Abstract: This paper explains thetheory and research concerning audience/students perceptions of the mediastudies as well as the effects that perceptions of media have onaudiences/students.we first identify various psychological concepts andprocesses involved in generating media-related perceptions. In the firstsection, we analyze two types of media perceptions: media trust/credibilityperceptions and bias perceptions, focusing on research on the Hostile MediaPerception. In both cases, we address the potential consequences of theseperceptions.
Today’s media students are learning in a time in which newtechnology innovations, including online news sites, Film and Dramas, blogs,and social media, have become a prominent part of the media industry. Whetherit’s newspapers, broadcast media, or internet, technology has become a part ofevery area of media. While several studies have focused on how media classesshould be taught in lieu of this change, how students are learning and how theyfeel about this changing industry has yet to be shared. Although students usetechnology and social media frequently, and also consume media online, there isevidence that suggests that they would rather learn face-to-face with aninstructor than take online classes. In addition, they feel positive abouttheir future in the changing industry. LiteratureReview Introduction: While the media industry continuesto adapt to today’s technological world, students also continue to takeinterest in working toward degrees in majors like, film and drama making,broadcast journalism, advertising and several other forms of media.
Though theymay be aware of their future in a changing industry. In just a few years, mediahas become a predominant feature in the majority of the public’s lives,including journalists of all disciplines. Several media outlets have come torely on online content, much of it stemming from social media sites likeFacebook and Twitter. The purpose of this research is to find out how much acurrent, undergraduate/masters group of media students uses this field fortheir future placement. This study also seeks to find a relationship betweenhigh technology use and students’ perceptions of their future placement, aswell as their perceptions of the journalism industry today, in order to suggesthow journalism courses could be taught today. Though several studies havedelved separately into technology and social media use, and how students shouldlearn in today’s digital age, there is little research into the young mediapopulations’ media use and how they perceive both their media classes and thefield itself. This thesis employs three 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 constructs, includingtechnology and social media use, and perception of the media industry, to findout how young journalists/film makers feel about their media studies in achanging industry.
MediaPerception Concepts and Processes Before we discuss research andtheory on media perceptions, it is important to address some of the basicpsychological concepts and processes involved in developing media perceptions.Perception is a central concept of social research, as theorists have longrecognized that “reality” is in the mind of the observer. That is, it isimportant to understand how individuals perceive the world, as conditioned bytheir past experiences and predispositions, including potential patterns,stereotypes, biases, and distortions in those perceptions.
The focus of theresearch reviewed in this article is on the nature of people’s perceptions ofthe media, and the effects that result from exposure to media content. Becausethis research focuses on perceptions, it is also concerned with the variousfactors that shape these perceptions. In terms of the nature of the perceivedeffects being examined, this research has included effects on knowledge,attitudes and behaviors, and has been extended to the perceived effects of bothnews and entertainment media. The most basic concept involved in mediaperception research is in fact, “the media.
” The term, “the media” seeminglycomes up as frequently in public and media discourse as it does in theconversations of experts who study the media. Notably, members of the public,politicians, journalists, and even media researchers often make the mistake ofusing 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 lumpthe multi-faceted monstrosity that constitutes the media into a monolithicentity.
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 racistthe media are, they are making stereotyped judgments that do not apply equallyto all media, much less to all journalists. But people make stereotypedjudgments about collectives (e.g., groups organizations or people) all thetime. Walter Lippmann famously recognized that it is a common and naturaloccurrence to see the world through simplified stereotypes that have heuristicvalue in everyday life, but provide only partial understandings of reality(Lippmann, 1922). Such is the case when we use the term, “the media,” whetherwe are citizens, politicians, journalists, or media researchers. As mediaresearchers, we often recognize that when citizens, politicians or journalists referto “the media,” they are making generalizations that gloss over a lot ofimportant distinctions and differences between media.
However, as mediaresearchers, we frequently pose questions to the subjects we study that requirerespondents to make generalizations based on stereotyped perceptions of amonolithic media. Whether in the realm of public discourse, or in the realm ofmedia research, it is important to recognize that the media are not monolithic.They differ in important ways. First, there are obvious differences betweenmedia based on the functions they serve such as news and entertainment. Andwhile many individuals have rightly observed that the boundaries between newsand information have increasingly blurred into “infotainment,” there is considerablevariance in media messages and effects across broad content domains. Moreover,there are significant differences within those content domains. There are alsomeaningful differences by medium, as reflected in the differences in the natureof content among movies, books, television, radio, newspapers, and so forth.And again, though some of the media may be exhibiting characteristics of mediaconvergence, their differences remain stark.
Moreover, new media (e.g., theInternet, social media, blogs, mobile apps, etc.
) have added to the variegationof media forms. Even within specific types of media such as newspapers ortelevision, 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 TheWall Street Journal, or MSNBC versus Fox News). At a closer level, newspapersstories differ from each other markedly, just as television shows or moviesdiffer from each other. Thus, when people make statements about the media, orwhen researchers ask them to render an opinion regarding the media, grossgeneralizations are being made that do not apply equally well to the variouscorners of the media monolith. The above paragraph identifies a distinctionthat is particularly important for communication researchers studying mediaperceptions and perceptions of media effects: the notion that there aredifferent levels of media involved (i.
e., media as a whole, mediums such asnewspaper and television, media organizations, types of media content such asnews, genre within content type, and particular media messages). In ourexamination of the research on media and effects perceptions, we found thatacross the literature, studies differed in terms of the level on which theyfocus.
Two points can be made here. First, it is important to keep thisdistinction between different media levels in mind when surveying theliterature. Second, future research may want to explore how media perceptionsand perceived effects are influenced by the nature of the media level inquestion. Given all of the differences that exist within the media, it is notsurprising that individuals view media very differently, with fairly obviousdifferences in judgments attributable to factors like political ideology,social class, race, and gender. However, individuals may differ when observedat different points in time depending on factors like recent exposure to aparticular medium or being primed to think about a particular subset of media.Moreover, differences in media diets may lead individuals to differ in theirperceptions of media. For example, heavy users of television news may see themedia very differently than heavy newspaper readers.
There is ample evidence toshow that people are very selective in the media that they choose to use. Thereis some evidence that individual differences in media use lead individuals todevelop different perceptions of the media based on a different set of media experiences(Oh, Park, & Wanta, 2011). Also, individual selectivity in terms ofexposure and attention in accordance with different predispositions andgratifications 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 variationin media perceptions. Researchers have also identified various psychologicalprocesses that introduce biases into the development of media perceptions. Onemajor source of variation is selective perception, a form of perception bias inwhich individuals’ predispositions influence the way that they see the world.Research on selective perception has shown it to be robust and powerful form ofbiased perceptions that applies to a wide range of perceptual phenomena,including perceptions of media and media content. In a classic study ofselective perception, Hastorf and Cantril (1954) distributed a questionnaire tostudents at Dartmouth and Princeton to assess their perceptions of a game thatwas played between the football teams of the two schools in 1951. Notsurprisingly, the respondents saw the game very differently in terms of whichteam was responsible for what both sides saw as a rough and dirty game.
Princeton students put the blame on Dartmouth and vice versa. Moreover, whenstudents from both schools were asked to watch a movie of the game and identifyinfractions, Princeton students reported many more infractions by the Dartmouthteam and saw those infractions as being more flagrant. The Dartmouth studentswho watched the same game film saw it very differently in light of theirallegiance to Dartmouth. While selective perception has been widely recognizedby media researchers, its most directly relevant application to perceptions ofthe media has been in the area of the Hostile Media Perceptions, discussedbelow.
Social Judgment Theory (Hovland & Sherif, 1980) suggests anotherpotential source of perceptual bias relevant to media perceptions. This theorymaintains that individual perceptions are developed in the context ofattitudinal predispositions. When individuals are called upon to render ajudgment 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, anews organization, a journalist, or a news story), they assess the targetrelative to the structure of their existing relevant attitudes. Social JudgmentTheory proposes that the structure of relevant attitudes constitute threepotential zones in which the judgment object may be placed: the “latitude ofacceptance” (a range of acceptable ideas), the “latitude of rejection” (a rangeof unacceptable ideas), and the “latitude of non-commitment” (a range thatrepresents ideas that are neither acceptable or unacceptable).
When individualsmake judgments, perceptions of those targets may become distorted. When atarget falls within their latitude of acceptance, there is a tendency to seethe target as more similar than it really is (assimilation), and when thetarget falls into the latitude of rejection, the target is often perceived asmore different than it really is (contrast). By applying Social Judgment Theoryto media perceptions, we might expect assimilation and contrast effects. Forinstance, when it comes to judging a conservative news organization like FoxNews, conservatives may experience assimilation and perceive the network andits 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 asbeing more consistently conservative than it really is. Sherif and Sherif(1967) also note that individuals who are very ego-involved for the issue inquestion tend to have a smaller latitude of acceptance.
For media perceptions,this might mean that ego-involved people judge media organizations and newsstories as being more different from their own preferences than they reallyare. Another process related to media perceptions is the “confirmation bias,”in which individuals engage in processes to seek, perceive, and recallinformation in a way that supports their predispositions (Plous, 1993). Such aphenomenon might help explain the persistence of false beliefs such as thecommon tendency among staunch conservatives to believe that President Obama isa Muslim and was born outside the United States. Such confirmation biases maycause people to use media that are likely to support their viewpoints, and evento construct memories of mediated reports that confirm their viewpoints, suchas when 2016 Republican presidential primary candidates Donald Trump and BenCarson claimed to have seen media reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebratingthe 9/11 terrorist attacks, despite the fact that media have not been able toconfirm that such videos actually exist.
A “disconfirmation bias” may alsoaffect how media reports are perceived. Disconfirmation bias is when peopleresist or discount information that conflicts with their predispositions, suchas when individuals deny overwhelming evidence of global warming. Lord, Ross,and Lepper (1979) observed confirmation and disconfirmation biases when theypresented pro- and anti-death penalty respondents with two conflicting studieson the deterrence effects of capital punishment. The respondents rated studiesthat had findings consistent with their viewpoint as being more valid andconvincing than studies that were counter to their viewpoint.
When applied tomedia perceptions, confirmation and disconfirmation biases are similar toselective perception. They all affect how people perceive media, leading themto seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms their beliefs aboutthe media, and to avoid, attack, and forget that which conflicts with theirorientation toward the media, whether those orientations pertain to individualjournalists, news stories, media organizations, or media as a whole. Selectiveperception, contrast, and disconfirmation processes may work together to, notonly bias media perceptions (i.e.
, distorting perceptions of the mediaorganizations and the content they produce), but also to produce perceptionsthat the media are biased (i.e., contributing to more longterm, resilient andglobal perceptions regarding the media monolith). Conservatives tend to see themedia has having a liberal bias, while liberals are likely to see the media ashaving a conservative bias.
These perceptions have become reified throughcontinued references and use in the culture. For instance, we hear terms likethe “liberal media” and the “l am estream media” repeated so often that theybecome culturally accepted as true, particularly to those for whom such labelsare a match with their predispositions. To the extent that these constructsbecome reified, it is not just the predispositions of individuals that colormedia perceptions (through selectivity and contrast processes), it is theexistence of the reified constructs themselves that shape subsequentperceptions and judgments. With these basic principles in mind, we now turn toa discussion of specific theory and research that deals with media perceptionsand their subsequent effects. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The mainobjective of this study is to examine the impact of media student’s perceptionabout future placement.
Specific objectives of the study are:1. Toexamine students’ perception towards media industry.2. Toexamine factors that motivate students to join media studies.3. Toexamine how media industry have affected media students and problems they arefacing in their lives. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What perception do students’ have towards media industry?2.
What factors motivate students to join media studies as career?3. what is the job guarantee in media industry? Method Research: The survey method was used for this study Sample: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 questionnaireconsisting 10 questions was used to conduct the survey. The questions were easyand simple. The questions were regarding media perspective, future placement, issuesof media students.
Statistical Analysis: The pie chart was made by usingMicrosoft Excel