Mass Media and Communication Technologies - Literature review Example

Mass Media Bernard C. Cohen (1963, p13) pointed out that "the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but stunningly successful in telling the readers what to think about". Human civilization is passing through a crucial phase of its existence and survival. Mass Media as Purveyors of News and views have a decisive role of preparing the human race in he 21st century. Due to the primacy accorded to information as a social input, many developed societies have become information societies. The rest are on the verge of becoming so. With the growing importance of communication, the societies are racing against time to be in the main stream of the communication revolution. What we call mass-media today are the product of technologies operating directly in our society. Mass media and communication technologies have become integral parts of our life and our society. One of the most important role of mass media to perform as a public watchdog. Mass media has to play a leading role in shaping, guiding and reflecting the public opinion. These functions of media help to establish democracy. Use of media in a democratic polity creates critical awareness among the people, and so it becomes an essential component of mass vigilance to keep authorities tenterhooks. The media may not be able to perform these functions unless the access to them is ensured to a large section of our population. Media access is important in the political sphere. Access to media is access to public opinion, so essentially to protect and preserve democratic institutions. It is advantageous to both leaders and masses. Media can correct or distort facts, views and attitudes and even create euphoria. Point to abysmal media performance on any number of issues: western intervention in Indochina; the sanctions against Iraq which kill up to 200 children under the age of five every day; the machinations of business lobby groups in Brussels, Washington, London to further a 'deregulated' corporate-shaped global economy; the obstructionism of even mainstream business - such as the US Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers - in the face of global warming; and the attempt of the 'greener' oil companies like Shell and BP to keep the emerging technologies of clean and renewable energy out of community hands. In other words, mass media performance - its omissions, biases, distortions, deceptions - reflects the fact that the mass media is itself part of the same power structure that plunders the planet and inflicts human rights abuses on a massive scale. Mass media are a mode of social interaction. Wittingly or unwittingly the dominant social institutions will make use of the media, to stabilize the existing social order. Mass media are support to act as agents of social change. Media control not only determines the character of ownership, information slant and selection. Nowadays control over media and owners in their interests have decided a particular type of views. They exert power of different ways and twist the real situations completely. Mass media have the power to impact on the audience and it can be hidden persuader. Kelman (1961) suggested that there are three main processes of social influence and they are compliance, identification and internalization, which might involve in change of opinion. But French & Raven (1953) offers a fairly comprehensive framework for studying social influence and social power of mass media. Power is based on 'reward' or on 'coercion' implies some interaction between the intentions of the sender and the needs of the receiver. Referent power occurs when an individual wishes to be more like the source and hence initiates or adapts behavior accordingly. Legitimate power is based on the assumption of a right to expect compliance present only where such a relation is institutionally defined. Finally there is expert power based on he attribution of superior knowledge of the sender. It has been suggested by studies that media help to establish an order of priorities in a society about its problems and objectives. They do this, not by initiating or determining, but by publicizing according to an agreed scale of values what is determined elsewhere, usually in the political system. Political scientists have been most alert to the process and the term Agenda Setting has been given to it by Mc- Combs and Shaw. They found mass media to present a very uniform set of issues before the American public in 1968 presidential elections and found public opinion to accord in content and order rather closely to this pattern. Mass media are means of production that conform to general type of capitalist industrial form with factor of production and relation of production. Marxist hegemonies about mass media are likely to be in monopolistic ownerships of a capitalist class, nationally or internationally organized and to serve the interest of that class. They work ideologically by disseminating the ideas and worldviews of the ruling class, denying alternative ideas which might lead to change or to a growing consciousness by the working class of its interests and by preventing the mobilization of such consciousness into active and organized political opposition. The political-economic approach asserts that ideological content of mass media depends more on the structure of the ownership and to the way media market forces operates. Institution of mass media had to be considered as part of economic system with close links to the political system. In his situation the predominant character of the knowledge of and for society produced by mass media can largely be accounted for by the exchange value of different kinds of content, under conditions of pressure to expand markets and by the underlying economic interests of owners and decision markets. These interests relates to the need for project from media operations and to the profitability of other branches of commerce as a result of monopolistic tendencies and process of vertical and horizontal integration. Ben Bagdikian's the new media monopoly (2004), Bagdikian stated that there are just five corporations that dominate the US media market. He wrote Five global-dimension firms, operating with many of the characteristics of a cartel, own most of the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, motion picture studios, and radio and television stations in the United States . . . . These five conglomerates are Time Warner, by 2003 the largest media firm in the world; The Walt Disney Company; Murdoch's News Corporation, based in Australia; Viacom; and Bertelsmann, based in Germany. (p. 3) The consolidation of ownership of the mass media has given control of the public airwaves to a few multinational oligopolies to determine who and what is represented and how. This concentration of ownership threatens the independence and diversity