Mc Quail on Rise of Mass Communication

1INTRODUCTION: THE RISE OF

MEDIA OF MASS COMMUNICATION

The significance of mass media

It is a basic assumption of this book that the mass media (newspapers, television and radioespecially) are of considerable, and still growing, importance in modem societies. This viewof the media is widely shared, and the reasons seem to lie in the fact that the media are:

• a power resource - a potential means of influence, control and innovation in society; theprimary means of transmission and source of information essential to the working ofmost social institutions;

• the location (or arena) where many affairs of public life are played out, both nationallyand internationally;

• a major source of definitions and images of social reality; thus also the place where thechanging culture and the values of societies and groups are constructed, stored and mostvisibly expressed;

• the primary key to fame and celebrity status as well as to effective performance in thepublic arena;

• the source of an ordered and public meaning system which provides a benchmark forwhat is normal, empirically and evaluatively; deviations are signalled and comparisonsmade in terms of this public version of normality.

In addition, the media are the single largest focus of leisure-time activity and means ofentertainment. They also help organize and interrelate the rest of leisure. As a result, theyare a major and expanding industry, providing employment and a wide range of potentialeconomic benefits.

If these claims are accepted, it is not difficult to understand the great interest which themass media have aftracted since their early days, nor why they have been subject to so muchpublic scrutiny and regulation as well as theorizing. The conduct of democratic (orundemocratic) politics, nationally and internationally, depends more and more on massmedia, and there are few significant social issues which are addressed without someconsideration of the role of the mass media, whether for good or ill. As will appear, themost fundamental questions of society - those concerning the distribution and exercise ofpower, the management of problems and the processes of integration and change - all turn

on communication, especially the messages carried by the public means of communication,whether in the form of information, opinion, stories or entertainment.

Media and society relationships

This book is about theories of mass communication, but it is hard to draw a line betweenideas concerning mass media and wider theories of society. Yet one can at least try torecognize some of the fundamental underlying assumptions about the relation between mediaand society. Most basic is a view of the mass media as an established social institution, withits own distinctive set of norms and practices but with the scope of its activities subject todefinition and limitation by the wider society. This implies that the media are essentiallydependent on 'society', especially on the institutions of political and economic power,although there is scope for influence in return, and the media institution may be gaining inautonomy, simply as a result of the extending volume and scope of media activities. Even so,the forces historically at work in societies and the wider world are more potent than themedia or the immediate influence which these might exert.

The nature of the relation between media and society depends on circumstances of timeand place. This book largely deals with mass media and mass communication in modern,'developed' nation states, mainly elective democracies with free-market (or mixed)economies which are integrated into a wider international set of economic and politicalrelations of exchange, competition and also domination or conflict. The author's view is thatthe theory and related research discussed in this book relate generally to social contextscharacterized by structured differences in economic welfare and political power betweensocial and economic classes.

Despite apparent stability in these social contexts, deep latent conflicts and tensions existnationally and internationally, which find expression in conflicts of ideology, competingclaims for resources and, occasionally, social crisis. The media are deeply involved in thesemaffers as producers, disseminators and stores of meaning about events and contexts ofpublic social life. It follows that the study of mass communication cannot avoid dealing inquestions of values or easily achieve neutrality and scientific objectivity.

This particular problem arises in another form when it comes to questions of interpretingthe meaning of what the media carry or the meanings which are perceived by the 'receivers'.Again the possibility of objective knowledge is at issue and, therefore, also the possibility offormulating or testing theory. This problem is familiar enough in the social sciences, thoughit may be posed in an unusually sharp form in respect of communication, since values andmeanings are at the heart of the mafter.Basic differences of approach

The field of media theory is characterized by widely divergent perspectives. In addition to afundamental difference between the left and right of the political spectrum - betweenprogressive and conservative, or critical and applied purpose - which plays a major part instructuring theory, there are two main differences of perspective in relation to mass mediaand society.

One of these separates 'media-centric' from 'society-centric' (or 'social-centric')approaches. The former approach attributes much more autonomy and influence tocommunication and concentrates on the media's own sphere of activity; the lafter takes aview of the media as so much a reflection of political and economic forces that theory for themedia can be liffle more than a special application of broader social theory (Golding andMurdock, 1978). Media-centric theory sees mass media as a primary mover in social changeand often themselves driven forward by irresistible developments of communicationtechnology. Whether or not society is driven by the media, it is certainly true that masscommunication theory itself is so driven, tending to respond to each major shift of mediatechnology and structure.

The second main dividing line is between those theorists whose interest (and conviction)lies in the realm of culture and ideas and those who emphasize material forces and factors.This divide corresponds approximately with certain other dimensions: humanistic versusscientific; qualitative versus quantitative; and subjective versus objective. While thesedifferences may reflect only the necessity for some division of labour in a wide territory, theyoften involve competing and contradictory claims about how to pose questions, conductresearch and provide explanations. These two alternatives are independent of each other, sothat in fact several different perspectives on media and society can be identified (Figure 1.1).

Media-centric1 2

Culturalist Materialist3 4

Society-centric

Figure 1.1 Dimensions and types of media theory: four main approaches can be identifiedaccording to two dimensions -media-centric versus sodety-centric; and culturalist versusmaterialistq InroUuc;LIu,I

The four types of perspective can be briefly described as follows:

1 A media-culturalist perspective involves giving primary attention to content and to thereception of media messages as influenced by the immediate personal environment.

2 A media-materialist approach involves the political-economic and the technologicalaspects of the media themselves receiving the most emphasis.

3 A social-culturalist perspective emphasizes the influence of social factors on mediaproduction and reception and the functions of the media in social life.

4 A social-materialist perspective sees media mainly as a reflection of economic andmaterial conditions of the society rather than as first cause.

Each of these perspectives can be cross-cut by a more radical or more conservative pointof view. However, there has been a tendency for the critical perspective to be more associatedwith either a society-centric or a culturalist perspective (or both).

Different kinds of theory

If theory is understood not only as a system of law-like propositions, but as any set of ideaswhich can help make sense of a phenomenon, guide action or predict a consequence, thenone can distinguish at least four kinds of theory which are relevant to mass communication:social scientific, normative, operational and everyday theory. The most obvious kind to beexpected in a text like this consists of social scientific theory - general statements about thenature, working and effects of mass communication, based on systematic and objectiveobservation of media and other relevant sources.

The body of such theory is now large, although it is loosely organized and not veryclearly formulated or even very consistent. It also covers a very wide spectrum, frorn broadquestions of society to detailed aspects of individual information sending and receiving.Some 'scientific' theory is concerned with understanding what is going on, some withdeveloping a critique and some with practical applications in processes of public informationor persuasion (see Windahl and Signitzer, 1992).

