mass-communication-theory

180 Section 3 From Limited-Effects to Critical Cultural Theories: Ferment in the Field
mass entertainment
theory
Theory asserting
that television
and other mass
media, because
they relax or
otherwise entertain
average people,
perform a
vital social
function
for fifteen months, were conducted in fourteen cities, and featured more than eight
hundred witnesses, researchers found that average Americans thought that nothing
could be done to combat organized crime. These findings were disturbing because
they suggested that even when media are effective at surveying the environment
and calling attention to societal problems (a manifest function), the public may react
by doing nothing. Instead of activating people to demand solutions to problems,
media coverage might “narcotize” them so that they become apathetic and
decide that they are powerless to do anything (a latent dysfunction). But what
would account for this narcotizing effect? Researchers argued that members of the
public will be narcotized when they are exposed day after day to dramatic negative
news coverage dwelling on the threats posed by a problem and emphasizing the
difficulty of dealing with it. This research was one of the first studies to suggest
that media can fail to perform an important function even when practitioners do
what their profession defines as the socially responsible thing to do.
In general, functional analysis tends to produce conclusions that largely legitimize
or rationalize the status quo. A classic example of how functional analysis
leads to status quo conclusions is found in the work of Harold Mendelsohn
(1966). He was concerned that people widely misunderstood the influence of television,
the powerful new medium of his era. He blamed elite critics of media (mostly
mass society theorists) for fostering misconceptions about television’s entertainment
function. He charged that these critics were protecting their own self-interests and
ignoring empirical research findings, dismissing most criticisms as prejudiced speculation
inconsistent with empirical data.
According to Mendelsohn, mass society critics were paternalistic and elitist.
They were upset because television entertainment attracted people away from the
boring forms of education, politics, or religion that they themselves wanted to promote.
Mendelsohn argued that people needed the relaxation and harmless escapism
that television offered. If this entertainment weren’t available, people would find
other releases from the tensions of daily life. Television simply served these needs
more easily, powerfully, and efficiently than alternatives.
Instead of condemning television, Mendelsohn argued that critics should acknowledge
that it performs its function very well and at extremely low cost. He was
concerned that critics had greatly exaggerated the importance and long-term consequences
of television entertainment, and he asserted that it had a limited and ultimately
quite minor social role. Television entertainment did not disrupt or debase
high culture; it merely gave average people a more attractive alternative to high-brow
entertainment like operas and symphony concerts. It did not distract people from important
activities like religion, politics, or family life; rather, it helped them relax so
that they could later engage in these activities with renewed interest and energy.
Mendelsohn cited numerous psychological studies to support his mass entertainment
theory. He admitted that a small number of people might suffer because
they became addicted to television entertainment. These same people, however,
would most likely have become addicted to something else if television weren’t
available. Chronic couch potatoes might otherwise become lounge lizards or fans
of romance novels. Mendelsohn viewed addiction to television as rather benign
compared to other alternatives: It didn’t hurt other people and viewing might even
be slightly educational.
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.