The New Mass Media and the American Public - Essay Example

Order 259331 The New Mass Media and the American Public Mass Media’s powerful influence over the public mind and psyche has long been held undisputable. Referred to as the “Fourth Estate” early on in the 19th century, the Press, as the Media was earlier on more commonly termed, has been regarded as a significant influence in society as the Church then was considered the “First Estate”, the Nobility being the “Second Estate” and the Commoners being the “Third Estate”. Coined in the 1920’s at the advent of nationwide radio networks, mass- circulation newspapers and magazines, Mass Media in the contemporary time is formally the Print Media - the news papers, magazines, and printed publications - and the Broadcast Media which include radio, television and cable networks. More recent technology developments in telecommunications and the internet, however is fast redefining mass media today in radical terms. A New Mass Media is emerging. Not merely influencing anymore in a one-way direction from information providers to information consumers and users but actually providing inter-active structures that allow the information consumers and users themselves to be catalysts in information gathering, forming and broadcasting with the traditional mass media institutions. This paper attempts to contextualize in a common person’s language the effects of such New Mass Media on the American Public with the immediate previous era of mass media influence as reference. The extent of influence of the media stretches beyond shaping public opinion and influencing perceptions in the public mind. The more effectual impact of what the media delivers is perhaps the very psyche of Americans in their personal spheres, un-tempered by moderating peer inputs or, in many likely circumstances, aggravated by personal biases and prejudice and could be an altogether lengthy matter to pursue. For the purpose of the discussions pertinent to the proposition this paper attempts to put forth, therefore, discussions following shall be in the public sphere of the American experience. Mass Media and the Public Sphere The public sphere, also more traditionally termed the public forum, is “the space between government and society in which private individuals exercise formal and informal control over the state: formal control through the election of governments and informal control through the pressure of public opinion. The media are central to this process. They distribute the information necessary for citizens to make an informed choice at election time; they facilitate the formation of public opinion by providing an independent forum of debate; and they enable the people to shape the conduct of government by articulating their views. The media are thus the principal institutions of the public sphere…”(Dahlgren, p.29) Easily one of the most significant influences of mass media is perhaps in the formation of public opinion. Doing the role of telling the public about events, things, people and places we could not experience nor have not directly witnessed ourselves, public opinion is primarily based on the public perception of the messages and images delivered by the media. In the circumstances where the information and images processed by the public mind are fed by the media, the resulting perceptions most likely abide by the context and frame within which the information and images were delivered, in the first place. Maxwell McCombs, in his book “Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and the Public Opinion”, begins, “In will Roger’s and Walter Lippman’s day, the daily newspaper was the principal source of information about public affairs. Today we also have television and an expanding panoply of new communication technologies, but the central point is the same. For nearly all of the concerns on the public agenda, citizens deal with second-hand reality, a reality that is structured by journalists’ reports about these events and situations.” (McCombs p.1) The reality of the American public life is this civilization’s finest expression of the democratic principles that has kept America the great nation that it is. In the democratic space where freedom flourishes and bears fruit in strong and enlightened public opinion, the media, by virtue of the essential role it has to perform, is a necessary, even indispensable, sector of society. Agenda Setting in Mass Media Given the reality of the existence of the media as essential and indispensable in the exercise of democratic freedoms, the role of mass media has also inevitably evolved beyond the journalistic duties of gathering, recording and delivering news, information and images. In the course of the journalistic exercise and observing the results, however, the realization that there is more than informing in the exercise. McCombs writes further, ”…newspapers and television news, even the tightly edited pages of a tabloid newspaper or internet website, do considerably more than signal the existence of major events and issues. Through their day-by-day selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day. This ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to be called the agenda-setting role of the news media”(McCombs, p.1) And that is no mean role to play for anyone. Setting the agenda for public discourse is no less than reining in public attention. As it is an awesome responsibility, it is a truly tempting power to exercise as well. More inauspiciously, it is a truly tempting influence to peddle or for media institutions themselves to subtly exploit in favor of favorable interests. But even