A second kind of theory can be described as normative, since it is concerned withexamining or prescribing how media ought to operate if certain social values are to beobserved or attained. Such theory usually stems from the broader social philosophy orideology of a given society. This kind of theory is irnportant because it plays a part inshaping and legitimating media institutions and has considerable influence on theexpectations which are placed on the media by other sQcial agencies and even by the media's

own audiences. A good deal of research into mass media has been the result of attempts toapply norms of social and cultural performance. A society's normative theories concerningits own media are usually to be found in laws, regulations, media policies, codes of ethicsand the substance of public debate. While normative media theory is not in itself 'objective',it can be studied by the 'objective' methods of the social sciences (McQuail, 1992).

A third kind of knowledge about the media can best be described as operational theory,since it refers to the practical ideas assembled and applied by media practitioners in theconduct of their own media work. Similar bodies of accumulated practical wisdom are to befound in most organizational and professional settings. In the case of the media it helps toorganize experience on many questions such as how to select news, please audiences, designeffective advertising, keep within the limits of what society permits, and relate effectively tosources and audiences. At some points it may overlap with normative theory - for instance,in matters of journalistic ethics.

Such knowledge merits the name of theory because it is usually patterned and persistent,even if never codified, and is influential in respect of behaviour. It comes to light in the studyof communicators and their organizations (for example, Elliott, 1972; Tuchman, 1978). Katz(1977) compared the role of the researcher in relation to media production to that of thetheorist of music or philosopher of science who can see regularities which a musician orscientist cannot be, or does not even need to be, aware of (though usually also withouttheorists themselves being able to make music or do science).

Finally, there is everyday or common-sense theory of media use, referring to theknowledge we all have from our own long experience with media, which enables us tounderstand what is going on, how a medium might fit into our daily lives, how its content isintended to be 'read', as well as how we like to read it, what the differences are betweendifferent media, different media genres and examples of content, and much more. On thebasis of such theory is grounded the ability to make consistent choices, form tastes and makejudgements. This ability, in turn, shapes what the media actually offer to their audiences andsets both directions and limits to media influence (for instance, by enabling us to distinguishbetween reality and fiction, to 'read between the lines' or to see through the persuasive aimsand techniques of advertising and other kinds of propaganda). The working of common-sense theory can be seen in the norms for use of media which many people recognize andfollow (see Chapter 12), and it can play a significant part in the outcome of public debateabout the media, whether or not supported by scientific evidence.

This book is most directly concerned with the first and second kinds of theory, but theother two are also important. For instance, a legitimate answer to the question 'What is masscommunication?', in place of a formal and abstract definition, would simply be "What peoplethink it is' - leading to very different perceptions drawn from media communicators, their6 inrrnaucnon

Four types of media theory

•• Social scientific theory•• Normative theory•• Operational theory• Everyday theory

sources and clients and from the many different audiences. The social definitions whichmass media acquire are not given by media theorists or legislators but are established in real-life practice and experience. The emergence of definitions (really perceptions) of media, andtheir uses for individuals and society, is a complex and lengthy process. The results are oftenvariable and hazy, as will be seen when we try to pin them down.

Communication science and the study of mass communication

The study of mass communication is one topic among many for the social sciences and onlyone part of a wider field of enquiry into human communication. Under the name'communication science' the field has been defined by Berger and Chaffee (1987, p.17) as ascience which 'seeks to understand the production, processing and effects of symbol andsignal systems by developing testable theories, containing lawful generalizations, thatexplain phenomena associated with production, processing and effects'. While this waspresented as a 'mainstream' definition to apply to most communication research, in fact it isvery much biased towards one model of enquiry - the quantitative study of communicativebehaviour and its causes.

It is especially inadequate to deal with the nature of 'symbol systems' and signification,the process by which meaning is given and taken in varied social contexts. It is unlikely thatany single definition of the field can adequately cover the diversity of perspectives and ofproblems which arise. It is also unlikely that any 'science of communication' can ever beindependent and self-sufficient, given the origins of the study in many disciplines and thewide-ranging nature of communication problems.

Levels of communication

A less problematic way of locating the topic of mass communication in a wider field of

communication enquiry is according to different levels of social organization at whichcommunication takes place. Mass communication can then be seen as one of several society-wide communication processes, at the

Few cases

communication)Institutional/organizational

communication (e.g. political system or

business firm)

Intergroup or association(e.g. local community)

Intragroup (e.g. family)

Interpersonal (e.g. dyad, couple)

Intrapersonal (e.g. processing information) Many cases

Figure 1.2 The pyramid of communication: masscommunication is one of a few sodety-wide processes

apex of a pyramidal distribution of other communication processes according to this criterion(Figure 1.2).

At each descending level of the pyramid indicated there are more separate cases to befound, and each level presents its own particular set of problems for research and theorizing.In an integrated modern society there will often be one large public communication network,usually depending on the mass media, which can reach and involve all citizens to varyingdegrees, although the media system is also usually fragmented according to regional and

other social or demographic factors. Alternative society-wide and public networks are nowrare, but at one time these might have been provided by the church or by a politicalorganization, based on shared beliefs and involving a hierarchical but also personalizednetwork of contacts. Such alternatives may still develop, especially informally, underconditions of restricted access to mass media channels.

Different networks

To qualify as a communication network, in the sense intended, there has to be both a meansof delivery and exchange and an active flow of messsages

inrroaucori

in which most or all actively participate. Alternative (non-mass-media) technologies forsupporting a society-wide network do exist (especially the network of physicaltransportation, the telecommunications infrastructure and the postal system), but theseusually lack the society-wide social elements and public roles which mass communicationhas.

At a level below that of the whole society, there are several different kinds ofcommunication network. One type duplicates the larger society at the level of region, city ortown and may have a parallel media structure. Another is represented by the firm or workorganization, which may not have a single location but is usually very integrated within itsown organizational boundaries, within which much communication flow takes place. A thirdvariety is that represented by the 'institution' - for instance, that of government, or education,or justice, or religion, or social security. The activities of a social institution are alwaysdiverse and also require correlation and much communication, following pafterned routesand forms. Organizations and social institutions are distinguished from society-widenetworks by being specific in their tasks. They are also bounded and relatively closed,although communication does flow across the boundaries (for example, when a bureaucracyor firm communicates with its clients, and vice versa).

Below this level, there are even more and more varied types of communication network,based on some shared feature of daily life: an environment (such as a neighbourhood), aninterest (such as music), a need (such as the care of small children) or an activity (such assport). At this level, the key questions concern attachment and identity, co-operation andnorm formation. At the infragroup (for instance, family) and interpersonal levels, attentionhas usually been given to forms of conversation and patterns of interaction, influence,affiliation (degrees of attachment) and normative control. At the intrapersonal level,communication research concentrates on the processing of information (for instance,

attention, perception, comprehension, recall and learning) and possible effects (onknowledge, opinion and attitude).

This seemingly neat pattern has been complicated by the growing 'globalization' of sociallife, in which mass communication has played some part. There is a yt higher 'level' ofcommunication and exchange to consider - that crossing and even ignoring nationalfrontiers, in relation to an increasing range of activities (economic, political, sport,entertainment, etc.). Organizations and institutions are less confined within nationalfrontiers, and individuals can also satisfy communication needs outside their own society andtheir immediate social environments. The once strong correspondence between patterns ofpersonal social interaction in shared space and time, on the one hand, and systems ofcommunication, on the other, has been much weakened, and our cultural and informationalchoices have become greatly widened.

