Contemporary Communications Media - Essay Example

CONTEMPORARY COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA by The contemporary communication media has been instrumental in solving social conflicts in society. The modern communication media bases majorly on the theory of mediation and the theory of public sphere to achieve this very important role. In literal terms, mediation refers to act of reconciling two opposing parties or forces in a given setting using a mediating object. In the same vein, media studies apply the same concept to the theory of mediation by maintaining that the primal factor of mediation is about the medium of communication itself. In social media, mediation descries the process through which institutionalized media circulates symbols in the social life. A television show or a magazine provides the society with symbols. Print-based media, such as magazines, require a form of thinking that is chronological, linear and one that is different from what others think, whereas the electronic media, such as television, often depend on other media and the users of the media, other than being simultaneous and organic. Key Words: Meditation, Medium, Communication, Media, Theories CONTEMPORARY COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA Introduction The new media, through its mediation, affects lifestyles and social relations since it has the ability of communicating sounds, images and other information forms with relative promptness across the globe (Cammaerts et al. 2012). On the other hand, public sphere refers to a social life area where people pool together in their bid to influence political actions through the discussion and identification of any social problems that they face, as defined by Habermas. Intrinsically, a common judgment is reached through the discussion of matters of mutual interest. Media is of much relevance in public sphere, both in its constitution and maintenance. This is evident in the ability of media to gather people together with intent of preventing these people from falling over each other (Elliott 2014). Through the contemporary communications media, the eradication of social conflicts is with much ease. Theories of Mediation The analysis of mediation in communication media depends on how a given medium brings about social changes. Media theorists try to analyze the capabilities and limitations of a given medium. The structure of a given medium’s analysis shows how it hinders the application of the medium and how the social actors work against and within this structure. As researchers have argued, since Aristotle until towards the end of the nineteenth century, there was no issue of media raised in relation to the purview of communication. Poetic Aristotle are viewed as the first to point out a link between communication and creation by posing an argument that the fine arts are based on the concept of mimesis as opposed to communication, given their inherent nature. It is only after the contents of a media are permuted to another medium when the initial medium becomes detectable. In other words, people become aware of the parameters of an original medium after another medium focus on them (Cammaerts et al. 2012). This is evident in the advent of the print media, and the general mass means of communication. Mediation in communication media is a multiplying process. The process itself serves as a mediation platform for other processes within the media. In the contemporary world, people have become more aware of mediation. Long gone are the days when messengers used to communicate through messages from one village to another. This day, a person just needs to type a message into a computer terminal, after which it is delivered immediately to the intended receiver. In this case, the level of mediation involved includes the translation of the human text into a code that is readable by the machine, and the encryption of the code into digital format. In addition, there is the transmission of the message through a digital format, the decryption at the receivers’ computer, and finally, re-translation of the machine language into a human readable message (Lievrouw 2011). To that end, it is evident that with technological advancement, and the dependency thereof, brings forth a diversified array of interactions that are mediated, within the society. In communication media, the medium of communication is the message. Marshal McLuhan, a renowned media theorist, famously argues, “The medium is the message.” This statement has raised major controversies among the media theorists in the contemporary purview of communication media. In retrospect of McLuhan’s message, people had a novel perception about the traditional model that suggested that the medium had trivial impact on the message. Prior to McLuhan’s exploration on this issue, it was generally understood that a medium’s only role is to contain the message, which is embedded within, after which the message is sent via a channel, that is within the preferred medium, to a receiver who can easily decode the message (Raboy & Shtern 2010). However, McLuhan’s sentiments suggests that media in its inherent form is mediation. The media, in its nature, remediates. Picking up form McLuhan’s propositions, Richard Grusin, argues, “A medium is that which remediates” (Lievrouw 2011, p.18). The media absorbs the content and form of other media and reconfigures, refashions and reworks them. The capability of remediation translates to the reshaping of the old media using the newer and representing it in another form of media. This concept is relevant to the contemporary society in the 21st century. Plunges in the multi-faceted world, which practically undergoes remediation across societies and channels, it is not easy to point out a mediation phenomenon (Elliott 2014). Through remediation, the history’s ancient quest on true immediacy can be fulfilled. Theories of Public Sphere In communication media, public sphere theories play a key role. Habermas stipulates a bourgeois public sphere theory that requires a public sphere to have; a formation of a public opinion; all the citizens must be able to access the sphere; conference should be unrestricted on matters of common interest, which alludes to political and economic freedom; and there ought to be a discussion of the generalized rules guiding relations. This means that media is applicable in the political public sphere. In the political context, the media system fraternity and the politicians have to be present for the political public sphere to be instanced. In addition, there are many actors make appearances in the virtual stage of the public sphere that is established. Lobbyists are involved in the representation of groups with special interests. Advocates take part in the public sphere to represent the groups that have a general interest and marginalized groups, and hence are not able to voice their interests in an effective