with that being said, the agenda setting process is an almost unavoidable function involved in newsgathering and writing, more specifically by large media organizations. The mere choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them constitute agenda-setting already and that is a mere work for the day to do. The theory that there is correlation between media agenda-setting and how the public mind arranges the priority of importance of issues was first formally introduced in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. In their study of the role of the media in 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, they surveyed 100 respondents who qualified themselves as “undecided” voters on what they considered as the key issues of the lection. Comparing the survey results with the content the media carried during the same period revealed a ranking of issues that were almost identical. “The theory explains the correlation between the rate at which media cover a story and the extent that people think that this story is important.”(McCombs & Shaw, pp. 176-187) This theory has gone past the given media influence on the public’s perception of issue salience or the level of importance of issues. Application of the theory of agenda setting has become standard recourse in American political exercises and corporate campaigns. Tool for Social Control Having established that the mass media is inevitably with tremendous and inherent influences on the public sphere of the American society, that it, just as logically, is also an efficacious tool for social control is good as conclusive. “Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior, leading to conformity and compliances to the rules of a given society or social group”(Wikipedia, Social control) Very often used in context with reference to deviant behaviors, criminality and criminality control, the theory of social control applies to a much wider context in sociology, more particularly in the area of governance and corporate maneuvers. Sociologists distinguish two forms of such social control: informal social control and formal social control. Informal social control is induced by social values present in individuals, expressed in their customs and common practices and behaviors commonly considered as normal. Formal social control, on the other hand, is expressed and exercised through laws and ordinances, regulations, policy directives, or those that are consciously formulated and accepted by conventional agreements like legislations. Formal social controls, therefore, are usually exercised by governments and organizations through enforcement. The media-effect on both the public sphere and in the setting of agenda in the public mind places this so called fourth estate on top of any options list for effective social control for anyone or group that desires to exercise some level of such control, both informally or formally. This raises the notion, therefore, that those who have influence over mass media do actually have access to social control. Therefore, the question as to who would actually have influence over mass media comes to fore. Therefore, also, the concern as to who or what can prevent the mass media from usurping such immense power over society, and how, becomes a truly legitimate and pressing matter. Mitigating abuse of influence In America, the mass media is mainly organized. Broadcast media for instance is dominated by the traditional “big three” namely ABS, CBS, NBC. Networks that have grown and built reputation of being independent, professional, and having the interest of the public good as their highest commitment News gathering around the world is dominated also by news agencies that have grown very extensively and has gained reputation of independence and reliability as well. The sheer size to which these organizations have grown has become a major factor itself to mitigate attempts by groups or individuals to gain influence over such organizations in the interest to promote self interests. Government also exercises regulatory powers over the mass media. “They include licensing in advance; censorship of offending material before publication; seizure of offending material; injunctions against publication of a newspaper or book or of specified content; requirement of surety bonds against libel or other offense; compulsory disclosure of ownership and authority; post publication criminal penalties for objectionable matter; post publication collection of damages in a civil action; post publication correction of libel and other misstatements; discrimination in granting access to news source and facilities; discrimination and denial in the use of communications facilities for distribution; taxes; discriminatory subsidies; and interference with buying, reading and listening.”(Wikipedia, Government and mass media) While abuse of mass media influence may not likely come without severe government or public chastisement in the USA, the same power to influence the public mind finds itself serving interests and benefits for those other than the American public. The New Mass Media Today, at the turn of the twenty-first century, continuing developments in the telecommunications technology and the rise of the internet has brought about radical changes in the American life including the two-way relationship between mass media and public opinion. In the World Wide Web, information and image transfers from one to many by anyone have become a reality and this has changed the whole concept of publication and broadcasting. Now individuals have a means of potential exposure on a scale comparable to what was previously only the capability of and restricted to the select group of mass media practitioners and producers. Technology correspondent Andreas Kluth of the Economist writes, “The era of mass media is giving way to one of personal and participatory media. That will profoundly change both the media industry and society as a whole.”