Despite the diversity of the phenomena, each level indicates a range of similar questionsfor communication theory and research.

Concerns of communication theory and research• Who communicates to whom? (Sources and receivers)• Why communicate? (Functions and purposes)• How does communication take place? (Channels, languages, codes)• What about? (Content, references, types of information)• What are the consequences of communication? (Intended or unintended)

Alternative traditions of analysis: structural, behavioural and cultural

While the questions raised at different levels are similar in this abstract form, in practicevery different concepts are involved, and the reality of communication differs greatly fromlevel to level. (For instance, a conversation between two family members takes placeaccording to different 'rules' from those governing a news broadcast to a large audience, atelevision quiz show or a chain of command in a work organization.) It is easy to appreciatefrom this why any 'communication science' has, necessarily, to be constructed from severaldifferent bodies of theory and evidence, drawn from several of the traditional 'disciplines'(especially sociology and psychology in the earlier days, but now also economics, history andliterary and film studies). In this respect, the deepest and most enduring divisions separateinterpersonal from mass communication, cultural from behavioural concerns, andinstitutional and historical perspectives from those which are cultural or behavioural. Puttingthe matter simply, there are essentially three main alternative approaches: the structural, thebehavioural and the cultural.

The structural approach derives mainly from sociology but includes perspectives fromhistory, law and economics. Its starting point is 'society-centric' rather than 'media-centric',and its primary object of attention is likely to be media systems and organizations and theirrelationship to society. In so far as questions of content arise, the focus is likely to be on theeffect of social structure and media systems on patterns of content. In so far as questions ofmedia use and effect are concerned, the approach favours the analysis of representativeaggregate data derived from surveys or complete sets of statistics. Fundamental dynamics ofmedia phenomena are sought in differences of power and life-chances in society (cf. thesocialmaterialist perspective in Figure 1.1).

The behavioural approach has its principal roots in psychology and social psychology butis also represented by a sociological variant. In general, the object of interest is individualhuman behaviour, especially in matters to do with choosing, processing and responding tocommunication messages (thus mass media use and effect). Psychological approaches aremore likely to useexperimental methods. The sociological variant focuses on the behaviour of members ofsocially defined populations and favours the multi-variate analysis of representative surveydata collected in natural conditions. Individuals are classified according to relevant variablesof social position, disposition and behaviour, and the variables can be statisticallymanipulated. In the study of organizations, participant observation is commonly adopted.Content analysis is often practised as a form of behavioural research, treating mediadocuments (texts) as the equivalent of populations which can also be sampled and submittedto statistical variable analysis.

The cultural approach has its roots in the humanities, in anthropology and insociolinguistics. While very broad in potential, it has been mainly applied to questions ofmeaning and language, to the minutiae of particular social contexts and cultural experiences.It is more likely to be 'media-centric' (although not exclusively), sensitive to differencesbetween media and settings of media making and reception, more interested in the in-depthunderstanding of particular or even unique cases and situations than in generalization. Itsmethods favour the qualitative and depth analysis of social and human-signifying practices.

Mass communication defined

The term 'mass communication', which was coined at the end of the 1930s, has too manyconnotations to allow of a simple agreed definition (see Chapter 2). The word 'mass' is itselfvalue laden and controversial, and the term 'communication' still has no agreed definition -although Gerbner's (1967) 'social interaction through messages' is hard to beat.Nevertheless, there is sufficient commonality in widely held 'common-sense' perceptions to

provide a working definition and a general characterization. The term 'mass' denotes greatvolume, range or extent (such as of people or production), while 'communication' refers tothe giving and taking of meaning, the transmission and reception of messages. Onedefinition (Janowitz, 1968) reads as follows: 'mass communications comprise the institutionsand techniques by which specialized groups employ technological devices (press, radio,films, etc.) to disseminate symbolic content to large, heterogeneous and widely dispersedaudiences'. In this and similar definitions, the word 'communication' is really taken to mean'transmission', as viewed by the sender, rather than in the fuller meaning of the term whichincludes the notions of response, sharing and interaction.

The process of 'mass communication' is not synonymous with the 'mass media' (theorganized technologies which make mass communication possible). There are other commonuses of the same technologies and other kinds of relationships mediated through the samenetworks. For instance, the basic forms and technologies of 'mass' communication are thesame as those used for very local newspapers or radio. Mass media can also be used forindividual, private or organizational purposes. The same media that carrypublic messages to large publics for public purposes can also carry personal notices,advocacy messages, charitable appeals, situations-vacant advertisements and many variedkinds of information and culture. This point is especially relevant at a time of convergence ofcommunication technologies, when the boundaries between public and private and large-scale and individual communication networks are increasingly blurred.

Everyday experience with mass communication is extremely varied. It is also voluntaryand usually shaped by culture and by the requirements of one's way of life and socialenvironment. The notion of mass (and homogeneous) communication experience is abstractand hypothetical; and where, on occasions, it does seem to become a reality, the causes aremore likely to be found in particular conditions of social life than in the media. The diversityof technology-mediated communication relationships is increasing as a result of newtechnology and new applications. The general implication of these remarks is that masscommunication was, from the beginning, more of an idea than a reality. The term stands fora condition and a process which is theoretically possible but rarely found in any pure form. Itis an example of what the sociologist Max Weber called an 'ideal type' - a concept whichaccentuates key elements of an empirically occurring reality. Where it does seem to occur, itturns out to be less massive, and less technologically determined, than appears on thesurface.

The mass media institution

Despite changing technology, the mass communication phenomenon persists within the

framework of the mass media institution. This refers broadly to the set of mediaorganizations and activities, together with their own formal or informal rules of operationand sometimes legal and policy requirements set by the society. These reflect theexpectations of the public as a whole and of other social institutions (such as politics,governments, law, religion and the economy). Media institutions have developed graduallyaround the key activities of publication and wide dissemination of information and culture.They also overlap with other institutions, especially as these expand their publiccommunication activities. Media institutions are internally segmented according to type oftechnology (print, film, television, etc.) and often within each type (such as national versuslocal press or broadcasting). They also change over time and differ from one country toanother (see Chapter 6). Even so, there are several typical defining features, additional to thecentral activity of producing and distributing 'knowledge' (information, ideas, culture) onbehalf of those who want to communicate and in response to individual and collectivedemand. The main features are as follows.

• The media institution is located in the 'public sphere', meaning especially that it is openin principle to all as receivers and senders; the

_t_ _ media deal with public mafters for public purposes - especially with issues on whichpublic opinion can be expected to form; the media are answerable for their activities tothe wider society (accountability takes place via laws, regulations and pressures fromstate and society).

• By virtue of their main publishing activity on behalf of members of a society, the mediaare institutionally endowed with a large degree of freedom as economic, political andcultural actors.

