Mass Communication

People believe that everything that the media reports is the truth because they have seen it. People will tend to believe if they have seen it. Thus, the media shows what they have reported. Some of it were exaggerated. But, people will believe in it because they have seen it.

In the distant past, when an event was reported, there were actual facts to back it up. Now, I believe that people are conditioned to believe, not because of fact, but because a certain person, who becomes a familiar voice, or face, has reported it. That voice, or face, we assume would not lie. So it becomes news, that we believe is the truth.

Most of the people believe media reports because people are under the impression that Media as a whole is un-biased and bring out the truth in most of the events. In this context there is a old saying that 'with out fire there will not be any smoke'.

Without tv you wouldn't know whats happening outside.

Home entertainment.

Education.

Information.

I am not sure that it's accurate to say the news focuses on celebrities, but yes, it is true that celebrity news is often a segment of a newscast. However, this is nothing new. Even 100 years ago, newspapers and magazines often put famous people on page 1 (or on the cover). Historically, the public has been fascinated by the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and since most newspapers and magazines want to sell copies of their publications, providing some celebrity news is an easy way to attract attention. Most TV stations have picked up that custom as well, giving the public hard news (about politics, crime, and other current events), as well as providing one or two celebrity stories-- especially if those stories involve a scandal of some kind.

Sometimes, celebrities will be in the news for something positive, such as making a trip to a part of the world ravaged by a typhoon and donating time and money to help the people there. And while there are some traditional news broadcasters and media critics who get upset every time a celebrity is mentioned in a newscast, it is doubtful that reporters will be able to entirely ignore what celebrities are doing. The news networks try to separate their celebrity stories from the hard news, and the stories they use are carefully chosen (they avoid tabloid gossip, and stick to verifiable facts). But if a high-profile celebrity is being talked about, the news reports might decide to mention what that person has been doing.

Scientists like Hughes and Tesla were still experimenting around with the new invention, radio. In the late 1800's, they were transmitting, or attempting to, signals to other places to see if that place can hear their signal. So I would say radio in the late 1800's was not what we think of radio today, or even in the mid-1900's with radio shows, music, spots, etc.

what else would it be related to? math? literature? it works by monitoring different frequencies (aka channels) for electronic pulses which fly through the air which create little vibrations in the speakers which we hear as sound

There are many different classifications. Each one is meant to reach the target audience in a different way to sell more products.

Gatekeeping involves changing or altering communication. But there are many different kinds of gatekeepers-- some are harmless and unbiased, while others are more sinister. Let's do the sinister one first: censorship. Censors are the ultimate gatekeepers, since they prevent or ban certain material from being broadcast. There are many reasons for censorship-- often, it comes from a government which does not want opposing views to be shown. In some countries, criticism of the government (or of the country's official religion) is never permitted to be broadcast, and if a world leader speaks negatively about that country, the remarks may be censored. Other kinds of censorship may come from a cultural belief that certain topics are too controversial and should not be discussed. For example, in some cities that are religiously conservative, the stations may avoid mention of gay marriage or not report on a celebrity who is known to be gay. Sometimes, censorship is political-- a station may favor one political party, and not broadcast anything that makes that party look bad (while focusing on any stories that make the opposing party look as bad as possible).

But other kinds of gatekeeping are not as malevolent. "Time" can be a gatekeeper-- on the news, there is a certain amount of time for news, and a certain amount for commercials. A newscast on a network is generally 30 minutes long, but 18-20 minutes are for news stories and the rest are for the advertisements. Thus, even the most important news story cannot be too long, since there must be enough time for other stories and for the commercials. Editors can also serve as gatekeepers: if a story is not well-written and concise, an editor might change it-- not because of bias or censorship, but just to make the story easier to understand. Another kind of gatekeeping involves the station's format: if a radio or TV station broadcasts sports (like ESPN), for example, it won't broadcast stories about movie stars or politicians, unless somehow those stories are related to sports.

