mass-communication-theory

28 Section 1 Introduction to Mass Communication Theory
penny press
Newspapers that
sold for one
penny and earned
profits through
the sale of increased
numbers
of readers to
advertisers
yellow journalism
Newspaper reporting
catering
to working and
other lower social
class audiences
using simple, often
sensational
content
capitalists
Economic elites
whose power was
based on the
profits they generated
and then
reinvested
Thus, mass society theory can be regarded as a collection of conflicting notions
developed to make sense of what was happening as industrialization allowed big
cities to spring up and expand. Mass society notions came from both ends of
the political spectrum. Some were developed by people who wanted to maintain
the old political order, and others were created by revolutionaries who wanted
to impose radical changes. But these ideological foes often shared at least one
assumption—mass media were troublesome if not downright dangerous. In general,
mass society ideas held strong appeal for any social elite whose power was threatened
by change. Media industries, such as the penny press in the 1830s or yellow
journalism in the 1890s, were easy targets for elites’ criticisms. They catered to
readers in the working and other lower social classes using simple, often sensational
content. These industries were easily attacked as symptomatic of a sick society—a
society needing to either return to traditional, fundamental values or be
forced to adopt a set of totally new values fostered by media. Many intense political
conflicts strongly affected thinking about the mass media, and these conflicts
shaped the development of mass society theory.
An essential argument of mass society theory is that media subvert and disrupt
the existing social order. But media are also seen as a potential solution to the
chaos they engender. They can serve as a powerful tool that can be used to either
restore the old order or institute a new one. But who should be trusted to use this
tool? Should established authorities be trusted to control media—to produce or
censor media content? Should media be freely operated by private entrepreneurs
whose primary goal is to make money? Should radical, revolutionary groups be
given control over media so they can pursue their dreams of creating an ideal social
order? At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century,
fierce debate erupted over these questions. This conflict often pitted traditional
elites, whose power was based on an agrarian society, against urban elites,
whose power was increasingly based on industrialization and urbanization.
Among these elites, the most powerful were those who controlled the factories
and other forms of industrialization. They have come to be referred to as capitalists,
because their power was based on the profits they generated and then reinvested. In
time, these urban elites gained enormous influence over social change. They strongly
favored all forms of technological development, including mass media. In their view,
technology was inherently good because it facilitated control over the physical environment,
expanded human productivity, and generated new forms of material
wealth. They argued that technology would bring an end to social problems and
lead to the development of an ideal social world. Newspapers would create an informed
electorate that would choose the best political leaders; the telegraph would
bind together diverse, contentious communities into a strong and stable union; and
the telephone would improve the efficiency of business so that everyone would benefit.
But in the short term, industrialization brought with it enormous problems—
exploitation of workers, pollution, and social unrest. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 trace the
thinking about media of this era.
Today, the fallacies of both the critics and advocates of technology are readily
apparent. Mass society notions greatly exaggerated the ability of media to quickly
undermine social order, just as media advocates exaggerated their ability to create
an ideal social order. These ideas failed to consider that media’s power ultimately
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.