• The media institution is formally powerless (there is a logical relation between thisabsence of power and media freedom).

• Participation in the media institution is voluntary and without social obligation; there is astrong association between media use and leisure time and a dissociation from work orduty.

The mass media institution• Main activity is the production and distribution of symbolic content• Media operate in the 'public sphere' and are regulated accordingly• Participation as sender or receiver is voluntary• Organization is professional and bureaucratic in form• Media are both free and powerless

The rise of the media: origins of media definitions

The aim of this section is to set out the approximate sequence of development of the present-day st of mass media - to indicate major turning points and to tell briefly something of thecircumstances of time and place in which different media acquired their public definitions inthe sense of their perceived utility or role in society. These definitions have tended to formearly in the history of any given medium and to have become 'fixed' by circumstances asmuch as by any intrinsic properties as means of communication. As time has passed,definitions have also changed, especially by becoming more complex and acquiring more'options', so that it eventually becomes difficult to speak of a single, universally current andconsistent definition of a medium.

In summarizing the history and characteristics of different media, as a further steptowards typifying mass communication, a convergence on an original Western (European)form tends to be assumed. This does some violence to the diversity of media in the world, butcan also be justified on grounds of the similarity of many global media phenomena.

In the history of mass media we deal with four main elements: a technology; the political,social, economic and cultural situation of a society; a set of activities, functions or needs; andpeople - especially as formed intogroups, classes or interests. These four elements have interacted in ditterent ways and withdifferent orders of primacy, sometimes one seeming to be the driving force or precipitatingfactor, sometimes another.

Print media

The book The history of modem media begins with the printed book -certainly a kind ofrevolution, yet initially only a technical device for reproducing the same, or rather a similar,range of texts to what was already being extensively copied by hand. Only gradually doesprinting lead to a change in content - more secular, practical and popular works (especiallyin the vernacular languages), as well as political and religious pamphlets and tracts - whichplayed a part in the transformation of the medieval world. Thus there occurred a revolutionof society in which the book played an inseparable part.

The book medium•• Technology of movable type•• Bound pages•• Multiple copies•• Commodity form•• Multiple (secular) content• Individual in use• Publication freedom

The early newspaper It was almost two hundred years after the invention of printing beforewhat we now recognize as a prototypical newspaper could be distinguished from thehandbills, pamphlets and newsletters of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Itschief precursor seems, in fact, to have been the letter rather than the book - newsletterscirculating through the rudimentary postal service, concerned especially with transmittingnews of events relevant to international trade and commerce. It was thus an extension intothe public sphere of an activity which had long taken place for governmental, diplomatic orcommercial purposes. The early newspaper was marked by its regular appearance,commercial basis (openly for sale), multiple purpose (for information, record, advertising,diversion and gossip) and public or open character.

The seventeenth-century commercial newspaper was not identified with any single sourcebut was a compilation made by a printer-publisher. The official variety (as published byCrown or government) showed some of the same characteristics but was also a voice ofauthority and an instrument of state. The commercial paper was the form which has givenmost shape to••_ _the newspaper institution, and its development can be seen in retrospect as a majorturning point in communication history - offering first of all a service to its anonymousreaders rather than an instrument to propagandists or potentates.

In a sense the newspaper was more of an innovation than the printed book - the inventionof a new literary, social and cultural form - even if it might not have been so perceived at thetime. Its distinctiveness, compared to other forms of cultural communication, lies in itsindividualism, reality-orientation, utility, secularity and suitability for the needs of a newclass:town-based business and professional people. Its novelty consists not in its technology ormanner of distribution, but in its functions for a distinct class in a changing and more liberalsocial-political climate.

The later history of the newspaper can be told either as a series of struggles, advancesand reverses in the cause of liberty or as a more continuous history of economic andtechnological progress. The most important phases in press history which enter into themodern definition of the newspaper are described in the following paragraphs. Whileseparate national histories differ too much to tell a single story, the elements mentioned,often intermingling and interacting, have generally been factors in the development of thepress institution to a greater or lesser degree.

The newspaper medium•• Regular and frequent appearance•• Commodity form• Informational content• Public sphere functions• Urban, secular audience• Relative freedom

The press as adversary From its beginning, the newspaper was an actual or potentialadversary of established power, especially in its own self-perception. Potent images in presshistory refer to violence done to printers, editors and journalists. The struggle for freedom topublish, often within a broader movement for freedom, democracy and citizen rights, isemphasized. The part played by underground presses under foreign occupation or dictatorialrule has also been celebrated. Established authority has often confirmed this self-perceptionof the press by finding it irritating and inconvenient (although also often malleable and, inthe extreme, very vulnerable to power).

There has also been a general progression historically towards more press freedom,despite major setbacks from time to time. This progress has sometimes taken the form ofgreater sophistication in the means of control applied to the press. Legal restraint replacedviolence, then fiscal burdenswere imposed (and later reversed). Now institutionalization of the press within a marketsystem serves as a form of control, and the modern newspaper, as a large business enterprise,is vulnerable to more kinds of pressure or intervention than its simpler forerunners were.

Rise of a newspaper-reading public The extension of newspaper reach to the 'masses',beyond the circle of an educated elite or business class, is a familiar feature of press historyin many countries, although the causes are disputed (Williams, 1958). Improved technology,

rising literacy, commerce, democracy and popular demand all played a part and they largelycoincided in their timing. Few countries experienced majority penetration by the newspaperuntil well into the twentieth century, and there are still large variations in rates of newspaperreading between countries at the same level of development. In assessing the significance ofthe rise of the newspaper, we should distinguish between the growing market penetration ofthe commercial press (as a vehicle for advertising and entertainment) and the reading of thenewspaper for mainly political purposes. The enhanced role of the newspaper in politicalmovements or at times of national crisis is also a striking feature of press history.

The political press It is not surprising that the newspaper should often have been used as aninstrument for party advantage and political propaganda. One common form of thenewspaper was the party-political paper dedicated to the task of activation, information andorganization. This type is now largely unknown in North America and has been in generaldecline elsewhere for some time (although alive once more in Central and Eastern Europe).The party newspaper has lost ground to commercial press forms, both as an idea and as aviable business enterprise. The commercial newspaper promotes itself as more objective, lessmanipulative and more fun, and has been able to appeal more to more readers more of thetime. The idea of a party press, even so, still has its place as a component in democraticpolitics. Where it does survive in Europe (and there are examples elsewhere), it is typicallyindependent from the state (though possibly subsidized), professionally produced, seriousand opinion-forming in purpose. In these aspects it is not far removed from the prestigeliberal newspaper, but its uniqueness lies in the attachment of its readers by way of partyallegiance, its sectionalism and its mobilizing function for party objectives.

The prestige press The late-nineteenth-century bourgeois newspaper was a high point inpress history and contributed much to our modem understanding of what a newspaper is orshould be. The 'high-bourgeois' phase of press history, from about 1850 to the turn of thecentury, was the product of several events and circumstances: the triumph of liberalism andthe absence or ending of direct censorship or fiscal constraint; the emergence of aprogressive capitalist class and several new professions, thus forging a business-professionalestablishment; and many social and technological changes favouring the rise of a national or regional press of high information quality.