(Among the Audience, April 20, 2006) Considering the statistics, the internet is indeed changing the media industry and the American society: 220.1 million internet users (www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm) as of June 30, 2008 of America’s 303-million 2008 population. The predominant efficacy of the internet as information media is nowhere better demonstrated than in current events that significantly affect the American way of life. Consider the Iraq Wars. The involvement of American troops in the Desert Storm in 1990 had a positive image in the American public’s mind in the whole duration of the campaign in the Gulf. News and information were mainly carried by western media networks and news agencies. The whole picture, however, begun to change for the American public when blogs (which is the contraction of Web Logs) started coming out with personal accounts of what actually has been happening on the ground that the traditional news media did not carry. The resulting effect of the change in perspective about the war in Iraq did significantly bear out during the last U.S. Election. There is no ignoring the efficacy of the internet during the last U.S. elections, either. “’The internet is the new television as far as 21st century campaigning is concerned,’ says Walter Anderson, contributing editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org. ‘More than television, though’, Anderson notes, ‘the internet has proven that it has the ability to allow candidates to reach a larger audience of potential voters more immediately and with greater interactivity than television ever could’.” (DPA, Nov 5, 2008) The Media Consumer-Producer The American news and information consumer has changed. He is no longer a passive audience who sits back and watches the news on television or reads the news from the morning papers. He is now empowered to engage. Dr. Axel Bruns, founding editor of the premier online academic publication M/C - Media and Culture, and of dotlit: The Online Journal of Creative Writing, is attributed as having coined the very new word “Produser”, the smart fusion of the words “producer” and “user”. In his April 11, 2005 article Online ‘produsers’ dish up the news at On-line Opinion, he writes, ”And the rapid growth of blogs, the Pew Center reports blog readership in the US increased by nearly 60 per cent in 2004 alone, demonstrates the increasing move of the everyday user from consumer to producer of content. Or perhaps what we are seeing here is the emergence of a new kind of entity altogether, no longer simply producers or consumers. The participants in such phenomena practice a form of productive consumption: they are no longer simply audiences or even media users, but have become what I now tend to refer to as ‘produsers’.” Conclusion In the fast-development environment within which this new media is emerging, a clear line and more definitive statement of meaning is yet to be formulated to define the New Media. But certainly, as things are evolving, what is perceived now as the emerging New Media is characterized by at least two unmistakable attributes: Interactive and Participatory. That is changing the business of news and information right at its foundations. By virtue of the internet, the American public has evolved. From being passive recipients as users and consumers of news and information pre-set and prioritized for them by journalists and media practitioners and organizations, to being an engaging participant in the decision and agenda setting for public information. The internet technology is not at all replacing the traditional infrastructures of public information. It is, however, upgrading their capabilities. Television live news coverage presented simultaneously with viewer interaction via the internet is fast becoming the trend. Technology is eliminating fundamental weaknesses and deficiencies in the industry. Timely, if not immediate public reaction to news releases was only an item in publishers and broadcasters wish list. The public pulse, now accessible via the internet, is a primary consideration in editorial decisions before they are out. If there is a singular, identifiable, profound effect the new mass media, it is the strengthening of the fundamental democratic principles expressed in the American public life. Works cited: 1. Dahlgren, Peter & Colin Sparks, Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere, Routledge, 1993. 2. McCombs, Maxwell, Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and the Public Opinion, Polity Press, 2004 3. McCombs, Maxwell & Donald Shaw, The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, in The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2. (Summer, 1972) 4. Wikipedia, Social control, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control#cite_ref-Poore_1-0 5. Wikipedia, Media Influence, Government and mass media, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_influence 6. Kluth, Andreas, Among the Audience, The Economist, April 20, 2006 7. www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm, June 30, 2008, copyright 2008, Miniwatts Marketing Group 8. DPA, In US elections, the Internet Wins, The Earth Times, Nov 5, 2008, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/240072,in-us-elections-the-internet-wins--feature.html Read More