o

o
a
o
.
'
o
o
o

Early perspectives on media and socierv

The 'mass,concept

36

The mass communication rocess

The mass audience

40

Mass culture and popular culture

The rise of a dominant paradigm for theory and
research
An alternative paradigm

Four models of communicatron

New theoretical perspectives on media and societv

38

41

42
45
48
52
58

EARLY PERSPECTIVES

ON MEDIA AND SOCIETY

he century just encled can plausibly be described as the

'first age of mass media'. It

l,vas also marked by alternating wonder and alarm at the influence of the mass
media. Despire fhe enormous changes in rnedia institutions and technology and in
sclcieti' itseif, and also rhe rise of a 'science of cornrnunication', the terms of public
debate :rbout the pote'ntial social significance of 'the media' seem to have changed
remarl:ablv little. A description of the issues which emerged during the first two or
three decades of the century is of more than just historical interest, and early thinking
provides a point of reference for understanciing the present. Three sets of ideas were
of particurlar importance from the outset. One concerned the question of the power of
the new means of communication, a second rhe question of social integration or disirrtegration, and the third the question of public enlightenment or its opposite.

The power of mass media

A belief in the powe r of tnass nrerlia wrrs initially based on observation of their great
reirch irnd apparenr impact, especialh' in relation to the new popular newspaper press.
According to DeFleur:rnd Ball-Rokeach (1989), newsprlper circulation in the USA
peaked in 1910, although it wzrs a good deal later in Europe and other parts of the
worlcl. The popular press was mainly iunded by commercial advertising, its content
lvas characterized by sensational nervs stories and its control often concentrated in the
hands of powerful press 'barons'. The First \(/<rrld War saw the mobilization of press
ancl filn'r in most of F.urope and the United States for the nationalist war aims of
contendtng states. The results seemed to leave iittle doubt of the potency of media
influence on the 'masses', when effectively managed and directed.
This impression was yet further reinforced by whar happened in the Soviet Union
and, later, in Nazi German1,, where the rnedia were pressed into the service of
propaganda on hehiilf of ruling party elites. The use of news and entertainment media
by the allies in the Second \7orld \far removed any doubts about their propagandist
valure. Before the centurv was half wav on its course, there was already a strongly held
and sourtdly based view that mass publicity was effective in shaping opinion and
inflLrencing behavior-rr. It couild also have effects on international relations and
:rlliances. N'lore recent events, including the ending of the Cold War and the handling
of the Clulf War and Kosovo Confiict have confirmed the media as an essential and
dvnamic componenl in trnv interna.tional power struggle, where public opinion is also
a fetctor. fhe conditions for effecrive media power have generally included a national
media inclustrv c:rpable of reachins most of the population, a degree of consensus in
the rnessager dissemiriated (whatever its origin) ancl some measure of credibility and
trusl on the part of audiences (also with r'arying foundations).

theories

Communication and social integration

social theorists in the late 19th and early

20th centuries were very conscious of the
'great ffansformation' which was taking
place, as sloweq traditional and communal
ways gave way to fast-paced, secular,
urban living and to a great expansion in
the scale
of social activities. Many of the themes of Euro-pean
and North Ameri.a' sociology
Toennies, Spencer,'Weber, Durkheim
and park) reflect this
of the problem of change from small_ to large_scale
and
s. The sociar t eory of the time posited
a
nJed for new
forms of integration in the face of the p.oblems
."ur.d by industrialization and
urbanization' crime, prostitution, dereliction
and dependency were associated with
the increasing anonymiry, isolation and
uncertainty of modern life.
While the fundamental changes were s
to newspapers, film and other forms of
comics) as potential contributors both
to
also to rootlessness, impersonality and
lack o
states, where attention to communication
was first most crearly art
immigration from Europe in the first fwo decades
of the century hi
; exemplified

in the socio

rt Park, G.H. Mead, Thomas Dewey and

, 1991)

North

America.

has reconstructed the main lines of

d social integration, both in Europe and in

The links between popular mass media

and social integration were easy to perceive
in terms both negative (more crime and immoraliry)
and individualistic (ioneliness,
loss of collective beliefs), but it was
also possible to envisage a positive contribution
from modern communications to cohesion
and community. Mass media were a
potential force for a new kind of cohesion,
able to connect scattered individuals in
a
shared national' ciry and local experience.
They could also be supportive of the new
democratic politics and of social ..fo.movements. How the influence of media
came
to be interpreted was often a matter of an observer's
personal attitude to modern
society and the degree of optimism or pessimism
in their social outlook. The early part
of the century' as well as (or pe.haps-because
of) being a high point of nationalism,
revolution and social conflict, was also
a time or pro"gr.rsive thinking, democratic
advance and scientific and technological
progress.

Mass communication as mass educator

The spirit of the rimes (modern and forward-looking)

supported a third set of ideas
about mass communication that the media
could be a potent force for public

concepts and models

37

I
I

enlightenment, supplementing and continuing the new institutions of

universal schooling, public libraries and popular education. Political and social reformers
saw a
positive potential in the media, taken as a whole, and the media
also saw themselves
as' on balance, making a contribution to progress by spreading information
and ideas,

exposing political corruption and also providing much harmless

enjoyment for
ordinary people' In many countries, journalists were becoming
more professional and
adopting codes of ethics and good practice.
The democratic task of the press in informing the newly
enfranchised masses was
widely recognized. The newly established radio institutions of the
1920s and 1930s,
especially in Europe, were often given a public cultural,
educational and informative
mission, as well as the task of promoting national identity
and unity. Each new mass
medium has been hailed for its educational and cultural benefits,
as well as feared for
its disturbing influence' The potential for communication technology
to promote
enlightenment has been invoked once again in respect
of the latest communication
technologies - those based on the computer and telecommunications
(for example,
Neuman, 1991).

The media as problem or scapegoat

Despite these recurring hopeful scenarios, the passing

of decades does not seem to have
changed the tendency of public opinion both to blame
the rnedia (see Drotn er, 1.9921
and expect them to do more to solve society's ills. There
are successive instances of
moral panics relating to the media, whenever an insoluble
or inexplicable problem

arises' The most constant element has been a negative

perception of the media especially the inclination to link media portrayals of .ri-e,
sex and violence with the
seeming increase in social disorder. However, new ills
have also been found to lay at
the door of the media, especially sucli phenomena as violent political
protest and
demonstration, international terrorism and even the supposed
decline of^d.-o.r".y
and rise of political apathy and cynicism. Paradoxically
o. no,, it has usually been the
media themselves that have highlighted and amplified many
of these alarmist views,
perhaps because they seem to confirm the power tf
,n. media, but more likely because
they are aheady popularly believed.

