Posts Tagged: communication theory

Another week, another response post. This week, we looked at comm theory from psychological and sociological views, basically paralleling our two theory classes: Interactive Media Strategies, and Theory and Audience Analysis, respectively. My first question looked at the early days of theory, and how much is still relevant? Well, the bottom line is, human nature doesn’t change all that much. However, collective thought does. There was a time when humanity was sure that the world was flat, the universe orbited the Earth, and the insanity was called by demons in your head. Although science has made tremendous strides in all of these areas, we still possess the same psychology and human nature. For instance, its not as if everyone conducted these experiments and all concluded that the world was flat, etc. There was an authority that told them it was so. Unable to see any curve on the Earth, would we not also logically agree?

Today, we learn about these communication theories, yet they come from the authority of a textbook, not from our own study. Yet, we can still identify why these theories seem true – we find truth in our own experience. Like those who did not see a curve in the Earth, today we understand the Uses and Grats theory because we too can identify uses and gratifications in our own lives. So when we look at mass communication theories, our knowledge is informed by a broader sociological and authoritative source, and then confirmed by our own psychological thought process. Even when this information is scientifically wrong, our minds are influenced by society to have a natural leaning towards the collective thought.

Let’s consider Agenda-Setting Theory. Agenda-Setting Theory tells us that the mass–news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them (thanks Wikipedia). For example, since I titled this article “Is the World Flat?” I brought your mind to reevaluate this assumption. Of course it isn’t, but there mere fact that I made that the title directs our thought process. This is closely integrated with what I was just discussing. The idea that the mass media can direct the collective thought over a particular subject means that our minds will be inorganically led to placing importance on that subject.

But really, with out the influence of mass media, how do we ever determine what is important? We do this by measuring how much this subject will affect us. Yet, what if there is an invisible, scentless, poison gas seeping into our home? We can not identify it, so does this make the subject unimportant? Sometimes our minds need to be nudged towards something for us to realize its importance. So obviously, there is a balance that we, as media-savvy students, need to find. On one hand, we have all the information the media gives us. On the other, all the information that we gather ourselves. Neither are sufficient enough for us to live fully-realized lives, but we need to be able to discern all the information that is thrown at us.

Overall, be careful where you get your information. Some sources may have an agenda, and some (like ourselves) may just be blissfully ignorant.

Understanding communication theories from both the past and the present can help us analyze and comprehend the media in our society today.  In my previous posts, I posed questions about studying communication theories.

In my first question, I asked how we can learn from theories that have been proven false.  For example, the Bullet Theory, or Hypodermic Needle Theory, is no longer accepted as an accurate portrayal of the relationship between media and audiences.  The Bullet Theory states that the media inject ideas into an audience and the audience then immediately takes on that belief.  This theory, however, does not take into account the fact that audiences actively take in and process what they see and hear in the media.  Today, when audiences have more and more ways to be active pursuers and participants in media, this theory not valid.  Even so, I believe it is important to be aware of this theory, and others like it, because it tells us about how our thought on communication has evolved through the years.  Understanding why something is no longer true is just as valuable a piece of information as understanding the latest theories.

In my next question, I asked how the schema theory could be applied to entertainment, or another faction of the media other than journalism.  First, let me pose a scenario.  Suppose someone is watching an episode of Glee– a show about misfit kids, cheerleaders, and jocks who all join a glee club, become friends, and tackle the challenges of adolescence together.  The viewer will take into account their own high school experience and judge the validity of the actions of the the characters based on those experiences.  In this example the schema theory can most certainly analyze entertainment.  People judge all sorts of things that they receive from the media based on their experience in order to understand and feel more secure in the world.

Lastly, I asked if the commodification of culture is still relevant in our digital age when media companies are constantly trying to produce something that stands out from the competition.  As I pondered this question, I came to the realization that this attempt to be unique is part of the commodification metaphor.  Commodities need to evolve and be innovative to competitive in the marketplace,  just as media and culture change to better compete to serve society.  So, competition does not falsify the Commodification of Culture Theory, but solidifies it.

1. Chapter 5 briefly discusses the “summary of the Transmission of Direct Effects Model” in studying how messages are transmitted, received and have an effect on people. he reading says this paradigm is based on the idea that media messages were assumed to have a direct influence on those who were exposed to them. But what about messages that don’t have a direct impact on the audience? What are studies that have been conducted on ineffective ad campaigns, for instance?

2. I always think the idea of social responsibility and the press is an interesting one. According to this theory, the press is obligated to provide a truthful account of events to its readership, among other responsibilities. If there is an instance of an embellished story, does it directly affect the public’s trust in that particular publication?

3. According to the uses and gratifications theory, many goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individuals themselves as they report their interests and motives. I’m always interested in learning about the varying motivations for using new technologies, so what would be some of the specific uses and gratifications of the iPad, and how are they different from the motivations of using a standard MacBook or other Apple computer?