The term “mass communication” is a term used in a variety of
ways, which, despite the potential for confusion, are usually clear
from the context. These include a) reference to the various
activities of the mass media as a group, b) the use of criteria of
a concept, “massiveness,” to differentiate among media and their
activities, and c) the construction of questions about
communication as applied to the activities of the mass media.
Significantly only the third of these uses do not take the actual
process of communication for granted.
“Mass Communication” is often used incorrectly to refer to the
distribution of entertainment, arts, information, and messages by
television, radio, newspapers, magazines, movies, recorded music,
and associated media. This general use of the term is only
appropriate as designating the most commonly shared features of
such otherwise disparate phenomena as broadcast television, cable,
video playback, theater projection, recorded song, radio talk,
advertising, the front page, editorial page, sports section, and
comics page of the newspaper. In this usage “mass communication”
refers to the activities of the media as a whole and fails to
distinguish among specific media, modes of communication, genres of
text or artifact, production or reception situations, or any
questions of actual communication. The only analytic purpose of the
term serves is to distinguish mass communication from
interpersonal, small-group, and other face-to-face communication
situations. Another use of the term involves the various criteria
of massiveness, which can be brought to bear in analyses of media
and mass communication situations.
These criteria may include size and differentiation of audience,
anonymity, simultaneity, and the nature of influences among
audience members and between the audience and the media.
Live television spectators of recent decades may be the epitome
of mass communication. These may include such serious events as the
funerals of India’s Late Prime Ministers Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Mr.
Rajiv Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., and such entertainment
spectaculars as the Olympic Games, World Cup Soccer, and the
Academy or Grammy Awards. These transmissions are distributed
simultaneously and regardless of individual or group differences to
audience members numbering in several tens or even a few hundreds
of millions. Outside of their own local groups, these audience
members know nothing of each other. They have no real opportunities
to influence the television representation of the events or the
interpretation of those representations by other audience
members.
By contrast the spectator for most cable television channels is
much smaller and more differentiated from other audience groups.
The target audience for newspapers, magazines, and movies is less
simultaneous, again smaller and more differentiated, and there is
the potential for a flow of local influences as people talk about
articles, features and recommend movies. But compared to a letter,
phone call, conversation, group discussions, or public lecture all
of these media produce communication immensely more massive on
every criterion.
All of the criteria used in defining mass communication are
potentially confused when one is engaged in a specific research
project or critical examination. The most confounding problem is
encountered when determining the level of analysis. Should the
concern be with a single communication event or with multiple
events but a single communication channel? Should the focus be upon
multiple channels but a single medium? Does the central question
concern a moment in time or an era, a community, nation, or the
world?
Here Radio provides an excellent example of the importance of
these choices. Before television, network radio was the epitome of
mass communication; it was national, live, available and listened
to everywhere especially in a country like ours. Today it is
difficult to think of radio this way because the industry no longer
works in the same manner. Commercial radio stations depend on local
and regional sources of advertising income. Essentially all radio
stations are programmed to attract a special segment of a local or
a regional audience, and even when programming national
entertainment materials such as popular songs, stations emphasize
local events, personalities, weather, news, and traffic in their
broadcast talk. Radio is an industry characterized by specialized
channels each attracting relatively small, relatively
differentiated audiences. But the average home in the developed
nation like US and its developing counterpart India have at least
one and even more than that in compare to television sets.
Cumulatively the US and Indian audience for radio is just as big,
undifferentiated, and anonymous as that for television. Is radio
today, then a purveyor of mass communication? It depends on whether
the concern is with the industry as a whole or with the programming
and audience of a particular station.
Most uses of the term “mass communication” fall into one of
these first two categories, either to refer to the activities of
the mass media as a whole, or to refer to the massiveness of
certain kinds of communication. Both uses have in common that they
take issues of communication for granted and instead place emphasis
on the massiveness of the distribution system and the audience.
Attention is given to what are called the mass media because they
are the institutional and technological systems capable of
producing mass audiences for mass distributed “communications.”
Communication, then, ends up implicitly defined as a kind of object
(message, text, and artifact) that is reproduced and transported by
these media. For some purposes this may be exactly the right
definition. But it diminishes our ability to treat communication as
a social accomplishment, as something people do rather than as an
object that gets moved from one location to another. If
communication is people something do, then it may or may not be
successful, may or may not be healthy and happy. If communication
means, “to share” for example rather than “to transmit” then what,
if anything of importance is shared when people watch a television
programme. Scholars of mass communication are often more interested
in communication as a social accomplishment than they are in the
media as mass distribution systems. This interest is based on an
intellectual independence from both existing habits of terminology,
and most importantly, from media institutions as they exist.
What is communication theory?
Communication is a tricky concept, and while we may casually use
the word with some frequency, it is difficult to arrive at a
precise definition that is agreeable to most of those who consider
themselves communication scholars. Communication is so immensely
rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that it is
difficult to think of social or behavioral events that are absent
communication.
We might state that communication consists of transmitting
information from one person to another. In fact, many scholars of
communication take this as a working definition, and use Lasswell’s
maxim (“who says what to whom to what effect”) as a means of
circumscribing the field of communication. Others suggest that
there is a ritual process of communication that cannot be
artificially abstracted from a particular historical and social
context. As a relatively young field of inquiry, it is probably
premature to expect a conceptualization of communication that is
shared among all or most of those who work in the area.
