In the ever-changing world of technology, the meaning of communication has increasingly become more broad and multi-dimensional. As basic as it comes, the term ‘communication’ can be defined as the transmission of information or knowledge between people or things. Mass communication, on the other hand, deals with communication on a larger basis, where it is the transmission of information or knowledge between a large number of people or things using a large mass media source (print, television, social networks) (1).
Shannon and Weaver’s model of communication is simple and effective, and the set up definitely hit their goal for their job working for a telephone company. John Fiske claimed the model to be 'widely accepted as one of the main seeds out of which Communication Studies has grown.’ (2) In Daniel Chandler’s analysis of the mode, he agrees that this “transmission model is the best-known example of the 'informational' approach to communication,” and is “the most influential model of communication which has yet been developed, and it reflects a commonsense (if misleading) understanding of what communication is.” (3). This model is good for what it is worth, describing communication in its simplest form. However, it is clear that with the change in technologies and rapidly changing “channels,” that this model would not be accurate for some ways in which we communicate today, such as the Internet. The Internet provides an opportunity for a large amount of people to communicate with one person, or vice versa… the playing board is just too broad for this basic model.
Hardt goes on to explain mass communication in a more realistic, up-to-date sense. Going back to the history books, we are reminded that one thing about this country is that we all are given the freedom of speech. This one freedom is the base to the biggest form of communication of our time, mass communication. Hardt states that the difference between communication of the masses and just plain communication lies between the definition of democracy and individual participation (4). What would mass communication be without democracy? Hardt believes that this idea of mass communication is directly correlated to our reality of what the twentieth century is, and I definitely agree.
(1) "Mass Communication." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 22/12/2010. Web. 5 Jan 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication web.
(2) Fiske, John (1982): Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Routledge.
(3)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.
(4)Hardt, Hanno. Myths for the Masses: an Essay on Mass Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. Print
You did a great job analyzing what Hardt was saying with mass communication. Though the question I have is though we have freedom of speech is the same as it was back as it was when the history books were written? It seems as though along with the advances in technology and communication there seem to be limits to the freedom that we do have in speech.
ReplyDelete