When defining communication it is important to keep in mind that one is relaying an understanding, not just information by text on paper or words via sound. Involving a sender, transmitter, and receiver, communication requires the understanding of an idea on both ends in order to be considered effective. Developed by Claude Shannon and Warren in 1949 [1] this model of communication actually incorporates several steps in the process, the source, the transmitter, the channel/medium, the receiver, and the destination. However, the final step is the most important, because it is not the meaning behind the message that is transferred, but only the information. In order to truly communicate a message, it is the idea that must be constructed from the information.
Although this model of communication only indicates a unidirectional flow of information, we naturally know that it is, in fact, both parties that need be involved to ensure the meaning of the message is understood. Mass communication, however, is different from everyday communication; it sends a single message to many receivers. Being ever-present in the form of television, newspaper, radio, and the internet, mass communication not only affects society, but can even define it. Hanno Hardt describes the difference between the two entities as lying “between the definition of democracy and individual participation.[2]"
Using the internet as an example, this medium provides a fast, and nearly infinite source on information to both the individual and the masses. This breaks up the traditional model of communication by allowing the individual to provide information to the masses, and unlike television and radio, the masses can provide back. Facebook, twitter, and other social networking sites allow a single person to provide an anonymous post to nobody meaning the message is not directed to a receiver, but anyone can respond to that message, meaning a single source of information can be understood differently by many different people, even though the information is the same.
[1]Chandler, Daniel. "Transmission Model of Communication." Prifysgol Aberystwyth / Aberystwyth University. 18 Sept. 1995. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html 04 Jan. 2011. Web.
[2] Hardt, Hanno. Myths for the Masses: an Essay on Mass Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. Print.
I can definitely see the effects of mass communication after I thought about the last few years. The media, such as networks like CNN and newspapers like NY Times, are having such a ____ effect on society today. Furthermore, Facebook and Twitter are compounding the effects. I leave a blank space there because it's impossible to state boldly whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you mentioned how a Facebook or Twitter user could share something anonymously. Although you can post something with 0 friends or 0 followers, your post would never be seen or acknowledged. Due to the very nature of these sites I feel that you must have friends/followers for your posts to be visible, at least effectively. I read another blog post by one of our peers who mentioned a site: 4chan.org. That site allows people to post with complete anonymity, which definitely changes the type of information and also the severity of the information.
Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that some sites allow anonymity? Do you think it is better to have a very distinct community of credible users?