Sabtu, 09 November 2013



·         Aim to present communication as a process.
·         It is like a map, representing features of a territory. But it cannot be comprehensive.
·         We need therefore to be selective, knowing why we are using it and what we hope to gain from it.

Transmission models - criticism

The Shannon and Weaver and Lasswell model are typical of so-called transmission models of communication. These two models also typically underlie many others in the American tradition of research, showing Source-Message/Channel-Receiver as the basic process of communication. In such models, communication is reduced to a question of transmitting information.

Although transmission models have been highly influential in the study of human communication, it can be argued that, although Shannon's and Weaver's work was very fertile in fields such as information theory and cybernetics, it may actually be misleading in the study of human communication.

Some criticisms which could be made of such models are:

The conduit metaphor

Their model presents us with what has been called the 'conduit metaphor' of communication (Reddy (1979) The source puts ideas into words and sends the words to the receiver, who therefore receives the ideas. The whole notion of 'sending' and 'receiving' may be misleading, since, after all, once I've 'sent' a message, I still have it. The underlying metaphor is of putting objects into a container and sending them through some sort of conduit to the receiver who receives the containers and takes the objects out. The important question which is overlooked is: How do the 'objects' get into the 'containers'? In other words, how do we succeed in putting meanings 'into' words and how does somebody else succeed in taking the meanings 'out of' words? Transmission models don't deal with meaning.

It's probably worth saying that that's not really a criticism of them, since they weren't intended to deal with meaning, but rather a criticism of their (mis)application to human-to-human communication. One might question how useful the application of information theory is. It may be helpful to academics in that it supplies them with an arcane vocabulary which gives them some kind of kudos. It also appears to offer a 'scientific' methodology, but it's worth bearing in mind Cherry's warning (speaking of the relationship between entropy and information):

...when such an important relationship ... has been exhibited, there are two ways in which it may become exploited; precisely and mathematically, taking due care about the validity of applying the methods; or vaguely and descriptively. Since this relationship has been pointed out, we have heard of 'entropies' of languages, of social systems, and economic systems and of its use in various method-starved studies. It is the kind of sweeping generality which people will clutch like a straw.

Cherry (1977)

1950s: Early models

Mass communication research was always traditionally concerned with political influence over the mass press, and then over the influences of films and radio. The 1950s was fertile for model-building, accompanying the rise in sociology and psychology.  It was in the USA that a science of communication was first discussed.

The earliest model was a simple sender-channel-message-receiver model.
Modifications added the concept of feedback, leading to a loop.
The next development was that receivers normally selectively perceive, interpret and retain messages.

Gerbner is important because he recognises the TRANSACTIONAL nature of much communication – ie the “intersubjectivity of communication”. The result is that communication is always a matter of negotiation and cannot be predicted in advance.

Communication to mass communication

Early on, a sub-set of models began to refer specifically to mass communication. Westley and Maclean were important in this. Their model emphasises the significance of audience demand rather than just the communicator’s purpose.

1960s and 1970s

The attention now moved away from the effects of the mass media on opinions, behaviour and attitudes, and began to focus on the longer-term and socialising effects of the mass media. The audience were less victims of the media, and more active in adopting or rejecting the guidelines offered by the mass media. This an emphasis on “an active audience”.

Nevertheless a healthy suspicion of the mass media has continued through the 1970s and 1980s, especially in terms of news selection and presentation.

A more recent development is an interest in the ‘information society’ when the ‘boundary separating mass communication from other communication processes is becoming much less clear”. There has also been an accelerating “internationalisation” of mass communication.

Basic models include:

Lasswell formula (1948)
·         Useful but too simple.
·         It assumes the communicator wishes to influence the receiver and therefore sees communication as a persuasive process.
·         It assumes that messages always have effects.
·         It exaggerates the effects of mass communication.
·         It omits feedback.
·         On the other hand, it was devised in an era of political propaganda
·         It remains a useful INTRODUCTORY model
·         Braddock (1958) modified it to include circumstances, purpose and effect
Shannon and Weaver (1949)
·         Highly influential and sometimes described as “the most important” model (Johnson and Klare)
·         Communication is presented as a linear, one-way process
·         Osgood and Schramm developed it into a more circular model
·         Shannon and Weaver make a distinction between source and transmitter, and receiver and destination – ie there are two functions at the transmitting end and two at the receiving end
·         Criticised for suggesting a definite start and finish to the communication process, which in fact is often endless
Gerbner (1956)
·         Special feature of this model is that is can be given different shapes depending on the situation it describes
·         There is a verbal as well as visual formula (like Lasswell):
1 someone
2 perceives an event
3 and reacts
4 in a situation
5 through some means
6 to make available materials
7 in some form
8 and context
9 conveying content
10 with some consequence
·         The flexible nature of the model makes it useful.
·         It also allows an emphasis on perception
·         It could explain, for example, the perceptual problems of a witness in court and, in the media, a model which helps us to explore the connection between reality and the stories given on the news
Westley & MacLean (1957)
·         Another influential model
·         The authors were keen to create a model which showed the complexities of mass communication - hence the emphasis on having to interpret a mass of Xs (events which are communicated in the media)
·         It oversimplifies the relationships between participants by not showing power relations between participants
·         It makes the media process seem more integrated than it may actually be
·         It doesn’t show the way different media may have different interests of the state (eg difference between a state broadcaster and private one)

Ritual models of communication

Early models were based on a transmissive or transportation approach (ie assuming that communication was one-way). James Carey in 1975 was the first to challenge this. He suggested an alternative view of communication as ritual in which communication is “linked to sharing, participation, association, fellowship … the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs”.

As a result there is more emphasis on signs and symbols. Medium and message are harder to separate. Communication is seen as timeless and unchanging. The Christmas tree represents the model – it symbolises ideas and values of friendship and celebration but has no instrumental purpose. The tree is both medium and message.

Communication as display and attention

As well as transmissive and ritual models, there is a third. This aims to catch and hold our attention. The main goal is economic = consumption. This makes sense in terms of a mass media audience who use the media for entertainment and escapism. The media here works like a magnet, attracting the audience temporarily and sometimes repulsing. The theory is associated with Altheide & Snow (1979) and McQuail (1987).


Fun things to do:

1          Apply Shannon and Weaver’s model to an analysis of these examples of communication:

A job interview
A new photograph
A pop song

How applicable are they?
How helpful is this kind of analysis?

2          Think of other examples which illustrate the RITUAL model. Explain the shared values they seem to represent.

3          What strengths and weaknesses can you see with the ‘attention’ model?

4(a)     Draw a picture of a model trainset

4(b)     Apply to become a supermodel. Earn lots of money and then send it to Mr Barton.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar