Ten things wrong with the 'effects model'- Gauntlett

Gauntlett's critique of the effect model begins with him labelling it as 'backward', that instead of to 'begin with the people who engage in those actions' researchers begin with blaming the media. Although, I can understand by media may want to start with the cause of a problem first this attitude of blame passing reflects much of politics present finger pointing craze. He claims that a complete censorship of film would remove the opportunity for 'children to challenge this assumption', which could arguably prevent them from developing personal morality. He then goes on to make sinister links to the effects model and conservative ideology, that as presently under a conservative prime minister this could be 'diverting our attention away from ...social questions such as levels of welfare provision'. Gauntlett then uses the unreliability of 'artificial studies' that are often used to support the effects model, he states that 'often put their subjects in artificial and contrived situations (but then are presented as studies of real situations)', that it is rare for these experiments to have been assessed over a substantial period of time, that the conclusions are often 'lacks both rational consistency and empirical support' and censorship focuses entirely on fiction 'rather than news and factual programing' which often depicts violence in a far more real and inhumane way- before nine o'clock. Overall, his main critique of the effects model studies and criticisms is that they are all extremely undefined and open to endless interpretation giving the censors basis to ban or cut anything. Gauntlett brings up the valid point that 'children whose behaviour is antisocial and disruptive' will most likely be drawn to violent media which doesn't mean their behaviour is a consequence of it but more likely biological, developmental and environmental factors.

Gauntlett concludes his essay by supporting his argument with examples of a study showing a lack of the population may see a possibility of the influence of other's by the media but 'almost nobody says they have been affected themselves.' He also links back to his early point of the effects model being a conservative leaning tool, by stating that the invocation of the 'Other', was usually the 'heavy viewer, the uneducated, the working class'. He finishes by arguing that the effect model is not worthy of being called a theory as it is grounded on unconvincing evidence.