Response wk 2

1. In the section “Technology and Mass Media” Rosenberry and Vicker talk about the history of mass communication.  In their look at the different mediums of mass communication over generations they bring forth a valid point without saying it; the content is roughly the same from one age to another, all that changes is the medium.  With this in mind, I do believe older mass communication theories are relevant today.  What is different is that we’re a “media saturated society.”  It is difficult to take a simplistic theory from 70 years ago and apply it to a technologically advanced society.  But these older theories still apply today.  Whether the technology “mediates” the message by printing press or by a hyper mobile web, the content of the messages is still the same, it’s effects on an individual can be the same. Look at Bullet Theory for example.  With the wealth of information individuals have access to today, it’s harder to immediately, powerfully, directly and uniformly effect an audience.  Individuals to verify on anther news source website.  We can easily call someone or log on to social media.  The War of the Worlds incident happened because people had only one method of quickly receiving information.  That’s not the case today.

Mass media of previous paradigms did exist within a “one-way flow.”  The message was sent out and received.  However, with much of today’s mass media, we’re seeing a two way flow or a multi-directional flow.  A theory of mass media may still be relevant in interactive media but to a lesser degree if the theory rested upon the idea of a “one-way flow.”   Rosenberry and Vicker also look at impersonality/anonymity.  This concept is related to the one-way flow.  “The creator of the message does not know who might receive it.”  With the advent of social media and the ability to know one’s audience, this idea of impersonality/anonymity is starting to fade.  Theories resting on this idea may not be as relevant today as they once were.  The section titled “New Media Blur the Lines” discusses computer mediated communication as interpersonal communication.

2. Logically, propaganda’s success rests on one major requirement; control of a medium.  Similarly to the War of the Worlds incident, it would seem logical that propaganda would only be successful if the audience had limited means of receiving information. If a medium is controlled, the person in power has the ability to shape how the audience views the world and their situation. But in the age of the internet, anyone can blog and publish their thoughts and experiences.  Individuals have access to almost every news source available.  With this in mind, it would seem propaganda is a thing of the past.

But it isn’t.  Look at current politics in the US.  Look at misinformation circulating online surrounding issues of healthcare, immigration, even the citizenship of President Obama.  This misinformation isn’t resonating with just a select, extremist slice of the population.  Average, normal (although probably not highly sophisticated) individuals are being convinced of utter lies.  How can this be in a technological culture in which news sources abound?  At this point I think I’m veering into psychology, but I believe even though people have numerous avenues to obtain accurate information, they stay with the one they feel the most comfort and familiarity.  Is this a result of older generations accustomed to being spoon-fed news?  Or maybe this is Joseph Klapper’s ideas in effect that the media reinforces attitudes people hold.  Will younger generations be more active in checking different sources?

I’m not sure it’s as simple as controlling a medium.  Adolf Hitler’s controlling of the radio in Germany was not the sole reason why an entire population allowed the systematic extermination of another population.  There were a number of socio-economic factors that played in.  With that in mind, maybe we begin to understand misinformation in US politics in current socio-economic conditions.

And what about smaller matters?  Jimmy Carter carrying his own luggage to appear as “plain folk.”  Propaganda on this level will certainly continue in the age of the internet.  In fact the internet may even aid propaganda on this level.  Take celebrity for example – for which we have an unreasonable fascination.  The internet fosters a connection between determined broadcasters and interested users.  The internet allows us to create a persona that may not be completely accurate.  Perhaps the age of the internet will be the age of propaganda.

3. Fourth Estate theory says “the media are expected to fill the Fourth Estate functions of serving as a government “watchdog” and providing accurate, credible, relevant and sufficient information that becomes the basis for public opinion.”  This theory along with the marketplace of ideas is central in American media.  In 1947 the Hutchins Commission elaborated on this basic idea with four main points that were aimed at contributing to the “maintenance and development of a free society.”  The ideas of the Hutchins Commission brought about social responsibility theory.  Rosenberry and Vicker include a quote from Siebert, Peterson and Schramm “Social responsibility theory holds that the government must not merely allow freedom; it must actively promote it.”

Will the internet help social responsibility theory?  Will it aid in society being as it should be?  I think it’s too early to tell.  The internet is still finding its way into our lives and into our society.  If it isn’t already, it’s becoming the primary means of mass communication.  I believe at some point it will have to be regulated in some manner; take radio and television for example.  Either through self regulation or governmental.  Regulation of the internet with public approval would be tricky.  But it may become necessary for whatever reason.

Much of the internet serves the same purposes of prior technology and mass communication.  Everyone likes to compare bloggers to the pamphleteers of revolutionary America.  We read the same content online that was once found in newspapers.  What is different is the discussion, the back and forth.  That is what is new and different, what has the ability to help society be as it should be.  We’re better able to share thoughts than ever before.  So with this easy access to information and then the ability to converse on the subject of that content, I do believe the internet can enhance society.