THE'MASS' CONCEPT

This mixture of popular prejudice and social theorizing about

the media has formed
the background against which research has been commissioned,
hypotheses

have been

38

theories

formulated and tested, and more precise

theories about mass communication
have
been developed' And while the
interpretations of the direction (positive
or negative) of
mass media influence show
much divergence, the most persistent
element in public
estimation of the media has been
a simple agreement on their strong
influence. In turn,
this perception owes much to various
,m-ass,.
-.rning, of the term
Although the
concept of 'mass society' was not
fully developld until after the second
sforld var,
the essential ideas were circulating
before the end of the 19th century.
The key term
'mass' in fact unites a number
of .o.r..p,s which are rmportant for understanding
how the process of mass communication
has often been understood,, right
up to the
present.
Early uses of the term usually carried
negative associarions. It referred
inirially to the
multitude or the 'common peopre,,
usualry seen as uneducated, ignorant
and poten_
tially irrational, unruly
.u.n violent (as when the mass turned
into a mob of
rioters) (Bramson, 1961')'",,d
It could also be used in a positive sense,
however, especially
in the socialist tradition, where it connotes
the strength and solidarity of ordinary
working people when organized for
collectiu. purpires or when having
ro bear
oppression' The terms 'mass support',
'mass
,mass
and
action, are
examples whereby large numb.r,
oi people acting^oua-aarr,
together can be seen in a positive
Ge51:28e)'o--'n"d'lthe'e are no
-.,,.,, onrv wavs

iiillll::il::: }iH:

The different valuations of the idea

of a mass reflect varying political or
personar
perspectives' but they also relate
to whether or not the mass in question
is legitimately
constituted and acting in a rational
and orderly manner. Even so, the
predominant
attitude towards mass phenomena
has been n.guriu., even when
they pose no threat to
the established social order' The
.west,
dominant social and cultural values
of ,the
have
been individualist and elitist,
biased against collective action.
Aside from its political
references, the word 'mass',
when appried to a set of peopre, also
has unflatte.ng
implications' It suggests an amorphous
collection of indivi luals without
much individuality' one standard dictionary iefinition
defines the word as an ,aggregate
in which
individuality is lost' (sborter oxford
English Dictionaryi. rni, i, .rore
to-th. meaning
which early sociologists sometlmes gave
to the media au lience. It was the large
and
seemingly undifferentiated audiences
for the popular -.ai, rhat provided
the clearesr
examples of the concepr.

Box

.
o
.
a
a

3.1

The concept of mass

Large aggregate

Undifferentiated
Mainly negative image
Lacking order or organization

Reflective of mass society

concePts and models

39

THE MASS COMMUNICATION

PROCESS

The term'mass communication'came lnto

use in the late 1930s, but its essential features were already well known and have
not really changed since, even if the
media themselves have in some ways
become less massive. while even
early mass
media were quite diverse in their scale
and conditions of operation (for instance
popular films could be seen in village tents
as well as metropolitan picture palaces),
we can discern the typical form of mass
communication according to certain
general characteristics' These derive from the
rechnologies of multiple reproduction
and distribution and certain forms of o
of mass communication as experienced
from the typical form. The most oLvious
designed to reach the many. potential
a
more or less anonymous consumers,
and t
is bound to be influenced by this fact. The
'sender' is often the organization
itself
or a professional communicator (journalist, presenter,
producer, entertainer, etc.)
whom it employs' If not this, it is another
voice of society given or sold access
to media channels (advertiser, politician, preacheq
advocate of , .u.rr., etc.). The
relationship is inevitably one-sided and
i-p.rrorrrl, and there is a social as we'
as a physical distance berween sender
a
authority, prestige or expertise than
the
metrical, it is often calculative or manipula
based on a service promised or asked
for in some unwritten contract with no
mutual
obligation.

creative, although this may reflect

a cultur
the media message is mainly a product

of
market and a use value for its receiver,
the media consumer. It is essentially
a commodity and differs in this respect from
the content of other types of human
communication relationship.
The reception of mass communication
is also distinctive. Audiences are generally
conceived of (by media themselves,
but also by popular prejudice) as rarge
aggregates
of dispersed and passive spectators' without
opporiunities to respond or to participate
tn a genuine way' Although conscious of
being part of a much larger set, the
media
spectator has little contact with or
know
interact directly with a srnall number.
T
constituted momentarily by the more
or
source and has no other existence
except in the book-keeping of the
media industries
(Ang, 1991).

40

theories

and reception

O,

market relationship
content

THE

MASS AUDIENCE

Herbert Blumer (1939) was the first to define the mass formally
as a new rype of social
formation in modern society, by contrasting it with other
formations, especially the
group' crowd and public. In a small group, all its members
know each otheq are aware
of their common membership, share the same values, have a certain
structure of
relationships which is stable over time and interact
to achieve some purpose. The
crowd is larger but still restricted within observable boundaries
in a particular space . It
is, however, temporary and rarely re-forms with
the same composition. It may possess
a high degree of identity and share the same 'mood',
but there is usually no struqure
or order to its moral and social composition. It can act, but its
actions are often seen
to have an affective and emotional, often irrational, character.
The third collectivity named by Blumer, the public,
is likely to be relatively large,
widely dispersed and enduring. It tends to form around
an issue or cause in public life,
and its primary purpose is to advance an interest or
opinion and to achieve polirical
change' It is an essential element in democratic politics,
based on the ideal of rarional
discourse within an open political system and often
comprising the betrer-informed
section of the population. The rise of the public is
characteristic of modern liberal
democracies and related to the rise of th. ;bou.geois'
or party newspaper described

earlier.

The term 'mass' captured several features of the new

audiences for cinema and radio
(and to some extent the popular press) that
were nor covered by any of these rhree
concepts. The new audience was typically much
larger than any group, crowd or
public' It was very widely dispersed, and its members
were usually unknown to each
other or to whoever brought the audience into er:istence.
It lacked self-awareness and
self-identity and was incapable of actir'--g together in an
organized way ro secure
objectives' It was marked by a shifting composition
within changing boundaries. It did
not act for itself but was, rather, 'acted upon' (thus an object
of manipulation). It was
heterogeneous, in consisting of large numbers, from
all social srrara and demographic
groups' but also ito-og.n.ous in its choice of some
particular object of interest and
according to the perception of those who would like
io manipulate ir.

concepts and models

4l

7
,#

il

Box

o
.
.
a
.

