Talk:Influence of mass media

We can be addicted to the mass media even though we don't use it all the time. I know i just farted yu fuk head because I am also addicted to it. I always use my cellphone, television, and radio. But Media is a big part of our daily life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.179.100 (talk • contribs)

-I'd like to see some statistics included in this article, and details on the researches themselves. Think of it as if you're writing an essay. There will need to be sufficient detail on both sides of the opinion, evidence as to why, and the conclusions that can possibly be drawn form those evidences, on the various different points of view. The more detail as to how that conclusion is reached, the better. Weighing logic against logic, while still maintaining nuetrality. Right now, the article is a tad indiscriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.38.241 (talk • contribs)

This article needs sources. It states that "It has been suggested that the extent to which an audience engages with a media text can be roughly split into three degrees." By whom? Why did we wikilink the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary involvement if we don't know what we're talking about? Also, wikifying doesn't mean wikilinking every single word (such as security, information and short term).--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is just a less-good version of the media effects article, and includes some material - such as the paragraph on the 'uses and gratifications' model (wrongly attributed to Denis McQuail) which is not actually on media influences as such anyway. Suggest delete this article and redirect to media effects. Sophie1975 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the problems with the article in its current state, it is plain wrong to merge it with 'Media Effects'. While 'Media Effects' traces recurring ideas about the effects (especially negative) of the media on individual behaviour, 'Media Influence' is a far more general concept of social, economic, political and historical relevance. It may take a while to develop the article, but a genuinely encyclopaedic look at 'Media Influence' would be far more informative, interesting and generally relevant than the 'Media Effects' Idea. They are not the same thing at all.

About merge from media theory

It seems like an oversimplification to merge media theory into this article, since it only covers mass media. Oicumayberight 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That page was quite confusing, I considered having sent to AfD. If someone feels that it should be re-instated I don't have an issue with that, but I would likely reccommend it be deleted. Grumpyyoungman01 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the Talk:Media theory page, it appears that a merge with media studies was considered. If a merge is necessary, media theory seems closer to media studies than media influence. If media theory remains redirected to this article, then the media influence article should cover a broader scope than mass media. Oicumayberight 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. As these merge tags are placed and then not acted upon for months on end (whether that is a merge or remove the tags), I will redirect media theory to media studies and notify Talk:media studies. Someone from there can take what they see fit from the last version of the page. I don't ever see this article as covering more than the mass media. Grumpyyoungman01 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

therefore one can really rely on that/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.86.234 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Some Major Edits for discussion

In the second paragraph, the following quote should be deleted because it does not really say anything: "Connecting the world to individuals and reproducing the self-image of society,".
The criticism section needs heavy adjusting both in terms of paragraph positions, and concepts within each paragraph. I think Chomsky should be the first reference mentioned under criticism. A mini bio of Professor Gauntlett is provided at the outset of the criticism section, yet with all due respect, Gauntlett is lesser known than Chomsky. I propose adding a brief few lines about Chomsky's "filter" concepts, which is found in the Durham article. In this case, I would move this from the further reading into the references section.
The mass media and a free enterprise society section is first of all not an intuitive sub-title. It touches on how television networks need to cover their production costs, but one concept that I feel should be mentioned in this article is capitalism and it's effects on mass media content. Namely, television networks and in turn media producers must answer to advertisers. For example, a television network would not publish a scathing interview that is detrimental to the image of its advertising client. One of Chomsky's "filters" accounts for this media bias, and would be a valuable addition to media influence/effect. --Austenten (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections to this? My note about the criticism section has been up for over a month now, so I will implement a few edits to said section.

--Austenten (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested transferring the "Media Influenced Violence" section of this article (previously just titled "Criticism"), under a different article, Media Violence. Here is a link to my discussion topic on that article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_violence_research#Transfer_Content

--Austenten (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I'm writing on behalf of the Tufts University Child and Family Webguide to ask that our website be considered for an external link on this Wikipedia page. Our website is maintained and developed by a staff of evaluators who search the web for articles and sites that contain valuable information for children and their parents regarding various medical/developmental topics. This link leads to our "TV/Media" site, which contains information on the effects that media (specifically television, video games, and the Internet) has on child development. Offers information particular on how violence in media affects children.

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/30.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.134.143 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

-- The bibliography needs some tinkering. Adorno's _Jargon of Authenticity_ is a critique of heidegger, and has virtually nothing to do with mass culture or the media. Horkheimer's _Eclipse of Reason_ is also tangential to the point. A better choice is _Dialectic of Enlightenment_, by both, whose third chapter on "the Culture Industry" is a major document of the relevant problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmorse@ca.inter.net (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article basically calls Nixon ugly, by saying that Kennedy was considered handsome, ESPECIALLY compared to Nixon. 149.4.115.3 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

a lil biased?

Is anyone aware of the obvious political leaning in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.227.71 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Answer: There is no political leaning in the definition of democracy. The same applies here, profiling and providing cited sources on the ideas and theoretical models of media influence and media effects does not entail that that long definition is biased or has a "political lean". --Austenten (talk)

External links invalid

All external links except the first one are no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.119.62 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It has be suggested that the media has too much involvement in Canadian politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deena

74.216.81.173 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreadable

This page has declined into an unreadable mass of nonsensical, unsourced nonsense. I'm no Wiki editor, but this page looks and reads awefully. For such an important topic, it seems terribly neglected. 76.78.120.59 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty bad. I'm not sure where to start. The media and violence section is damn near gibberish. I suggest perhaps that section should get truncated to a bare minimum and direct readers to the media violence page. That would take care of that at least. I'll wait to see if there are any objections before making such a drastic change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Also suggesting the "Canadian media effects" be merged into this. Much of the material overlaps, and I'm dubious we need a separate page for Canada (no offense to my Canadian friends). 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

Gave it a couple months. Merger now done. ~~MVGuy

Sources

Guys, I am interested in the topic and I started translating the page in Bulgarian, but it looks like the personal opinion of the authors. There are no sources specified. For example I would like sources about these:

• critiques in the early-to-mid 20th century suggested that media would destroy the individual's capacity to act autonomously
• Mid 20th-century empirical studies, however

--Zearendil (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)