Abstract: as the effects that perceptions of media have



This paper explains the
theory and research concerning audience/students perceptions of the media
studies as well as the effects that perceptions of media have on
audiences/students.we first identify various psychological concepts and
processes involved in generating media-related perceptions. In the first
section, we analyze two types of media perceptions: media trust/credibility
perceptions and bias perceptions, focusing on research on the Hostile Media
Perception. In both cases, we address the potential consequences of these
perceptions. Today’s media students are learning in a time in which new
technology innovations, including online news sites, Film and Dramas, blogs,
and social media, have become a prominent part of the media industry. Whether
it’s newspapers, broadcast media, or internet, technology has become a part of
every area of media. While several studies have focused on how media classes
should be taught in lieu of this change, how students are learning and how they
feel about this changing industry has yet to be shared. Although students use
technology and social media frequently, and also consume media online, there is
evidence that suggests that they would rather learn face-to-face with an
instructor than take online classes. In addition, they feel positive about
their future in the changing industry.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now












While the media industry continues
to adapt to today’s technological world, students also continue to take
interest in working toward degrees in majors like, film and drama making,
broadcast journalism, advertising and several other forms of media. Though they
may be aware of their future in a changing industry. In just a few years, media
has become a predominant feature in the majority of the public’s lives,
including journalists of all disciplines. Several media outlets have come to
rely on online content, much of it stemming from social media sites like
Facebook and Twitter. The purpose of this research is to find out how much a
current, undergraduate/masters group of media students uses this field for
their future placement. This study also seeks to find a relationship between
high technology use and students’ perceptions of their future placement, as
well as their perceptions of the journalism industry today, in order to suggest
how journalism courses could be taught today. Though several studies have
delved separately into technology and social media use, and how students should
learn in today’s digital age, there is little research into the young media
populations’ media use and how they perceive both their media classes and the
field itself. This thesis employs three 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 constructs, including
technology and social media use, and perception of the media industry, to find
out how young journalists/film makers feel about their media studies in a
changing industry.



