspapers are fairly safe for now...Magazines will face problems as the Internet has already seen the death of Select and Melody Maker. Though, magazines could become popular again as net publishers will look more and more towards charging for access.

I think the problem with magazines-as-entertainment-form is that there are way too many of them. Every time one becomes successful, 8 more come out that are exactly like it but worse. I mean, look at People/Entertainment Weekly/US Weekly. You've got a weekly for people who are into gossip and lifestyle, you've got a weekly for people who are into gossip and lifestyle but like to pretend they're not. So what does Wenner Media do? Change US from a monthly to a weekly, which means it's the weekly for people who aren't really into anything at all since it's so fuck all boring. So it's obviously not doing well at all, because they already have two magazines doing the same thing at a lesser price.

That's the biggest problem the face, not necessarily the Internet. People psychologically LIKE to have things they can hold in their hands; we are not so far into the info age that that need has been done away with. But with all the multiple choices and clones, it's hard to decide which one you want. Therefore they all suffer.

It's all relative. My parents have read Conservative-supporting papers (including, at various points, both tabloid and broadsheet ends of the Murdoch stable) for about 20 years yet have never hesitated in voting Labour in all that time.

But, of course, the climate created by the mass media does subconsciously affect people's view of the world. Kind of stating the obvious here, but it creeps up behind people and changes things rather than stares them in the face and shouts at them to change.

Is mass media a major influence in people choosing to do SAVORY things? (Savory to others, obviously: savoury to self prob.doesn't require actual propaganda to get going...)

Part of learning is categorizing things with labels. So, all words and pictures everywhere on earth, written or spoken, are influences. Influences in music are obvious by the fact that kids seem to love to dress up as rock stars and adopt certain "deep" insights or stupid attitudes expressed by the artists in their lyrics or interviews like veganism, nationalism, racism, "me against the world", "drugs are cool", etc.

And, yes, you can say that these kids were predisposed to this kind of thinking, but you can also point out the obvious, that there are plenty of kids from good homes who act like they had to fight on the streets just to survive, and coincidentally have their visor flipped upside down and backwards (or red cap) and are up on all the latest lingo to fit the particular stereotype they are trying to personify.

Something I said earlier I believe was taken the wrong way: I wasn't blaming rap music for the school shootings. I wasn't blaming any music. The 15 or so recent school shootings are a result of an impression that the first glorified/villified school shooting caused. In this case, the influence would be two kids with guns and the media exploiting the situation. The kids with guns, incidentally, were "goth"-ish in opposition to the "hip hop" regular kids (they were yelling "nigger" as they shot at kids, black or white, who were part of this group of "popular kids", which the trenchcoat mafia felt ostracized from and bullied by). This is the way schools are segregated: by music. I'm sure this either sparked their racism or enhanced it. You've got you're punks, indie kids, goth kids,metal kids, gangsta kids unless they are inclined to adopt those styles of attitude and dress. That's pretty much the way school is.

And these kids aren't dressing or acting like their parents. They're dressing and acting like musicians or Buffy the Vampire Slayer or something. And they're more impressed when some inept lyricist tells them to "be yourself" than when they're parents tell them the same thing as the kids whine, "But all the COOL kids do it!"

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I said anything about censorship.

To say you are not influenced by mass media, popular or unpopular, you might as well say you don't eat food.

Same with my grandparents, Robin.

For non-Brits who don't keep up with this sort of thing, we have a general election happening here in less than a month, and with one particular tabloid having claimed "IT'S THE SUN WOT WON IT" after the Tory victory in 1992 and "IT'S THE SUN WOT SWUNG IT" when Labour won in 1997, you do wonder if there's a grain of truth (22% of the voting population in 1992 read the Sun regularly). Or perhaps it's just that beating your own drum in big letters on the front page sells papers...

the most popular haircut around here is a no2, front combed forward - the baldy shorthair is ok thing was a direct result of slapheads on soap opera 'eastenders' being seen as acceptable,sexy,as well as wifeslappinConnery - tv is most influential in britain - even if you choose to react against it - i would rather read the sun than the guardian anyday but the free paper i get on the metro - called 'METRO'(makes things easy,eh) influences my daily thoughts more than books and magazines - i have never bought 'the face' . ill try and think of some positive stuff later as im going to bed early - i worked today - very frazzled. Good question, sorry im a bit weurgh.