3.3

The mass audience

Larte nurnbers
Widely dispersed
Non-interactive and anonymous
Heterogeneous
Not organized or self-acting

The audience for mass media is not the only social formation
that can be
characterized in this wag since the word is sometimes
applied to consumers in the
expression 'mass market' or to large bodies of voters (the
'mass electorate,). It is

significant, however, that such entities also often

correspond with media audiences and
that mass media are used to direct or control both consumer
and political behaviour.
\(iithin the conceptual framework sketched, media use was
represented as a form of
'mass behaviour', which in turn encouraged
the application of methods of ,mass
research' - especially large-scale surveys and
other methods for recording the reach
and response of audiences to what was ( ffered. A
commercial and organizational
logic for 'audience research' was furnished with theoretical
underpinnirrgl.
to make sense' as well as being practical, to discuss media audiences tt seemed
in purely
quantitatiue terms. In fact, the methods of research
tended only to reinforce a biased
conceptual perspective (treating the audience as
a mass market). Research into ratings
and the reach of press and broadcasting rei rforced
a view of readerships and audiences
as a mass market of consumers. There has been
a theoretical opposiiion to this view
which has gradually gained ground (see Chapter 15) and
led to revised views of the
nature of audience experience (Ang, 1991). Even
the relevance of viewing the audience
as a mass has been undermined by lhe changes in
the media thar are described
elsewhere (see Chapter 7G)

MASS CULTURE

AND POPULAR CULTURE

The typical content which flowed through the newly

c
formation (the mass audience) was from the start
a
images, information, ideas, entertainment and
specta
of 'mass culture' was commonly used to refer to all
1957). Mass culrure had a wider reference to rhe
t
sryles of the mass (or just the majority) of people.
It also had a generally pejorative
connotation, mainly because of its associations with
the assumed cultural preferences
of 'uncultivated', non-discriminating or just lower-class audiences.
The term is now quite dated, partl;, because class
differences are less sharply drawn
and no longer separate an educated professional minoriry
from r hr;.;;;or and ill-

42

theories

educated working-class majority. It is al

'cultural taste' is no longer widely ackno
the idea of mass culture as an exclusively
validate empirically, since it referred to
everyone to some degree' The expression 'popular
culture' is now generally preferred
because it simply denotes what many or even
most people like. Even so, it has some
connotation of what is popular with the young.
Mo.. recent developments jn media

and cultural studies (as well as in society) have led

to a more positive valuation
generally of popular culture. For some media
theorists (e.g. Fiske, r9g7) the very fact
of popularity is a token of value in political as well as
cultural terms.

Definitions and contrasts

Attempts to define mass culture often contrasted

it (unfavourably) with more traditional forms of (symbolic) culture. \ililensky, for instance,
compared it with the notion
of 'high culture', which will refer to two characteristics
of the product:
(1)

it is created

by, or under the supervision of, a cultural elite

operating within some
aesthetic, IiterarS or scientific tradition . . . (2)
critical standards independent of the
consumer of their product are sysrematically applied
to it. . . . ,Mass culture, will refer to
cultural products manufactured solely
for the mass market. Associated characterisrics, nor
intrinsic to the definition, are standardization of product
and, mass behauiourin its use.
(1964: 175)

Box

o
.
.
.
o
o

3.4

Mass culture

Non-raditional
Non-elite
Mass produced
Popular

Commercial
Homogenized

Mass culture was also defined by comparison with

an earlier cultural form - that of
folk culture or a traditional culture which more evidently
comes from the people and
usually pre-dates (or is independent of) mass media
and rhe mass production of
culture' original folk culture (especialiy .rpr.rr.d as
dress, customs, song, srories,
dance, etc') was being widely rediscovered in Europe
during the 19th century. often,
this was for reasons connected with the rise of n"tion.lism,
otherwise as part of the
'arts and crafts' movement and the romantic reaction
against industrialism. The

concepts and models

43

f
#t
lt

it

rediscovery (by the middle classes) was taking place at the very time that it was rapidly
disappearing amongst worker and peasant classes because of social change. Folk cul-

ture was originally made unselfconsciously, using traditional forms, themes, materials
and means of expression and had usually been incorporated into everyday life. Critics
of mass culture often regretted the loss of the integrity and simplicity of folk art, and
the issue is still alive in parts of the world where mass-produced culture has not
completely triumphed. The new urban industrial working class of 'Western Europe and
North America were the first consumers of the new mass culture after being cut off
from the roots of folk culture. No doubt the mass media drew on some popuiar
cultural streams and adapted others to the conditions of urban life to fill the cultural
void created by industrialization, but intellectual critics could usually see only a
cultural loss.

Dynamics of cultural forms

The rise of mass culture was open to more than one interpretation. Bauman (1972),
for instance, took issue with the idea that mass communication media caused mass
culture, arguing that they were more a tool to shape something that was happening in
any case as a result of the increasing cultural homogeneity of national societies. In his
vieq what is often referred to as mass culture is more properly just a more universal or
standardized culture. Several features of.mass communication have contributed to the
process of standardization, especially dependence on the market, the supremacy of
large-scale organization and the application of new technology to cultural production.
This more obiective approach helps to defuse some of the conflict that has characterized the debate about mass culture. In some measure, the 'problem of mass culture'
reflected the need to come to terms with new technological possibilities for symbolic
reproduction (Benjamin,1977) which challenged established notions of art. The issue
of mass culture was fought out in social and political terms, without being resolved in
aesthetic terms.

Despite the possibility of finding a seemingly value-free conception of mass culture

in terms of social change, the issue remains conceptually and ideologically troublesome. As Bourdieu (1985) and others have clearly demonstrated, different conceptions

of cultural merit are strongly connected with social class differences.

