GENERAL LECTURE

THEORIES OF MASS
COMMUNICATION
By. Hendra Manurung, S.IP, M.A
Lecturer of Mass Communication
Faculty of Communications
Department of Public Relations
PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY
KOTA JABABEKA – CIKARANG BARU BEKASI 17550
INDONESIA
Powerful Mass Media to Minimal
Effects
• Mass media is a powerful persuasion tool for public or
audience
– “Powerful effects” model of mass media
– “Hypodermic” model: injecting ideas/opinions
• War of the Worlds broadcast since 20th centuries
• Hitler’s use of media for persuasion in Europe after
defeated U.K, France, Netherlands, Russia during
World War II (1939-1945)
• Later replaced by minimal effects model
– “Why we Fight” series of movies
• Top movie directors used to motivate troops
• Idea was to harness powerful mass media
• Tested on troops, but found little attitude change for
the troops
– New view: media have only little effect on views
opinions of public, can not be represent as opinion
leader.
Minimal to Conditional
Model
• But was evidence that media did matter!
– A more nuanced proposal emerged
– Avoided extremes of earlier models
• Keys to new perspective:
– Mass media are not all powerful
– Audience is not passive waiting to be manipulated
– Mass media can have only an effect on people/society
• Basic questions:
– Who did it effect?
– When did it affect them?
– How did it affected them?
– Why mass media has so big power toward public ?
Theory of Agenda Setting
• A reaction to “Minimal Effects” model
– Explained why minimal effects found in public opinion
• People’s opinions usually don’t change
• Issue salience or relevance does change
• Mass media always shape issue salience!
– Revived mass communication “effects” research
• Key: Mass Media’s agenda  public’s agenda
(becoming opinion leader)
– Media are not good at telling us what to think; media are
good at telling us what to think about…
– We judge important issues the media says is important
– We judge unimportant issues media ignores or
downplays
Research Results Mixed
• Early studies
– Issues prominent in media is able to predict
public’s issues
– A time lag from headlines to poll results
• Later, some critiques
– Correlations: Directionality, third variable
– Alternative 1: public concern  news
– Alternative 2: reality  news and public
concern
Agenda Setting
• Other factors shaping process?
– “Need for Orientation”: Low
knowledge/education/salience  high reliance
on media?
• Who Sets Gatekeepers’ Agenda?
– elite media?
– politicians?
– “interest aggregations”?
– definition of news?
– Media profit-making pressures?
• Win-lose game
Uses and Gratifications
• Social changes the basic question about
media’s role :
– Used to be: “What do media do to us?”
– Now was “What do we do with the media?”
• Assumes an active audience in mass
communication
– We choose whether or not to use and what we
use
– We choose what content to view/hear/read
– We decide how to interpret
– We decide how to respond
– We decide how to evaluate
“Uses and Gratifications”
• Desire for “gratifications” guides medium
use

• What “gratifications” do we seek from

media?
– Diversion: stress relief, avoidance

– Social/para-social relationships

– Identity needs: Who we are/values clarification

– Surveillance: Keep up with events

Uses and effects
• Are media or audience most powerful?
– Media content an important social force
– We decide what, when, how to engage content
• Maybe media and audience affect each
other
– Might media use shape gratifications sought
– Maybe seeking gratifications leads to effects
• Reconciles two perspectives
– Role of audience
– Role of media content
Theory of Cultivation
• Long-term debate about media effects
– Concerns that TV contributes to social
problems
– Similar concerns about books, movies, comics
– If can prove link, may lead to solutions
• Focus: Long-term effects of violent
programs
– Exposure “cultivates” attitudes
– Attitudes reflect programming’s distortions
Television Distorts Reality
• Violence Index: violence on TV steady,
high
– 2/3rds of all programs contain violence
– Adult dramas: 5 violent acts/hour
– Kids’ shows: 20 violent acts/hour
– Kids see 13,000 violent deaths by 18
– Violence by villains and heroes
• Other distortions found in studies
– Victims often female, minority, poorer, minor
religion or believers
– Fewer kids, women, minorities, elderly appear
Effects of Exposure

• Cultivation Theory Hypotheses:

– “Heavy viewers”  “television answer”
– “Light viewers”  more realistic
answers
• Heavy viewing  “Mean World
Syndrome”
– Believe more likely to be victim, more
fearful
– Believe police pervasive, aggressive
–
Descriptions for Effects
• Homogenization
– TV blurs, blends, bends views
– TV promotes “TV mainstream” view of world
• Some evidence in support
– Groups w/different views among light viewers
do not differ among heavy viewers
– Attitudes to emerge from “mean world”
perceptions: generally more conservative
• Resonance: TV reinforces real-world
experiences with violence -- doubly
powerful
Mass Communication
Mass Communication &
Photography