4 ms·

Media effects research suggests otherwise. This is a hot sociology research topic and debates about how easily media can influence people have been raging for

by ugh 15y ago

Media effects research suggests otherwise. This is a hot sociology research topic and debates about how easily media can influence people have been raging for nearly the past century (well, basically ever since mass media arrived). Empirically it has always been hard to find any media effects at all. Opinions cannot be easily changed by media. Other effects like agenda setting or framing and priming have much stronger empirical support. This suggests to me that it is extremely hard to control people's opinions and views through media content, especially given the extent to which a single actor can influence media content.

bluedanieru 15y ago
I don't get your post at all. What exactly do you mean by 'media' which apparently excludes these other effects? As far as I can tell mass media does all those things. Moreover, one particularly successful mass media outlet is virtually entirely controlled by a single actor.
- ugh 15y ago
  Media effects studies were done with television, radio, print and web content. Opinion changes in response to media content would generally be considered strong media effects. Agenda setting, framing and priming are of course also media effects but they are seen as much weaker. There also still is plenty of pluralism in media content, both internal and external. Worrying developments do exist, sure, but in the grand scheme of things they are not such a big deal. Especially the web can actually increase pluralism.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    This doesn't suggest that, as you say, 'opinions cannot be easily changed by media'. Sure, it would not do much good for a personality to appear on the air and basically tell his audience 'you need to think this', but these weaker, less direct methods of influencing opinion are effective and mass media uses them with generally great success. Perhaps the key word is 'easily', but the damage is done regardless.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Agenda setting, framing or priming are not opinion change. It's not really known how and how effectivly those effects can change opinions. I would also be wary of characterizing mass media as a single entity. That's just doesn't reflect reality.
      - bluedanieru 15y ago
        Rupert Murdoch is the king of News Corp. Anyway, I see what you're getting at, but I think you're implying a discontinuity between 'change opinion' and 'influence opinion' where one need not exist.
        ugh 15y ago
        But even Murdoch isn't some kind of tyrant – he can't be, even if he wanted to. There is still a lot of pluralism inside of News Corp. You are, of course, correct: Concentration of media ownership is prevalent and a worrying development.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
treelovinhippie 15y ago
Well I'm making the assumption that our behaviors, beliefs, values, knowledge, personality etc (the algorithm that is "you") are directly influenced by all of our inputs (visual, auditory, sensory etc). Sure there are other inputs during a 24 hour day, but the Internet, and sitting in front of a computer screen are pretty damn dominant. So if you take that assumption, at face value there should be significant "programming" happening. Now most of the time, it's yourself that is doing the programming. e.g. you browse content (articles, videos etc) that you actively search for, or actively select out of a feed of possible content. The idea with recommendation engines is that within the next few years, they will become far more advanced. So now assume that you have algorithms that can serve you content that you absolutely love with 99% accuracy - 99 out of 100 HN stories you're like "OMFG THIS IS AMAZING". At that point, you will very rarely search for information any more. You'll still do so from time-to-time, but ultimately I think people will sit on a platform and just have content after content delivered to them. And already, the newsfeed nature of the web has started down this path. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, HN - they're all feeds of information, some with primitive filtering methods. It's in their best interests to serve 100% personalized content as soon as that technology becomes available. It also doesn't really matter who produces the content. Content will be produced for every single niche. To begin to re-program the individual, you just slowly introduce content that takes the incremental step from their existing belief/value/behaviour toward the desired one. Out-there example: you have an individual who is a Christian. You simply tell the system that you want them to become an Atheist at X point in the future. The system then subtly, and incrementally introduces catered content designed to facilitate that transition. Don't get me wrong, this won't be easy to create such a system. I'm just saying it's within reach well before this decade is out. And the concern/fascination is that this could be run globally, and anonymously. /rant (I love thinking about this stuff) :)
- ugh 15y ago
  People didn't really search for content when there were a handful or just one TV station or radio station. That's exactly the time when the hypothesis of strong media effects was very popular (also because of the then current fascist or communist regimes and their propaganda) yet researchers were again and again unable to confirm it. I'm not saying that it's in principle not possible to influence people's opinions but I think it's very hard and we understand next to nothing about how one would go about influencing opinions in a systematic fashion.