The chief features of the new prestige or 'elite' press which was established in this periodwere: formal independence from the state and from vested interests; recognition as a majorinstitution of political and social life (especially as a self-appointed former of opinion andvoice of the 'national interest'); a highly developed sense of social and ethical responsibilityand the rise of a journalistic profession dedicated to the objective reporting of events. Manycurrent expectations about what a 'quality' newspaper is still reflect several of these ideas and

provide the basis for criticisms of newspapers which deviate from the ideal, by being eithertoo partisan or too 'sensational'.

Commercialization of the newspaper press The mass newspaper has been called 'commercial'for two main reasons: it is operated for profit by monopolistic concerns, and it is heavilydependent on product advertising revenue (which made it both possible and advantageous todevelop a mass readership). The commercial aims and underpinnings of the mass newspaperhave exerted considerable influence on content, in the direction of political populism as wellas support for business, consumerism and free enterprise (Curran, 1986; Curran and Seaton,1988). For present purposes, it is more relevant to see, as a result of commercialization, theemergence of a new kind of newspaper: lighter and more entertaining, emphasizing humaninterest, more sensational in its attention to crime, violence, scandals and entertainrrient,and having a very large readership in which lower-income and lower-education groups areoverrepresented (Hughes, 1940; Schudson, 1978; Curran et al., 1981).

While this may now appear to be the dominant (in the sense of the most read) newspaperform in many countries, it still effectively derives its status as a newspaper from the 'high-bourgeois' form (especially by claiming to give current political and economic information),although it is otherwise most clearly defined by its contrast with the prestige newspaper.

Film

Film began at the end of the nineteenth century as a technological novelty, but what itoffered was scarcely new in content or function. It transferred to a new means of presentationand distribution an older tradition of entertainment, offering stories, spectacles, music,drama, humour and technical tricks for popular consumption. As a mass medium, film waspartly a response to the 'invention' of leisure - time out of work - and an answer to thedemand for economical and (usually) respectable ways of enjoying free time for the wholefamily. Thus it provided for the working class some of the cultural benefits already enjoyedby their social 'betters'. To judge from its phenomenal growth, the latent demand met by filmwas enormous; and if we choose from the main formative elements named above, it wouldnot bethe technology or the social climate but the needs met by the film for a class (urban lower-middle and working) which mattered most - the same elements, although a different needand a different class, which produced the newspaper.

The characterization of the film as 'show business' in a new form for an expanded marketis not the whole story. There have been three other significant strands in film history. First,the use of film for propaganda is noteworthy, especially when applied to national or societalpurposes, based on its great reach, supposed realism, emotional impact and popularity. The

practice of combining improving message with entertainment had been long established inliterature and drama, but new elements in film were the capacity to reach so many peopleand to be able to manipulate the seeming reality of the photographic message without loss ofcredibility. The two other strands in film history were the emergence of several schools offilm art (Huaco, 1963) and the rise of the social documentary film movement. These weredifferent from the mainstream in having either a minority appeal or a strong element ofrealism (or both). Both have a link, partly fortuitous, with film-as-propaganda in that bothtended to develop at times of social crisis.

There have also been thinly concealed ideological and implicitly propagandist elementsin many popular entertainment films, even in politically 'free' societies. This reflects amixture of forces: deliberate attempts at social control; unthinking adoption of populist orconservative values; and the pursuit of mass appeal. Despite the dominance of theentertainment function in film history, films have often displayed didactic-propagandistictendencies. Film is certainly more vulnerable than other media to outside interference andmay be more subject to conformist pressures because so much capital is at risk.

Two turning points in film history were the coming of television and the'Americanization' of the film industry and film culture in the years after the First World War(Tunstall, 1977). The relative decline of nascent, but flourishing, European film industries atthat time (reinforced by the Second World War) probably contributed to a homogenization offilm culture and a convergence of ideas about the definition of film as a medium. Televisiontook away a large part of the film-viewing public, especially the general family audience,leaving a much smaller and younger film audience. It also took away or diverted the socialdocumentary stream of film development and gave it a more congenial home in television.However, it did not do the same for the art film or for film aesthetics, although the art filmmay have benefited from the 'demassification' and greater specialization of the filmi cinemamedium.

One additional consequence of this turning point is the reduced need for 'respectability'.The film became more free to cater to the demand for violent, horrific or pornographiccontent. Despite the liberation entailed in becoming a less 'mass' medium, the film has notbeen able to claim full rights to political and artistic self-expression, and many countriesretain an apparatus of licensing, censorship and powers of control.

A last concomitant of film's subordination to television in audience appeal has been itsintegration with other media, especially book publishing, popular music and televisionitself. It has acquired a certain centrality (Joweft and Linton, 1980), despite the reduction ofits immediate audience, as a showcase for other media and as a cultural source, out of whichcome books, strip cartoons, songs, and television 'stars' and series. Thus film is as much asever a mass culture creator. Even the loss of the cinema audience has been more thancompensated by a new domestic audience reached by television, video recordings, cable and

satellite channels.

The film medium•• Audiovisual technology•• Public performance•• Extensive (universal) appeal•• Predominantly narrative fictione International character•• Public regulation•• Ideological character

Broadcasting

Radio and television have, respectively, a seventy-plus- and a forty-plus-year history as massmedia, and both grew out of pre-existing technologies- telephone, telegraph, moving and still photography, and sound recording. Despite theirobvious differences, now wide in content and use, radio and television can be treatedtogether. Radio seems to have been a technology looking for a use, rather than a response toa demand for a new kind of service or content, and much the same is true of television.According to Williams (1975, p.25), 'Unlike all previous communications technologies,radio and television were systems primarily designed for transmission and reception asabstract processes, with little or no definition of preceding content.' Both came to borrowfrom existing media, and most of the popular content forms of both are derivative - film,music, stories, news and sport.

Perhaps the main genre innovations common to both radio and television have beenbased on the possibility of direct observation, transmission and recording of events as theyhappen. A second distinctive feature of radio and television has been their high degree ofregulation, control or licensing by public authority - initially out of technical necessity, laterfrom a mixture of democratic choice, state self-interest, economic convenience and sheerinstitutional custom. A third and related historical feature of radio and television media hasbeen their centre-periphery pattern of distribution and the association of national televisionwith political life and the power centresof society, as they have become established as both popular and politically important.Despite, or perhaps because of, this closeness to power, radio and television have hardlyanywhere acquired, as of right, the same freedom that the press enjoys, to express views and

act with political independence.

