[What follows is first draft of a section from my forthcoming book.]
*
The
mass media, as an autonomous social system, is a relatively new
thing; and (although already in existence) was only recognized as an
entity in its own right (The Media) from about the nineteen fifties
by Marshal McLuhan.
The
mass media are defined by communications which go from one to many
persons (or from a small group to a much larger one).
In
sum, a mass medium is a system of amplification
for communications: such as a printed book or newspaper, a radio or TV
program, an internet blog or the 'social' media such as (written in
2013) Facebook and Twitter.
Before
the Mass Media, there were several mass media – and some of these
reached quite a massive scale of amplification such as the lecture,
the play or gladiatorial and sport spectacles such as chariot racing
– which in Roman times had reached an amplification rate of one to
many thousands – thanks to the technology of the amphitheatre.
Writing
is potentially a system of amplification since it allows for copying,
but the most famous mass medium is the printed page – credited to
Gutenburg's invention of moveable type.
*
But
in these early times the mass media was simply a range of
technologies for amplifying communications – and the communications
originated from other social systems that has the usual social
functions; systems such as government, the military, the legal
system, the various arts, and scholarship (such as theology,
philosophy and science).
Early
media took their functions from the social systems they served. There
was no single Mass Media, and the functions were as diverse as
informing and entertaining – for example when mass media amplified
government – perhaps in writing by pamphlets or through newspapers,
they might provide information, or provide a conduit for propaganda –
intended to shape behaviour, or perhaps provide some kind of ethical
inspiration or guidance.
When
a mass medium amplified science it was perhaps educating via a
textbook, informing via a scientific paper, or may be popular science
in a newspaper or radio broadcast. When a medium amplified the arts
(e.g. by printing a novel or poem, or broadcasting a play on
television) it could be proving entertainment, or an aesthetic
experience.
At
this point, therefore, the various mass media had no unified function
– they were merely mechanisms for amplifying the communications of
functional social systems – so it could be said that they served to
do something along the lines of conveying information, aesthetic
experience, entertainment and propaganda.
*
However,
once the various mass media reached a certain size and began to
cross-communicate, then the system of mass media communication began to
communicate with each other; that is to refer to, and to react to,
each other.
At
this point the Mass Media could be considered a separate system. It
was no longer just a mechanism for amplifying the communications from
other systems, but the various media reacted to stimuli from each
other – and the output from these was... more reactions. The Mass
Media was a system, and the system was (potentially) autonomous.
So,
a newspaper runs a story – and this story could originate from
almost anywhere – discovered by the mass media's own 'reporters',
from a press release, from a rumour – it does not matter; but this
story is repeated in the broadcast media and across the internet and
evokes reactions from all these sources – leading to stories about
the story; and any or several of these stories about stories may lead
to further reactions – and so on.
Thus
while the old mass media were merely amplifiers; the modern Mass
Media is substantially independent of the other social systems.
Whereas the old mass media would inform – because it was simply
telling more people what other social systems had generated; the
modern Mass Media select, re-shape and just plain invent outputs
which are 'designed' (intended) merely to evoke reactions from
itself.
Therefore
while the old mass media had not intrinsic function, because it was
not a system; but merely a set of amplifiers; the modern Mass Media
has no intrinsic function because it simply generates outputs to
evoke reactions from itself.
But
his is not, of course, purely technological: humans are necessarily
involved. The constraint upon this is that people must be induced to
participate cognitively in this process of reacting – the system of
the modern Mass Media must therefore include human minds, as well as
technologies. Somebody must read some of the newspapers and react in
some way – whether by buying, or gossiping, or voting, or rioting –
and thus provide feedback stimuli thereby to close the loop and
re-fuel the Mass Media
*
The
point is that it may at one time have been reasonable to summarize
the mass medias functions as (say) informing and entertaining –
since the mass media took information perhaps from science and
amplified it; now the Mass Media generates stories which it
references to science, but these stories do not have to be true –
certainly the stories do not need to be true according to scientific
criteria. Media science stories are simply references to science, and
may variously be true or selected, distorted or invented as seems
most likely to provoke Mass Media responses some of which will lead
on to further Mass Media responses – of a type that engages
sufficient people in such a way as to fuel further communications
(buying more newspapers, generating advertising revenue or
subscriptions or buying more equipment or whatever). But there is no
reason why a science story should be true.
Similarly
with entertainment. For traditional mass media to amplify
entertainments they generally had to be enjoyable – to sell a lot
of novels, people had to enjoy the novel; to get a lot of people to
watch something on TV is needed to make people happy, or excited or
make them laugh or something... But in the modern Mass Media,
entertainment does not need to entertain; so long as it compels some
kind of attention this works just as well as entertainment; and since
it is difficult to entertain people en masse and for long periods,
there is not much entertaining going-on.
So
although there remains an element of entertainment the modern Mass
Media attract attention by any and every means: by evoking disgust,
horror, fear, lust, repulsion, self-satisfaction, pity for others,
self-pity, hero-worship, scapegoating... and then reacting to these
responses, and reacting to the reactions.
The
most typical modern Mass Media event is therefore some kind of staged
pseudo-'reality' show, consisting of people who evoke strong
reactions, engineered into situations designed to evoke responses –
which may then be displayed to elicit further responses. These shows
neither entertain nor inform; but are calculated simply to attract
and engage attention by whatever means, and evoke opinions and
behavioural feedback which may be harvested and channelled into an
iterative process which serves nothing beyond its own growth in
communications.
*
(The above is a response to WmJas's suggestion in a comment that the Mass Media did have a function: namely to inform and entertain.)
1 comment:
Madness then. What else could you call it? An Emotion Mill, perhaps.
Whatever it is, is s completely out of control.
Post a Comment