The Media as a
Social Institution
At
the end of PS: Chapter 9, McIntyre says that some sociologists argue that the
“media” should now be thought of as a social institution, while others have not
(see Chapter Review question #3). Those
who don’t regard the media as a separate institution often point to the fact
that the media is comprised of businesses with a profit motive, and so it
should be categorized under “economy.”
Others who do think the media constitutes a separate institution point
out that it influences, and is influenced by, other powerful institutions. Furthermore, its “products” (information) are
often free to the consumer; it makes its profits by charging organizations for
access to the consumer (advertising messages).
MSL 38: “The Mass Media as a Power Institution”
Clearly,
Marger takes the second view, that the mass media has become a social
institution in its own right. Our goal
in analyzing this article is
1) to connect
its evidence and arguments with those we have already encountered, and
2) to draw an informed conclusion regarding whether
the mass media is or is not a social institution.
1. Connections with other
concepts/theories/ideas:
·
Functions of the media: One idea encapsulated in the functionalist
paradigm (see PS p. 38) is that an analysis of some phenomena should begin with
identifying its functions. Marger does
that, presenting the manifest and latent functions on pp. 452-453. Which of the following are manifest
functions, and which are latent functions?
o
Agent of socialization
o
Source of information
o
“Propaganda mechanisms” for government
and business
o
“Agents of legitimacy” fostering in
acceptance of dominant political and economic institutions
·
The media constitutes an oligopoly (p.454). We haven’t come across this term before. An oligopoly exists when very few companies
control the major share of an industry.
Marger describes the ownership of mass media outlets. Another example of an industry that is
considered an oligopoly is the automobile industry. What are some possible effects of having an
oligopoly rather than an industry where ownership and control is distributed
across a much larger number of owners?
·
Marger points out that ownership of the
media is only one concern; the question of who has access to the media is equally important (p. 455). Both Mills (“Power Elite”) and Clawson, et.al. (“Dollars
and Votes”) also discussed the importance of access, even if total control is
not present. Do these three authors see
the idea of access in a similar way? Explain.
·
Mills discussed the “triangle of power”
as being made up of three institutions: the economy, politics, and the
military.” Marger also discusses links
between three institutions (p. 455).
What are they? Is Mills’ idea of
the “triangle” applicable to the way that Marger talks about the relationships
between the institutions he discusses?
Why or why not?
·
Because they select out the information
we will see and hear, the media engages in “defining the situation” for the
rest of us (see p. 457). They may do
this consciously or unconsciously.
Explain why it happens whether they intend it or not. Also, speculate on whether the content of
this definition across the industry as a whole might differ if the mass media
were not an oligopoly.
·
On pp. 456-457, Marger discusses the
consequences for society of the process by which the media “define the
situation” for their viewers. We can
think of these as more latent functions:
o
The goal of maximizing profits
encourages media businesses to take into account the interests of dominant
groups (who pay for advertising)
o
The least expensive way to collect
information (“news”) is from government representatives; going against the
interests of government threatens media access.
So, the media takes into account the interests of political elites, who
then have the opportunity to shape the news in ways that support their own
agendas.
·
In considering these latent functions,
several concepts that we have already seen are useful in thinking about their
effects on society as a whole (especially on us, the consumers). Let’s explore them:
o
Ideology (beliefs that are shaped by
the interests of some group)
o
Culture as a product of action
o
Culture as a conditioning element of
further action.
·
After thinking about these last latent
functions, do you think that that conflict paradigm might also be useful in
thinking about the relationship between the mass media and the rest of
society? Explain.
2. Is the “mass media” a social institution”?
MSL 39: “Media Magic: Making Class Invisible”
In
this article, Mantsios focuses his analysis on ways that the mass media
functions to uphold and legitimize our dominant ideology. Do this:
1. Mantiosis
basically says that the mass media functions to foster belief in the idea that
we live in an egalitarian society. Why
is this idea important with respect to the dominant ideology?
2. Identify
one example of how the media does this.
One example should refer to portrayals of the poor, one should refer to
portrayals of the wealthy, and one to the middle class.