The broadcast mediaVery large output, range and reach

• Audiovisual contentComplex technology and organization

• Public character and extensive regulation• National and international character• Very diverse content forms

Recorded music

Relatively little attention has been given to music as a mass medium in theory and research,perhaps because the implications for society have never been clear, nor have there been sharpdiscontinuities in the possibilities offered by successive technologies of recording andreproduction/transmission. Recorded and replayed music has not even enjoyed a convenientlabel to describe its numerous media manifestations, although the generic term 'phonogram'has been suggested (Burnett, 1990) to cover music accessed via record players, tape players,compact disc players, VCRs (video cassette recorders), broadcasting and cable, etc.

The recording and replaying of music began around 1880 and were quite rapidlydiffused, on the basis of the wide appeal of popular songs and melodies. Their popularity anddiffusion were closely related to the already established place of the piano (and otherinstruments) in the home. Much radio content since the early days has consisted of music,even more so since the rise of television. While there may have been a gradual tendency forthe 'phonogram' to replace private music-making, there has never been a large gap betweenmass mediated music and personal and direct audience enjoyment of musical performance(concerts, choirs, bands, dances, etc). The phonogram makes music of all kinds moreaccessible at all times in more places to more people, but it is hard to discern a fundamentaldiscontinuity in the general character of popular musical experience, despite changes ofgenre and fashion.

Even so, there have been big changes in the broad character of the phonogram, since itsbeginnings. The first change was the addition of radio broadcast music to phonogramrecords, which greatly increased the range and amount of music available and extended it tomany more people than had access to gramophones. The transition of radio from a family to

anindividual medium in the post-war 'transistor' revolution was a second major change, whichopened up a relatively new market of young people for what became a burgeoning recordindustry. Each development since thenportable tape players, the Sony Walkman, the compact disc and music video has given the

spiral another twist, still based on a predominantly youngaudience. The result has been a mass media industry which is very interrelated, concentratedin ownership and internationalized (Negus, 1993). Despite this, music media havesignificant radical and creative strands which have developed despite increasedcommercialization (Frith, 1981).

While the social significance of music has received only sporadic attention, itsrelationship to social events has always been recognized and occasionally celebrated orfeared. Since the rise of the youth-based industry in the 1960s, mass-mediated popular musichas been linked to youthful idealism and political concern, to supposed degeneration andhedonism, to drug-taking, violence and antisocial attitudes. Music has also played a part invarious nationalist independence movements (e.g. Ireland or Estonia). While the content ofmusic has never been easy to regulate, its distribution has predominantly been in the handsof established institutions, and its perceived deviant tendencies subject to some sanctions.Aside from this, most popular music has continued to express and respond to rather enduringand conventional values and personal needs.

Recorded music (phonogram) media•• Multiple technologies of recording and dissemination•• Low degree of regulation•• High degree of internationalization•• Younger audience•• Subversive potential•• Organizational fragmentation• Diversity of reception possibilities

New electronic media

The so-called telematic media ('telematic' because they combine telecommunications and

informatics) have been heralded as the key component in the latest communicationrevolution which will replace broadcast television as we know it. The term covers a set ofdevelopments at the core of which is a visual display unit (television screen) linked to acomputer network. What are sometimes referred to as the 'new media', which have put in anappearance since the 1970s, are in fact a set of different electronic technologies with variedapplications which have yet to be widely taken up as mass media or to acquire a cleardefinition of their function.

Several kinds of technology are involved. of transmission (by cable or satellite); ofminiaturization; of storage and retrieval; of display (using flexible combinations of text andgraphics); and of control (by computer). The main features, by contrast with the 'old media'as described, are. decentralization- supply and choice are no longer predominantly in the hands of the supplier ofcommunication; high capacity - cable or satellite delivery overcomes the former restrictionsof cost, distance and capacity; interactivity- the receiver can select, answer back, exchange and be linked to other receivers directly; andflexibility of form, content and use.

Aside from facilitating the distribution of existing radio and television, new telematicmedia have been offered to the general public in two main forms, one known as teletext, theother as videotex. The former makes available much additional textual information by way ofover-air broadcasting to supplement normal television programming on adapted receivers,and it can be called up at the viewer's initiative. The second provides, usually via thetelephone network, a much larger and more varied supply of computer-stored informationwhich can be consulted and/or interrogated by users equipped with a terminal and televisionscreen. It also offers a wide range of interactive services, including a form of visualcommunication between centres and peripherals and in principle between all those connectedon the same network. Videotex can also be used to supply printed material.

The new media also include computer video games, virtual reality and video recordingsof all kinds. Home video may be considered as an extension of television and cinema, withgreatly increased flexibility in use. It is thus a hybrid medium (like television itself),borrowing essential features from film and television for content and forms and from thebook and music industries for means of distribution (separate items of content rented orsold). Yet another innovation, CD-ROM (standing for compact disc, read only memory),provides flexible and easy access to very large stores of information, by way of computer-readable discs. In general, the new media have bridged differences both between media(convergence of technology), and also between public and private definitions ofcommunication activities. The same medium can now be used interchangeably for public andprivate purposes and both for receiving and self-production (for example, the videocamcorder'). In the long run this has implications not only for definitions of separate mediabut also for the boundaries of the media institution.

Although the 'new media' were, in their initial stages, taken up mainly as extensions ofexisting audiovisual media, they represent a challenge to the production, distribution andbasic forms of the latter. Production, for example, need no longer be concentrated in largecentrally located organizations (typical of film and television), nor linked integrally withdistribution (as with most television and radio), nor so centrally controlled. Nor are printmedia immune to fundamental change, as direct electronic delivery of print to householdsbecomes a reality, and as the organization of production and the work of journalists andauthors become increasingly computerized.

The telematic media• Computer-based technologies• Hybrid, flexible character• Interactive potential• Private and public functions• Low degree of regulation• Interconnectedness

Inter-media differences

The different branches of communication activity which belong to the 'mass mediainstitution' could once be conveniently distinguished and separately described. This isbecoming increasingly difficult as a result of changes in communication technology and inthe organization of production and distribution. These changes have tended to accelerate,tending towards a condition which has been characterized in terms of both 'convergence' and'fragmentation'. This sounds inconsistent, but in fact the convergence referred to is primarilythat of means of distribution, while the fragmentation relates to the services and contentoffered and to the differentiation of audiences.

Convergence occurs because the same content can be distributed through more than one'channel'. For instance, films are released via cinemas, video recordings, broadcast or cabletelevision, and even the telephone network. The physical and institutional barriers betweenchannels are increasingly unclear. There is also convergence between 'mass communication'offered from a central point and the networks of communication available to individuals tochoose their own media supply. Between them, multiplication of channels and increasedindividual access to stores of media products (such as by way of video recorders) havereduced the distinctiveness and perhaps the (shared) public character of the mass media.

This process can be described as one of fragmentation and it is also a result of thetechnological possibility of offering many more different forms of media product to manydifferent groups or markets of consumers at low cost. The term 'fragmentation' contrasts the

situation of today with an earlier condition of homogeneity and integration in which large'mass' audiences could be readily reached by a few sources or a few kinds of popular mediaproduct.