Possession of

economic capital has usually gone hand in hand with possession of 'cultural capital',
which in class societies can also be 'encashed' for material advantages. Class-based
value systems once strongly maintained the superiority of 'high' and traditional culture
against much of the typical popular culture of the mass media. The support for such
value systems (though maybe not for the class system) has weakened, although the

of differential cultural quality remains alive as an aspect of a continuing cultural

and media policy debate.

issue

44

theories

THE

RISE OF

A DOMINANT PARADIGM

FOR THEORY

AND

RESEARCH

The ideas about media and society and the various

sub-concepts of ,mass, that have
been described, helped to shape a model of research
into mass communication which
has been described as 'dominant' in more than one sense.
Aside from being widely
taught as the correct approach it has been portrayed by its
critics as somewhat
heg-emonic and oppressive (for example, Gitlin,
1978;Real, 19g9). The description of
a 'dominant paradigm' offered here is rather eclectic
and mixes different elements. It is
inevitably an oversimplification of a complex and not very
coherent set of ideas. A
somewhat similar version is to be found in other textbooks
and overviews (for
example, Rogers, 1,986;DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach, lggg).It
is counterbalanced by the
description of an 'alternative paradigm' that can be compiled
from various critical
views of society and of the media.

One view of the good society

The 'dominant paradigm' (or dominant meaning strucrure)

combined a view of
powerful mass media in a mass society with the typical
research

practices of the
emerging social sciences, especially social surveys, social-psychological
experiments
and statistical analysis. The paradigm is both an outcome
of and-a guide to com_
munication research. The underlying, though rarely explicated,
ui.* of.-rociety in the
It presumes a certain kind of normally
emocratic (elections, universal suffrage,
conditions, individualistic, freedom of
etition between parties and interests) and
legitimate).
The potential or actual good or harm to be expected
from mass media has largely
been judged according to this model, which h"pp.n,
to coincide with one version of
Western society. The contradictions within this view
of society and its distance from
social reality were largely ignored. It is by reference
to this model that research has
been undertaken into the socializing, informing, mobilizing
and opinion-shaping
activities of the media. The same is true in relation to
crime, ethnic conflict and other
problematic features of mass media content and effects.
Most early research oriented
to the media in developing or Third world counrries was guided
by the assumption
that these societies would gradually converge on the same (more
advanced and
progressive)'Western model.
Early international communication research l,ras also
influenced by the notion that
the model of a liberal, pluralist and jList society was threatened
by an alernarive,
totalitarian form (communisnr), where the mass media were
distorted inro tools for
suppressing democracy. The awareness of this alternative
helped to identify and even

concepts and models

45

ifl
reinforce the norm described. This point of view could be largely
shared between the
media and theorists/researchers. The media often saw
themselves as playing a key role
in supporting and expressing the values of the ,'western way
of life,.

Origins in information science and functionalism

The theoretical elements of a dominant paradigm

were not invented for the case of the
mass media but largely taken over from sociology,
social psychology and an applied
version of information science' This took place especially
in the decade after the
second vorld'war, when there was a largely unchallenged
North American hegemony
over both the social sciences and the mass media (Tunstall,
1977). The model of a
good society described above leans to the mid-century
US ideal. Sociology, as it
matured theoretically, offered a functionalist framework
of analysis for the media as
for other institutions. Lasswell (1948) was the first to formulate
a clear statement of
the 'functions' of communication in society meaning
essential tasks performed for
the maintenance of sociery (see chapter 4). The g.n.rnll.ndency
of functional analysis
ls to assume that communication works towards the integration,
continuity and
normality of society, although also recognizing that mass
communication can have
dysfunctional (disruptive or harmful) consequences.
There are many ramifications and
variants of functional analysis, and, dsrite a much
reduced inteilectual appeal, the
language of functions has prove"l difficult to
eliminate from discussions of media and

society.

The other important theoretical element influential in

the dominant paradigm
guiding media research stemmed from information
theory as developed by Shannon
and'Weaver (7949), which was concerned with
the technical efficiency of co.rr-unication channels for carrying information. They developed a model
for analysing

information transmission that visualized communication

as a sequential process. This
process begins with a source that select s a messdge,
which is then trans)itted, in the
form of a signal, over a communication channrl, ,o a
receiuer, who transforms the
signal back into a message for a destination. The
model was designed to account for

differences between messages as sent and messages

as received, these differences being
considered to result from noise or interferenci
affecting the channels. This ,trans-

mission' model was not directly concerned with mass

communication, but it was
popularized as a versatile way of conceiving many
human communication processes,
despite its original non-human applications.
These theoretical origins were very much in line
with methodological developments
of the mid-century period and the natur e of research issues. A
combination of
advances in 'mental measurement' (especially applied
to individual attitudes and other
attributes) and in statistical analysis appeared to
offer new and powerful tools for
achieving generalized and reliable knowledge
of previously hidden processes and
states' The methods were especially valued b...ur.
they seem.d ,bl. to answer

46

theories

questions about the influence of mass media

and about their effectiveness in persuasion
and attitude change.

Bias of

the paradigm towards studying media effects

scientists into 'the intellectual cul-de-sac of

focusing mainly upon the effects of
communication, especially mass communicarion' (1986:88).
This view of communication is compatible with, though more fl
which in one variant or another was equal
and others have long recognized the blind
about communication research has often
Even so, the linear causal approach was what
many wanted, and still do want, from
communication research.
Mass communication is often seen (by those
with power ro transmit) primarily as an
efficient device for getting a message to many
people whether
", "du.rtiring, political
ation. The fact that communication
does not usually
of view of receivers has taken a long time ro register.
a very different model of (mass) communication were
rly - based on the thinking of several earlier (Nort'
American) social scientists, especially G.H. Mead,
c.H. cooley and Robert park. Such
a 'model'would have represented human communication
as essentially human, social
and interactive, concerned with sharing of meaning,
not impact (see Hardt, 1991).
That this alternative was not taken up reflects
the"greater appeal of the dominant
paradigm because of its assumed relevance
and practicality ,rud'.lro the power of its
methods.