3. Think
of an example from news story, TV show or movie (the whole story, or a scene
from it), commercial, etc that you have seen that furnishes an image of class
(whether it be lower class, middle class, or upper class). What was the content of that image? Was the embedded meaning constituent with
Mantiosis’ description? Explain.
Using
the Greiner Curve
Surviving the crises that come with growth
Fast growing companies can often be
chaotic places to work.
As workloads increase exponentially, approaches which have worked well in the
past start failing. Teams and people get overwhelmed with work.
Previously-effective managers start making mistakes as their span of control
expands. And systems start to buckle under increased load. While
growth is fun when things are going well, when things go wrong, this chaos
can be intensely stressful. More than this, these problems can be damaging
(or even fatal) to the organiza tion.
|
|
|
The "Greiner Curve"
is a useful way of thinking about the crises that organizations experience as
they grow. By understanding it, you can
quickly understand the root cause of many of the problems you're likely to
experience in a fast growing business. More than this, you can anticipate
problems before they occur, so that you can meet them with pre-prepared
solutions.
Understanding
the Theory
Greiner's Growth Model describes phases that
organizations go through as they grow. All kinds of organizations from design
shops to manufacturers, construction companies to professional service firms
experience these. Each growth phase is made up of a period of relatively stable
growth, followed by a "crisis" when major organizational change is
needed if the company is to carry on growing.
Dictionaries define the word "crisis"
as a "turning point", but for many of us it has a negative meaning to
do with panic. While companies certainly have to change at each of these
points, if they properly plan for there is no need for panic and so we will
call them "transitions".
Larry E. Greiner originally proposed this model in 1972 with five phases of
growth. Later, he added a sixth phase (Harvard Business Review, May 1998). The
six growth phases are described below:
Phase 1: Growth Through Creativity
Here, the entrepreneurs who founded the firm are busy creating products and
opening up markets. There aren't many staff, so informal communication works
fine, and rewards for long hours are probably through profit share or stock
options. However, as more staff join, production expands and capital is
injected, there's a need for more formal communication.
This phase ends with a Leadership Crisis, where professional management is
needed. The founders may change their style and take on this role, but often
someone new will be brought in.
Phase 2: Growth Through Direction
Growth continues in an environment of more formal communications, budgets and
focus on separate activities like marketing and production. Incentive schemes
replace stock as a financial reward.
However, there comes a point when the products and processes become so numerous
that there are not enough hours in the day for one person to manage them all,
and he or she can't possibly know as much about all these products or services
as those lower down the hierarchy.
This phase ends with an Autonomy Crisis: New structures based
on delegation are called for.
Phase 3: Growth Through Delegation
With mid-level managers freed up to react fast to opportunities for new
products or in new markets, the organization continues to grow, with top
management just monitoring and dealing with the big issues (perhaps starting to
look at merger or acquisition opportunities). Many businesses flounder at this
stage, as the manager whose directive approach solved the problems at the end
of Phase 1 finds it hard to let go, yet the mid-level managers struggle with
their new roles as leaders.
This phase ends with a Control Crisis: A much more
sophisticated head office function is required, and the separate parts of the
business need to work together.
Phase 4: Growth Through Coordination and Monitoring
Growth continues with the previously isolated business units re-organized into
product groups or service practices. Investment finance is allocated centrally
and managed according to Return on Investment (ROI) and not just profits.
Incentives are shared through company-wide profit share schemes aligned to
corporate goals. Eventually, though, work becomes submerged under increasing
amounts of bureaucracy, and growth may become stifled.
This phase ends on a Red-Tape Crisis: A new culture and
structure must be introduced.
Phase 5: Growth Through Collaboration
The formal controls of phases 2-4 are replaced by professional good sense as
staff group and re-group flexibly in teams to deliver projects in a matrix
structure supported by sophisticated information systems and team-based
financial rewards.
This phase ends with a crisis of Internal Growth: Further
growth can only come by developing partnerships with complementary
organizations.
