COMM1120B Lecture 2
COMM1120B Lecture 2
COMM1120B, Lecture 2
1
The End of Mass Communication?
Previously…
3
Mass Communication
Littlejohn & Foss, 2009, Media and Mass Communication Theories
4
Future Lectures
Technological Change, Mass
Communication, and Society
• Lectures 4-8 cover one segments of
the development of mass
communication;
6
How to assess its impact?
Developing an analytical framework
Today’s Agenda
8
The Problem of
“Novelty”
9
Calling Something “New”
Chun & Keenan, 2006
10
But we study “development”
How to deal with “Novelty” of Media Technology?
Once novelty fades, media still remain, shaping our imagination, politics and
everyday life.
Just as the novel quickly became anything but novel, new media — even after its
newness has faded — remains in ways that shape our imagination, our politics,
our everyday life. To understand and embrace these impacts, we need to
grapple with what is at stake in calling — and in dismissing — any medium as
new. (Chun, 2006, p. 2)
11
No Medium Exists in Isolation
Bolter and Grunion (1999, p. 15, cited in Gitelman, 2004)
• Digital media can be understood through the ways they honour or revise preceding
media of photography, lm, or print;
• No medium does its cultural work in isolation from society or other media;
• The novelty of media stems from how they refashion older media, and how older
media change when facing the challenge presented by newer media;
13
Assessing Technology
Four Perspectives
• Technological Determinism
• Social Construction of
Technology
• Social Shaping of
Technology
• Domestication of
Technology
14
“To understand (new) media and their potential
consequences, we need to consider both the technological
features of a medium and the personal, cultural, and
historical presumptions and values those features evoke”.
16
Technological Determinism
We are at their mercy.
• Technology has inherent characteristics that shape its evolution and its
impact on society;
17
fl
Technological Determinism
An ever-present narrative (Baym, 2015)
• Socrates saw alphabet and writing as great threats to the verbal tradition of
Greek society;
18
The Impact/Imprint Perspective
Claude Fischer, 1992
For example:
Utopian Reactions:
- The world can be improved by technology, transforming reality for the better. Each new
technology is better than the last, improving our daily lives, o ering new opportunities,
guiding our society towards a better place.
Dystopian Reactions:
- The world is made worse by technology. Technology brings with it loss of control over
about lives, dependency. They promise positive change but only make our existence more
di cult.
• The key issue is not whether something has an e ect (Markus, 1994)
22
ff
“[…] It is the degree to which the outcomes,
whether positive or negative, are the inevitable
results of technological characteristics […]”
23
Notable Thinking in
Technological Determinism?
Harold Innis (1894-1952)
Time & Space
25
Harold Innis (1894-1952)
The Monopoly of Knowledge
26
Think back to Mass Communication as a
“Societal Problem”. Monopoly of
Knowledge?
Marshal McLuhan (1911-1980)
The Medium is the Message
28
ff
ff
Marshal McLuhan (1911-1980)
Four-Part Test / “Tetrad”
29
fl
A Closer Look at McLuhan
Literally
• Nick Carr (2008) suggested in the Atlantic that Google was making “us” stupid.
• Tracy Alloway (2009, as cited by the Telegraph) proposed that Facebook had
the ability to “enhance intelligence”
• Can you think of any other current media technologies (devices, apps,
platforms etc.) that are discussed in such terms?
• What do you think about predictions by Carr and Alloway? Did they come
true? Do they make sense in hindsight?
31
Break
32
2.2. Social Construction of
Technology
33
Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)
The Other Extreme
34
“From a SCOT perspective, inventors are embedded in social contexts that
make it feasible to use a garage to create a personal computer or a bicycle
repair shop to invent an airplane. The choices that designers and
developers make as they develop technology are seen as dependent on
their social contexts which are, in turn, shaped in part by communication.”
