Media worlds and their cultural impact

Media Worlds

These four readings were written between 1944 and 1955, and to a certain extent represent an outmoded era of media criticism. This does not mean these studies are obsolete, but it does mean that they must be considered in light of the current sea-change that is taking place in media overall -- most notably with the Internet, but also with the effect that the Internet is having upon other forms of media (such as the decline and instability of newspaper journalism). But we must acknowledge the limitations of these studies.

The most basic study is presented by Lasswell (1948), who is interested in defining the terminology, as scientifically as possible, as to what constitutes "communication." Lasswell draws parallels between various biological processes (of how organisms gather information through sensory apparatus, and how they attempt to control the amount of information they give out) to come up with a theory where communication, socially, performs three distinct functions: "surveillance of the environment, disclosing threats and opportunities…correlation of the components of society in making a response to the environment…[and] transmission of the social inheritance" (130). In other words, communication exists on the social level to understand the world outside the society, to help the different sectors of society understand themselves and each other, and to communicate (ultimately) with future generations. In some sense, the changing media environment of the early 21st century -- with the inclusion of the Internet -- calls all of these functions into question, or invites us to see these functions as they evolve with new technological opportunities for communication in mass media. "Surveillance" -- as in society identifying threats and opportunities -- has now become universal, insofar as anyone may go online to complain or organize in response to social threats and problems, or invent new opportunities for society. The interconnection of personal communication ultimately rises up, on the societal level, to vast new amounts of information. But the Internet does not help in terms of correlation or transmission of information. In some sense, the democratizing function of the Internet makes it harder to correlate valuable information with nonsense -- to take one example that fits with Lasswell's function of communication as "correlation" between different components of society, we might point to the phenomenon of "Morgellons." This demonstrates the power of ordinary people (laymen) to organize socially around a perceived epidemic disease, which professional people (medical doctors) have declared is a fictional and hysterical epidemic -- an epidemic of people who read too much on the Internet and allow their imaginations to run away with them. The greater ease of communication -- even between these two sectors of society (laymen and medical doctors) -- does not resolve the question. And finally, the Internet is in its infancy so it is hard to see in what way it can allow for the transmission of social inheritance -- instead it seems to allow for the widespread communication of misinformation, and does not seem to have given anyone the notion that things of permanent value will come from it, which will be necessary to communicate to future generations. Nonetheless, the Internet is changing things rapidly -- and has a tremendous influence that could hardly have been guessed at by Lasswell, or the other writers under consideration in this week's readings.