Phase 6: Growth Through Extra-Organizational Solutions
Greiner's recently added sixth phase suggests that growth may continue through
merger, outsourcing, networks and other solutions involving other companies.
Growth rates will vary between and even within phases. The duration of each
phase depends almost totally on the rate of growth of the market in which the
organization operates. The longer a phase lasts, though, the harder it will be
to implement a transition.
|
Tip:
This is a useful model, however not all businesses will go through these
crises in this order. Use this as a starting point for thinking about
business growth, and adapt it to your circumstances.
|
Using the Tool
The Greiner Growth Model helps you think
about the growth for your organization, and therefore better plan for and cope
with the next growth transitions. To apply the model, use the following steps:
1.
Based on the descriptions
above, think about where your organization is now.
- Think
about whether the organization is reaching the end of a stable period of
growth, and nearing a ‘crisis' or transition. Some of the signs of
‘crisis' include:
- People
feel that managers and company procedures are getting in the way of them
doing their jobs.
- People
feel that they are not fairly rewarded for the effort they put in.
- People
seem unhappy, and there is a higher staff turnover than usual.
- Ask
yourself what the transition will mean for you personally and your team.
Will you have to:
- Delegate
more?
- Take
on more responsibilities?
- Specialize
more in a specific product or market?
- Change
the way you communicate with others?
- Incentivize
and reward you team differently?
By thinking this through, you can start to plan and prepare yourself for the
inevitable changes, and perhaps help other to do the same.
- Plan and
take preparatory actions that will make the transition as smooth as
possible for you and your team.
- Revisit
Greiner's model for growth again every 6-12 months, and think about how
the current stage of growth affects you and others around you.
www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_87.htm
Greiner's stage model
of Organisational Development
Crisis of
leadership: Often, an individual or small group of individuals, with a
clear sense of purpose, provide the energy needed to start an organisation: the
creativity phase. Some organisations later stall at the point where they have
grown and become more complex. Clear direction and a sense of purpose are
needed. If the stage is managed and survived, the growth of strong leadership
and direction drives the organisation.
Crisis of autonomy:
The Direction phase is characterised by clarity of strategy and a clear
direction for the whole organisation. As the organisation grows and develops
further, so there is pressure to devolve power and decision-making to other
levels in the organisation. There may be power struggles between centralised
information and decision sources, and others in the organisation. E.g. the
leader(s) may be starved of information. This stage can absorb much energy. If
the stage is managed and power begins to be devolved, this can happen quickly.
Problems can later occur from a lack of co-ordination; the organisation can
become fragmented, and lack an overall strategy.
Crisis of control:
the bureaucratic machine can begin to establish itself here, as the move to the
co-ordination phase occurs. Power is still devolved but in a more regulated and
proceduralised way. Accountability becomes a key word. The controls can
threaten to stifle the growth and initiatives of the organisation.
Crisis of red tape:
Here, there are many ways to develop. The organisation needs to free itself
from the clutter of rules and regulations so that it can deal with its
customers, market and competitors. To move to the collaboration phase is risky:
how to develop a more participative approach without the anarchy of the earlier
stages?
Crisis of
uncertainty: Sometimes at this stage, the organisation has grown to the
extent that a new and clear strategy and mission is required. Maybe the
organisation needs to break into smaller sub-units, which have autonomy within
a clear overall framework and culture.
Media E-ship
Media E-ship
(short for media entrepreneurship) keeps our media markets competitive and our
choices in media broad, varied, accessible and innovative. There are over
110,000 media companies in the U.S.
today, and 99% of them are small businesses. Moreover, there are thousands of
media companies launching every year. I will post stories and research about
media entrepreneurship and welcome responses to the ideas I share in this
space.
Media Entrepreneurs: Missionaries or
Merchants?
As part of my ongoing research project on media
entrepreneurship, my friend Ben Compaine and I started interviewing media
entrepreneurs over a year ago. (That's how I found Bear Cahill, profiled in a
previous post.) In analyzing the interview transcripts, we noticed two distinct
types of media entrepreneur. One group shared the mindset common to all
entrepreneurs; we labeled them merchants. The other group, however, didn't seem
to fit -- they hardly seemed like entrepreneurs at all, except that they had
started or were in the process of starting a media business. They talked about
their reluctance in starting a business. Diving into entrepreneurship seemed,
to this group, a last resort because no one else would do it. "It"
was a message or mission to carry out. That group we called the missionaries.
