Social control of media

Relations between media and society usually have both a political dimension and a normative or social-culture aspect. Central to the political dimension is the question of freedom and control. As noted above, near-total freedom was claimed and eventually gained for the book, for a mixture of reasons, in which requirements of politics, religion, science and art all played some part. This situation remains unchallenged in free societies, although the book has lost some of its once subversive potential as a result of its relative marginalization. The influence of books has to a large extent to ba mediated through other more popular media or other institutions (education, politics, etc.).

            The newspaper press bases its historical claim to freedom of operation much more directly on its politicalfunctions of expressing opinion and circulating political and economic information. But the newspaper is also a significant business enterprise for which freedom to produce and supply its primary product (information) is a necessary condition of successful operation. The rather limited political freedom enjoyed by broadcast television and radio derives from a claim to perform same of the same functions as the newspaper press and to serves a genereal ‘public interest’. Formal political control has tended to diminish, as the television industry expands and becomes more like a normal business, in which market disciplines replace open political control. This does not yet seem to have led to any greater politicization of the medium.

            The variety of new means of distribution, some using cable or telecommunications networks, still await clear definitions of their appropriate degree of political freedom. Freedom from control may be claimed on the grouds of privacy or the fact that these are not media of indiscriminate mass distribution but directed to specific users. They are so-called ‘common-carriers’ which generally lack control over their content. They also increasingly share the same communicative tasks as media with established editorial autonomy. The question remains in dispute for a number of reasons, among them the need for regulation for techincal reasons or to prevent abuse of monopoly power. The question of political freedom does not generally arise in the case of media channels which primarily carry fiction, entertainment or music, despite the political potential of all three. In free societies these media are left largely to the free market, while in totalitarian societies their political potential is usually hamessed to official aims.

            These differences of perception and institutional definition relating to political control (where there is freedom, there are few regulations and little supervisory apparatus) follow a general pattern. First, where the communication function involved closely affects the exercise of power in society (as with newspaper and television informational services), there is a stronger motive for scrutiny if not direct control (political control can be exercised by ownership). In general, activities in the sphere of fiction, fantasy or entertainment are more likely to escape attention than are activities which touch directly on social reality.

            Virtually all media of public communication have a radical potential, in the sense of being potentially subversive of reigning systems of social control, they can provide access for new voices and perspectives on the existing order; new forms of organization and protest made available for the subordinate or disenchanted. Even so, the institutional development of successful media has usually resulted in the elimination of the early radical potential, partly as a side-effect or commercialization, partly because authorities fear disturbance of society (Winston, 1986). According to one theory of media development, the driving logic of communication has been towards more effective social management and control, rather than towards change and emancipation (Beniger, 1986).

            The normative dimension of control operates according to the same general principles, although sometimes with different consequences for particular media. For instance, film, which escapes direct political control because it has not usually been seen as politically relevant, has often been subject to control of its content, on grounds of its potential moral impact on the young and impressionable (especially in matters of violence, crime or sex). The widespread restrictions applied to television in matters of culture and morals stem from the same (generally unstated) assumptions. These are that media which are very popular and have a potentially strong emotional impact on many people need to be supervised in ‘the public interest’.

            Supervision often includes positive support for ‘desirable’ cultural communication objectives as well as for restrictions on the undesirable. The more communication activities can be defined as either educational or ‘serious’ in purposes – or, alternatively, as artistic and creative – the more freedom from normative restrictions can usually be claimed. There are complex reasons for this, but it is also a fact that ‘an’ and content of higher moral seriousness does not usually reach large numbers and are seen as marginal to power relations.

            The degree of control of media by state or society may depend on the feasibility of applying it. The most regulated media have typically been those whose the distribution is most easily supervised, such as centralized national radio or television broadcasting or local cinema distribution. In the last resort, book and print media generally are much less easy to monitor or to suppress. The same applies to local radio, while new possibilities for desktop publishing and photocopying and all manner of ways of reproducing sound and images have made direct censorship a very blunt and ineffective instrument. The impossibility of policing national frontiers to keep out unwanted foreign communication is another consequence of new technology which promotes more freedom. While technology in general seems to increase the promise of freedom of communication, the continued strength of institutional controls, including those of the market, over actual flow and reception should not be underestimated.