by ugh 15y ago

bluedanieru 15y ago

I don't get your post at all. What exactly do you mean by 'media' which apparently excludes these other effects? As far as I can tell mass media does all those things. Moreover, one particularly successful mass media outlet is virtually entirely controlled by a single actor.

ugh 15y ago
Media effects studies were done with television, radio, print and web content. Opinion changes in response to media content would generally be considered strong media effects. Agenda setting, framing and priming are of course also media effects but they are seen as much weaker. There also still is plenty of pluralism in media content, both internal and external. Worrying developments do exist, sure, but in the grand scheme of things they are not such a big deal. Especially the web can actually increase pluralism.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  This doesn't suggest that, as you say, 'opinions cannot be easily changed by media'. Sure, it would not do much good for a personality to appear on the air and basically tell his audience 'you need to think this', but these weaker, less direct methods of influencing opinion are effective and mass media uses them with generally great success. Perhaps the key word is 'easily', but the damage is done regardless.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Agenda setting, framing or priming are not opinion change. It's not really known how and how effectivly those effects can change opinions. I would also be wary of characterizing mass media as a single entity. That's just doesn't reflect reality.
    - bluedanieru 15y ago
      Rupert Murdoch is the king of News Corp. Anyway, I see what you're getting at, but I think you're implying a discontinuity between 'change opinion' and 'influence opinion' where one need not exist.
      - ugh 15y ago
        But even Murdoch isn't some kind of tyrant – he can't be, even if he wanted to. There is still a lot of pluralism inside of News Corp. You are, of course, correct: Concentration of media ownership is prevalent and a worrying development.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

treelovinhippie 15y ago

Well I'm making the assumption that our behaviors, beliefs, values, knowledge, personality etc (the algorithm that is "you") are directly influenced by all of our inputs (visual, auditory, sensory etc). Sure there are other inputs during a 24 hour day, but the Internet, and sitting in front of a computer screen are pretty damn dominant. So if you take that assumption, at face value there should be significant "programming" happening. Now most of the time, it's yourself that is doing the programming. e.g. you browse content (articles, videos etc) that you actively search for, or actively select out of a feed of possible content. The idea with recommendation engines is that within the next few years, they will become far more advanced. So now assume that you have algorithms that can serve you content that you absolutely love with 99% accuracy - 99 out of 100 HN stories you're like "OMFG THIS IS AMAZING". At that point, you will very rarely search for information any more. You'll still do so from time-to-time, but ultimately I think people will sit on a platform and just have content after content delivered to them. And already, the newsfeed nature of the web has started down this path. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, HN - they're all feeds of information, some with primitive filtering methods. It's in their best interests to serve 100% personalized content as soon as that technology becomes available. It also doesn't really matter who produces the content. Content will be produced for every single niche. To begin to re-program the individual, you just slowly introduce content that takes the incremental step from their existing belief/value/behaviour toward the desired one. Out-there example: you have an individual who is a Christian. You simply tell the system that you want them to become an Atheist at X point in the future. The system then subtly, and incrementally introduces catered content designed to facilitate that transition. Don't get me wrong, this won't be easy to create such a system. I'm just saying it's within reach well before this decade is out. And the concern/fascination is that this could be run globally, and anonymously. /rant (I love thinking about this stuff) :)

ugh 15y ago
People didn't really search for content when there were a handful or just one TV station or radio station. That's exactly the time when the hypothesis of strong media effects was very popular (also because of the then current fascist or communist regimes and their propaganda) yet researchers were again and again unable to confirm it. I'm not saying that it's in principle not possible to influence people's opinions but I think it's very hard and we understand next to nothing about how one would go about influencing opinions in a systematic fashion.