Ben recalled Ted Peterson's 1964 history of the magazine business in which he
described new leaders ("new" referring to 1900 to 1940) as
missionaries or merchants. The appeal of alliteration aside, the terms perfectly
capture the archetypes we saw emerging. Here's my graphic depicting a
continuum, from a pure merchant to missionary to a group we call
"citizen-mediamakers,"whom we distinguish from missionaries in that
they are not monetizing their media.
Why does it matter that there are two kinds of media entrepreneur? We believe
this kind of entrepreneur may be unique to media industries. From a public
policy standpoint, there are millions of potential media missionaries out there
who should be encouraged to start a media enterprise. Then we'd have tremendous
diversity in viewpoints and we could all stop worrying about media
concentration.
Media Sector More Entrepreneurial than
Other Industries
My research assistant, Sangho, and I have been measuring entrepreneurship
across various industry sectors using census data. Seems that several media
sectors are more entrepreneurial than almost all non-media sectors. The graph
at right shows rates of industry turbulence, the degree of entry and exit in an
industry. Turbulence has been linked to economic growth. This metric is
particularly relevant to the study of media industries given the dramatic
changes wrought by technological innovation. In theory, greater industry
turbulence is associated with greater innovation. In media, the analogy is the
marketplace of ideas concept -- media innovations (diverse voices, new
technologies) compete in the marketplace to determine which products and
services are superior (determine “truth”). Even when firms fail (exit), they
have made a contribution to that marketplace simply by competing.
In 1990, the media sector experienced an average degree of turbulence in
comparison to all U.S.
industry sectors (24%). By 2001, it was a great deal more turbulent than
average (35% vs. 22%). In fact, when the media sector was compared to all other
major industry sectors (not shown), it was the most consistently turbulent
industry sector over the entire 11 year period.
What is 'New Media'?
Posted by Vin Crosbie
[I earlier this week wrote that:
The radical
changes the newspaper industry needs to implement arise from a more true
understanding by that industry of why newspaper readership began declining well
before the Internet was opened to the public; about why one billion people
worldwide have gone onto the Internet after it was opened to the public (they
didn't do it to read traditional media on computer screens), and about why
all that plus the misnamed and illusionary 'fracturing' of media audiences
requires semantic solutions.
At the root of that problem is a misunderstanding about what the
New Medium actually is; a misunderstanding by almost all companies that
broadcast programs or that publish newspapers or magazines.
I've long been reluctant to explain this misunderstanding only
because I'll need a long post to explain it. This is that post, a new version
of my 1998 essay What is New Media? (which is currently being
taught in the journalism, film, technology, and game design courses at several
universities in North America and Europe). It's 3,200-words long, but I consider it the
most important thing I have ever written except for the original essay. I need
to have this new version online because I plan to refer to it in future
postings, specifically those about what radical changes that media companies need
to implement.]
Misunderstanding
'New Media'
A newspaper isn't a medium, nor are newspapers
media. Magazines aren't media nor is a magazine a medium.
Television isn't a medium nor is radio nor are radio or
television stations media. A website isn't a medium nor is the
Internet media.
Companies that broadcast programs or that publish newspapers or
magazines are having problems understanding and adapting to why and how one billion consumers are now using Internet-based
technologies to receive news, information, and entertainment.
Those companies have the problems simply because they
misunderstand the meaning of media or medium. It is that starkly
simple. Their misunderstanding of these terms-- not the new technologies that
consumers use -- is the root of the companies' problems.
Ask their executives if they work in the 'Mass Media'
(the Mass Medium) and they will be correct if they reply yes. But almost
all will take that a step further — a misstep — and say that their broadcast,
newspaper, or magazine is a medium.