Perception Concepts and Processes

 Before we discuss research and
theory on media perceptions, it is important to address some of the basic
psychological concepts and processes involved in developing media perceptions.
Perception is a central concept of social research, as theorists have long
recognized that “reality” is in the mind of the observer. That is, it is
important to understand how individuals perceive the world, as conditioned by
their past experiences and predispositions, including potential patterns,
stereotypes, biases, and distortions in those perceptions. The focus of the
research reviewed in this article is on the nature of people’s perceptions of
the media, and the effects that result from exposure to media content. Because
this research focuses on perceptions, it is also concerned with the various
factors that shape these perceptions. In terms of the nature of the perceived
effects being examined, this research has included effects on knowledge,
attitudes and behaviors, and has been extended to the perceived effects of both
news and entertainment media. The most basic concept involved in media
perception research is in fact, “the media.” The term, “the media” seemingly
comes up as frequently in public and media discourse as it does in the
conversations of experts who study the media. Notably, members of the public,
politicians, journalists, and even media researchers often make the mistake of
using media as a singular noun, as witnessed by the common use of the phrase,
“The media is….” This phrase reflects a tendency by all of these groups to lump
the multi-faceted monstrosity that constitutes the media into a monolithic
entity. When citizens use the terms, the “liberal” media or the “conservative”
media, they are making generalizations that do not apply to all or even most media.
Similarly, when individuals make claims about how violent, sexist, or racist
the media are, they are making stereotyped judgments that do not apply equally
to all media, much less to all journalists. But people make stereotyped
judgments about collectives (e.g., groups organizations or people) all the
time. Walter Lippmann famously recognized that it is a common and natural
occurrence to see the world through simplified stereotypes that have heuristic
value in everyday life, but provide only partial understandings of reality
(Lippmann, 1922). Such is the case when we use the term, “the media,” whether
we are citizens, politicians, journalists, or media researchers. As media
researchers, we often recognize that when citizens, politicians or journalists refer
to “the media,” they are making generalizations that gloss over a lot of
important distinctions and differences between media. However, as media
researchers, we frequently pose questions to the subjects we study that require
respondents to make generalizations based on stereotyped perceptions of a
monolithic media. Whether in the realm of public discourse, or in the realm of
media research, it is important to recognize that the media are not monolithic.
They differ in important ways. First, there are obvious differences between
media based on the functions they serve such as news and entertainment. And
while many individuals have rightly observed that the boundaries between news
and information have increasingly blurred into “infotainment,” there is considerable
variance in media messages and effects across broad content domains. Moreover,
there are significant differences within those content domains. There are also
meaningful differences by medium, as reflected in the differences in the nature
of content among movies, books, television, radio, newspapers, and so forth.
And again, though some of the media may be exhibiting characteristics of media
convergence, their differences remain stark. Moreover, new media (e.g., the
Internet, social media, blogs, mobile apps, etc.) have added to the variegation
of media forms. Even within specific types of media such as newspapers or
television, there are often numerous notable differences between local,
national, and international media organizations. And within those categories,
significant differences can be observed (e.g., The New York Times versus The
Wall Street Journal, or MSNBC versus Fox News). At a closer level, newspapers
stories differ from each other markedly, just as television shows or movies
differ from each other. Thus, when people make statements about the media, or
when researchers ask them to render an opinion regarding the media, gross
generalizations are being made that do not apply equally well to the various
corners of the media monolith. The above paragraph identifies a distinction
that is particularly important for communication researchers studying media
perceptions and perceptions of media effects: the notion that there are
different levels of media involved (i.e., media as a whole, mediums such as
newspaper and television, media organizations, types of media content such as
news, genre within content type, and particular media messages). In our
examination of the research on media and effects perceptions, we found that
across the literature, studies differed in terms of the level on which they
focus. Two points can be made here. First, it is important to keep this
distinction between different media levels in mind when surveying the
literature. Second, future research may want to explore how media perceptions
and perceived effects are influenced by the nature of the media level in
question. Given all of the differences that exist within the media, it is not
surprising that individuals view media very differently, with fairly obvious
differences in judgments attributable to factors like political ideology,
social class, race, and gender. However, individuals may differ when observed
at different points in time depending on factors like recent exposure to a
particular medium or being primed to think about a particular subset of media.
Moreover, differences in media diets may lead individuals to differ in their
perceptions of media. For example, heavy users of television news may see the
media very differently than heavy newspaper readers. There is ample evidence to
show that people are very selective in the media that they choose to use. There
is some evidence that individual differences in media use lead individuals to
develop different perceptions of the media based on a different set of media experiences
(Oh, Park, & Wanta, 2011). Also, individual selectivity in terms of
exposure and attention in accordance with different predispositions and
gratifications sought introduce further variance in media perceptions (Iyengar
& Hahn, 2009; Ponder & Haridakis, 2015; Stroud, 2008, Stroud 2010).
However, it is not just differences in media experiences that lead to variation
in media perceptions. Researchers have also identified various psychological
processes that introduce biases into the development of media perceptions. One
major source of variation is selective perception, a form of perception bias in
which individuals’ predispositions influence the way that they see the world.
Research on selective perception has shown it to be robust and powerful form of
biased perceptions that applies to a wide range of perceptual phenomena,
including perceptions of media and media content. In a classic study of
selective perception, Hastorf and Cantril (1954) distributed a questionnaire to
