Читать книгу Sociology of the Arts - Victoria D. Alexander - Страница 57

1 1 For a recent review of Media Effects literature, see Valkenburg, Peter, and Walther (2016).

2 2 In a very interesting and empirically impressive article, Durante, Pinotti, and Tesei (2019) argue that individuals who heavily watched entertainment television as children “were less cognitively sophisticated and civic‐minded as adults” (p. 2497). They argue that opportunity costs create this effect. That is, for every hour of television an individual watches, they necessarily forgo an hour that could have been spent on cognition‐enhancing activities (e.g. reading books, exercising or playing sports, and socializing).

3 3 For a critique of the ability of the advertising industry to influence people, see Schudson (1986).

4 4 See, e.g., Barthel (1988), Cronin (2000), Ewen and Ewen (1992), and Klein (2000).

5 5 Binder’s (1993) excellent article shows how frames and counter‐frames work. Moreover, she finds differences in frames used when discussing heavy metal and rap which reveal racialised discourses.

6 6 This assumes that sales actually fell, but there is no clear evidence on this. It may be that the story is simply a compelling urban legend.

7 7 Curran (1990) scathingly attacks the equation of the media effects tradition with a hypodermic model of influence. This, he says, “is a breath‐taking, though often repeated, caricature of the history of communications research that writes out a whole generation of researchers. It presents as innovation what is in reality a process of rediscovery… Effects research cannot be said in any meaningful sense to have been ‘dominated’ by the hypodermic model. On the contrary, its main thrust ever since the 1940s was to assert the independence and autonomy of media audiences and dispel the widespread notion that people are easily influenced by the media. It did this by developing many of the same insights that have been proclaimed afresh in the recent spate of ‘reception’ studies, albeit in a different technical language and sometimes with less subtlety” (pp. 146–147).