Rhetoricians and cognitive linguists refer to that extra step as
metonymy: the use of a well-understood or easy-to-perceive
characteristic of something to stand for either a much more complex whole or
for some aspect or part of it. (Another example of metonymy is use of the name Hollywood to
describe the entire film industry worldwide)
Broadcast and publishing executives mistake Mass Media as
a catchall phrase for all possible media, as if no other medium can
exist except as a Mass Medium. Moreover, they extend this mistaken meaning of medium
to cover their own broadcasts or publications.
So entrenched has the contemporary misunderstanding of the terms
media and medium become that the mistake limits the abilities of
most publishing or broadcasting executives to comprehend what exactly is a medium
or the media in which they work.
So, what are media, what is a medium?
I'll answer, explain how only three media
exist and how previously just two did, and define the New Medium ('New Media').
But let's first take a moment to look at how today's colloquial meaning of media
or medium is a relatively recent mistake.
If you were to ask a person in the year 1506, 1606, 1706, 1806,
or 1906, medium they used for their news, they wouldn't understand what you
asked. They simply wouldn't comprehend your use of the word medium.
(Indeed, if you had asked anyone in 1506, 1606, or 1706 what medium they used
to get their news, they might think you were accusing them of using a witch
to tell them about current events -- a serious crime back then!)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the
colloquial meaning of medium is a latecomer to the publishing industry.
It dates only from around 1880 — a quarter millennium after publication of the
first daily newspapers and 150 years after publication of the first magazines:
Medium
('mi:diem), sb. and a. Pl. Mediia, -iums. [a. L. Medium, neuter of
medius middle, cogn. With MID a.] A. sb 5. a. An intermediate
agency, means, instrument or channel. Also, intermediation, instrumentality: in
phrase by or through the medium of. spec. of newspapers, radio,
television , etc. As vehicles of mass communication . Also attrib. And
in pl. (see MEDIA) 1880 Coach Builders' Art Jrnl. I. 63:
'Considering your Journal one of the best possible mediums for such a scheme.'
The colloquial plural media is even more a latecomer. The OED
says it dates from only a few years after rise of the first commercial radio
stations and is a term borrowed from the advertising industry:
Media ('mi:dia),
sb. pl. [Pl. F MEDIUM sb., prob. After mass media.]
Newspapers, radio, television, etc., collectively, as vehicles of mass
communication. Freq. attrib. or as adj. Also erron. As sing. in
same sense. 1923 [see mass medium].
Mass medium (,maes
'mi:diem). [f. MASS sb. + MEDIUM sb.] A medium of communications
(such as radio, television, newspapers, etc.) that reaches a large number of
people; usu. In pl. mass media.
1923 S. M. FECHHEIMER in N. T. Praigg Advertising & Selling
v. 238 (title) Class appeal in mass media. Ibid. The several million
readers of a big mass medium. G. SNOW in Ibid. 240 'Mass media represents the
most economical way of getting the story over the new and wider market in the
least time.'
I'm not playing semantics here. When I state that the publishing
and broadcasting industries' colloquial usages of the terms medium and media
are wrong, I'm not trying to define new meanings for those terms. Instead, I'm
returning to the previous meanings that those terms had had for millennia
(prior to the Advertising Industry coining the current colloquialism in 1923).
That is the key to understanding what is the New Medium or, even for that
matter, what is the Mass Medium.
Discard
Preconceptions and the Misunderstanding
There is a saying about Einstein's Theory of Relativity: that
what makes it difficult for some people to comprehend is its simplicity. That
you don't need to acquire more information to understand it, but that you must
instead discard preconceived notions that block your understand. There
is a similar saying about Quantum Theory.
Understanding the New Medium is like that, too.
To understand the New Medium, discard the colloquial meanings of
medium and media. Don't confuse a Medium for its Vehicles. What
most people today think are media are actually vehicles within a medium.
A newspaper isn't a medium, nor are newspapers
media. Magazines aren't media nor is a magazine a medium.
Television isn't a medium nor is radio nor are radio or
television stations media.
