Amity school of communication mjmc 1 st sem introduction to communication ms prachi chandola
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 20


  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

AMITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION MJMC 1 st SEM INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION Ms. PRACHI CHANDOLA. Four Eras of Mass Communications. Era of mass society theory (1850-1940) Era of scientific perspective on mass media (1940-1950) Era of limited effects (1950-60s)

Download Presentation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript





Four Eras of Mass Communications

Era of mass society theory (1850-1940)

Era of scientific perspective on mass media (1940-1950)

Era of limited effects (1950-60s)

Era of cultural criticism (1960s-1980s)

Four eras in mass communication theories

Mass Communication theories begins with a review of some of the earliest notions about media. These ideas were initially developed in the later half of the 19th century as new media technologies were invented and popularized. Although some theorists were optimistic about new technology, most were extremely pessimistic (Brantlinger, 1983). They blamed new industrial technology for disrupting peaceful, rural communities and forcing people to live in urban areas merely to serve as a convenient workforce in large factories, mines or bureaucracies.

Era of mass society theory 1850-1940

Theorists were fearful of cities because of their crime,

cultural diversity, and unstable political systems. For

many social thinkers, mass media symbolized

everything that was wrong with the 19th century urban

life. The dominant perspective that emerged during

this period is referred to as mass society theory. It

began as a collection of contradictory notions – some

quite radical, others quite reactionary.

In general mass society ideas held strong appeal for any

social elites whose power was threatened by change.

Media industries such as ‘penny press’ were a

convenient for elites’ criticism. The media of the time

were easily attacked as symptomatic of a sick society –

a society that needed to either return to old values or be

forced to adopt a set of totally new values.

In time, the leaders of the Industrial Revolution gained enormous

influence over social change. They strongly favored all forms of

Technological Development, including mass media.

In their view technology was inherently good as it facilitated control

over the physical environment, expanded human productivity and

generated new forms of material wealth.

New technology would bring an end to social problems and lead to

the development of an Ideal social world.

But in the short term, industrialization brought with it enormous

problems – exploitation of workers, pollution and social unrest.

Today, the fallacies of both the critics of technology and its

advocates are readily apparent.

Mass society notions greatly exaggerated the ability of media to

quickly undermine social order. These ideas failed to consider

that media’s power ultimately resides in the freely chosen uses

that audiences make of it.

Technology advocates were also misguided and failed to

acknowledge the many unnecessary, damaging consequences that

resulted from applying technology without adequately

considering the impact.

During the 1930’s, world events seemed to continually confirm

the truth of mass society ideas. In Europe, reactionary and

revolutionary political movements used media in their struggles

for political power.

German Nazis introduced propaganda techniques that ruthlessly

exploited the power of new media technology like motion

pictures and radio.

All across Europe, totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Stalin and

Mussolini rose to political power and were able to exercise

seemingly total control over vast populations.

Era of scientific perspective on mass media (1940-1950)

Private ownership of media, especially broadcast

media, was replaced by direct government control in

most European nations. The purpose was to use media

for the service of the society. But the unintended

outcome in most cases was to place enormous power in

the hands of ruthless leaders who were convinced that

they personally embodied what was best for all their

citizens. Exception was BBC, an independent public


At the very peak of their popularity, mass society

notions came under attack from Lazarsfeld,(1941), an

Austrian researcher and scientist. He argued that it

wasn’t enough to merely speculate about the influence

of media on society. Instead he proposed conducting

carefully designed, elaborate field experiments in which

he would be able to observe media influence and

measure its magnitude.

It was not enough to assume that political propaganda is powerful – hard evidence was needed to prove the existence of such effects (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1944). Lazersfeld’s most famous efforts, the “Voter Studies”, actually began as an attempt to demonstrate the media’s power, yet they proved, at least to him and his colleagues, just the opposite.

By the early 1950s, Lazerfeld’s work had generated an

enormous amount of data based on which he concluded

that media were not nearly as powerful as had been

previously imagined.

Instead, he found that people had numerous ways of

resisting media influence and were influenced by many

competing factors. Rather than serving as a disruptive

social force, media seemed to reinforce existing social

trends and strengthen the status quo.

He found little evidence to support the worst

fears of mass society theorists. Though

Lazarsfeld never labeled his theory, it is now

referred to as the Limited-effects perspective.

These views media as playing a very limited role

in the lives of individuals and larger society.

During the 1950s, limited-effects notions about media

continued to gain acceptance within academia. Several

important clashes occurred between their adherents and

those who supported mass society ideas (Bauer and

Bauer, 1960).

In 1960, several classic studies of media effects provided

apparently definitive support for the limited-effects


Era of limited effects (1950-60s)

By 1961, V.O. Key had published Public Opinion and American

Democracy, a theoretical and methodological tour de force that

integrated limited-effects notions with social and political theory to

create a perspective that is now known as elite pluralism.This

theory views society as a number of interlocking pluralistic groups

led by opinion leaders who rely on media for information about

politics and social world.

Advocates of mass society notions came under increasing attack as

“unscientific” or “irrational” because they questioned “hard

scientific findings”.

By the mid-1960s, the debate between mass society and limited

-effects notions appeared to be over – at least within the mass

communication research community.

The body of empirical research findings continued to grow, and

almost all these findings were consistent with the latter view.

Little or empirical research supported mass society theory. This

was not surprising because most empirical researchers trained at

this time were warned against its fallacies.

Era of cultural criticism (1960s-1980s)Though most mass communication researchers in the United States found limited-effects notions and empirical research findings on which they were based persuasive, researchers in other parts of the world were less convinced.Mass society notions continued to flourish in Europe, where both left-wing and right-wing concerns about the power of media were deeply rooted in World War II experiences with propaganda. Europeans were also skeptical about the power of scientific, quantitative social research methods to verify and develop social theory (they saw them as reductionist – reducing complex communication processes and social phenomena to little more than narrow propositions generated from small-scale investigations). This reductionism was widely viewed as a distinctly American fetish. Some European academics were resentful of the influence enjoyed by American after World War II.They argued that American empiricism was both simplistic and intellectually sterile. Although some European academics welcomed and championed American ideas, other strongly resisted them and argued for maintaining approaches considered less biased or more traditionally European.

One group of European social theorists who vehemently resisted postwar U.S. influence was the neo-Marxists (Hall,1982).These left-wing social theorists believe that media enable dominant social elites to maintain their power. Media provide the elite with a convenient, subtle, yet highly effective means of promoting worldviews favorable to their interests. Mass media can be viewed, they argue as a public arena in which cultural battles are fought and a dominant or hegemonic culture is forged. Elites dominate these struggles because they start with important advantages. Opposition is marginalized, and the status quo is presented as the only logical, rational way of structuring society. Within neo-Marxist theory, efforts to examine media institutions and interpret media content came to have high priority.

During the 1970s, questions about the possibility of powerful media effects were again raised within U.S. universities.Initially, these questions were often advanced by scholars in the humanities who were unrestrained by the limited effects perspective and untrained in the scientific method. Their arguments were routinely ignored and marginalized by social scientists because they were unsupported by “scientific evidence.” Some of these scholars were attracted to European-style cultural criticism. Others attempted to create an “authentic” American school of cultural studies – though they drew heavily on Canadian scholars like Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan (Carey, 1977).This cultural criticism, although initially greeted with considerable skepticism by “mainstream” effects researchers, gradually established itself as a credible and valuable alternative to limited-effects notions.

  • Login