Read more »

New Electronic Media - Telematic Media

The so-called telematic media (‘telematic’ because they combine telecommunications and informatics) have been heralded as the key component in the latest communication revolution which wilol replace broadcast television as we know it. The term covers a set of developments at the sore of which is a visual display unit (television screen) linked to a computer network. What are sometimes referred to as the ‘new media’, which have pit in an appearance since the 1970s, are in fact a set of different electronic technologies with varied applications which have yet to be widely taken up as mass media  or to acquire a clear definition of their function.

            Several kind of technology are involved, of transmission (by cable or satelite), or miniaturization, of storage and retrieval, of display (using flexible combinations of text and graphics), and of control (by computer). The main features, by contrast with the ‘old media’ as described, are: decentralization – supply and choice are no longer predominantly in the bands of the supplier of communication; high capacity – cable or satelite delivery overcomes the former restrictions of cost, distance and capacity; interactivity – the reciever can select, answer back, exchange and be linked to other receivers directly; and flexibility of form, context and use.

            Aside from facilitating the distribution of existing radio and television, new telematic media have been offered to the general public in two main forms, one known as teletext, the other as videotex. The former makes available much additional textual information by way of over-air broadcasting to supplement normal television programming on addapted recievers, and it can be called up at the viewer’s initiative. The second provides, usually via the telephone network, a much larger and more varied supply of computer-stored information which can be consulted  and/or interrogated by users equipped with a terminal and television screen. It also offers a wide range of interactive services, including a form of visual communication between centres and peripherals and in principle between all those connected on the same network. Videotex can also be used to supply printed material.

            The new media also include computer video games, virtual reality and video recordings of all kinds. Home video may be considered as an extension of television and cinema, with graetly increased flexibility in use. It is thus a hybrid medium (like television itself), borrowing essential features from film and television for content and forms and from the book and music industries for means of distribution (separate items of content rented or sold). Yet another innovation, CD-ROM (atanding for compact disc, read only memory), provides flexible and easy access to very large stores of information, by way of computer-readable discs. In general, the new media have bridged differences both between media (convergence of technology), na d also between public and private definitions of communication activities. The same medium can now be used interchangeably for public and private purposes and both for receiving and self-production (for example, the video ‘camcorder’). In the long run this has implications not only for definitions of separate media but also for the boundaries of the media institutions.

            Although the ‘new media’ were, in their initial stages, taken up mainly as extensions of existing audiovisual media, they represent a challenge to the production, distribution and basic forms of the latter. Production, for example, need no longer be concentrated in large centrally located organizations (typical of film and television), nor linked integrally with distribution (as with most television and radio), nor so centrally controlled. Nor are print media immune to fundamental change, as a direct electronic delivery of print to households becemes reality, and as the organization of production and the work of journalist and authors become increasingly computerized.

Read more »

Definition of Recorded Music

Relatively little attention has been given to music as a mass medium in theory and research, perhaps because the implications for society have never been clear, nor have there been sharp discontinuities in the possibilities offered by successive technologies of recording and reproduction/transmission. Recorded and replayed music has not even enjoyed a convenient label to describe its numerous media manifestations, although the generic term ‘phonogram’ has been suggested (Burnett, 1990) to cover music accessed via record players, tape players, compact disc players, VCRs (video cassette recorder), broadcasting and cable, etc.

            The recording and replaying of music began around 1880 and were quite rapidly diffused, on the basis of the wide appeal of popular songs and melodies. Their popularity and diffusion were closely related to the already established place of the piano (and other instruments) in the home. Much radio content since the early days has consisted of music, even more so sine the rise of television. While there may have been a gradual tendency for the ‘phonogram’ to replace private music-making, there has never been a large gab between mass mediated music and personal and direct audience enjoyment of musical performance (concerts, choirs, bands, dances, etc.). The phonogram makes music of all kinds more accessible at all times in more places to more people, but it is hard to discern a fundamental discontinuity in the general character of popular musical experience, despite changes of genre and fashion.

            Even so, there have been big changes in the broad character of the phonogram, since its beginnings. The first change was the addition of radio broadcast music to phonogram records, which greatly increased the range and amount of music available and extended it to many more people than had access to gramophones. The transition of radio from a family to an individual medium in the post-war ‘transistor’ revolution was a second major change, which opened up a relatively new market of young people for what became a burgeoning record industry. Each development since then – portable tape players, The Sony Walkman, the compact disc and music video – has given the spiral another twist, still based on a predominantly young audience. The result has been a mass media industry which is very interrelated, concentrated in ownership and internationalized (Negus, 1993). Despite this, music media have significant radical and creative strands which have developed despite increased commercialization (Firth, 1981).

            While the social significant of music has received only sporadic attention, its relationship to social events has always been recognized and occasionally celebrated or feared. Since the rise of the youth-based industry in the 1960s, mass-mediated popular music has been linked to youthful idealism and political concern, to supposed degeneration and hedonism, to drug-taking, violence and antisocial attitudes. Music has also played a part in various nationalist independence movements (e.g. Ireland or Estonia). While the content of music has never been easy to regulate, its distribution has predominantly been in the hands of established institutions, and its percieved deviant tendencies subject to some sanctions. Aside from this,  most popular music has continued to express and respond to rather enduring and conventional values and personal needs.

Read more »

Film As Mass Media

Film began at the end of nineteenth century as a technological novelty, but what it offered was scarcely  new in context or function. It transferred to a new means of presentation and distribution and older tradition of entertainment, offering stories, spectacles, music, drama, humor and technical tricks for popular consumption.  As a mass media, film was partly a response to the ‘invention’ of leisure – time out of work – and an answer to the demand for economical and (usually) and usually respectable ways of enjoying free time for the whole family. Thus it provided for the working class some of the cultural benefits already enjoyed by their social ‘betters’. To judge from its phenomenal growth, the latent demand met by film was enormous; and if we choose from the main formative elements named above, it would not be the technology or the social climate but the needs met by the film for a class (urban lower-middle and working) which mattered most – the same elements, although a different need and a different class, produced the newspaper.

            The characterization of the film as ‘show business’ in a news form for an expanded market is not the whole story. There have been three other significant strands in film history. First, the use of film propaganda is noteworthy, especially when applied to national or societal purposes, based on its great reach, supposed realism, emotional impact and popularity. The practice of combining improving message with entertainment had been long established in literature and drama, but new elements in film were the capacity to reach so many people and to be able to manipulate the seeming reality of the photographic message without loss of credibility. The two other strands in film history were the emergence of several schools of film art (Huaco, 1963) and the rise of the social documentary film movement. These were different from the mainstream in having either a minority appeal or a strong element of realism (or both). Both have a link, partly fortuitous, with film as propaganda in that both tended to develop at times of social crisis.

            There have also been thinly concealed ideological and implicitly propagandist elements in many popular entertainment films, even in politically ‘free’ societies. This reflects a mixture of forces: deliberate attempts at social control; unthinking adoption of populist or conservative values; and the pursuit of mass appeal. Despite the dominance of the entertainment function in film history, film have often displayed didactic-propagandistic tendencies. Film is certainly more vulnerable than other media to outside interference and maybe more subject to conformist pressures because so much capital is at risk.

            Two turning points in film history were the coming of television and the ‘Americanization’ of the film industry and film culture in the years after the First World War (Tunstall, 1977). The relative decline of nascent, but flourishing, European film industries at that time (reinforced by the Second World War) probably contributed to a homogenization of film culture and a convergence of ideas about the definition of film as a medium. Television took away a large part of the film-viewing public, especially the general family audience, leaving a much smaller and younger film audience. It also took away or diverted the social documentary stream of film development and gave it a more congenial hone in television. However, it did not do the same for the art film or for film aesthetics, although the art film may have benefits from the ‘demassification’ and greater specialization of the film/cinema medium.

            One additional consequence of this turning point is the reduced need for ‘respectability’. The film became more free to cater to the demand for violence, horrific or pornographic content. Despite the liberation entailed in becoming a less ‘mass’ medium, the film has not been able to claim full rights to political and artistic self-expression, and many countries retain an apparatus of licensing, censorship and powers of control.

            A last concomitant of film’s subordination to television in audience in appeal has been its integration with other media, especially book publishing, popular music and television itself. It has acquired a certain centrality (Jowell and Linton, 1980), despite the reduction of its immediate audience, as a showcase for other media and as cultural source, out of which come book, strip cartoons, songs, and television ‘stars’ and series. Thus film is as much as ever a mass culture creator. Even the loss of the cinema audience has been more than compensated by a new domestic audience reached by television, video recordings, cable and satellite channels.

Read more »

Broadcasting

Radio and television have, respectively, a seventy-plus and a forty-plus-year history as a mass media, and both grew out of pre-existing technologies – telephone, telegraph, moving and still photography, and sound recording. Despite their obvious differences, now wide in content and use, radio and television can be treated together. Radio seems to have been a technology looking for a use, rather than a response to a demand for a new kind of service or content, and much the same is true of television. According to William (1975, p.25), ‘Unlike all previous communications technologies, radio and television were system primarily designed for transmission and reception as abstract processes, with little or no definition of preceding content’. Both came to borrow from existing media, and most of the popular content forms of both are derivative – film, music, stories, news and support.