Likewise, a personal computer connected to the Internet isn't
a medium and the millions of computers connected to the Internet aren't
media. Neither is a website a medium nor are websites media. The
World Wide Web isn't a medium nor is e-mail a medium nor
is the Internet itself a medium or media.
Newspapers, magazines, television, radio, telephones,
billboards, personal computers, the Internet, the World Wide Web, and e-mail
all are vehicles for conveying information within a medium or media.
These vehicles aren't the media or a medium in which they operate.
To understand the difference between a vehicle and a medium
for information or communication, you merely need to comprehend how the terms medium,
media, and vehicles are correctly used when discussing
transportation.
Although there are numerous types of vehicles, only three
transportation media exist:
Land was the aboriginal transportation medium; it was the first transportation
medium. Humans have walked on it since time immemorial. We still do. But we've
also built vehicles to help convey us in this medium: carts, chariots,
carriages, bicycles, trains, automobiles, trucks and lorries, etc.
Water is the second transportation medium. Human’s usage of it as a
transportation medium is almost as old as humanity's use of land, dating from
whenever the first human attempted to ride a floating log or to swim across a
stream, river, or lake. We've since created vehicles to convey use in this
medium: rafts, canoes, barges, sailboats, ships, submarines, etc.
Before I list the third transportation medium, please note some
characteristics of these two traditional transportation media, because you'll
find that these characteristics have analogues in informational or
communicational media:
- Note first that
humans' usage of those two ancient transportation media predate
technology. Technology has merely extended our speed and carrying
capacities in these media.
- Also note that
humanity's uses of these two media aren't necessarily dependent upon
technology. Most of us can walk and swim without using any technology.
- And note that each
of the vehicles for these media is limited by its medium. Trains don't
operate on water nor do steamships operate on land. Indeed, land and water
have mutually exclusive characteristics as media and reaches. Mutually
exclusive advantages and disadvantages. This will become an important
point when we bridge — no pun intended — this analogy towards informational
and communicational media
For many millennia, anyone who needed transportation faced a choice of
using either one of these two transportation media. His choice would have been
based upon where that medium reached or its carrying capacity.
For examples, water vehicles have almost global reach but not to
landlocked places. Most water vehicles also have much greater carrying
capacities than do land vehicles. But most land vehicles can deliver anyone
door-to-door, a capability that most water vehicle can't provide (unless they
are in Venice).
For almost all of recorded history, humans have used the medium
of water and its vehicles for most of their long distance transportation needs,
but have used the medium of land and its vehicles for most of their daily transportation
needs. A third transportation medium had been inconceivable.
That was until 1903. Or, more accurately, 1783, which was when
two French brothers named Montgolfier used their era's
technologies to build a vehicle that opened an new transportation medium.
Joseph Michel and Jacques Étienne Montgolfier built a huge globe of sackcloth
and paper, covered it with a huge fishnet, let hot air from a fire rise beneath
it, put their friend Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier into a basket hung beneath the
globe, and then let him rise in this balloon into the sky. Aviation was born.
The Sky became a transportation medium.
In 1903, after studying 18th Century experiments by the German
Otto Lilenthal with airfoils and gliders, the Wright Brothers married an engine
to a glider and made aviation practical for everyday use. Last year, airlines
took more than 4 billion passengers through the transportation medium of
the sky. Among this medium's vehicles are balloons, parachutes, gliders,
airplanes, helicopters, and spacecraft.
Note that this new transportation medium is entirely
dependent upon technology, unlike use of the two other transportation
media. The sky isn't a natural medium for humans; people can walk and swim
without technology, but cannot fly.
Note too that the vehicles of this new transportation medium can
operate either of the water or land media go. Anywhere on Earth. Though the
transportation media of Land and Water have mutually exclusive reaches, this
new transportation medium — the Sky — encompasses the reaches of both
land and water. It overcomes the complementary advantages and disadvantages of
the two prior, traditional media.
So, let's now take this analogy about media back from
transportation to communications and information. What's it to do with the
traditional media companies and the problems they have understanding and
adapting to why and how one billion consumers have begun using Internet-based
technologies to receive news, information, and entertainment?