Against this background, the path taken by 'mainstream'

mass media research

is not
difficult to describe and underst"nd. Research has
mostly been concerned with rhe
measurement of the effects of mass media,
whether intended (as with political and
public information campaigns) or unintended (as
with crime anci violence). Alternatively, it has been concerned with studying
aspecrs of the process that could aid in
the interpretation of effects - for instance, the
content of media messages, or the
stics of the audience. Even the srudy of
ght it sheds on what messages are likely
tional thinking and of rhe linear causal
al preferences of most communication
also been for precise measurement and
quantification, usually based on observations
of individual behaviour.

concepts and models

47

Mainstream research has built around this basic approach several extra
elements
that have helped to shore up its credibility and to resolve conflicts with the
ideal model
of liberal-pluralist society described above. on the face of it, the one-way model
of
effect appears mechanistic and deterministic, in line with the conception
of mass
society in which a small elite with power and money could use the
powerful
instruments of media channels to achieve persuasive and informational
ends. The
images of a hypodermic syringe or 'magic bullet' have been
used to capture part of this
idea (DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989). In fact, the rejection
by r.se"r.h.r, of this
notion of powerful direct effect is almost as old as rhe idea itself (Chaffee
and
Hochheimer, 1982)' It has been clear for fifty years rhar mass media
simply do not
have the direct effects suggested. It has always been rather difficult
to prove any effects
(cf. Klapper, 1960).
The simple transmission model does not work for a number of reasons
which
empirical research has made clear. The main reasons are as follows:
signals do not
reach receivers' or not the ones intended; messages are not understood
as they are sent;
there is much more 'noise' in the channels than can be overcome.
Moreover, little
communication is actually unmediated, but is rypically filtered through
orher channels
or open to checking with personal contacts. All this undermines the
notion of powerful
media and casts doubt on the transmission model. Despite this, the
model stilihelps in
posing and testing (null) hyporheses, and the fin.lings that have
accumulated around
its 'failure' have been paradoxically :upporrive. By underlining the mediated
and
interactive nature of public communication, they have helped to
sustain the positive
image of the liberal-pluralist society as still in good shape and
not subject to
subversion by a few porverful or wealthy manipulators (Gitlin,'1,978).
Out of ,failed,
(: no measured effect) research comes a posirive message of health for the status quo
and also a vindication of the empirical research tradition.
Box

o
.
o
o
o

3.5 The dominant paradigm of communication

A liberal-pluralist ideal of society

A functionalist perspective
A linear transmission model of effects

relations

Powerful media modified by group

Quantitative research and variable analysis

researrch
,.r'.

AN ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM

What follows is also a composite picture, woven from different voices

at different
times and expressing different objections to the dominant paradigm,
but nevertheless
reasonabiy coherent. Of course, 'the' critical perspective has
itself developed and
changed over time, but its origins are as old as its chief object
of attack. In varying
48

theories

degrees

the alternative (or'critical') perspectives involve objections to a set of

disparate but interrelated ideas and praitices. The unacknowledged liberal pluralist
ideology of society has been exposed (for example, Hall, 1989). The linearity of the
model of effect and its generally mechanistic character has found numerous critics.
So has the influence of 'market and military demands on research and the media
(Mills, 7956). Gitlin (I978) exposed the too rosy interpretations of research findings about media effects and audience motivations. The potentially dehumanizing
effects of technology (for example, Carey, 1988) and the excessively quantitative and
individual-behaviourist methodologies have been singled out (for example, Smythe,
1972; Real, 1989; Jensen and Jankowski, 1,991,). Finally the model has been blamed
for neglect by communication research of vast areas of culture and human experience
(Carey, 1988).

A different view of society and media

Most broadly, the 'alternative paradigm' rests on a different view of society, one which
does not accept the prevailing liberal-capitalist order as just or inevitable or the best
one can hope for in the fallen state of humankind. Nor does it accept the rationalcalculative, utilitarian model of social life as at all adequate or desirable. There is an
alternative, idealist and sometirnes Utopian ideology, but nowhere a worked-out
model of an ideal social system. Nevertheless, there is a sufficient common basis for
rejecting the hidden ideology of pluralism and of conservative functionalism.
There has been no shortage of vocal critics of the media themselves, from the early
years of the century, especially in relation to their commercialism, low standards of
truth and decency, control by unscrupulous monopolists and much mote. More
relevant here are the theoretical grounds for approaching the mass media in a way
different from that proposed in the dominant paradigm. The original ideological
inspiration for a well-grounded alternative has been socialism or Marxism in one
variant or another. The first significant impulse was given by the emigris from the
Frankfurt School who went to the USA in the 1930s and helped to promote an
alternative view of the dominant commercial mass culture (Jay, 7973; Hardt, 1991).
Their contribution was to provide a strong intellectual base for seeing the process of
mass communication as manipulative and ultimately oppressive (see Chapter 5).
C. Wright Mills followed them (in the 1950s) by articulating a clear alternative view
of the media, drawing on a native North American radical tradition, eloquently
exposing the liberal fallacy of pluralist control. He described the media as organized in
the post-war USA (now often portrayed as a golden age ) as a powerful instrument of
control on behalf of an interlocked 'power elite' (Mills, 1956) and as a means of
inducing total conformity to the state and the economic order. He had himself worked
on the research (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955) which purported to establish the

concepts and models

49

importance of personal relations in insulating individuals from media power, but he

came to reyect the results as potentially manipulative knowledge (Mills, 1959).

Diverse sources of challenge

Despite the influence of the social-critical perspective of Mills, and later, of Marcuse
(7964), a second wave of influence from Europe (where the dominant paradigm also
held sway untilwell into the 1960s) has perhaps done most to promote the alternative
paradigm internationally. This has occurred since the 1970s and has different driving
forces and objectives. The main components of, and supports for, an alternative
paradigm are as follows. First is a much more sophisticated notion of ideology in
media content which has allowed researchers to 'decode' the ideological messages of
mass-mediated entertainment and news (which tend towards legitimating established
power structures and defusing opposition).
Secondly, a related development has denied the notion of fixed meanings embedded
in media content and leading to predictable and measurable impact. Instead, we have
to view meaning as constructed and messages as decoded according to the social
situation and interests of those rn the receiving audience. In particular, it is argued that
the ideology of the 'power elite' disseminated by the media can be read in an
'oppositional' way and exposed for the propaganda which it is. This is an alternative
version of the 'active audience' discovered in the course of empirical media-effect
research.