The distinctions between one medium and another are now harder for audiences todiscern and still declining. Even so, there continue to be differences of perception, of purposeand of value which are often both institutionally embedded as well as familiar to audiences.In the following paragraphs some of the persisting differences between media channels andproducts are discussed in terms of two broad questions: first, what sort of relations offreedom and control exist between a medium and the society?;and secondly, what is a medium seen to be 'good for' and how it is experienced by theaudience?

Freedom versus control

Relations between media and society usually have both a political dimension and anormative or social-cultural aspect. Central to the political dimension is the question offreedom and control. As noted above, near-total freedom was claimed and eventually gainedfor the book, for a mixture of reasons, in which the requirements of politics, religion, scienceand art all played some part. This situation remains unchallenged in free societies, althoughthe book has lost some of its once subversive potential as a result of its relativemarginalization. The influence of books has to a large extent to be mediated through othermore popular media or other institutions (education, politics, etc.).

The newspaper press bases its historical claim to freedom of operation much moredirectly on its political functions of expressing opinion and circulating political andeconomic information. But the newspaper is also a significant business enterprise for whichfreedom to produce and supply its primary product (information) is a necessary condition ofsuccessful operation. The rather limited political freedom enjoyed by broadcast television andradio derives from a claim to perform some of the same functions as the newspaper press andto serve a general 'public interest'. Formal political control has tended to diminish, as thetelevision industry expands and becomes more like a normal business, in which marketdisciplines replace open political control. This does not yet seem to have led to any greaterpoliticization of the medium.

The variety of new means of distribution, some using cable or telecommunicationsnetworks, still await clear definitions of their appropriate degree of political freedom.Freedom from control may be claimed on the grounds of privacy or the fact that these are notmedia of indiscriminate mass distribution but directed to specific users. They are so-called'common-carriers' which generally lack control over their content. They also increasingly

share the same communicative tasks as media with established editorial autonomy. Thequestion remains in dispute for a number of reasons, among them the need for regulation fortechnical reasons or to prevent abuse of monopoly power. The question of political freedomdoes not generally arise in the case of media channels which primarily carry fiction,entertainment or music, despite the political potential of all three. In free societies thesemedia are left largely to the free market, while in totalitarian societies their politicalpotential is usually harnessed to official aims.

These differences of perception and institutional definition relating to political control(where there is freedom, there are few regulations and little supervisory apparatus) follow ageneral pattern. First, where the communication function involved closely affects the exercise of power in society (as with newspapersand television informational services), there is a stronger motive for scrutiny if not directcontrol (political control can be exercised by ownership). In general, activities in the sphereof fiction, fantasy or entertainment are more likely to escape attention than are activitieswhich touch directly on social reality.

Virtually all media of public communication have a radical potential, in the sense ofbeing potentially subversive of reigning systems of social control:they can provide access for new voices and perspectives on the existing order; new forms oforganization and protest are made available for the subordinate or disenchanted. Even so, theinstitutional development of successful media has usually resulted in the elimination of theearly radical potential, partly as a side-effect of commercialization, partly because authoritiesfear disturbance of society (Winston, 1986). According to one theory of media development,the driving logic of communication has been towards more effective social management andcontrol, rather than towards change and emancipation (Beniger, 1986).

The normatiue dimension of control operates according to the same general principles,although sometimes with different consequences for particular media. For instance, film,which escapes direct political control because it has not usually been seen as politicallyrelevant, has often been subject to control of its content, on grounds of its potential moralimpact on the young and impressionable (especially in matters of violence, crime or sex).The widespread restrictions applied to television in matters of culture and morals stem fromthe same (generally unstated) assumptions. These are that media which are very popular andhave a potentially strong emotional impact on many people need to be supervised in 'thepublic interest'.

Supervision often includes positive support for 'desirable' cultural communicationobjectives as well as for restrictions on the undesirable. The more communication activitiescan be defined as either educational or 'serious' in purpose - or, alternatively, as artistic andcreative - the more freedom from normative restrictions can usually be claimed. There arecomplex reasons for this, but it is also a fact that 'art' and content of higher moral seriousness

do not usually reach large numbers and are seen as marginal to power relations.The degree of control of media by state or society may depend on the feasibility of

applying it. The most regulated media have typically been those whose distribution is mosteasily supervised, such as centralized national radio or television broadcasting or localcinema distribution. In the last resort, books and print media generally are much less easy tomonitor or to suppress. The same applies to local radio, while new possibilities for desktoppublishing and photocopying and all manner of ways of reproducing sound and images havemade direct censorship a very blunt and ineffective instrument. The impossibility of policingnational frontiers to keep out unwanted foreign communication is another consequence ofnew technology which promotes more freedom. While technology in general seems toincrease the promise of freedom of communication, the continued strength of institutionalcontrols, including those of the market, over actual flow and reception should not beunderestimated.

Social control of mediaTypes of control• On content for political reasons• On content for cultural and/or moral reasons• On infrastructures for technical reasonse On infrastructures for economic reasons

Associated conditions• More politically subversive potential• More moral, cultural and emotional impact• More feasibility of applying control• More economic incentive to regulate

Issues of use and reception

The increasing difficulty of typifying or distinguishing media channels in terms of contentand function has undermined once stable social definitions of media. The newspaper, forinstance, may now be as much an entertainment medium, or a consumers' guide, as it is asource of information about events and society. Cable-delivered television systems are nolonger confined to offering balanced programming for all. Even so, a few dominant imagesand definitions of what media 'are best for' do appear to survive, the outcome of tradition,

social forces and the 'bias' of certain technologies.For instance, television, despite the many changes and extensions relating to production,

transmission and reception, remains primarily a medium of family entertainment (Morley,1986), a focus of public interest and a shared experience in most societies. It has both adomestic and a collective character which seems to endure. The traditional conditions offamily living (shared space, time and conditions) may account for this, despite thetechnological trend to individuation and specialization of content. The expected diffusion ofhigh definition television is likely to reinforce rather than undermine the established pattern.

Differentiating media use•• Inside or outside the home?• Individual or shared experience?• Public or private in use? Interactive or not?

These remarks about television indicate three relevant dimensions of media perceptionand reception: whether within or outside the home; whether an individual or sharedexperience; and whether more public or more private. Television is typically shared,domestic and public. The newspaper, despite its changing content, conforms to a differenttype. It is certainly public in character, but is less purely domestic and is individual in use.Radio is now many things but often rather private, not exclusively domestic and moreindividual in use than television. Both the book and the music phonogram also largely followthis pattern. In general, the distinctions indicated have become less sharp as a result ofchanges of technology in the direction of proliferation and convergence of receptionpossibilities.

The newer telematic and computer-based media have added to the vagueness about whichmedium is good for what, but they have also added a new dimension according to whichmedia can be distinguished: that of degree of interactivity. The more interactive media arethose which allow continual motivated choice and response by users. While the video game,CD-ROM computer database and telephone chat-line are clear examples where interaction isthe norm, it is also the case that multi-channel cable or satellite television increasesinteractive potential, as do the recording-and-replay facilities of the domestic VCR.