What these arguments about the media influence on peoples choices and decisions often neglects is the ingrained morality of most mass media. While your Arnie movies may be dripping with depictions of violence (something linguistically a million miles away from acts of violence btw) there is at the core nearly always the moral message of the good guys beating the bad guys. Whilst such depictions are nearly always ethically simplistic, they nevertheless must be at least as influential as the relatively small minority of media depicting non- convential morality/amorality.

This is a reason why fiction from external cultures - say Japanese - is often viewed with suspicion, as the standard moral code may well be altered.

Of course if we can choose not to be influenced by the often overbearing moral messages within mass media, we can equally choose not to be influenced by the depictions of violence and immorality (even typing the word immorality makes me feel like a Bible bashing censor). After all cinema style evil bad guys just do not exist in the real world, transgressors of a societal moral code will usually have an equally complex and consistent scheme of ethics to work off of. Either that or they probably suffer from some form of mental disorder which makes the formation of such a set of ethics difficult.

So then the question might be adequately re-focussesd on what effect does mass media have on people who cannot ethical systems which fit in with societies - especially due to mental disorder? And should mass media respond to what is a necessarily a tiny minority who are next to impossible to psychoanalyze in any meaningful way.

Clearly, Pete, there should be no censorship in a free society. People really jump to that argument when defending mass media. There is no need to. It can't be defended, but it shouldn't be censored.

I also don't think it's influence only seriously affects a small minority. Look at how a handful of LSD preachers turned the whole world onto acid, primarily through one concert and a handful of bands. Look how fashions change. Look how attitudes change. Who champions these fashions and attitudes? Look how much the world is changed and how fast ideas are exchanged since the medium switched from books to newspapers to television and now the internet. Knowledge (sometimes fake knowledge, we might as well just call it "ideas") is spread and received faster and faster every couple years, with more and more to absorb. Keeping up with it requires being influenced. You've got to label these new ideas with some sort of false essence, which is usually conveyed by the medium that transmits the ideas in the first place.

I was really aiming at the original question with my answer - does the media influence people into doing unsavoury things (for which I read the opposite of sweet things I guess). I certainly agree with you in that the most influential aspect of mass media - or any media - is in the spread of ideas, concepts and memes - if you will.

I think if a person is going to do something unsavoury they will probably do it anyway. The unsavoury act they choose to do however may well be influenced by films, television and so on. After all, the creative people who make media tend to have a so much better imagination.

Not quite sure how to take you first line by the way, did you mean it to be tautologous. Clearly there is no censorship in a free society - that would be one of the fundamental tenets of a free society after all.

Tautological, you mean. (I am a pedant.)

I think that the notions of freedom and censorship are broad enough that a society could have both at the same time, depending on how 'freedom' and 'censorship' are understood. There are all kinds of issues with how much individual liberties are or can be violated in order to maintain a good society. I have no idea what bearing this has on this thread, though, because I haven't been following it.

Ah Josh, you can tell that I've been out of studying for quite some time. Tautologous indeed (you can get away with that shit in pub conversations). That said you did follow up your good natured pedantry with something equally as tautological (cheers).

If we reduce this to the semantics game, as you rightly do, then we do need to develop notions of "freedom" and "censorship" which take account of the society they bear on. The idea of freedom is one bandied around so much in constitutional documents that usually it is rendered meaningless. The irresistable force of a Right versus the immovable object of Freedom. You take your pick.

