mass-communication-theory

292 Section 4 Contemporary Mass Communication Theory
knowledge gap
Systematic differences
in knowledge
between
better-informed
and less-informed
segments of a
population
play a central role. Their model focused on the role played by news media in cities
and towns of various sizes. It viewed these areas as subsystems within larger state
and regional social systems. The team began by empirically establishing that news
media systematically inform some segments of the population, specifically persons
in higher socioeconomic groups, better than others. Over time, the differences
between the better-informed and the less-informed segments tend to grow—the
knowledge gap between them gets larger and larger. This research team conducted
numerous surveys for twenty-five years to develop and support its theory.
But just how should we interpret these knowledge gaps? Do they pose longterm
problems or could knowledge gaps actually be functional in some way? If we
rely on classical democratic Libertarian theory (Chapter 5) to answer these questions,
knowledge gaps are troubling. We can be concerned that the people who
are less informed will not be able to act as responsible citizens. If they act at all,
they will do so based on ignorance. On the other hand, if we use elite pluralism
theory (Chapter 6) to speculate about the consequences of knowledge gaps, we are
less concerned. After all, there is a strong correlation between political ignorance
and political apathy. If the less informed don’t vote, they can’t upset the system.
As long as there is an active, informed minority of societal leaders, the overall system
should function smoothly—problems will be resolved by this elite based on
their superior knowledge.
Thomas Holbrook (2002) examined knowledge gap on a national level, finding
that the gaps narrowed during the course of presidential campaigns. He analyzed
data from the National Election Studies from 1976 to 1996 and found that
specific events such as political debates were linked to decreases in knowledge
gaps. Holbrook’s findings are consistent with earlier findings linking reduction of
gaps to increases in social conflict that spark widespread public discussion and
information seeking.
Naturally, the Internet, with its presumed “democracy” and all-informationall-the-time
orientation, has reignited interest in knowledge gap theory. Heinz
Bonfadelli (2002) offered a pessimistic view of the Internet’s potential role. In
Switzerland, he found a digital divide between affluent, better-educated young
adults who regularly use the Internet for information and their less-affluent,
less-educated peers who either don’t have access to the Internet or use it only for
entertainment. Not surprisingly, this divide was linked to gaps in knowledge. As
our earlier discussion of the digital divide would also suggest, this is the case in
the United States as well. The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of
Communities in a Democracy (2009) discovered that there are two Americas—one
completely wired, one not very well—that produced not only a knowledge-gap, but
also literacy and social participation gaps as well.
But even when people are wired, a social participation gap remains. A Pew
Internet & American Life Project national study discovered that “contrary to the
hopes of some advocates, the Internet is not changing the socio-economic character
of civic engagement in America. Just as in offline civic life, the well-to-do and welleducated
are more likely than those less well off to participate in online political
activities such as emailing a government official, signing an online petition, or making
a political contribution” (Smith et al., 2009). These two realities prompted the
FCC to call for increased federal spending on a program of digital literacy, possibly
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.