The economic and political character of mass media organizations and structures
nationally and internationally has been re-examined. These institutions are no longer
taken at face value but can be assessed in terms of their operational strategies, which
are far from neutral or non-ideological. As the critical paradigm has developed, it has
moved from an exclusive concern with working-class subordination to a wider view of
other kinds of domination, especially in relation to youth, alternative subcultures,
gender and ethnicity. These changes have been matched by a turn to more 'qualitative'
research, whether into culture, discourse or the ethnography of mass media use. This
has provided alternative routes to knowledge and forged a link back to the neglected
pathways of sociological theory of symbolic interactionism and phenomenology (see
Jensen andJankowski, 1991). This is part of a more general development of cultural
studies, within which mass communication can be viewed in a new light. According to
Dahlgren (1995) the cultural studies tradition 'confronts the scientistic self-delusion'
of the dominant paradigm, but there is an inevitable tension belween textual and
socio-institutional analysis.
The communication relations berween the First World and the Third World,
especially in the light of changing technology, has encouraged new ways of thinkirig
about mass communication. For instance, the relationship is no longer seen as a matter
of the enlightened transfer of development and democracy to 'backward' lands. It is at

theories

::--

least as plausibly seen as economic

and cultural domination. La
not necessarily read in a criticar direction,
the new means of
forced a re-evaluation of earlier rhinki:ig
about media effects,
model of one-directionar mass communication
can no ronger be

The status of the alternative paradigq

The alternative perspective that emerges

from these developments of thought and
enquirS is not just the mirror image
of the dominant paradigm or a sratement
of
opposition to the mechanistic and applied
view of communication. It is based on
a
more complete view of communication
as sharing and ritual. It is complementary
as
well as being an alternative. It offers its
own viable avenues of enquiry, but following
a different agenda' The paradigm
has been especially valuable in extending
the range
of methods and approaches to populr,
.ultur. in all its aspects. The inreraction and

engagement between media experiences

and social-cultural experiences are
central to
all this. The main points ,r. ,u-nlrrized
in Box 3.6.
while this discussion has presented two
main versions, it is arguable rhat the
proposed 'alternative' to the 'dominant'
approach brings rogerher two distinct
elements - one 'critical', the other 'interpretative'
or 'qualitative,. There are some reasons
in the history of theory and research why
these elemenrs are associated. In parricular,
early critics

of

society and research (such as c.

wright Mills) opposed both the
methods and the thinking empirical
researcherr,
critical school' such as Stuart'fHalistrongly
"ri the pioneers of rhe cultural
endorsed interpretative methods.
However,
there are critical researchers who
stand by social scientific methods,
and
the critica.l
component of cultural studies of
media as these have developed is at
least
variable
(Ferguson and Golding, 1997)'
For some purposes it is useful to follow
the
suggestion
of Potter et al' (1993) and apply a threefold
division of research paradigms, thar
are
identified as 'social.sci.nce', ;interpretative'
and 'critical analysis,. Fink and Gantz
(1'996) found this scheme to
work well in a conrent analysis of published
communication research.

Box

.
a
a

3.6

The alternative paradigm

A critical view of society

and rejection of value neurality

Rejection of the transmission model

of communication
A non.deterministic view of media technology

and messages

erspective
litical_econom ic theories

nd sources of opposition in society

concepts and models

5t

The success of the alternative approach to media research, backed

by strong

reinforcements from cultural studies and humanistic research

(drawn by the magnerism of media power and centrality in cultural life), has
not caused its old opponenr ro
expire' It too has its sources of renewed vigour (for instance,
the impulse to apply
media to political and other forms of campaigning
and the growing ..ono-ic and
industrial significance of media technology). There is also
evidence of some overlapping and rapprochement (Curran, 1990; Schroder, 1999).ln
particular, ideological
(as opposed to intellectual) differences
are no longer so salient.
The differences of approach befween dominant a.rd
alternative paradigms are deeprooted, and their existence underlines the difficulty
of having any unified ,science of
communication'' The differences stem also from the very
nature of (mass) communication, which has to deal in ideologS values and ideas and cannor
escape from being
interpreted within ideological frameworks. 'while
the reader of this book is not obliged
to make a choice between the two paradigms, knowing about
them will help to make
sense of the diversity of theories and of disagreement,
,bout the supposed ,facts,
concerning mass media.

FOUR MODELS OF COMMUNICATION

The original definition of mass communicarion as

a process (see pages 40-1) depended
on objective features of mass production, reproduction
and distribution which were
shared by several different media. It was very much
a technologically and organizationally based definition, subordinating human considerations.
Its validity has long
been called into question' especially as a result
of the conflicting views yust discussed
and, more recently' by the fact that the original mass
production t..hnology and the
factory-like forms of organization have thernselves been
undermined by social and
technological change. we have to consider alternative,
though rro, ,r...rrarily inconsistent, models (representations) of the process of public
communication. At least four
such models can be distinguished, aside from the
question of how the ,new media,
should be conceprualized.

A transmission model

At the core of the dominant paradigm can be found (see page

46) aparticular view of
communication as a process of transmission of a fixed
quantiry of information the

messdge as determined by the sender or source.

Simple definitions of mass communica-

tion often follow Lasswell's (1948) observation that the

study of mass communication
is an attempt to answer the question, 'Who says
what to whom, through what channel

52

theories

and with what effect?" This represents

the linear sequence already mentioned
which
largely built into standard dehnitions of
the narure of predominant

rs

forms of mass
orizing about mass communication (see,
for
ar attempt to extend and to improve on
the most complete early version of a
model
efining features noted above and consistenr

with the dominant paradigm, was offered by

weslley una u".r_ ean (1957).
Their achievement was to recogni ze that mass
communication involves the interpolation of a new 'communicator role' (such
as that of the professional journalisr
in a
formal media organization) between 'society'
and ,audience,. The sequence is thus
not
simply: (1) sender, (2) message, (3) .hrnn.l, (4)
porential receiversl but rather:
-";;
(1) events and'voices'in society, (2)
channer/communicator rore, (3) messages,
(4)
receiver' This revised version takes account
of the fact that mass communicators do
ation. Rather they relay to a potenrial
ection of the events occurring in the
and voices of some of those (such as
ers and writers) who want to reach
a wider
teatures of the complete model as drawn
by Westley
and
on rhe selecting role of mass communicators;
seco
::O,li::,
ron
is undertaken according to an assessment
of what the
audi
g; thirdly, rhat communi.r"tion is not purposive,
beyond
this
emselves typically do not aim to persuade
or educare or

even

According to this model, mass communication

is a self-regulating process that is
guided by the interests and demands
of an audience rhat is known only by its
selectjons
and responses to what is offered. Such
a process can no longer be viewed as
linear,
since it is strongly shaped by 'feedback'
from the audience both ro the rnedia and
to
the advocates and original communicators.
This view of the mass media sees them
as
relatively open and neutral service organizations
in a secular society, contributing tcr
the work of other social institutions.
It remains essentia.lly a transmission model (frorr
senders to receivers), although much
less mechanistic than earlier versions.
lt also
substitutes the satisfaction of the audience
as a measur-e of efficient performance
for
that of information transfer. It is not accidental
that this model was based on the
American system of free-market media.
It would not very accurately fit a state-run
adcasting institution. It is also innocent
ot
ssarily reflect the interests of audiences
or
poseful propaganda.