Only
Three Media Exist
Just as only three transportation media exist, only three
communications media exist:
As with transportation media, two of these communication media
are ancient and people's usage of the two arose independent of technology.
However, the third medium is relatively new and is entirely dependent upon
technology:
Oddly, the first and earliest of the three communications media
is the only one not to have a commonly accepted name, not even misnoner. I call
it the Interpersonal Medium.
This aboriginal medium arose in basic animal communications,
predating humans and technology. Interpersonal conversation is the basic
form of this medium. It is the most heavily used communication medium.
Technology has mereely extended its speed and reach. Vehicles that human later
built for it include the postal letter, telephone call, and electronic mail.
Just as the transportation medium of Land (or, for that matter,
water) has some unique characteristics, so too does the Interpersonal Medium of
communications. Its two hallmark are:
- Each participant in
it has equal and reciprocal control of the content conveyed.
- That content can be
individualized to each participant's unique needs and interests.
However, those hallmark advantages have corresponding disadvantages:
- The equal control,
and also the individualization, of the content degrades into cacophony as
the number of participants increases. The more people participating in a
conversation, the less control each has over its content and how well that
content matches the participant's individual needs and interests.
For those reasons, this medium is generally used for communications only
between two people. Some academics that study communications refer to it the 'one-to-one'
medium, although many marketers misapply that term to the New Medium.
The Mass Medium is the second communications medium.
Most people mistake the Mass Medium as a byproduct of technology
and don't realize how old it really is. Like the Interpersonal, the Mass Medium
predates technology. It originated with the utterances and speeches of tribal
leaders, kings, and priests. Technology has merely extended its speed and its
reach to global dimensions.
Some vehicles in the Mass Medium are oratory, sermons, edicts, ,
scriptures, plays, books, newspapers, billboards, magazines, cinema, radio,
television, bulletin boards, and
webcasting.
Communications in the Mass Medium generally go from a one person
(for examples, a leader, a king, priest, publisher, or broadcaster) to many
people (the tribe, mass, audience, readership, listenership, viewership). This
is why some academics term it the 'one-to-many' medium, but most people
colloquially refer to it as Mass Media, despite it being only one medium for
communication.
The hallmarks of the Mass Medium are:
- That exactly the
same content goes to all recipients.
- That the one
who sends it has absolute control over that content.
However, the corresponding disadvantages of the Mass Medium are:
- Its content
cannot be individualized to each recipient's unique needs and
interests and that the recipients have no control over that
content.
Like the Interpersonal, the Mass Medium isn't necessarily dependent upon
technology. For example, an actor or speaker can perform before the masses
without any technology.
Before I define the third communications medium -- explaining
what the New Medium really is -- please again note how the prior two media have
reciprocal advantages and disadvantages, similar to how the transportation
media of land and water have mutually exclusive characteristics
- The Interpersonal
Medium can deliver an individualized message but generally just to one
person at any time.
- The Mass Medium can
simultaneously deliver or display to an almost infinite number of people,
but its messages cannot be individualized for each recipient.
Likewise:
- The Interpersonal
Medium allows each participant equal control over the content.
- The Mass Medium
allows control over the content by only one person.
Those mutually exclusive characteristics of the Interpersonal and Mass media
had meant that anyone who wanted to communicate faced a choice: He could
communicate either the same information to everyone or else custom-tailor
the information for just one recipient. He couldn't custom-tailor
information to a mass of recipients; that would have been inconceivable.
That was true until about a dozen years ago.
The
New Medium
But then -- just like how then-new technologies were used a
century ago to make the sky a new and practical medium for transportation --
new technologies have now been used to create the New Medium for
communications. It is a new communication medium that, like Sky for prior
transportation media, bridges the mutually incompatible characteristics of
prior communications media.
