Week 11-

In the search to understand media effects, the media’s form and the experience that it generates are as important as the content. Media effects are the result of the interaction of the audience with media, individually and as a group. On an individual level, the media shapes or frames perceptions or “patterns of expectations” and also builds a relationship, as in a parasocial interaction, by creating an impression of intimacy. On a broader level, Innis and McLuhan saw major social and cultural changes revolving around the dominant communication technology. The key word is “revolving,” which implies a relationship between the media form and how society elects to use this communication tool at that point of time in history. McLuhans’s famous or infamous saying, the medium is the message reemphasized form over content. He took it a step further and said that there is an interaction between media, with previous media influencing a new, emerging media. For example just as writing reduced the effect of the spoken word, the Internet is now reducing the effect of newspapers.

The audience takes on an active, rather than a passive role, both as a recipient and a conveyor of the message. According to Horton and Wohl, audience participation takes on an added dimension through the parasocial interaction with the media persona. The form of the media and the different aspects that the persona presents “give the illusion of face-to face relationship.” However, as Handelman points out in his critique of parasocial interaction, there is certain self-awareness among media users about their role in this interaction with the media. McLuhan said that the new media enables people to participate in ones’ own audience participation and as a result many expect to have their “15 minutes of fame.” It would be interesting to see if as people become more sophisticated users and more familiar with a media if that mitigates the media’s ability to shape perception and public opinion. Certainly television viewers today would have had a different perception and interpretation of a media event like the MacArthur Parade, than viewers did in the 1950s did.

Media research needs to look beyond the direct effect of media on an individual since as the Langs said, “influence occurs in one person’s communication to others” and as a result of that experience the message can take on a different meaning. The Langs looked at what happens in the community by combining the public sphere, public space and the media’s role and suggested that the media are custodians of the public sphere and must reproduce reality and not shape public opinion. However, Katz and Dayan rightfully ask, “Must media reproduce reality?” and “What is reality?” When one looks at the history of communication, the dominant communication form at any point in time, whether oral or print, has always tried to shape perceptions or reality by providing an interpretative framework using the forms of media available for greatest effect.

Throughout history, media has been essentially “an apparatus that provides for the interface of mind and matter.” While certainly major social and cultural changes have revolved around the emergence of a new communication technology, these changes were “engineered and affected by society’s strategies and choices” (Blondheim, pp. 170-171). Media is a “technological artifact” that must be viewed and studied within the network that it exists. With the emergence of the internet and an even greater array of electronic communications, McLuhans’ argument that each communication media taps into different senses and generates its own forms of thinking and communicating resonates today. The Internet provides audio, visual and print interface choices for the user and as a result the traditional, linear approach to media research doesn’t work as effectively. McLuhan’s probing approach to media research, which needs to be developed and systemized for scholarly integrity, and his idea that research look at changes in the nature of change should also be considered.

The concern that mass media gives the impression of intimacy continues to concern people today. Horton and Wohl called it a false sense of intimacy and McLuhan said that although the new media creates a global understanding, people don’t know their neighbor. At the same time, no matter how powerful or far-reaching a new communication tool is, people will still seek out face-to-face contact to validate what they see, hear, think and feel. As Katz and Dayan concluded, the revolution still happens in the street.