Mass Communication and Audience Responses

How is communication with the masses mediated and how does the audience respond to the information it receives?

The key aspects that should be examined are :1 the historical concept that mass audiences were incapable to applying alternative meanings to texts,2 social scripting through media, and3 audience feedback.

It can be argued that audiences are not passive receivers of mediated mass communication, and are capable of influencing popular culture through active participation.

Mass communication is mediated, which means that the contents are remotely sourced, edited and presented in context with a view to present a dominant meaning for public consumption . However, the denotation of text and the actual connotation may differ widely.

Early communication theorists believed that the Effects Model was all that was needed to sway audience opinion. Much like a "hypodermic injection", thoughts were presented in media form and the recipients accepted them without question.

There are many 1st world war posters, originally published by the US Food Administration, we can use as excellent examples of the type of advertising that gave out a direct message for the audience consumption. These were in plain and simple language and were direct commands or demands to eat less, save more, grow more and work harder. The explanation as to why the commands should have been followed were apparently inconsequential - almost footnotes.

This presumed that the meaning was within the text and the audience had no part in the determination of the meaning. It was even presumed the audience was unlikely be able to interpret meaning, and Lippman, as cited in Chomsky's Mind control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda (1991), even went so far as to describe the audience as a "bewildered herd."

Lippman's incredibly arrogant viewpoint was nullified in the 1940s when it was discovered that a surprising number of voters in the USA had been swayed in their vote choice by the opinions of other voters. The personal influence of opinion leaders in communities meant that audiences had to be "viewed within a larger social setting" (Lazarsfeld, Berelsen, & Gaudet (1968), as cited by Tubbs & Moss, 1994) and this is one of the fundamental reasons the Effects Model failed. There is a social and cultural factor within the audience that influences media reception and this cannot be ignored.

There is a two-step flow model of mass communication because within any society, there are always opinion holders who influence those around them. Recognising this gave credence to the statement in 1928 made by Edward Bernays, that..."the public is not an amorphous mass which can be molded at will, or dictated to."(Bernays & Miller, 1928/2004).

Despite the realization that people did not blindly react to media, there is a lingering debate on the effects of mass media, with particular emphasis on the way media can influence violence in children.This has been extensively studied by the U.S department of Health and despite ongoing debate, they claim their results indicate that children learn aggressive behaviour by watching violence on television.

It can be argued that if children can learn negative behaviour through the medium of television, then so can other behaviours be learnt. Social learning through the media is being currently used quite extensively in New Zealand. For example, there are many short dramatized adverts on television about the dangers of smoking and drink driving. Whether social behaviour can be modified for socio-political purposes, or to the advantage of the mega- infotainment industry via the media is not certain and the effectiveness of such social scripting would be hard to measure in qualitative or quantitative terms.

In the 1970s and 80's, the Reception Theory was introduced. Stuart Hall, in particular, presented the idea that there are audience responses that include "opposition' or "negotiation" There will always be a dominant meaning of text, but these texts have a polysemic nature, and will be decoded by the audience. (Hall,S. 1974).

All audiences have their own opinions and these are based on cultural backgrounds and the ability of humans to select, compare and discuss opinions with others. In support of this hypothesis, are Scramm and Roberts (1971) who state that an audience is "intensively" active and "accepts" or "rejects" the media content it receives.

An excellent example of selection and comparison of dominant, negotiated and oppositional stances is to be found in an a New Zealand televised advertisement (2007).

The advertisement shows a young ballerina and a strong young man. The music and the ethnicity of the characters indicate that this advert is about smoking in New Zealand. The two young peope have their own dreams and ambitions and they wish for a smoke free country for themselves and their nation. When the video cuts to an empty ashtray, it becomes obvious that wishes do not come true. The dominant meaning therefore, is that smoking impacts negatively on our society and no amount of wishful thinking will make people stop. The message is that we need to take action against smoking.

This video is particularly insightful, as the comments posted on the Internet in response to it, clearly demonstrate the dominant , negotiated and oppositional reactions from the audience. (Mellontona Tauta, Stevowoly, & Skirtwalk, 2007).

Mellonta Tauta takes an oppositional stance to the effectiveness of the advertisement . In her post (2007), she asks "How does this ad encourage anyone to stop smoking? It's visually interesting, but conveys no real, concrete stop-smoking message, other than perhaps the banal "Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a smoke-free world?"

The dominant viewpoint is found in the a post by skirtwalk (2008), who concurs "this by far is the most elegant anti-smoking ad I have seen. Pretty cool, I just hope that it is as effective (with the audiences) as well."

A negotiated comment on the effectivness of the advert was contributed by Stevowoly (2007), where he said "I completely agree that smoking is a bad idea, but I think advertisements over do it." This post indicates he is not against the dominant meaning and merely disagrees with the content of the media.

Quick feedback from audience is a new phenomenon which has been aided by technology. This is something that Television stations and print media historically did not have.

It is not suprizing that there is some debate as to whether mass audiences can be be effectively manipulated in view of the influence of audience opinion. With the advent of the internet, I believe that the free-flow of information has helped to break the effects of any deliberate manipulation of mass audeinces. Prior to the internet, the bulk of communication flowed in one direction, or swirled around a little before flowing onward, but the internet allows for a flow of communication from two directions.

Audiences are not limited to media available on the internet. Text in all formats, from magazines, books, radio and television have become such a large part of life in the modern epoch many people could not imagine life without it. However, the feedback is always fast. Printed text can be reviewed online by anyone with an opinon and text messaging has provided a new outlet for opinion sharing in real time.

The communication we are receiving is mediated, but the audience now choose which media they want to use. Media is basically a product. No product will sell if there is not a willing buyer. The media may be a powerful tool, but it is the audience demand and audience feedback that shapes the message and presentation of mediated content.
References
Bernays, E. L., & Miller, M. C. (2004). Propoganda (New ed.). New York: Ig publishing. (Original work published 1928)
Chomsky, N. (1997). Mind control the spectacular achivements of propaganda (G.Ruggiero & S. Sahulka, Eds.) [Brochure]. USA: Seven Stories Press in association with open media.
Hall,S. (1974) "The television discourse - encoding and decoding", Education and culture no 25 (UNESCO), reprinted in Gray, A,. & McGuigan, J. (eds) (1997), Studying culture, London: Arnold.
Lazarsfeld, Berelsen & Gaudet (1944) "The people's choice", in Tubbs, S., & Moss, S. (1994). Mass communication. In Human communication (7th ed., p. 393). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. (Original work published 1974)
Mellontona Tauta, Stevowoly, & Skirtwalk. (2007, March/April). Anti-smoking tv ad from New Zealand. Message posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiuxMiwvhZY
Schramm,W.,& Roberts, D. (Eds) (1971) The process and effects of mass communications (rev ed.)USA: University of Illinois Press.
US Food Administration. (1917). Eat more eat less [Poster]. New York: Heywood Strasser & Voigt Litho Co. Retrieved January 26, 2008, from Military category Website: http://www.vintageposterworks.com/cgi-bin/quikstore.cgi?search=yes&page=search.html&category=Military&keywords=&search2=Go
World anti-smoking day [Television advertisement]. (2007). New Zealand. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiuxMiwvhZY