Mass communication

As mass communication is called in communication science a type of communication or a communication form that is a matter of public communication, " in the statements publicly (without limited and personnel defined readership ), by technical means of dissemination (media), indirectly ( ie in space or in time or spatio-temporal distance of the communication partner) and unilaterally ( ie, without role change between giving evidence and receptive ) to a dispersed audience [ ... ] be given. " ( Maletzke 1963 with Hickethier 1988).

The U.S. political and communication scientists Harold Dwight Lasswell formulated in 1948 the Lasswell formula, which describes the basic model of mass communication. This model allows the learning and research field of communication science span. It reads: Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect? ( Who says what in whichChannel to splat with what effect? )

Conceptual history

Mass communication takes place, for example, in the mass media; the term is particularly distinguished from the individual communication (eg conversation ).

As before, the exact boundaries of the subject and thus the object of the discipline are not clarified completely uncontroversial in communication science. This always depends together the question of what is recorded with a definition of mass communication at all.

ARD and ZDF bring approximately every five years since 1964 out the so-called mass communication study.

Today marked by Gerhard Maletzke terms " dispersed audience " and " indirect and one-sided" questioned in communication science. Media depend increasingly on specific target groups and by new forms of direct public participation grasp the concepts of " indirect and one-sided" no longer unique.

Theories of mass communication

There are no comprehensive total for mass communication theory, but different approaches:

• One side - linear approach: In the early days of communication science research looked at mass communication as a one-sided linear placement of the statement from the communicator to the recipient, the " receptive ". Thus, communication is here in a " one-way street ", similar to a transmission belt ( "transmission belt theory" ).
• Variables approach: As the science realized that the one-sided linear approach too simplistic, "invented" to the variable approach. Suddenly you no longer took the recipient as a variable in the communication system was, but as a bundle of a plurality of factors, and began to fan the other basic factors of mass communication in more and more variables. Meanwhile, the communication researchers have such a large number of variables worked out that an overall view is hardly possible. Nevertheless, the variable approach is now the dominant pattern in the communication science.
• Theories of the relationship between personal communication and mass communication: Here one is occupied with the question of how influential personal communication ( eg with the neighbors) compared to the mass communication (eg BILD ) is. In addition, we investigated the role of opinion leaders ( a mixed used term ) as well as the dissemination of new ideas and practices.
• Benefit approach ( uses and gratifications approach = ): Here come together three components, namely the doctrine of benefit through the satisfaction of needs, the thesis of the active recipient and the theory of symbolic interaction. The idea: the recipient seeks the satisfaction of needs in the experience of media statements. This satisfaction is a benefit ( gratification ) for him. What consumes the recipient of media products, thus depends on the benefits he promises himself - hence the term " benefit " approach. By the user uses some media or individual item strong and not others, he gives a feedback. Therefore, it allows the utility approach, to speak of an interaction between users and the media. For a while they realized the benefits approach as a true revolution. Today one thinks that he is above all an addition to the effect approach.
• System approach: The system approach, there are no " people " but rather only systems that interact with each other. So you no longer speaks from journalists, but only on the "System journalism".
• Constructivism is based on the realization that man shapes his worldview itself from his experiences. Radical constructivism denies that a man should ever be able to recognize the " true reality ". Media can offer this theory at best reality designs. The question of " objective reporting " would therefore be pointless from the outset.
• Critical Theories: Almost all grab these theories to the teaching of the Frankfurt School ( Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno) back. Many are inspired by Habermas ' theory of communicative action. The research highlights here on ownership and production conditions, one wonders: Who belongs to which publishing house? Who controls the reporter? How influenced media social consciousness? And finally: What connections are there between media companies and other institutions, such as political parties? " Critical " scientists often criticize that the conventional scientific community is not dealt with socially relevant issues, as they have come to terms with the rulers and put yourself in their service.

A subgroup is the " dialectical- critical " or " critical materialist direction relating their thinking and vocabulary from the Marxist- materialist doctrine.

• Theory of cognitive dissonance: originally a purely psychological approach. Here we focus on the correction factors in the recipient that mitigate the effects of media. The idea was that the man may no contradiction between his own attitudes and what media say. This is for example the reason why citizens usually consume only statements of their favorite parties in the election campaign. This theory neglects human motives such as curiosity. After a short hype you feel this theory today than helpful, but not more than anything explanatory.