Among the technologies needed to create this New Medium were the
invention of digital communications during the late 1940s, invention of the
Transport Control/Internet Protocol ((TCP/IP) during the late 1960s, ARPANET's
creation of the Internet and other people's invention of the personal computer
during in the 1970s, and to lesser extents the invention of the HyperText
Transport Protocol (HTTP) in the late 1980s, opening of the Internet to the
public in 1992, and invention of the graphical browser software later that
year. Those and other technological innovations converged to create a new
communications medium that has characteristics inconceivable even a decade ago.
The hallmark characteristics of the New Medium are:
- Uniquely
individualized information can simultaneously be delivered or displayed to
a potentially infinite number of people.
- Each of the people
involved — whether publisher, broadcasters, or consumer — shares equal and
reciprocal control over that content.
In other words, the New Medium has the advantages of both the Interpersonal and
the Mass media, but without their complementary disadvantages.
- No longer must
anyone who wants to individually communicate a unique message to each
recipient be restricted to communicating with only one person at a
time.
- No longer must
anyone who wants to communicate simultaneous messages to a mass of
recipients be unable to individualize the content of the message
for each recipient.
Again, please note that the New Medium for communications, as with use of the
transportation medium of the sky, is entirely dependent upon technology
unlike its two preceding media. It is not a natural communications medium for
humans; it does something that a human cannot naturally do without technology.
Colloquially known as 'New Media' or 'the New Media', the New
Medium is not whatever content or device is used online (or wirelessly, on
an iPod, etc.). Any item of content is generally independent of any medium.
Likewise, most vehicles and devices are generally independent of medium. (There
obviously are exceptions: You won't receive much content plugging newsprint
into the Internet or using a canoe as a transportation vehicle on land.)
Some
Misapplications
Simply because the New Medium encompasses the
characteristics and the reach of both of its predecessors and therefore can
easily perform each of those media's capabilities, many people mistake the
New Medium as merely an electronic extension previous media.
This misunderstanding is particular prevalent among publishing
and broadcast executives or others who've worked in the Mass Medium. They see
the New Medium and its vehicles only as a paperless or antenna-less
form of Mass Medium — a perspective that neglects the New Medium's full
potential.
A website can be a vehicle to display Mass Medium
content, which indeed is how most newspapers, magazines, and broadcasts use it.
However, that merely replicates online the hallmark limitations of Mass
Medium vehicles and doesn't take advantage of the New Medium's ability to
display a precise match of specific information to each and every recipient's
individual needs and interests, however different those receipients may be.
Moreover, because each recipient in the New Medium shares with
all publishers and broadcasters equal and reciprocal control over what that
recipient gets — either by each recipient's choices of which publishers' or
broadcasters' websites to visit or else increasingly by mechanisms that allow
the recipient to aggregate that content without visiting each of those
publishers' or broadcasters' sites — these New Medium consumers are leaving
behind the traditional Mass Medium's packaging of information.
Each is migrating towards whatever mix of content most
precisely matches her own uniquely individual needs and interests. This
is why more than one billion consumers have migrated into the New Medium;
it allows them more precise satisfaction of their needs and interests. They
didn't migrate into the New Medium to read, see, or hear a Mass Medium package
of information online — information they were receiving from traditional Mass
Medium vehicles in more readily usable forms.
Nevertheless, almost all publishing and broadcasting companies
still make the mistake of providing only the traditional Mass Medium package of
information online. Many of those companies also mistakenly term themselves interactive
merely because they now also operate online.
Interactivity, as long ago defined by Dr. Jonathan
Steuer in the Journal of Communications is "the extent to which
users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated
environment in real time." That is a far cry from simply letting the user
read Mass Medium newspaper, magazines, or broadcast content that has been
shoveled online.
Within the next ten years, most New Medium consumers will be
receiving information from each's choice of myriad broadcasters and publishers,
perhaps too many for any individual consumer to name or even realize.
(Early adopters of tag-driven XML, advanced RSS, and 'peer-to-peer'
technologies have already begun making such use). Because these many
consumers will be sharing content choices and control with all publisher and
broadcasters, the New Medium serves not just a 'one-to-one' or 'one-to-many'
medium but a 'many-to-many' one.
Publisher and broadcasters who don't make full use of the New
Medium will likely be left behind and wither during this new century.
