Deadass I’m just straight up gonna copy and paste from the powerpoint from one of my lectuers the criticisms regarding the argument that media directly affects audiences, criticisms from a legitimate theorist (Gauntlett 2005) and criticisms that are academically held. Aka criticisms of the argument that “seeing ‘x problematic fandom thing’ makes people think ‘x problematic irl thing’ is ok and normal” that fandom antis love to throw around, which is known by its academic term; The Effects Model.
(yes I deadass study this shit at uni)
- It tackles social problems ‘backwards’
- Treats children as inadequate: This situation is clearly exposed by research which seeks to establish what children can and do understand about and from the mass media. Such projects have shown that children can talk intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham, 1993, 1996), and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical conclusions. (Gauntlett, 1997).
- Assumptions within the idea are characterized by barely-concealed conservative ideology: Concerned with values such as patriotism, traditionalism, respect for authority, distaste for youth/change.
- Inadequately defines its own objects of study
- The effects model is often based on artificial studies
- Often based on studies with misapplied methodology
- The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence.
- Assumes superiority to the masses
- Makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media
- The effects model is not grounded in theory