            Perhaps the main genre innovations common to both radio and television have been based on the possibility of direct observation, transmission and recording events as they happen. A second distinctive feature of radio and television has been their high degree of regulation, control or licensing by public authority – initially out of technical necessity, later from a mixture democratic choice, state self-interest, economic convenience and sheer institutional custom. A third and related historical feature of radio and television media has been their centre-periphery pattern of distribution and the association of national television with political life and the power centres of society, as they have become established as both popular and politically important. Despite, or perhaps because of, this closeness to power, radio and television have hardly anywhere acquired, as of right, the same freedom and the press enjoys, to express views and act with political independence.

Read more »

Print Media

The book        

The history of modern media begins with the printed book – certainly a kind of revolution, yet initially only a technical device for reproducing the same, or rather a similar, range of texts to what was already being extensively copied by hand. Only gradually does printing lead to change in content – more secular, particular and popular works (especially in the vernacular languages), as well as political and religious pamphlets and tracts – which played a part in the transformation of the medieval world. Thus there occurred a revolution of society in which the book played an inseparable part.

The early newspaper

It was almost two hundred years after the invention of printing before what we now recognize as a prototypical newspaper could be distinguished from the handbills, pamphlets and newspaper of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Its chief precursor seems, in fact to have been the letter rather than the book – newsletter circulating through the rudimentary postal service, concerned especially with transmitting news of event relevant to international trade and commerce. It was thus an extension into the public sphere of an activity which had long taken place for governmental, diplomatic or commercial purposes. The early newspaper was marked by its regular appearance, commercial basis (openly for sale), multiple purpose (for information, record, advertising, diversion, and gossip) and public or open character. 

            The seventeenth-century commercial newspaper was not identified with any single source but was a compilation made by a printer-publisher. The official variety (as published by Crown or government) show some of the same characteristic but was also a voice of authority and an instrument of state. The commercial paper was the form which has given most shape to the newspaper institution, and its development can be seen in retrospect as a major turning point in communication history – offering first of all a service to its anonymous reader rather than an instrument to propagandist or potentates.

            In a sense the newspaper was more of an innovation than the printed book – the invention of a new literary, social and cultural form – even if it might not have been so perceived at the time. Its distinctiveness compared to other form of cultural communication, lies in its individualism, reality orientation, utility, secularity and suitability for the needs of a new class: town-based business and professional people. Its novelty consist not in its technology or manner of distribution, but in its function for a distinct class in a changing and more liberal social-political climate.

The letter history of the newspaper can be told either as a series of struggles, advances and reverses in the cause of liberty or as a more continuous history of economic and technological progress. The most important phases in press history which enter into the modern definition of the newspaper are described in the following paragraphs. While separate national histories differ too much to tell a single story, the elements mentioned, often intermingling and interacting, have generally been factors in the development of the press institution to a greater or lesser degree.

The press as adversary          

From its beginning, the newspaper was an actual or potential adversary of established power, especially in its own self-perception. Potent images in press history refer to violence done to printers, editors and journalists. The struggle for freedom to publish, often within a broader movement for freedom, democracy and citizen rights, is emphasized. The part played by underground presses under foreign occupation or dictatorial rule has also been celebrated. Established authority has often confirmed this self-perception of the press by finding it irritating and inconvenient (although also often malleable and, in the extreme, very vulnerable to power).

            There also been a general progression historically towards more press freedom, despite major setbacks from time to time. This progress has sometimes taken the form of greater sophistication in the means of control applied to the press. Legal restraint replaced violence, the fiscal burdens were imposed (and later reversed). Now institutionalization of press within a market system serves as a form of control, and the modern newspaper, as a large business enterprise, is vulnerable to more kinds of pressure or intervention than its simpler forerunners were.

Rise of newspaper-reading public   

The extension of newspaper reach to the ‘masses’, beyond the circle of an educated elite or business class, is a familiar feature of press history in many countries, although the causes are disputed (Williams, 1958). Improved technology, rising literacy, commerce, democracy and popular demand all played a part and they largely coincided in their timing. Few countries experienced majority penetration by the newspaper until well into the twentieth century, and there are still large variation in rates of newspaper reading between countries at the same level of of development. In assessing the significance of the rise of the newspaper, we should distinguish between the growing market penetration of the commercial press (as a vehicle for advertising and entertainment) and the reading of the newspaper for mainly political purposes. The enhanced role of the newspaper in political movements or at times of national crisis is also a striking feature of press history.

