1.28.2009

Is mass media still King?

Mass media has always had a special place in my heart, and why shouldn't it.  Of course I stand to make my livelihood on mass media, but it goes beyond that.  I remain fascinated by mass media and how it continues to shape our culture and more importantly, our interpretations.  But, I do not believe that "mass media" exists today, at least the books definition of mass media.  The book implies that by definition, mass media broadcasts a singular message to the "masses."  It implies there are no target markets; mass media is more like a shotgun blasts than a sniper shot.  I simple do not believe this to be the case.  Television now has cable networks.  The masses have more than 4 channels to tune in to, in fact, they can watch networks dedicated to food, golf, tennis, home decor, etc.  The same can be said about magazines, radio (esp. satellite radio), and the internet.  The media today must target a fragmented audience to be persuasive. 

I would also argue that the mass media brings publics together, not fragment them and tear them apart much as the book suggests.   Mass media once operated under a one-way broadcast system, but has turned into more of a public forum.  While the internet is the most visible medium of public forum, the evidence can be found across all mediums.  The 2008 Presidential Election is a great example of the media bringing publics together.  While some may argue that the candidates where responsible  for bringing the country together, let us not forget that the media made Barack Obama what he is to the population.  Also, we have seen many features such as CNN's iReport that has allowed the public to remain part of the conversation and not just a recipient of the message.

The book's mention of the 1997 death of Princess Diana really struck a cord with me personally. I was 11 years old when Princess Diana died tragically, and although I was very young and unfamiliar with Princess Di at the time, I can still remember all the events surrounding her death.  We had just gotten a puppy, Brandy, and I had gotten up around 4 or 5 am to check on her. I found my mom downstairs watching television crying while she was watching the news coverage of the accident.  While I had never heard my mom even mention Princess Diana once in my life, she seemed very upset by the event.  She never could give me a straight reason why she was so upset, but now I understand better.  The media was on this story so quickly, everyone that was watching really felt like part of what was happening.  The images they broadcast really had staying power with those tuned in, and showed us all how fragile life really could be.  The media really was responsible for creating a sense of community at the local, national, and global level.




1 comment:

  1. These are great points...but at some point (given the current economic volatility)....can mass media produce an ROI (return on investment)? Mass media does provide the opportunity to create "one" message for the masses...how do you know if you are not marginalizing 75% of those audiences with that message. Obama's group capitalized on this theory by targeting email campaigns, twitter, etc. to get a specific message to a specific audience to raise money and create a following that is trackable and committed to the message. There is value in combining mass media with targeted media so that you hit the masses...assess the ROI, then target that message for the long term investment. This is a great discussion.

    Bobby Rettew (MAPC 2003)

    ReplyDelete