A ritual or

expressive model

The transmission model remains a useful

representation of rhe rationare and general
operation of some media in some of their functions
(especialiy general n.*, ..Jia

and

concepts and models

53

advertising). It is, however, incomplete and misleading as a representation

of many
other media activities and of the diversity of communication processes
that are at
work' One reason for its weakness is the limitation of communication to
the matter of
'transmission'. This version of communicarion,
according to
Carey (1975),
James

is the commonest in our culture and is defined by such

terms as sending, transmitting or
giving information to others' It is formed off a metaphor
of geography or ,r"nrporr",ion. . . .
The centre of this idea of communication is the transmirsio.r
of signals or messages over
rime for the purpose of conrrol.

It

implies instrumentality, cause-and-effect relations and one-directional

flow. Carey
pointed to the alternative view of communication as 'ritual',
according to which
communication is linked to such terms as sharing, participation,
association, fellowship
and the possession of a common faith. . . . A ritual view is
not directed towards the
extension of messages in space, but the maintenance of
society in time; not the act of
imparting information but the represenration of shared beliefs.

This alternative can equally be called an 'expressive' model

of communication, since
its emphasis is also on the intrinsic satisfaction of the sender (or
receiver) rather than
on some instrumental purpose. Ritual or expressive communication
depends on shared
understandings and emotions. It is celebratory, consummatory
(an end in itself) and
decorative rather than utilitarian in aim and it often
requires some element of
'performance'for communication to be realized. Communication
is engaged in for the
pleasures of reception as much as for any useful purpose.
rhe message of ritual
communication is usually latent and ambiguous, depending
on
and
"rroJ"tions
symbols that are not chosen by the participants but made
available in the culture.
Medium and message are usually hard to separate. Ritual communication
is also
relatively timeless and unchanging.
Although, in natural conditions, ritual communication is not
instrumental, it can be
said to have consequences for society (such as more integration)
or for social
relationships. In some planned communication campaigns
- fo, instance, in politics or
advertising - the principles of ritual communication are
sometimes taken over and
exploited (use of potent symbols, latent appeals to cultural values,
togetherness,
myths' tradition, etc.). Ritual plays a part in unifying and in mobilizing'r.ni-.nt
action' Examples of the model can be found in the spheres of art,
"rrd
refilion and public
ceremonials and festivals.

communication as display and attention: a'pubricity mode|

Besides the transmission and ritual models, there is

a third perspective that captures
another important aspect of mass communication. This can
be summarily

labelled

s4

theories

f qass media is neither to transmit

particu_
me expression of culure, belief or values,

aural aftention. In doing so, the media

attain one direct economic goal, which is
to gain audience revenue (since artention :
consumption, for most practical purposes),
and an indirect one, which is to sell (the
probability of) audience attention to advertisers.
As Elliott (1972:164) has pointed
out (implicitly adopting the transmission model
as the norm), ,mass communication
is
liable not to be communication at all', in
the sense of the ,ordered transfer of
meaning" It is more likely to be 'spectatorship',
and the media audience is more often
a set of spectators than participants or information
receivers. The fact of attention
often matters more than the quality of attention
(which can rarely be adequately

measured),
rilThile those

who use mass media for therr own purposes

do hope for some effect
(such as persuasion or selling) beyond
attention ani publicity, gaining the latter
remains the immediate goal and is often
treated as a measure of success or failure.
A
good deal of research into media effect
has been concerned with questions
of image
and awareness' The fact of being known
is often more important than the content
of
what is

known and is the only

necessa

supposed power of the media ro ser

politic
attention-gaining process. A good deal
o
devices for gaining and keeping arrention

by catching rhe eye, arousing emotion,

stimulating interest' This is one aspect
.m.di"
of whar has been described
logic, (see
page 296)' with the substance of
a message often subordinated"sto the devices
for
presentation (Altheide and Snow, 1979,199\.
The attention-seeking goal also corresponds
with one imporranr perception of the
media by their audiences, who use the
mass media for diversion and passing
time.
o escape everyday reality. The relationship
the display-attention model is not neces_
y neutral and does not in itself necessarily
imply a transfer or creation of meaning.
Going with the notion of communication
as a proce ss of display and attentio,
"are
'
several additional features that do
not apply ro rhe transmission or ritual
;;ir,

' -lT,Ttlgaining

is a zero-sum process. The time spent attending

to one media

il;;;;.'i,"ci,.

LL,
s,
u/
annfrtef
tL--^
:^
.'e 1 t
contrast'
there is
no quantifiable
limit to the amount of ,meaning, that can
be
r" the satisfactions that can be gained from participating
in ritual
communication processes.
communication in the display-attention mode
exists only in the present. There is
no past that matters, and the future matters
only as a continuation or amplification
of the present' Questions of cause and effect
relating to rhe receiver do not arise.

::Ti:::1:l

concepts and models

55

Attention-gaining is an end rn
itself and in the short rcrm
ualue neutral and
essenrially empty of meaning.
Form and technique take precedence
over message
conlent.

These rhree features can

be seen as undcrlylng, respectively,
the competitiueness,
actuality/transience and the
the
obiectiuity/detacbmert whichare
pronounced
features of
mass communication, especially
within commercial media institutions.

Encoding and decoding of

media discourse: a reception
model

There is yet another version

of the mass communication process,
which involves an
even more radical departure
from the transmission _o
discussed. This depends
very much on the
described above, but it."n
be understood"a"Orr"
as the
"lro
from the position of many
different receivers who do
not perceive or understand the
message 'as sent' or 'as
expressed'. This model i",
ir, origins in critical theorS
semiology and discourse analysis'
It is located more in th: domain
of the cultural than
the social sciences' It is strongly
linked to rhe rise of 'reception
analysis, (see Holub,
1984 Jensen and Rosen gren,"7'990).
It challenges the predominant methodologies
empirical social scientific a
of
Ldience research rJ;;e
humanistic studies of content
fail to take account of the 'power
rr,.^""aience, in giving meaning
h:U:ri"th
to
"i
The essence of the 'reception
approach' is to locate the
attribution and construction
of meaning (derived from medi"i
*trrr the receive.. v.ar" messages
are always open
and 'polysemic' (having multiple
meanings) anci are interpreted
according
the context
and the culture of receivers'
Among the forerunners of reception
anarysis was a
persuasrve varianr of criticar
theory formulated uy irrrr,
uail

