Audience theory 2

1) Social learning theory has been criticised for simplifying the causes of violence in society. Do you think the media is responsible for anti-social behaviour and violence?

I don't believe that Media is responsible for anti-social behaviour and violence. Yes there are sometimes scenes or gratuitous violence in many forms of media, but there are regulations and limitations put in place to make sure that the media is shown to appropriate age groups if the parent, guardian or distributor of the media do not make sure that the media is given to the appropriate audience then the media cannot be held accountable. (an example of this would be if a child is given an R-rated movie to watch by his/her or guardian, it would be their fault to allow their impressionable child to watch the violent content) 

2) How is social learning theory relevant in the digital age? Are young people now learning behaviour from social media and the internet? Give examples.

With the rise of technology and availability of media of all forms on all types of devices for all ages, I do believe that social learning is relevant since many younger people are exposed to opinion leaders through social media whose actions and beliefs may affect the actions and beliefs of the younger viewers. This may not always be a bad thing as some opinion leaders can be role models, but in some cases, these online opinion leaders can be influencing the younger generations in a negative manner. An example of this would be the massively popular online personality known as Jake Paul, he is an online content creator that is infamously known to portray a very delinquent and disrespectful personality that has a huge young impressionable audience that can range anywhere from the age of 10-18. 

3) Research five examples of moral panic from the last 50 years. To what extent was the media responsible for these moral panics? Was the concern in society justified? How have things changed as a result of these moral panics?

E.g 1)   Violence in Comic books
Although a bit longer before the 50 years limit given for the answer, in the early 1940's-1950's a man called Frederic Wertham started an anti-comic books campaign that was targeted at trying to remove comic books due to their violent nature. This panic was further instigated by the media by portraying Frederic Wertham's sayings on the news. Due to the religious nature of American society in the 1940's and 1950's (and the fact it is after world war 2, a period of extreme violence) it is understandable as to why there was mass hysteria, but it is not justifiable as there were no scenes portraying extreme violence or questionable acts that did not fit societies values at the time (mainly homosexuality).

E.g 2) 9/11

The 9/11 attacks occurred in New York after two commercial planes crashed into the twin towers. This attack had devastating effects and even questionable action taken against the homeland of the terrorists that orchestrated the attacks. The effects of 9/11 are still prevalent today as the public view of Muslims is negative in most western countries (admittedly this is also due to recent more recent attacks in these countries, the basis of this mass hysteria originates from the 9/11, the largest terror attack in the west). The media was the major source of moral panic that ensued after the attacks. Again the concern was justifiable, the action taken after the attacks were not.

E.g 3) Video Game hysteria (Video games are too violent)

A recent source of moral panic has been due to the belief that video games are too violent for children today. The media has had a massive role in further increasing any form of negativity against video games as there have been countless articles, interviews and false portrayals of negative effects of video games on the younger generations. From what the media was portraying the concern was justifiable as the media was showing society that video games can corrupt your child and turn him/her into a delinquent. Since this is a recent moral panic, the effects have not yet happened, but I will assume with the progression of the situation so far, that nothing will actually happen.

E.g 4) Police Brutality 

Police brutality is a source of moral panic that has been prevalent in most western countries for decades, but only recently has gotten a large amount of attention from the media after a series of brutal police accounters that resulted in innocent POC (People of Colour) mainly consisting of African American by white police officers. This moral panic was portrayed by the media as a grey subject, saying that the answer is not black and white. This matter resulted in a large amount of America's minority population being doubtful and suspicious of the police force, the resulting protests and actions taken are justifiable

E.g 5) Syrian Refugees  
The media portrayed the Syrian Refugee crisis, in the same way, they portrayed police brutality. I believe the reaction from society when it came to donations to help the crisis was justifiable, the reaction of banning Muslims was not.  


4) Read this introduction to an academic paper on technopanics. What examples are given of technopanics that create fear in society?

Some example of technopanics is Child safety on the internet, digital privacy and also cybersecurity.


5) How does the author suggest that technopanics should be addressed - rather than through government regulation?

The author uses the words "to the extent that these concerns are valid, they are best addressed by ongoing societal learning, experimentation, resiliency, and coping strategies rather than by regulation." What this means is that instead of choosing to regulate online usage and technological advancements by introducing regulations, but instead should educate the public to understand how to effectively use the online and technological resources and how to avoid any possible dangerous situations.

6) Do you think the internet should be regulated? Should the government try and control what we can access online?

I both agree and disagree. While I believe that the internet is a perfect place for the public to access the basic human right of free speech and that it should not be regulated, I do believe that there should be regulations to an extent. Many people take advantage of this medium and promote hateful and extreme beliefs with no consequences. But the idea of extreme beliefs is very subjective to upbringings and values which can sometimes make determining hate speech difficult for some people.

7) Apply Gerbner's cultivation theory to new and digital media. Is the internet creating a fearful population? Are we becoming desensitised to online threats, trolling and abuse? 

I do believe that with the increase of digital media, a more desensitised population is being created due to the fact that we are all being exposed to horrible events all around the world. This exposure results in the population being used to genocides and terroristic events. 

8) Is heavy internet use something we should be worried about in society? How would you define 'heavy internet use'?  

Everything has a limit, I do believe that excessive use of the internet can be a bad thing, but mainly just due to possible negative health issues, not due to the content available online.