The impact of the media on behaviour — practice questions

Cohen's model: Media exaggerate event; stigmatise folk devils; public demand crackdown; authorities react — amplification spiral.

Example: Mods and rockers (1964); contemporary — youth knife crime, asylum seekers, online harm.

Marxist (Hall et al.): Moral panics distract from structural problems; legitimise repressive control.

Criticisms: Real harm may exist — not always panic; functionalist — panics reinforce norms; new media speed spread differently.

Evaluation: Powerful for media amplification and scapegoating — less clear on intentional manipulation every time.

Conclusion: Useful framework — combine with evidence on actual harm levels.

Step 1: Calculate the number of 'realistic violence' acts.

Total violent acts = 1,750 Cartoon/fantasy violence acts = 1,225 Realistic violence acts = Total acts - Cartoon acts Realistic violence acts = 1,750 - 1,225 = 525

Step 2: Calculate the percentage of 'realistic violence' acts.

Percentage = (Number of realistic acts / Total acts) * 100 Percentage = (525 / 1,750) * 100 Percentage = 0.3 * 100 = 30%

Answer: 30% of the violent acts depicted were classified as 'realistic'.

Step 3: Sociological Application

Argument against censorship: This result can be used to argue against blanket censorship of children's television. An opponent of censorship, drawing on an active audience perspective, could argue that children are capable of distinguishing between the 70% of 'cartoon/fantasy' violence (which is clearly not real) and the 30% of 'realistic' violence. They are not passive sponges (as the hypodermic syringe model suggests) who will be negatively affected by all depictions of violence equally. Therefore, heavy-handed censorship is unnecessary as children and parents can navigate this content. This view suggests regulation, like age ratings and parental guidance, is more appropriate than outright censorship.