Pluralistic and Functional Approach

Pluralistic/Functional Approach

Pluralism or functionalism generally refers to the legitimacy of institutions currently present in society, and how these institutions positively contribute to peace and harmony within society. When applied to the mass media, the ideal is that the press provides society with the truth on a continuous basis, by means of democratic and free communication. This process then benefits society by its inclusive and free, democratic nature. This view is however problematic when the reality is observed.

Proponents of functionalism would hold that, although it may appear as if the mass media are not communicating in a free and democratic manner, that the overriding ideals of free communication will eventually triumph and bring the truth to society. Society benefits from this in that the truth is revealed, and opportunities for more communication arise.

I believe that this view is flawed when the reality of both society and the mass media is observed. Firstly, society itself is hardly free or democratic. All societies, and particularly those who pride themselves on their democratic and free ideals, are to some extent very undemocratic. Politics for example tend to play an overwhelming role in controlling the minds of society by means of the mass media. Lasswell (in Wilbur, 1960) makes reference to mass media control by the government.

An event such as the chief executive election in Hong Kong is a further demonstration of this interaction between the mass media and society, both of which believe in democratic ideals, but hardly practice them. The government exerts its power over society via the mass media. This is a powerful tool, because the majority of society tends to be uncritical in its thinking, particularly where the media are concerned. To understand the truth of this, one needs only to observe the lack of critical thinking in terms of advertising. When a message is sufficiently colored with exciting images and enticing words, it is very difficult to resist.

The same is true of governmentally instigated messaging. In an election particularly, all candidates are concerned not so much with upholding their integrity or honoring their promises as using these to attain success in the election. The press is paid to spread their particular message rather than to spread the truth. This is true, to a greater or lesser degree, even of the mass media in the most democratic of countries such as the United States of America. The countrywide hysteria after the 9/11 attacks is a case in point. President Bush used both the emotional state of his fellow Americans and the power of the mass media to justify his destructive "War on Terrorism."

On the other hand, one cannot deny that truth and democracy do at times triumph with the occasional integrity in reporting. An increasing number of reporters have become forefront fighters for democracy and freedom in the press, particularly in American politics. These cases are however in the minority.

To therefore claim that the mass media is predominantly functional, always revealing the truth by democratic and free communication, is hardly accurate. Society is too willing to believe, follow and observe what they are asked to believe. Too readily does society succumb to the lures of clever imaging and wording to truly think in the critical way required of truly free and democratic communication.