Shannon and Weaver freely admit that their communication model is simplified. The model explains the omnidirectional transmission of information from source to destination. (Chandler, 1994) Once the message arrives at its destination the act of communicating is over. The model defines communication as the “process of ‘transmitting information’.” (Chandler, 1994)
Communication is a process of interaction between two or more living organisms where information can be transmitted, shared or made common. (Hardt, 2004) This definition departs from the Shannon Weaver model because the idea of sharing information means there is a way for the destination, or receiver, to reply and share information with the source. The notion of interaction is what makes communication such an important tool for spreading knowledge across a society.
There is also the idea of mass communication where information is relayed to a large audience through the use of mass media (books, newspapers, radio, television etc.). Mass communication is the propagation of materials which mold the social and political movements of a society. (Hardt, 2004) This differs from communication where the individual has the opportunity to devise their own thoughts and share them in a two way stream of intercourse. In many ways, mass communication symbolizes the end of individual thought as the constant rhetoric of institutions washes over the populace. (Hardt, 2004) People begin to accept the information they see in mass media as the social norm and we start to lose the idea of individual communication.
With the advent of the internet we see a chance for change. Hardt paints a depressing picture where institutions control the media. “Mass communication implies a one-way process of communication that reinforces the power of media institutions… to set agendas for a society which relies increasingly on fewer sources of mediation from more of its social knowledge.” (Hardt, 2004) While true of traditional mass media, the internet represents an escape from this cycle. The openness of the internet enables everyone to share knowledge with anyone who has an internet connection. What more is that feedback is encouraged! No longer does mass communication represent this one way flow of information as seen in the Shannon Weaver model. We the people have an opportunity to respond back and be heard by millions. Hardt does not view the internet as a revolution in mass communication, and I must disagree. The internet has taken mass communication and made it so you and I can have a real conversation about the issues; we, society now have a feedback mechanism. It is not simply an extension of the current media streams as Hardt claims. (Hardt, 2004)
Chandler, D. (1994). The Transmission Model of Communication. Retrieved January 4, 2011, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html
Hardt, H. (2004). Myths for the Masses: An Essay on Mass Communication. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
I totally agree with you. With many forms of mass communication people move towards the social norm and individual communication is lost but this does not pertain to the internet. Furthermore, the internet allows anyone with any perspective, opinion, interest, what have you, to share and learn with others. And like you said, comments and criticism are wanted and expected. The internet is most certainly a revolution in mass communication, just imagine life without it--I certainly cannot.
ReplyDeleteYeah I was shocked when Hardt came out and said he didn't see the internet as a revolution. Its a total paradigm shift in mass communication. Traditional methods allowed for the one way flow of ideas where as the internet is a totally new way of looking at mass communication because it allows for interaction.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Chomsky's clips on "manufacturing consent", my own cynicism towards the invisible arms behind the traditional avenues of mass communication (news in print and on the TV/Radio) was affirmed.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the notion that the internet provides a ray of hope amidst the cynicism. Thank God for cell phones, iReporters and YouTube. We don’t have to wait for years before we know the whole story like the tragedy in East Timor. with cellphone cameras, the citizens of the can contribute to this discourse in real time.