The political press    

It is not surprising that the newspaper should often have been used as an instrument for party advantage and political propaganda. On common form of the newspaper was the party-political paper dedicated to the task of activation, information and organization. This type is now largely unknown in North America and has been in general decline else-where for some time (although alive once more in Central and Eastern Europe). The party newspaper has lost ground to commercial press forms, fun and has been able to appeal more readers more of the time. The idea of party press, even so, still has its place as a component in democratic politics. Where it does survive in Europe (and there are examples elsewhere), it is typically independent from the state (though possibly subsidized), professionally produced, serious and opinion-forming in purposes. In these aspects it is not far removed from the prestige liberal newspaper, but its uniqueness lies in the attachment of its readers by way of party allegiance, its sectionalism and its mobilizing function for party objectives.

The prestige press

The late-nineteenth-century bourgeois newspaper was a high point in press history and contributed much to our modern understanding of what a newspaper is or should be. The ‘high-bourgeois’ phase of press history, from about 1850 to the turn of the century, was the product of several events and circumstances: the triumph of the liberalism and the absence or ending of direct censorship or fiscal constraint; the emergence of a progressive capitalist class and several new professions, thus forging a business-professional establishment; and many social and technological changing favoring the risk of a national or regional press of high information quality.

The chief features of the new prestige or ‘elite’ press which was established in this period were: formal independence from the state and form vested interests; recognition as a major institutions of political and social life (especially as a self-appointed former of opinion and voice of the ‘national interest’); a highly developed sense of social and ethical responsibility and the rise of journalistic profession dedicated to the objective reporting of events. Many current expectations about what a ‘quality’ newspaper is still reflect several of these ideas and provide the basis for criticisms of newspaper which deviate from the ideal, by being either too partisan or too ‘sensational’.

Commercialization of the newspaper press

The mass newspaper has been called ‘commercial’ for two main reasons: it is operate for profit by monopolistic concerns, and its heavily dependent on product advertising revenue (which made it both possible and advantageous to develop a mass readership). The commercial aims and underpinnings of the mass newspaper have exerted considerable influence on content, in the direction of political populism as well as support for business, consumerism and free enterprise (Curran, 1986; Curran and Seaton, 1988). For present purposes, it is more relevant to see, as a result of commercialization, the emergence of a new kind of newspaper: lighter and more entertaining, emphasizing human interest, more sensational in its attention to crime, violence, scandals and entertainment, and having a very large readership in which lower-income and lower-education groups are overrepresented (Hughes, 1940; Schudson, 1978; Curran et al., 1981).

            While this way now appear to be the dominant (in the sense of the most read) newspaper form in many countries, it still effectively derives its status as a newspaper from the ‘high-bourgeois’ form (especially by claiming to give current political and economic information), although it is otherwise most clearly defined by its contrast with the prestige newspaper.

Read more »

The rise of media

The aim of this article is to set out the approximate sequent of development of the present-day set of mass media – to indicate major turning points and to tell briefly something of the circumstances of time and place in which different media acquired their publics definitions in the sense of their perceived utility on role in society. These definitions have tended to form early in the history of any given medium and to have become ‘fixed’ by circumstances as much as by intrinsic properties as means of communication. As time has passed, definitions has also changed, especially by becoming more ‘complex’ and acquiring more ‘options’, so that it eventually becomes difficult to speak of a single, universally current and consistent definition of a medium.

          In summarizing the history and the characteristic of different media, as a further step typifying mass communication, a convergence on an original Western (European) form tends to be assumed. This does some violence to the diversity of media in the world, but can also be justified on grounds of the similarity of many global media phenomena.

          In the history of mass media we deal with four main elements: a technology; the political, social, economic and cultural situation of a society; a set of activities, functions or needs; and people – especially as formed into groups, classes or interests. These four elements have interacted in different ways and with different order of primacy, sometimes one seeming to be the driving force or precipitating factor, sometimes another.

Read more »

The Mass Media Institution

Despite changing technology, the mass media phenomenon persist within the framework of the mass media institution. This refers broadly to the set of media organization and activities, together with their own formal or informal rules of operation and sometimes legal and policy requirements set by the society. These respect the expectation of the public as a whole and of other social institutions (such as politics, governments, law, religion, economics and religion). Media institutions have developed gradually around the key activities of publication and wide dissemination of information and culture. they also overlap with other institutions, especially as these expand their public communication activities. Media institutions are internally segmented according to type of technology (print, film, television, etc.) And often within each type (such as national versus local press or broadcasting). They also change over time and differ from one country another. Even so, there are several typical defining features, additional to the central activity of producing and distributing ‘knowledge’ (information, ideas, culture) on behalf of those who want to communicate and its response to individual and collective demand. The main features are as follows.