Anyway, as you mention, this is slowly going off topic (and forcing me to relive cold winter tutorials of Ethics), so why not go right back to the top. Can I think of an example where mass media has had a positive effect? Every six months or so we get headlines like "er Saved My Life" where people manage basic First Aid merely on the knowledge of the TV show.

I've also got to say that all soap operas have made me check the geneology of any potential partner. If they have an identical twin, whether alive, dead or missing in the jungles of Borneo, I just don't go there.

"Tautologous" is perfectly acceptable, Pete (And I'm a bigger pedant even than Josh...) (I'm the biggest pedant on the whoooole Bulletin Board...)

Erm, more interestingly, tho: New Shorter Oxford Dictionary = good example of media that has had an effect. It's just a bunch of beezers with an industrial-sized hamper of index cards, yet they control the world!!!

Blimey you're right Mark. According to THE MAN. I think "tautologous" sounds pants though. If we ever meet we ought to have a pedantry contest. I must admit I am out of practice though.

Pedantry pays MY mortage. (This is TRUE!)

sigh....

There's nothing so pitiful as an inaccurate pedant. I should know. Pedantry is a mug's game. Did you know that 'self-depreciating' has been corrupted into 'self-deprecating' but now if you say the former everyone thinks you're an idiot? It's a crying shame.

Yes well that just opens things up for you to be a pedant about descriptivist usage. Which is a beautiful thing.

*Ahem*

Deprecate: from Latin "deprecari" = to curse mildly, do down ("precari" = to pray)

Depreciate: from Latin "depretiari" = to downgrade ("pretium" = price)

hence self-deprecating = self-depreciating: an unusual example of etymological convergence

If you're complaining about usage-degeneration in LATIN (not used as a vernacular since at least 1000AD), then some people will look at you squiffy, yes, Nick.

Dude. You dropped mad etymological (etymologous?!?) science on our asses. I wish I had a good dictionary.

> Does Mass Media Influence People?

Yes ... why else would certain otherwise intelligent people vote for a retarded Chimpanzee in a Presidential election?

bush's political and moral beliefs may range from questionable to appaling, but the man is still human. lay off the 'retarded chimp' cracks, they're unfunny and insulting to him, you, and those who are actually mentally retarded.

er.. does GWB read this board?

I had a feeling Paul doom patrol's postings had a familiar ring to them....

ps I for one would encourage as many below the belt cracks about President Bush as poss. He is after all the author of an upcoming war with China and global ecological catastrophe.

Well, I didn't intend to offend. I admit that calling GW "retarded" was mean and was meant more as an insult to _him_ (and the pinheads who voted for him) than to retarded people (towards whom I bear no animosity). For that, I do apologize if anyone was offended.

As for the "chimpanzee" part ... considering there's an entire webpage called "Bush or Chimp", devoted to the whether or not the Usurper-in-Chief (I don't call him "President" because he didn't win) looks like a chimpanzee, considering that there's another webpage spoofing on "Curious George" and GW, considering that he spent the first forty years of his life as a coke- and booze-monkey, considering that those forty years he spent boozing and snorting and whoring before Finding Jesus left him with an IQ lower than a chimpanzee's, calling him a "chimpanzee" is pretty light.

That's all to say about this ...

The Moderator's View:

While generally comments on public and semi-public figures should be tempered by the knowledge that they might be reading the board, I think it safe to say that George W Bush, unlike Damon, does not read I Love Music. If he does then can he tell us which VU album is best, please?

My Personal View:

Use of 'retard' as an insult though - well, I wouldn't delete it, but I don't like it.

I think comparing W to a chimpanzee is demeaning to chimpanzees.

Did some work with special ed. kids in UK - American teacher came over on exchange and used the word 'retard' as a matter of course - bloody unbelievable.

mind, she got told...

It seems fairly clear that any chimpanzee is likely to favour an LP with a big banana on the front.