manner. In addition, experts take part in giving advice due to professionalism. To bring forth to attention of the public the supposedly neglected issues, the political public sphere involves moral entrepreneurs. Finally, intellectuals, who have accredited personal reputation in a certain field, such as writers, are engaged in the public discourse with a major intent of general interest promotion (Salvatore & Trenz 2013). In lieu to that, public spheres are discernible from their rhetorical nature. Departing from Habermas’ theory, Gerard Hauser suggested a Rhetorical public sphere theory. The theory suggests that public sphere build on the ongoing dialogue pertaining to public issues as opposed to the identification of the group that is involved in the discourse. Hauser maintains that the active members of the society constitute the public spheres. These active members often include individuals who are enthusiastic about the discourse of particular issues. He says, "Publics may be repressed, distorted, or responsible, but any evaluation of their actual state requires that we inspect the rhetorical environment as well as the rhetorical act out of which they evolved, for these are the conditions that constitute their individual character" (Salvatore & Trenz 2013, p. 3). A rhetoric public sphere is formed that is not necessarily orderly but involves interactions in which active and interested groups are engaged with each other. The discussion instanced in these spheres can reproduce itself across a range of interested publics. Those entering any particular arena often share a world of reference for their discourse to induce cognizance of common interests and public opinions about them. The globe comprises of mutual cultural norms and meanings that can serve as the basis of interactions. Five salient rhetorical norms characterize a rhetoric public sphere. The permeable boundaries feature requires that despite having specific membership in the public sphere, interested members from outside the social movement are free to participate in the discussion. Activity is the second feature in the rhetorical public sphere that requires publics to be active and not passive, that is, rather than listening to the issues and applauding, they ought to be actively engaged in the issues. Thirdly, the rhetorical public sphere should involve a contextualized language that participants should observe to share their experiences effectively. Fourthly, the public sphere has to appear believable among the participants and the outside public. Finally, the public sphere needs to tolerate other opinions that vary with an aim of maintaining a vibrant discourse (Emden & Midgley, 2013). Without doubt, the rhetorical approach to public sphere is considerate in its nature. All the same, the contemporary communication media operates in a mediated publicness kind of public sphere. John Thompson argues that the traditional public sphere ideas propagated by Habermas are irrelevant in the modern society. The mediated publicness enables people to access and see more things since they do not need to share a similar physical location. Even so, a rupture in this heightened vision is uncontrollable. The mediated publicness is also non-dialogical. This means that it is unidirectional. For instance, TV presenters are not able to effectively respond to the reactions of the audiences because they are visible to a wide range of viewers, who cannot be seen directly by the TV presenter (Bennett & Strange 2011). The advent of technology, such as the internet, that has increased connectivity counters this problem. Besides, the mediated publicness has a wider audience base. People in various contexts, such as social class, values, beliefs and education, receive the message. Even so, the increased visibility comes with a price. Since individuals have no entire control on their personal-presentation, mistakes, scandal and gaffes often take place and recorded (Raboy & Shtern 2010). It is hard to deny these adversities when they happen since they can be replayed through the media. Best Insight to the Contemporary Society With the advancement of technology, the theories of public sphere are lagging behind in providing proper insight in the contemporary society. Colin Sparks, among other media theorists, advises that a global public sphere is inevitable in this wake of increased globalization. Nonetheless, there lacks a media that is fitting to this increased requirements in terms of access and size. Contrary to the traditional media that was in touch with the public sphere, the contemporary media is limited in its ability to accommodate globalization by the concentration of ownership and the market (Lievrouw 2011). To that end, the global media falls short as a public sphere. The interned, also, does not meet the requirements of a public sphere. Unless these limitations are eliminated, the possibilities of a global public sphere are bleak. In brief, the theories of mediation offer much insight on the contemporary society. First, media audiences are able to use the media for their own enjoyment, after which the media purposes to accommodate these intentions. Through the process of incorporation, that involves mediation of the social meanings by the subordinate and dominant members of the society, excorporation process is made possible, which entails the subordinates making their own culture through the commodities and resources offered to them by the dominant system. The role that mediation plays in providing democracy through the media has also made it relevant in the contemporary society. On condition that the public is involved in media policy making, with intent of barring the media from serving the interests of the companies that own them, media can mediate democracy (Cammaerts et al. 2012). These features have seen the theories of mediation offer much insight on the contemporary society as opposed to the theories of public sphere. Reference List BENNETT, J., & STRANGE, N., (2011), “Television as digital media”, Durham, NC, Duke University Press. CAMMAERTS, B., MATTONI, A., & MCCURDY, P., (2012), “Mediation and Protest Movements”, Intellect L & DEFAE. ELLIOTT, A., (2014), “Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction”, New York: Routledge. EMDEN, C., & MIDGLEY, D. R., (2013), “Beyond Habermas: democracy, knowledge, and the public sphere”, New York: Berghahn Books. LIEVROUW, L. A., (2011), “Alternative and activist new media”. Accessed from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=691758. RABOY, M., MCIVER, W. J., & SHTERN, J., (2010), “Media divides communication rights and the right to communicate in Canada”, Vancouver, UBC Press SALVATORE, A., SCHMIDTKE, O., & TRENZ, H., (2013), “Rethinking the public sphere through transnationalizing processes Europe and beyond”, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Accessed from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=605740. Read More