·       The media institutions is located in the ‘public sphere’, meaning especially that it is open in principle to all as receivers and senders; the media deals with public matter for publics purposes – especially with issue on which publics opinion can be expected to form; the media are answerable for their activities to the wider society (accountability take place via laws, regulations and pressures from state and society).

·       By virtue of their main publishing activity on behalf of members of a society, the media are institutionally  endowed with a large degree of freedom of economics, political and cultural actors.

·       The media institutions is formally powerless (there is a logical relation between this absence of power and media freedom).

·       Participation in the media institutions is voluntary and without social obligation; there is a strong association between media use and leisure time and a dissociation from work and duty.

Read more »

Mass Communication Defined

The word ‘mass’ is itself value laden and controversial, and the term ‘communication’ still has no agreed definition – although Gerbner’s (1967) ‘social interaction through messages’ is too hard to beat. Nevertheless, there is sufficient commonality in widely held ‘common-sense’ perceptions to provide a working definition and a general characterization. The term ‘mass’ denote great volume, range or extent (such as a people or production, while ‘communication’ refers to the giving and taking of meaning, the transmission and reception of messages. One definition (Janowitz,1969) reads as follows: ‘mass communication comprise the institutions and techniques by which specialized group employ technological devices (press, radio, film, etc.) to disseminate symbolic content to large, heterogeneous and widely dispersed audiences’. In this and similar definitions, the word ‘communication’ is really taken to mean ‘transmission’, as viewed by the sender, rather than in the fuller meaning of the term which includes the notions of response, sharing and interaction.

            The process of ‘mass communication’ is not synonymous with the ‘communication media’ (the organized technologies which make mass communication possible). There are other common uses of the same technologies and other kinds of relationship mediated through the same network. For instance, the basic forms and technologies of ‘mass’ communication are the same as those used for very local newspaper or radio. Mass media can also be used for individuals , private or organization purposes. The same media that carry public messages to large publics for public purposes can also carry personal notice, advocacy messages, charitable appeals, situation-vacant advertise-ments and many varied kinds of information and culture. The point is especially relevant at a time of convergence of communication technologies, when the boundaries between public and private and large-scale and individual communication networks are increasingly blurred.

            Everyday experience with mass communication is extremely varied. It is also voluntary and usually shaped by cultures and by requirements of one’s way of life and social environment. The notion of mass (and homogeneous) communication experience is abstract and hypothetical; and where, on occasions, it does seem to become a really, the causes are more likely to be found in particular conditions of social life than in the media. The diversity of technology-mediated communication relationship is increasing as a result of new technology and application. The general implication of these remark is that mass communication was, for the beginning, more of an idea than reality. The term stand for a condition and a process while is theoretically possible but rarely found in any pure form. It is an example of what the sociologist Mark Weber called an ‘ideal-type’ – a concept which accentuates key elements of an empirically occurring reality. Where it does seem to occur, it turns out to be less massive, and less technologically determined, than appears on the surface.

Read more »

Alternative traditions of analysis: structural, behavioral and cultural

          Putting the matter simply, there are essentially three main alternative approaches: structural, behavioral and cultural.

          The structural approach derives mainly from sociology but includes perspective from history, law and economics. Its starting point is “society-centric” rather than “media-centric” and its primary object of attention is likely to be media system and organizations and their relationship to society. In so far as questions of content arise, the focus is likely to be on the effect of social structure and media systems on patterns of content. In so far as questions of media use and effect are concerned, the approach favours the analysis of representative aggregate data derived from surveys or complete sets of statistic. Fundamental dynamics of media phenomena are sought in differences of power and live-chances in society.

          The behavioral approaches has its principal roots in psychology and social psychology but is also represented by a sociological variant. In general, the object of interest is individual human behavior, especially in matters to do with choosing, processing and responding to communication messages (thus mass media use  and effect). Psychological approaches  are more likely to use experimental methods.  The sociological variant focuses on the behavior of members of socially defined populations and favours the multi-variate analysis of representative survey data collected in natural conditions. Individuals are classified according to relevant variables of social position, disposition and behavior, and the variables can be statistically manipulated. In the study of organizations, participant observation is commonly adopted. Context analysis is often practiced as a form of behavioral research. treating media documents (text) as the equivalent of populations which can also be sampled and submitted to statistical variable analysis.

