Posts Tagged: mass communications

The idea of what should be considered “mass communication” seems vague. While scale, direction, impersonality/anonymity, simultaneity, transience, and audience aim to restrict the definition, with new technologies emerging it seems to be task much like “nailing Jell-o to the wall”. With software that encourages 2-way communication, helps to better familiarize companies with their target audience and preserve messages for a long period of time to reference, how will we really define “mass communication”?

Agenda-setting… is this not a circular concept? If the media primarily functions as a business, they would need to show news that the majority of their viewers want to see. But, do the stories and material they show affect what the viewers than want to see? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In reference to the catharsis hypothesis: ” … it was later discovered that those who weren’t allowed to watch their favorite programs were angry and acted out because of this…” I found this to be incredibly interesting and similar to what some may refer to as the “brat hypothesis” ha. I am interested in investigating this study further.

When reading chapter 5, I couldn’t help but think of the movie “The DaVinci Code” as I was reading about human beings unique ability to engage in symbolic communication. Symbols have been apart of our society and apart of our communication process since the beginning of humanity. But the chapter says that communication has not been in mass form since the beginning, that mass communication is a fairly new concept. But in a way, because the masses have understood and used symbols since the beginning of time, could this not be considered an aspect of mass communication?

In reference to the part about mass communication being a one-way communication flow mediated and enhanced by technology. R & V said that mass communication used to give little opportunity for immediate feedback from the audience, but new media technologies are changing this. Will these new and evolving media technologies change the way we think about mass communication and lead us into a new paradigm shift?

McQuail notes the perceived purposes of mass media (providing a window on events or a mirror to events, filtering or serving as gatekeeper for info reaching the audience, being a guide to interpret events, offering a forum for the presentation of ideas, and disseminating information). Are there other purposes for mass media? What other similarities do these purposes have?

1. In Chapter 5 the authors argue that the mass communications experience will differ from person to person based on the symbols each is exposed to and through the media in which those symbols are distributed. Therefore, this experience will be, to an extent, selected and constructed with certain biases. Looking at my own media use, what are the symbols that construct my mass communications reality and what biases might play into my user experience?

2. The idea of using propaganda to influence public opinion is an issue that’s extremely interesting to me. Although, we may not have as blatant media materials influencing the public as we did during the world wars, in what way are propaganda techniques still used today? What are some modern examples of this?

3. In Chapter 8 the commodification of culture is discussed where the media “treats information as a commodity and is ‘selling’ it through the mass media.” What does this mean and how do media conglomerates and advertisers play into this idea? If news distribution is highly diluted by third-parties, can the news process still be considered as serving the public good or just serving the public a biased reality?

When a chapter on early developments in Mass communication Theory begins with a reference to The Lion King, the author clearly knows their audience. The message is clear: those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Thus, we study the origins of communication theory so that we don’t screw things like up like those guys did. From scanning over the first chapter in our reading, I think of when we talked about the Hypodermic Needle theory in class. When it was created, I’m sure it was very relevant and credible. But times have changed and we have seen it become obsolete. Yet is there still value in it? Looking at the roots of mass communication theory, how much have things changed since its first conception, and what value lies in those elements that have become seemingly irrelevant?

Looking at the second chapter, I immediately wonder how “the individual perspective on mass communication theory” will play into this class, as we focus more generally on society and culture. Considering the recent developments in technology, I’m interested to see how both the amateurization of the media and fragmentation of the media into niche segments have effected traditional mass comm thought. Both themes deal with how media is being broken down into smaller and smaller parts, which would make unique content more engaging for the individual who chooses to consume it.

And in this third chapter, we get to the broader themes of the class, with the sociological perspective on comm theory. I’ve always been intrigued by the Agenda Setting theory, as it can border the line the between whistle-blowing and conspiracy. We often call media “the fourth estate,” but how much power does media really have in controlling the thoughts of a society? Where do we draw the line between entertainment or journalism and manipulation?

As an individual with a degree in Broadcast Journalism, it was a little difficult for me while reading these first few chapters on theory but after reading them I realized it was an interesting perspective on looking at mass communications. Below are my three framing questions:

1.  Is Positivism an effective investigative method when studying the effects of social media or is it safe to trust results that are easily tampered with?

2.  Is theory truly imperative to study for broadcast journalism when it is an industry that is constantly changing and would it be beneficial at all to keep creating theories every time the industry shifts?

3.  Can Media Determinism be an explanation for how society forms their “accepted” morals? Is the media convergence shift a reflection of social structure?