Changes in society

Internationalization

Since the Second World War, commerce and industry have been increasingly globalized,multinational corporations have increased in relative significance, and forms of internationalco-operation in politics, economics and social-cultural affairs have increased. Nation statesare less autonomous and more subject to worldwide trends in matters of security, strategicresources and environmental hazards. National politics may often be driven by internationalcircumstances.

Informatization

Under various definitions, the notion of an 'information society' has been advanced todescribe some key features of modern societies - referring particularly to the growth ofservice- and information-based occupations, the great increase in the flow of informationwithin and across national frontiers, the rise of knowledge as a source of wealth and powerand the great dependence of modern political and economic systems on information and oncommunication technologies. Mass communication is only one component of theinformation 'society, but it is an important one and it shares inthe rapidity of change and increased salience of information and communication in society.

Rise of postmodern culture

The notion of a 'postmodern condition' (Harvey, 1989) has widely captured the imaginationof social and cultural theorists, often forcing both traditionalist and critical theorists on thedefensive. Postmodernism seems to be very much a theory of or for the 'information society'.It is a complex and obscure concept which has received no satisfactory statement, but itinvolves several ideas which are relevant to the present subject. Its political implication is tothe effect that the 'Enlightenment project' has now reached its historic end, especially theemphasis on material progress, egalitarianism, economic and social rationality and theapplication of bureaucratic means to achieve socially planned objectives.

As a social-cultural philosophy, postmodernism undermines the traditional notion ofculture as something fixed and hierarchical. It fundamentally opposes the notion of fixedstandards and canons of art and culture. It favours forms of culture which are transient, ofthe moment, superficial, appealing to sense rather than reason. Postmodernist culture isvolatile, illogical, kaleidoscopic and hedonistic. In mass media terms, it favours audio-visualmedia over print, and current fashion over tradition.

Individuation

The virtues of individualism and of the free market are more in vogue than was the case adecade or two ago. Class systems are also said to be weaker, under the impact of moredemocratic cultural and political arrangements and the move to service-based occupationalstructure, although clear evidence of the growth of an 'underclass', consisting mainly of thenew poor, has marred celebrations of the new prosperity. The same can be said of thegrowing global gap between rich and poor countries, which has an even more explosivepotential. In many countries, there is said to be less social solidarity, more privatization,weaker collective ties and more interpersonal crime and disorder. Religion and familyinstitutions are said to be in decline.

Social trends relevant tomass communication

•• Informatizatione Internationalizatione Postmodern culture Individuation

Changes in the media

It’s easier to give an objective description of changes in the media than of changes insociety. These can be located under relevant main headings, describing interrelated trendswhich echo several of the lines of social change sketched above. Most obvious is the sheervolume of media and of media products: more kinds of media, more channels, more words,pictures and images produced and distributed (even if not proportionately more 'consumed').The explanation for growth lies in increased prosperity, growing population and demand,and new distribution and production technologies which lower costs and increase theattractiveness of media products.

The main technological changes involve leaps forward in the possibilities for electronicrecording, storing, reproducing and transmitting all kinds of images and sounds, as well asdevelopments of computerization and the use of satellites for transmission. As far as themass media are concerned, the most obvious change has been the rise of television to a pre-eminent position as a media institution of global as well as national significance,complementing the print media and radio but 'outranking' them by some criteria: certainly bymeasures of reach and popularity, and possibly in public prestige and credibility.

The more recent advances in distribution by cable and satellite have largely removed the

technical scarcity of distribution imposed by limited transmission range and wavelengthinterference. This has allowed more alternative organizations to have access to television andradio channels as suppliers of information and culture, as well as seeming to have increasedchoice for receivers. While not yet accountable as 'mass media', the interactive electronicmedia (videotex) have opened up a very large potential for quite different kinds ofinformation provision and exchange, especially possibilities for individual access to a verylarge range of electronic media services and to all kinds of content satisfactions, whether inpersonal networks or as general public provision.

The technical possibility (in some degree realized) of greater media 'abundance' has agood many implications for the 'traditional' media institutions of the nation state. They are,first of all, less confined within national frontiers, where reception is effectively under thecontrol of the national political system. Not only technical changes but also internationalagreements (on standards, content regulations, rights to communicate, intellectual propertyand more) and transnational media business arrangements (multinational multimediacompanies and vertical integration of activities) make the media increasingly international incharacter.

Coincident with the growth of an international media industry, based on global corporateownership, markets and transnational production arrangements, we see evidence of aninternational 'media culture'; this can be recognized in similar professional standardsworldwide, as well as in content forms, genres and the actual substance of communication.This is true notonly of radio (especially music and news) and television, but also of newspapers, books andmagazines, where stories, authors, marketing strategies, fashions and trends are no longerrestricted by a particular language and national culture. This comment reflects theinextricable and worldwide 'intertextuality' of the main mass media of books, newspapers,phonogram, film, television, radio and magazines. They overlap and feed each other incontent and commercial arrangements.

Conclusion: implications for the public interest in media

This summary version of trends affecting the media also has implications for changes in therequirements of society from its media. For instance, the features of postmodernisrndescribed above seem to make it a very appropriate theory for the electronic media age, butthey also challenge traditional theories about the effects and social role of the mass media insociety. Postmodernist thinking is fundamentally in tension with the very idea of storingvalued information and culture and redistributing it according to some agreed notions ofpublic interest, which involve assumptions of utility, justice, equality and rationality.

Postmodernism also challenges theories of direct and mechanistic effect-processes frommessage to audience.

The changes described suggest that, in general, there is less need for the kind of closesupervision and regulation of media which prompted many of the concerns underlyingearlier media research. These concerns often stemmed from the wish to assert collectivecontrol over newly developing media, to protect vulnerable individuals, to limit the power ofprivate capital, to guarantee fair access to opposed ideological factions or political partiesand generally to ensure adequate distribution of scarce and valued social and cultural goods.Greater prosperity, openness, value-relativity, individual consumerism and economicliberalism all seem to weigh in this direction, leaving aside any changes occurring in themedia themselves.

Against this, it can also be argued that more complex social arrangements, nationally andglobally, the greater abundance of information flows and their centrality for the commerce,progress and social-cultural life of modern society have established new requirements ofadequate performance on the part of the media. The decline of some older structures ofpolitical and social control and sources of guidance for individuals (political parties,churches, family, community) may well be thought to increase the need for effectiveinstitutions in the public sphere to compensate for these losses. The 'public sphere' mayappear to have contracted, as a result of 'privatization', individualism and secularization, butit has also been extended by globalizing trends which touch almost every aspect of dailyexperience.

Conditions of individualism, relativism and volatility are precisely those which increasethe dependence and vulnerability of most people and thus a greater rather than a diminishingpublic interest in mass media. On the other hand, the nature of any 'public interest' may wellnow be more variable and uncertain, and it will need continuing redefinition What wecannot yet discern, among the many patterns of change, is any sign of the imminent demiseof the mass media in their central character as sketched in this chapter.

I

PART I THEORIES