          The cultural approach has its roots in the humanities, in anthropology and sociolinguistics. While very broad in potential, its has been mainly applied to questions of meaning and language, to the minutiae of particular social context and cultural experiences. It is more likely to be ‘media-centric’ (although not exclusively), sensitive to differences between media and settings of media making and perception, more interested in the in-depth understanding of particular or even unique cases and situations than in generalization. Its methods favour the qualitative and depth analysis of social and human-signifying practices.

Read more »

Different kinds of theory mass communication

If theory understood not only as a system of law-like proposition, but as any set of ideas which can help make sense of a phenomenon, guide action or predict a consequence, then one can distinguish at least four kinds of theory which are relevant to mass communication: social scientific, normative, operational and everyday theory. The most obvious kind to be expected in a text like this consist of social scientific theory – general statements about the nature, working and effects of mass communication, based on systematic and objective observation of media and other relevant sources.

The body of such theory is now large, although it is loosely organized and not very clearly formulated or even very consistent. It also covers a very wide spectrum, from board questions of society to detailed aspect of individual information sending and receiving. Some ‘scientific’ theory is concerned with understanding what is going on, some with developing a critique and some with practical applications in processes of public information or persuasion (see Windahl and Signitzer, 1992)

A second kind of theory can be described as normative, since it concerned examining or prescribing how media ought to operate if certain social values are to be observed or attained. Such theory usually stems from the broader social philosophy or ideology of a given society. This kind of theory is important because it plays a part in shaping and legitimating media institutions and has considerable influence on the expectations which are placed on the media by other social agencies and even by the media’s own audiences. A good deal of research into mass media has been the result of attempts to apply norm of social and cultural performance. A society’s normative theories concerning its own media are usually to be found in laws, regulations, media policies, codes of ethics and the substance of public debate. While normative media theory is not in itself ‘objective’, it can be studied by the ‘objective’ methods of the social sciences (McQuail, 1992)

A third kind of knowledge about the media can best be described as operational theory, since it refers to the practical ideas asslembed and applied by media practitioners in the conduct of their own media work. Similar bodies of accumulated practical wisdom are to be found in most organizational and professional setting. In the case of the media it helps to organize experience on many questions such as how to select news, please audience, design effective advertising, keep within the limits of what society permits, and relate effectively to sources and audiences. At some points it may overlap with normative theory – for instance, in matters of journalistic ethics.

Such knowledge merits the name of theory because it is usually patterned and persistent, even it never codified, and is infuential in respect of behaviour. It comes to light in the study of communicators and their organizations (for example. Elliott, 1972; Tuchman, 1978). Katz (1977) compared the role of the researcher in relation to media production to that of the theorist of music or philosopher of science who can see regularities which a musician or scientist cannot be, or does not even need to be, aware of (though usually also without theorist themselves being able to make music or do science).

Finally, there is everyday or common-sense theory of media use, referring to the knowledge we all have from our own long experience with media, which enables us to understand what is going on, hoe a medium might fit into our daily lives, how its content is intended to be ‘read’, as well as how we like to read it, what the differences are between different media, different media genres and examples of content, and much more. On the basis of such theory is grounded the ability to make consistent choices, from tastes and make judgements. This ability, in turn, shapes what the media actually offer to their audiences and sets both directions and limits to media influence (for instance, by enabling us to distinguish between reality and fiction, to ‘read between the lines’ or to see through the persuasive aims and techniques of advertising and other kinds of propaganda).

Read more »

Media Theory (Basic differences of approach)

The field of media theory is characterized by widely divergent perspectives. In addition to a fundamental difference between the left and the right of the political spectrum – between progressive and conservative, or critical and applied purposes – which plays a major part in structuring theory, there are two main differences of perspective in relation to mass media and society.

            One of these separates ‘media-centric’ from ‘society-centric’ (or social-centric) approaches. The former approach attributes much more autonomy and influence to communication and concentrates on the media’s own sphere of activity; the latter takes a view of the media as so much a reflection of political and economic forces that the theory for the media can be little more than a special application of broader social theory (Golding and Murdock,1978). Media-centric theory sees mass media as a primary mover in social change and often themselves driven forward by irresistible development of communication technology. Whether or not society is driven by the media, it is certainly true that the mass communication theory it self Is so driven, tending to respond to each major shift to media technology and structure.