itrao)
empha_
*|
;:f ;:'"'"ffi'il:,:'::t"::1"',i'o,g;;; -.0,, messase passes on the
a,
d,,r,.
::
"tll ; i';,.:':?1T; yli,, iff Til'::lll;"ll fm**[ il*
any meaningful 'message'is
constructecl from,ign, *ti.h
can
which

ch

n ge

have denotative and

connotative meanings, depending
on the choices i'"d. i, ,n
encoder.
Semiology emphasize' tht
pt'"*er of the encodea ,.*t
and sees the rocation of
meaning as firmly embedded
in it' u"lt accepted ,o-. .t.-ents
of this approach but
communicators choose to
and manipulate language
eferred reading', o, whrt
messases as senr

but can and do resist ideological

,ror.r].lTffir,r,f;'":ffi:.::
oppositional readings, according
to their own experience and
outrook.
56

theories

r-

In Hall's (1980) model of th.)rocess of encoding

and decoding, he porrrays

the

television programme (or any equivalent media

t.*t; a, a meaningful discourse. This is
encoded according the meaning structure
of the mass media production organization
and its main supports, but decoded according
to the differeni meaning structures
and

situated audiences. The path followed

le in principle. Communication originates
meworks of meaning are likely to conform
to dominant power stru*ures. specific. messages
are ,encod;r;il;', ,rr. form of
established content genres (such as 'news', 'pop
music', .sport reports,, ,soap operas,,
'police/detective series') which have a face-value
rn."ning and in-built guidelines for
interpretation by an audience. The media are approached
by their audiences in rerms
structures', which have their origin in the ideas
and experience of the
LlrTt"tttg

auolence.

\rhile the general implication is that

meaning as decoded does nor necessarily (or

often) correspond with meaning as encoded (despite
the mediation of conventional
genres and shared language systems),
the most significant point is that decoding
can
take a different course than intended. Recervers
can read between the lines and even
reverse the intended direction of the message.
It is clear that this model and the
associated theory embody several key principles:
the multiplicity of meanings of media
content; the existence of varied 'interpretative'
communities; and the primacy of the
receiver in determining meaning' while
e rrly effec research recognized
the fact of
selective perception, this was seen as a limitation
on, or a condition of, the transmission model, rather than part of a quite
different p.rrp..tiu..

Comparisons

The discussion of these different models shows

the inadequacy of any singie concepr or
definition of mass communication that relies too
heavily on what seem to be intrinsic
characteristics or biases of the technology
of multiple reprodrction and dissemination.
The human uses of technology are much
more diverr.
more determinant than was
"nd
once assumed' of the four modcls, summarized
in comparative rerms in Figure 3.1, the
transmission model is largely taken over from
older institutional contexts - education.
priate only to media activities which are
ist in purpose. The expression or ritual

tainment and the many sy

attention model reflects th
and wide reach) for purpo
that the seeming power of
since the audience in the end disposes.

conceprs and models

hich have to do with art, drama, enrer_

munication. The publicity or display _
ls of attracting audiences (high ratings
come. The reception model reminds us
ould, express or capture is partry iilusory,

57

,il

lr

1t
,

Orientation of
Sender

Receiver

Transmission
model

Transfer of
meaning

Cognitive
processtng

Expression or
ritual model

Pedormance

Consummation/
shared experience

Publicity
model

Competitive
display

Attention-giving
spectatorship

Reception
model

Preferential
encoding

Differential
decoding/
construction of
meaning

FIGURE

3'l

Four models of the mass communication process compared: each

model involves
differences of orientation on the part of sender and receiver

NEW THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDIA AND SOCIETY

The basic concepts and models for the study of mass communication
were developed
on the basis of the special features indicated (scale, simultaneit5 one-directionalitg
etc') and under conditions of transition to the highly organized and centralized
industrial society of the 2Oth century. Not everything has changed,
since such societies
are still the norm, despite trends towards internationalization and
more flexible social
organization' not to mention the much vaunted postmodernism of the
times. However,
we are now faced with new technological possibilities for communication
that are not
massive or one-directional and there is some shift away from
the earlier massification
and centralization of society. The potential of transition to an 'information
society, is
real enough (see Chapter 6). \7e need also take account of a decline
in force of the
social critical paradigm as outlined above.
These changes are already recognized in mass communication
theory, although the
shift is still cautious and much of the conceptual framework erected for mass
communication is still relevant. 'We still have mass politics, mass markets
and mass
consumption. The media have extended their scale on a global dimension.
The beliefs
vested in the power of publicity, public relations and propaganda
by other names are
still widely held by those with economic and political power.
The 'dominant paradigm' from earlier days of mass communication
is not so
difficult to apply in new conditions, with a similar confidence in the
manipulative
58

theories

capacity of the media and the malleability of the 'masses'. The key norion
of information transportation is still very much with us in the management of diverse
sysrems.
Some elements of the alternative paradigm (especially the methodological
principles)
are in accord with the changed social circumsrances and with a por,*od.,
n Zeitgeist,
since they are sensitive to context and to diversiry of use, response
and interaction.
As to the critical purpose, it is possible that the seeming currenr condition of
'normlessness' and loss of faith is temporary and superficial. the
old problems ro
which critical theory was addressed have not been solved, and there ,r. pi.nry
of new
causes to fill the gap left (temporarily) by the decline of the class
strugil.. Th. -"r,
media themselves are otganrzed in no prstmodern spirit, wharever
-"y L. said of their
content' Issues of gender defirition, cultural identity, inequality, racism, environmenral
damage, world hunger and social chaos are examples of problems of rising
salience
and concern in which the media are deeply implicated, just because of their
enhanced
role in the organization of narional and global society.

FURTHER READING

Dervin, B., Grossber8,L., O'Keefe, B.J. and'Wartella, E. (eds) (1989) Rethinkirtg

Cctmmunication,YoL 1: Paradigm Issues. Newbury park, CA: Sage.
Hardt, H. (1991) critical communication studies. London: Routledge.
Jensen, K'B. and Jankowski, N. (eds) (1991) A Handbook of
eualitatiue Methods for
Communication Researcb. London: Routledge.
McQuail, D. and'u7indahl, S. (1993) Communication Models
for the Stud1, of Mass Contmunication 2nd edn. London: Longman.
van Zoonen,E. ('1994) Feminist Media Stwdies. London: Sage.

concepts and models

59