students at Dartmouth and Princeton to assess their perceptions of a game that
was played between the football teams of the two schools in 1951. Not
surprisingly, the respondents saw the game very differently in terms of which
team was responsible for what both sides saw as a rough and dirty game.
Princeton students put the blame on Dartmouth and vice versa. Moreover, when
students from both schools were asked to watch a movie of the game and identify
infractions, Princeton students reported many more infractions by the Dartmouth
team and saw those infractions as being more flagrant. The Dartmouth students
who watched the same game film saw it very differently in light of their
allegiance to Dartmouth. While selective perception has been widely recognized
by media researchers, its most directly relevant application to perceptions of
the media has been in the area of the Hostile Media Perceptions, discussed
below. Social Judgment Theory (Hovland & Sherif, 1980) suggests another
potential source of perceptual bias relevant to media perceptions. This theory
maintains that individual perceptions are developed in the context of
attitudinal predispositions. When individuals are called upon to render a
judgment about a construct (i.e., a judgment target such as an object or idea;
in the case of media perceptions, the judgment target might be the media, a
news organization, a journalist, or a news story), they assess the target
relative to the structure of their existing relevant attitudes. Social Judgment
Theory proposes that the structure of relevant attitudes constitute three
potential zones in which the judgment object may be placed: the “latitude of
acceptance” (a range of acceptable ideas), the “latitude of rejection” (a range
of unacceptable ideas), and the “latitude of non-commitment” (a range that
represents ideas that are neither acceptable or unacceptable). When individuals
make judgments, perceptions of those targets may become distorted. When a
target falls within their latitude of acceptance, there is a tendency to see
the target as more similar than it really is (assimilation), and when the
target falls into the latitude of rejection, the target is often perceived as
more different than it really is (contrast). By applying Social Judgment Theory
to media perceptions, we might expect assimilation and contrast effects. For
instance, when it comes to judging a conservative news organization like Fox
News, conservatives may experience assimilation and perceive the network and
its news stories as being more similar to their ideology than they really are.
Similarly, liberals may be subject to contrast effects and see Fox News as
being more consistently conservative than it really is. Sherif and Sherif
(1967) also note that individuals who are very ego-involved for the issue in
question tend to have a smaller latitude of acceptance. For media perceptions,
this might mean that ego-involved people judge media organizations and news
stories as being more different from their own preferences than they really
are. Another process related to media perceptions is the “confirmation bias,”
in which individuals engage in processes to seek, perceive, and recall
information in a way that supports their predispositions (Plous, 1993). Such a
phenomenon might help explain the persistence of false beliefs such as the
common tendency among staunch conservatives to believe that President Obama is
a Muslim and was born outside the United States. Such confirmation biases may
cause people to use media that are likely to support their viewpoints, and even
to construct memories of mediated reports that confirm their viewpoints, such
as when 2016 Republican presidential primary candidates Donald Trump and Ben
Carson claimed to have seen media reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating
the 9/11 terrorist attacks, despite the fact that media have not been able to
confirm that such videos actually exist. A “disconfirmation bias” may also
affect how media reports are perceived. Disconfirmation bias is when people
resist or discount information that conflicts with their predispositions, such
as when individuals deny overwhelming evidence of global warming. Lord, Ross,
and Lepper (1979) observed confirmation and disconfirmation biases when they
presented pro- and anti-death penalty respondents with two conflicting studies
on the deterrence effects of capital punishment. The respondents rated studies
that had findings consistent with their viewpoint as being more valid and
convincing than studies that were counter to their viewpoint. When applied to
media perceptions, confirmation and disconfirmation biases are similar to
selective perception. They all affect how people perceive media, leading them
to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms their beliefs about
the media, and to avoid, attack, and forget that which conflicts with their
orientation toward the media, whether those orientations pertain to individual
journalists, news stories, media organizations, or media as a whole. Selective
perception, contrast, and disconfirmation processes may work together to, not
only bias media perceptions (i.e., distorting perceptions of the media
organizations and the content they produce), but also to produce perceptions
that the media are biased (i.e., contributing to more longterm, resilient and
global perceptions regarding the media monolith). Conservatives tend to see the
media has having a liberal bias, while liberals are likely to see the media as
having a conservative bias. These perceptions have become reified through
continued references and use in the culture. For instance, we hear terms like
the “liberal media” and the “l am estream media” repeated so often that they
become culturally accepted as true, particularly to those for whom such labels
are a match with their predispositions. To the extent that these constructs
become reified, it is not just the predispositions of individuals that color
media perceptions (through selectivity and contrast processes), it is the
existence of the reified constructs themselves that shape subsequent
perceptions and judgments. With these basic principles in mind, we now turn to
a discussion of specific theory and research that deals with media perceptions
and their subsequent effects.




The main
objective of this study is to examine the impact of media student’s perception
about future placement. Specific objectives of the study are:

1. To
examine students’ perception towards media industry.

2. To
examine factors that motivate students to join media studies.

3. To
examine how media industry have affected media students and problems they are
facing in their lives.



What perception do students’ have towards media industry?

What factors motivate students to join media studies as career?

what is the job guarantee in media industry?






 Research: The survey method was used for this study

sample was collected through simple random sampling. The total sample was           (N=100) consisting 50 males and 50 females.
The age range of the sample was from 20 to 40    years.

Assessment Tool: A close ended questionnaire
consisting 10 questions was used to conduct the survey. The questions were easy
and simple. The questions were regarding media perspective, future placement, issues
of media students.  

Statistical Analysis: The pie chart was made by using
Microsoft Excel