            The second main dividing line is between those theorists whose interest (and conviction) lies in the realm of culture and ideas and whose emphasize material forces and factors. This divide corresponds approximately with certain other dimension: humanistic versus scientific; qualitative versus quantitative; and subjective versus objective. While these differences may reflect only the necessity for some division of labour in a wide territory, thay often involve competing and contradictory claim about how to pose questions, conduct research and provide explanation. These two alternatives are independent of each other, so that in fact several different perspectives on media and society can be identified. 

The four types of prespective can be briefly describes as follows:

1. A media – culturalist prespective involves giving primary attention to comtent and to the reception of media message as influenced by the immediate personal environment.
2. A media – meterialist approach involves the political-economic and the technological aspect of the media themselves receiving the moxt emphasis.
3. A social-culturalist prespective emphasizes teh influence of social factors on media production and reception and the function of the media in social life.
4. A social–materialist perspective sees madia mainly as a reflection of economic and material conditions of the society rather than as first cause.

Each of these prespectives can be cross-cut by a more radical or more conservative point of view. However, there has been a tendency for the critical perspectives to be more associated with either a society-centric or a culturalist perspective (or both).

Read more »

Media and society relationships

This book is about theories of mass communication, but it is hard to draw a line between ideas concerning mass media and wider theories of society. Yet one can at least try to recognize some of the fundamentals underlying assumptions about the relation between media and society. Most basic is a view of the mass media as an established social institution, with its own distinctive set of norms and practices but with the scope of its activities subject to definition  and limitation by the wider society. The implies that the media are essentially dependent on ‘society’, especially on the institutions of political and economics power, although there is scope for influence in return, and the media institutions may be gaining in autonomy, simpli as a result of the extending volume and scope of media activities. Even so, the forces historically at work in society and the wider world are more potent than the media or the immediate influence which these might exert.

The nature of the relations between media and society depends on circumstances of time and place. This book largely deals with mass media and mass communication in modern, ‘developed’ nation states, mainly elective democracies with free-market (or mixed) economies which are integrate into a wider international set of economic and political relations of exchange, competition and also domination or conflict. The author’s view is that the theory and related research discussed in this book relate generally to social contexts characterized by structured differences in economics warefare and political power between social and economic classes.

            Despite apparent stability in these social context, deep latent conflicts and tensions exist nationally and internationally, which find expression in conflicts of ideology, competing claim of resources and, occasionally, social crisis. The media are deeply involved in these matters as producers, disseminators and stores of meaning about events and contexts of public social life. It follow that the study of mass  communication cannot avoid dealing in questions of values or easily achieve neutrality and scientific objectivity.

            This particular problem arises in another form when its comes to questions of interpreting the meaning of what media carry or the meanings which are perceived by the ‘recievers’. Again the possibility of objective knowledge is at issue and, therefore, also the possibility of formulating or testing theory. This problem is similar enough in the social sciences, though it may be posed in an unusually sharp form in respect of communications, since values and meaning are at the heart of the matter.

Read more »

Media of Mass Communication

It is the basic assumption that the mass media (newspaper, television and radio especially) are of considerable, and still growing, importance in modern societies. This view of the media is widely shared, and the reasons seem to lie in the fact that the media are :

·       a power source – a potential means of influence, control and innovsation in society; the primary means of transmission and source of information essential to the working of most social institutions.

·       the location (or arena) where many affairs of public life are played out, both nationally or internationally.

·       a major source of of definitions and images of social reality; thus also the place where the changing culture and the values of societies and groups are constructed, stored and most visibly expressed.

·       the primary key to fame and celebrity status as well as to effective performance in the public arena.

·       the source of an ordered and public meaning system which provides a benchmark for what is normal, empirically and evaluatively; deviations are signalled and comparisons made in terms of the public version of normally.

            In addition, the media are the single largest focus of leisure-time activity and means of entertainment. They also help organize and interrelate the rest of the leisure. As a result, they are a major and expanding industry, providing employment and a wide range of potential economics benefits.

            If these claims are accepted, it is not difficult to understand the great interest which the mass media have attracted since their early days, nor way they have been subject to so much public scruntiny and regulation as well as theorizing. The conduct of democratic (or undemocratic) politics, nationally and internationally, depends more and more on mass media, and there are few significant social issue which are addressed without some consideration of the role of the mass media, whether for good or ill. As will appear, the most fundamentals questions of society – those concerning the distribution and exercise of power, the management of problems and the processes of intregation and change – all turn on communication, especially the messages carried by the public means of communication, whether in the form of information.

Read more »