John Thompson had stated that “messages transmitted by the mass media are received by specific individuals situated in definite social-historical contexts”. He was quite right in asserting that though the media messages are broadcast to a large audience, the messages are ultimately consumed at the level of the individual. The way the message would be treated would depend on their social-historical contexts. For instance, the general level of education of the media audience is a factor that determines their historical context. People in an agrarian society in a third world country will be poorly educated and their ability to grasp media messages would be limited to that extent. On the other hand, an urban audience will have a wider perspective about different aspects of life, which means they are better equipped in understanding and relating to the media content (Leigh 1991, p. 71).
The individual members of the audience receive the media messages in socially atomized setups. This is true of any type of media – television, radio, newspapers, etc. Consuming the media message is essentially a solitary activity. Even when all members of the family are watching television together, each perceives, interprets and integrates the message in his/her own unique way, dictated by their intellectual and cultural standpoint (Leigh 1991, p. 73).
The essence of modern advertising is the shift from qualitative value to symbolic, implied and illusionary value of commodities. The purpose of most of these beamed messages is to manipulate and deceive the recipient. This is achieved by making the individual attach symbolic values to commodities. Loss of a strong individual identity is the negative consequence of the mass propaganda campaigns for commodities. It would not be inaccurate to say that mass media is a tool used by corporate advertisers to control and manipulate the minds of the consumer (McQuail 1993, p. 37).
In contemporary society, the relationship between the external world and the individual is dictated by the flow of mass communications. Individuals essentially are “other-directed”, meaning, their education, leisure and professional ambitions are directed by the society at large, mainly through the media (McQuail 1993, p. 38). Identities, as a means of understanding ourselves, also involve concepts of masculinity and femininity and notions of how individuals should present and conduct themselves. In such a scenario, the individual’s peer group becomes more important than the family, the career and material possessions more important than true inner experiences. The identities that people assume are necessarily shallow and temporary, constantly changing and molding itself to the needs of the market. The result is a loss of deep-rooted ethic (McQuail 1993, p. 36).
Human beings have become atomized and isolated from each other as a result of urbanization and other modern social structures. Social interactions have significantly diminished as a consequence. People are deprived basic needs for intimacy. To fill this void, individuals seek out attributes of media personalities that they can relate and identify with. This explains why political debates have become an entertainment contest of personalities as opposed to an analysis of the issues (Mcleod, Scheufele & Moy 1999, p. 325).
While the mass media plays an important role in the democratic process, it does not always lead to the best outcomes. Let us take the case of election campaigns. The individual members of the media audience belong to various political affiliations, religious backgrounds, ethnic groups, social classes, etc (Brown 1997, p. 482). These pre-existing leanings and memberships have a major influence on how the message is perceived, interpreted and evaluated. So, the members of the audience are not strictly passive, but actively accommodating, assimilating and blocking the messages as per their world view (Schmitt-Beck 2003, p. 243). But it is demonstrated convincingly that messages that strengthen the existing identity is more easily received and processed than the ones that try to change it, not least because people seek out information that reinforces their existing beliefs. In this respect, changing party and ideological affiliations are difficult endeavors (Gardels 1997, p. 27).
Another social component that determines voter choices are the conversations that individuals have with their family members, peers, etc. And these conversations are usually related to the top media stories of the day. Hence, the mass media directs individual actions in a social context. And the dynamic of these interactions have further say in whether opinions are retained, modified or discarded (Brown 1997, p. 481). When it comes to selection of programming, media executives simply go by audience preferences, as this is essential for making profits. The basic motto is“whatever sells”. This phenomenon is valid across television, radio and print. Even in news media, newsworthiness is really about catching audience’s attention through presentation of sensational, extra-ordinary and emotionally pitched news stories. The actual relevance of these stories to the daily lives of the audience is highly questionable.
The individual is lead to believe that he has freedom of choice. While he may think that a conscious decision is being made, as a matter of fact it is the media corporations who set the agenda and control the content to fit the agenda. The mass media obstructs the development of autonomous, independent individuals who could carry out critical thinking and decide for themselves. In this sense, the mass media impedes progress and emancipation of the individual (Gardels 1997, p. 26).
The information flow in traditional media is generally top-down. For example, the advertisers, government agencies, etc, “push” their message across due to their influence over the corporate media. Whereas in the Internet-based media, the users are free to “pull” relevant information, modify or comment on it, endorse or disapprove of it, etc, which gives the individual more power than was erstwhile possible. This is a shift towards bottom-up and lateral flow of information and from “mass” to “individual” audience (Boutie 1996, p. 51).
The reach of the media into people’s lives had become deeper and more pervasive with the growth of newer technologies. Access to information had turned from being available to limited and socially privileged members of the public to practically everyone today. The new digital media will radically change the way messages are communicated to the audience (Boutie 1996, p. 52). Some social institutions that would be profoundly affected include the corporations, public relations agencies, the press, etc. The indications are that their wielding of power and control over the public mind would be significantly weakened. The new digital media, mainly in the form of Internet, is the big hope for the individual to retain uniqueness and decide his own values.
List of References:
Boutie, Philippe. Fall 1996, “Will this kill that? (effects of new digital media).” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol.13, no.4, pp. 49-58.
Brown, Robin. Oct 1997, “American influences: the cult of spin. (American political campaigns).”, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol.17, no.4, pp. 481-484.
Gardels, Nathan. Wntr 1997, “Ancestral territory vs. the global nomenklatura. (Samuel Huntington)(Silent Masses, Global Nomenklatura)(Interview).” New Perspectives Quarterly vol.14, no.1, pp. 26-29
Leigh, James H. June 1991, “Information processing differences among broadcast media: review and suggestions for research.” Journal of Advertising, vol.20, no.2, pp. 71-75.
McLeod, Jack M. Scheufele, Dietram A. Moy, Patricia., 1999, Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation, Political Communication, Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 315-336.
McQuail, D. 1993, Media Performance, Mass Communication and the Public Interest, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol.12, no.3, pp. 36-39
Schmitt-Beck, Rudiger. April 2003, “Mass communication, personal communication and vote choice: The filter hypothesis of media influence in comparative perspective.” British Journal of Political Science, vol.33, no.2, pp. 233-260.