Furthermore, communication theory itself is, in many ways, an
attempt to describe and explain precisely what communication
is.
Indeed, a theory is some form of explanation of a class of
observed phenomena. Karl Popper colorfully described theory as “the
net, which we throw out in order to catch the world – to
rationalize, explain, and dominate it.” The idea of a theory lies
at the heart of any scholarly process, and while those in the
social sciences tend to adopt the tests of a good theory from the
natural sciences, many who study communication adhere to an idea of
theory that is akin to that found in other academic fields.
Nonetheless, when evaluating the strength of a theory, the criteria
commonly found in the sciences, and derived from the scientific
method are often broadly applicable.
Evaluating theory
What makes a theory “good”? Six criteria might be said to be
properties of a scientific and authentic theory. The terminology
presented here for the students is drawn from Littlejohn, Theories
of Human Communication, but a similar set of criteria are widely
accepted both within and outside the field of communication.
1. Theoretical Scope: How general is the theory? That is, how
widely applicable is it? In most cases, a theory that may only be
applied within a fairly narrow set of circumstances is not
considered as useful as a theory that encompasses a very wide range
of communicative interactions. The ideal, of course, is a theory
that succinctly explains the nature of human communication as a
whole.
2. Appropriateness’: Theories are often evaluated based upon how
well their epistemological, ontological, and axiological
assumptions relate to the issue or question being explained. If a
theory recapitulates its assumptions (if it is tautological), it is
not an effective theory.
3. Heuristic Value: Some theories suggest the ways in which
further research may be conducted. By presenting an explanatory
model, the theory generates questions or hypotheses that can be
operational zed relatively easily.
4. Validity: It may seem obvious that for a theory to be good,
it must also be valid. Validity refers to the degree to which the
theory accurately represents the true state of the world.
5. Parsimony: The law of parsimony (Occam’s razor) dictates that
a theory should provide the simplest possible (viable) explanation
for a phenomenon. Others suggest that good theory exhibits an
aesthetic quality, that a good theory is beautiful or natural.
6. Openness: Theories, perhaps paradoxically, should not exist
to the absolute exclusion of other theories. Theory should no be
dogma: it should encourage and provide both for skepticism and
should – to whatever degree possible – be compatible with other
accepted theory.
Moreover in the context of social sciences, we may find
different theories that each explains a phenomenon in useful ways.
There is value in being able to use theories as “lenses” through
which one can understand the world together with other scholars. So
let us discuss in nutshell the most rational and relevant
communication theories in this regard.
1. Agenda Setting Theory
The Agenda-Setting Theory says the media (specially the news media)
aren’t always successful at telling us what to think, but they are
quite successful at telling us what to think about. Theorists:
Maxwell McCombs and Donald L. Shaw Date: 1972/1973 2. Cultivation
Theory
Gerbner’s cultivation theory says that television has become the
main source of storytelling in today’s society. Those who watch
four or more hours a day are labeled heavy television viewers and
those who view less than four hours per day, according to Gerbner
are light viewers. Heavy viewers are exposed to more violence and
therefore are affected by the Mean World Syndrome, an idea that the
world is worse than it actually is. According to Gerbner, the
overuse of television is creating a homogeneous and fearful
populace. Theorist: George Gerbner Date: 1976 3. Cultural
Imperialism Theory
Cultural Imperialism Theory states that Western nations dominate
the media around the world, which in return has a powerful effect
on Third World Cultures by imposing them Western views and
therefore destroying their native cultures. Theorist: Herb Schiller
Date: 1973 4. Diffusion of Innovation Theory
In the Diffusion Innovation theory, communicators in society with a
message influence/encourage people that have strong opinions
through the media to influence the masses. Theorists: P.
Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet Date: 1944 5. Media
Dependency Theory
This theory states that the more dependent an individual is on the
media for having his or her needs fulfilled, the more important the
media will be to that person. Theorists: Sandra Ball-Rokeach and
Melvin DeFleur Date: 1976 6. Media Equation Theory
This theory predicts why people respond unconsciously and
automatically to communication media as if it were human.
Theorists: Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass Date: 1996. 7. Spiral of
Silence Theory
The Spiral of Silence Theory explains why people often feel the
need to conceal their opinions/preferences/views/etc. when they
fall within the minority group. Theorist: Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann
Date: 1984 8. Technological Determinism Theory
Technological Determinism state that media technology shapes how we
as individuals in a society think, feel, act, and how are society
operates as we move from one technological age to another (Tribal-
Literate- Print- Electronic etc.,) Theorist: Marshall Mcluhan Date:
1962
9. Functional Approach To Mass Communication Theory There are
five functional approaches the media serves users: surveillance,
correlation, transmission, entertainment, and mobilization.
Theorists: Harold Laswell and Charles Wright Date: 1948, 1960
10. Human Action Theory
Human behavior can be predicted because people make choices with a
purpose about their actions. Behavior is chosen by individuals to
reach certain goals. Theorist: P. Winch Date: 1958
Apart from these there are many more important theories such as
Uses and Gratification Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory,
Communication Accommodation Theory, Expectancy Violation Theory,
Face-Negotiation Theory etc, needed to be discussed. Rest assured,
I will keep my promise in my next article provided you grab the
given one first. Please do not cram better to conceptualize. Happy
reading………