of information and creates the possibility for the global colonization of culture and knowledge (McChesney, 1999a, 2004). Robert McChesney (1999b) insisted that the consolidated ownership of the media giants is highly undemocratic, fundamentally non-competitive, and ''more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economics textbooks'' (p. 13). For example, mainstream media in the USA tended to present George W. Bush favourably in the 2000 election because, in part, the conservative Republican agenda of the Texas governor was in line with the corporate interests of media companies that favoured deregulation, absence of impediments to corporate mergers, and tax breaks for their wealthy employees and advertisers. Certain media corporations, like Rupert Murdoch's Fox television network, pursue aggressively rightwing agendas in line with the corporate interests of its owner, board of directors, and top executives, who closely follow Murdoch's conservative line. Thus, knowing what sort of corporation produces a media artifact or what sort of system of production dominates given media will help to critically interpret biases and distortions in media texts. It centers on media as an economic process leading to the commodity (content) and media really produce audience, in the sense that they deliver audience attention to advertisers and shape he behavior of media publics in certain distinctive way. Hegemonic media has largely concentrated less on the economic and structure determinants of a class biased ideology and more on ideology itself, the forms of its expression its way of signification and the mechanism by which it survives and flourishes with the apparent compliance of its victims and success in invading and shaping their consciousness. In the era of information revolution and technology, culturist approach of media is now increasing influential and explain how potentially deviant or oppositional elements in society could be integrated. Political communication is a powerful factor determining the course content and effectiveness of politic articulation. Political communication is the deliberate passing of a political message by a sender to a receiver with the intension of making the receiver behave in a way that he might not otherwise have done; deliberate political communication will always contain an element of intended persuasion. However all political messages are not communication intentionally. The extent to which mass attitudes and behavior are indirectly motivated by intentional political messages communicated to local opinion leaders who then act as social relay points passing the message out, deliberately or other wise to a wider public, an intention to make the receiver respond to the message by behaving in a particular way. While studying mass media as instrument of political socialization we must pay our attention to the part of the total media content, which has manifest function for political socialization. The news of the wider world, items about the local and national sense, political commentary, or editorial matter are lessons in politics which are imbedded in a larger media package containing assorted religious, artistic, scientific, commercial and entertaining content all surrounded by flashy wrappings. But what ever may be the wrappings that come with communication, it is a fact that mass media can greatly contribute to political socialization. There are barriers of effectiveness of mass media in socialization. Agenda Settings role of mass media in polities is well known. Frank Luther Mott, a journalist historian investigated and found that in thirty-five presidential election campaigns from 1796 to 1940, the American press gave its majority support to the wining candidates. This chance could not have played a more evenhanded role. Mass media ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences. The efficacy of mass media in creating opinion can be gauged only in reference to issues on which, at the time of exposure, people are known to have no opinion at all. The mass media had been weighed in the balance and found clearly wanting in persuasiveness at least in the short run. People don't do things or change their attitudes or even opinions simply because they are asked to or told to by an individual, directly or through mass media. The reason for this was that the press sets the agenda for its audiences. It provides the fact for the most part that make up the cognitive world of each individual. This agenda setting power of the press is directive rather than reactive. The press / mass media do not merely reflect developments, which also influence the general public in the same way. The press/ mass media actually picks certain issues to play up at times and the selection does not necessarily parallel the significance of those events. It is especially note worthy that agenda settings role of the press is that the peaks in news coverage coincides with peaks in the proportion of people who pick these issues as the most important. The mass media tend to inform rather then to change attitudes. When citizens receive news and views from mass media, they want to be sure that within the range of human error, without prejudice or incompetence they are getting the truth, that within the limits of time the coverage is full, so that nothing vital is omitted. Citizens also want to be certain that the news is not being colored or distorted to advance the opinions or the fortunes of any one (News casters, sponsors, stations or networks) concerned with the presentation. More recently, audience reception studies have revealed the diverse ways in which people may respond to the same media output. The messages 'decoded' by audiences are not necessarily those intended by the producers. Meaning does not lie in the text (programme or newspaper article) alone; it is created in an encounter between text and audience. How we respond to a particular item may be influenced by class, gender, sexual and ethnic identity, as well as wider cultural context. An American soap opera, understood by some viewers as a celebration of consumer capitalism, will be seen by others as a critique of mainstream American values. Less work has been done on how people respond to science programmes - but emerging research suggests that similar variation is evident in how, for example, diverse public groups respond to a science documentary or science-fiction film. It is also not necessarily the science journals that set the agenda for science reporting in the news media. Media interest may be triggered by the release of scientific papers in the major journals - but it will also be triggered by policy decision-making, political controversies or civil agitation (e.g. against GM crops). The journalistic definitions of 'balance' can also mean they give equal attention to two sides of a story about risk - regardless of the apparent balance of scientific