The social media (moral) panic this time: Why CAM scholars may need a more complex approach

For my Ph.D. comprehensive exams at Ohio State University in 1980, I was asked to discuss articles that had most influenced my thinking. My favorite at the time was Bernard Berelson’s (1948) article; chiefly, for this quote regarding a central research issue – media effects: “Some kinds of communication, on some kinds of issues, brought to the attention of some kinds of people, under some kinds of conditions, have some kinds of effects” (p. 172). After studying the literature on media effects for many years – from strong to limited effects’ theories – Berelson’s dictum provided my 1980s self with a sensible, comprehensive answer to the question of media effects that said it all (or, nothing at all?). Undoubtedly, whatever your position, it has been and remains an intriguing, challenging, and basic issue of primary concern to scholars of children, adolescents, and media (CAM) today. Indeed, it certainly has had long-term impacts over the years on my scholarship. As a Master’s advisee of Elihu Katz, I, too, became heavily invested in the “active audience” framework and the agency of gratification-seeking media users (Blumler & Katz, 1974). At the time, it fit me well. Yet, as my academic career in the field of children and media progressed, I seem to have developed a rather entwined scholarly and methodological agenda, inclusive of all sides of the “effects” debate. For example, I reported from an ethnographic study of babies’ socialization to TV viewing during my post-doctoral fellowship, but also a study on the impact of wrestling programs on violence in schools a few years later when I returned to Israel. At the time, I was under the influence of the US developmental psychology tradition. Admittedly, this was a deficit model that framed the child as progressing in the process of becoming an adult, which was the dominant psychological approach. Later, I found myself gravitating more towards European studies, and the work of scholars such as David Buckingham who explored children’s agency and voice (Buckingham, 1993). Gradually I distanced myself from strong media effects research, adopting Kirsten Drotner’s criticisms of “media panics” (Drotner, 1992) as well as selective arguments in discourses around “media addiction.” Instead, I advocated for advancing collaboration between parents, educators, media institutions, and policymakers to enable children to maximize the positive potential of media, while minimizing its potential harms. In parallel, I found myself concluding that I had very little in common with researchers coming from a medical-health perspective, who emphasized the media’s harmful impacts on healthy development. For example, I was suspicious of the titles of articles such as: “digital media, anxiety and depression in children;” “internet gaming disorder;” “digital