Baym, 2015, p. 37
Social Construction of Technology
Use & Reception
37
Social Construction
There are no simple answers
38
fi
ff
2.3. Social Shaping &
Domestication
39
Social Shaping Of Technology
The Middle Ground
40
ff
ff
Social Shaping Of Technology
Balance of Di erent Forces
• Technologies are built with certain use expectations (e.g., a television is meant to
enable viewing of visual content);
Machines do not make history by themselves. But some kind of machines help
make di erent kinds of histories and di erent kinds of people than others […]. [They]
can and do accelerate certain trends […]. Douglas (2004 [ 1991], p. 21, as cited in
Baym, 2015)
41
ff
ff
ff
“From the social shaping perspective, we need to consider how
societal circumstances give rise to technologies, what specific
possibilities and constraints technologies offer, and actual practices
of use as those possibilities and constraints are taken up, rejected,
and reworked in everyday life.”
Baym, 2015, p. 42
Domestication of Technology
Novelty Wears O
• The “Domestication” approach highlights this tendency for the novelty to wear
o ;
fl
When reading the chapter
A more detailed picture
• More information on
historical development;
• Impact of Communication
about Technology
• Consideration of Moral
Panic as matter of SCOT
• A narrative of the internet’s
domestication
46
Group Discussion 2
Social Shaping and Domestication
• In her work Baym (2015), uses the Twitter # as an example of social shaping of
technology.
• Can you think of other examples where user behaviour and interaction, rather than
initial design, determined how a media service, platform, or technology ended up
being used? (Hint: think of accepted behaviours on interactive media you use, or
“protocols”)
• Can you recall how long it took for it to be “domesticated? Did you notice it
happening?
47
fi
3. Returning to Mass
Communication
48
More Nuanced?
More academic, less certain,
still questionable.
A (somewhat) more nuanced look at Mass Communication
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
• Overall the article presents a more sober, nuanced look at the connection
between “new media” and “mass communication”
• But it still starts with a relatively reductive premise, collapsing various uses
into one term.
• “Being unable to distinguish among them and relate each one separately to
the theoretical and empirical traditions, we preferred to use the broad
category of ‘new media’” (Weimann et al., 2014, p. 805).
50
Highlight Part 1: Users vs. Audiences
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
Many authors cited by Weimann et al (2014) were less enthusiastic about the
revolutionary e ects of “new media” on mass communication. Some found that:
51
ff
Highlight Part 1: Users vs. Audiences
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
Other research they summarised observed that previously observed trends and
in uences stayed relevant:
This does present a less deterministic outlook on the impact of technology. The
use the term “audience” in relation to older patterns and “users” in relation to
newer developments is quite notable, if not consequential.
52
fl
However, are users and
audiences different groups?
Highlights Part 2: Social Construction or Social Shaping?
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
• Earlier examinations of the digital divide saw it as a “transitory glitch” that will
be resolved quickly.
• The authors also highlight of social and nancial class on uses of media.
54
fi
ff
Highlights Part 3: Moving Between Extremes
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
“In the conventional media, the institutional gatekeepers could determine who
and what are worthy of exposure and publicity” (p. 819)
“In the new media environment, it is enough for a person to have a computer,
Internet access, and fundamental pro ciency in language and online
communication in order to produce content and proliferate it on virtual platforms
and social networks” (p. 819)
“People from a lower socioeconomic position […] gain less from this use and do
not utilise sophisticated tools such as online information searching” (p. 819)
55
fi
Highlights Part 4: The Novelty Fades
Re-evaluating the end of mass communication
56
fl
Dulled Impact
Summarising Cha ee & Metzger (2001) and Weimann et al (2014)
• Despite the rise of new media, power dynamics and resistance remain
relevant.
• Media institutions still play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and
controlling information ow.
ff
ff
fl
Conclusion
Coming Full Circle
60
Essay 1 - Media Log (Oct 19)
Recording and Analysing your Media Habits
61
fl
Essay 1 - Media Log (Oct 19)
Questions you can consider
62
Essay 1 - Media Log (Oct 19)
Grading Criteria
63
fi
ff
Essay 1 - Media Log (Oct 19)
Miscellaneous Details
65
Blackboard
In case you haven’t checked
• Link on blackboard
• Also readings, lecture slides.
• And the feedback form link
66
Print
Next Lecture
• Or e-mail me:
[email protected]
68