opinion - a tendency dramatically illustrated in the UK during the MMR vaccine crisis. All the same it is important not to underestimate either the dedication of some journalists to promote science or the skill of reporters and columnists writing not just on science, but also on politics, environment or women's pages. It is also important to take account of how media messages are produced and received, and to consider the risks of simply blaming the media. Protesting against media sensationalism, for example, ignores the role of scientists' own hype. Scientists and funding bodies have increasingly become engaged in PR battles that can involve promoting exaggerated claims for what science can offer in the imminent future. It can be tempting to promise clinical applications from research within 'five to ten years', but such claims are likely to be counterproductive for public trust in the long term. Stem cell research is one example of an area of current research where hope can turn into hype. The way in which policy makers have used scientific facts has also come into disrepute. The photo opportunity of the UK Government minister John Selwyn Gummer, feeding a beef burger to his daughter to underline the assertion that scientific advice showed beef was safe, is one image that famously backfired. Caution should also be used when accusing the media of scare mongering. Using the media as whipping boy to account for perceived public distrust in science may miss the point. The danger is that scientists end up believing that, if only the public understood the science, then they would be 'on-side'. However, as other essays in this collection show, this is not necessarily the case. Whether or not the public understands the science, they often have a strong set of concerns about the political and moral economy of the scientific enterprise. Sometimes when reporting of news shades off into analysis, interpretation or commentary it is difficult to draw clear lines in these matters. News commentators, interpreters openly plead for a particular view, presented under commercial ownership. From time to time, newscasters have been sponsored by identified interests as in the case of those presented by the AFL-CIO. Networks differ in their policies in regard to the analysis of news. One network holds that the news caster-analysis must not be an advocate. CBS which established the non-advocacy principle says in effect that if multi opinion standard has to be adopted to preserve the balance. ABC on the other side, points to a roaster of intelligent analysts who roughly do represent a sufficient variety of outlook. Even then, the commentator is not functioning as an individual. The market is not free and the richer sponsor can buy more time and hire the most effective pleaders. So media has been influenced by the persons who control it and peruse their interest and always try to influence the public opinion at large. Professional and personal criticism of the mass media has been often been marked by genuine dislike of the product and with it a kind of snobbery. These are not best foundations for informed criticizing or useful action, and both of them have their source of fear. The dangerous situation is that those who could steadily influence the mass media in the right direction are either ignorant of the effects of those media or consider themselves immune to them. The newer mass media all feed one another and all lie in the same zone of intelligence and emotional complexity. For example-the whole education system of the United States has an enormous stake in the continued existence of an irreducible core of intelligent, educated citizen is obvious. That the mass media do in certain respects undermine the educational system is as clear as their potential capacity to increase the number and the influence of the well educated. US educational institutions are weakened, by the tendency of the media to present the whole process of education in a belittling or unfavorable light. When we discussed the images and stereotypes created in the mass media, one of the most conspicuous was the teacher. Mass media get their income from creators of commodities, companies dependent on educated men. If the manufacturer can see his own stake in education, it will not be hard for him to persuade the media to give up their stock jokes and to present the realities of education to the people. One of the examples how mass media affected by some interest groups could be easily observed in case of environmental issues. Most environmentalists recognize that mass media are a powerful means of reaching large number of people. Therefore environmentalists indulge in activities that can attract attention of mass media. But some activities frequently involve indulging in antics, which may not always be desirable. This ignores the serious nature of the activities. Another issue of concern regarding the environment is the ability of the media personnel to manipulate the media content according to their desires and aims. Thus many times, the mass media not only fail to project the truth but also distorts it in order to promote their own particular interests. Unfortunately, the public have no means of finding out the truth in case the mass media themselves present a false view because the public at large accept the mass media as a reliable source. The various myths have been cultivated by the powerful elites through the media. It is important to understand how the powerful elites are using mass media to exploit the environment. For the most part, the mass media are commercial enterprises, conforming in general to the nature of our society which is dedicated to free enterprise. If we hold that our mass media are not totally satisfactory, we must decide whether they can be improved with in our present social framework and whether adoption of other system would be desirable way to bring these improvements about. Now we call assume that the entire structure of our society is not going to change suddenly. In order to improve our mass media and the govt. ownership of the mass media is not a practical alternative to our present system. References: 1. Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly, Boston: Beacon Press. 2. Cohen, Bernard C. (1963). The Press and Foreign policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, p13. 3. French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1953). "The base of social power" in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A group dynamics, A Free Press. 4. Kelman, H. (1961). Process Of Opinion Change, Public Opinion Quarterly 25, pp. 57-78. 5. McChesney, R. (1999a). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 6. McChesney, R. (1999b, November 29). The new global media: It's a small world of big conglomerates [Special issue]. The Nation, 269(18), 11_/15. 7. McChesney, R. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Read More