Radio had a very important effect-- it brought sports directly into people's homes. Before radio, you either waited for the newspaper to come out, with a report of the game; or you had to go to the game itself (which excluded poor people who could not afford tickets; and in some cities, it excluded black people who were not allowed in a segregated venue). Radio was somewhat of an equalizer-- now anyone could hear the game, in real-time, as it was happening. It no longer mattered what your race or social status was.

Because more people could hear the games, sports also became more popular as a topic of conversation. Talk shows were not technologically possible yet, but a larger number of people now had access to sports, and it enhanced the experience of being a fan; people gathered to listen to a game together, and then they talked about the results. Also, radio allowed fans to hear the voices of their heroes for the first time. A number of big sports stars, including Babe Ruth, were interviewed and the public really enjoyed it, even if just like today, the athletes did not have a lot to say that was new or interesting. Just hearing their voices made the fans feel closer to their favorites (this would, years later, be further enhanced by television, which would enable fans to both see and hear the star athletes).

This is an example of the exposure effect.

While mass media can certainly be influential, they are not the only influence in a person's life. This is especially true with children. Kids are influenced by parents, peers, religion, education, even by location-- a child who is raised in a big city will often have different influences than a child raised in a rural area. Since children are very impressionable, it is not wise for adults to just sit a kid down in front of a TV and use it as a baby-sitter. The effect of TV (or any other mass medium) can be mitigated by intervention and explanation from parents, as well as by input from teachers, friends, clergy, etc. Thus, it is very important for caring adults to be a presence in the lives of children, since kids need to understand that what they are watching does not reflect real life, and should just be seen as entertainment.

The answer is they influence each other. For example, a news station decides to report on a certain story. The public then finds out about it, and in some cases, people want to know more. There is a theory in Mass Communication called "Agenda Setting," which says that the media do not tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about. In other words, if a story receives no coverage and no attention, few of us would think about it. But if we see a story about it on TV, hear about it on radio, or read about it in print, that brings it to our attention and we can form an opinion or decide if the story is important to us. Historically, there are many stories that have led to a public outcry, or led to donations and support for a certain cause, or led to anger at a particular government policy, or even helped to get certain politicians elected.

And that brings me to the other part of your question. The public can definitely influence the media by responding to a story, or by demanding that more coverage of a story be provided, or by offering story ideas. And it's not just in news that the public has an effect: all the media are surveyed regularly to see how popular they are, and media outlets all want to get good ratings (since media in the US are commercial, good ratings means the stations and the print publications can charge sponsors more money to advertise). The media thus have an incentive to serve the needs and interests of their audience. If the audience lets a certain station know they want more of X and less of Y, that will often influence what kinds of programs are broadcast or what kinds of stories are covered.

It is difficult to answer this question, because it sets up a false choice: it is an oversimplification to say that one is more reliable than the other. Each source has some excellent and reliable reporters, and each has some commentators who given unsupported and unproved opinions. Further complicating matters, "mainstream" can mean a number of things. Some people regard it as a synonym for moderate and mass-appeal (aimed at a mass audience, rather than one narrow niche). "Mainstream" is generally associated it with major national TV networks (like ABC, NBC or CBS, and on radio, NPR), or with major national cable companies like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. There are some myths that the "mainstream media" are all liberal (except for Fox), but in reality, the mainstream media are corporate, and can be influenced by sponsors or by whoever has political power. Some mainstream networks can lean liberal, as MSNBC does, or they can lean conservative, as Fox does; many, especially the broadcast networks like ABC/NBC/CBS, try to be centrist, and so does CNN on cable. But no network or channel or publication is entirely free of bias, whether that bias comes from its corporate owner or from sponsors or from influential politicians.

Independent voices also have their share of factors that influence what they report. Many independent outlets can be found on certain blogs or in magazines that are not owned by giant corporations, and there are a small number of independently-owned radio or TV stations. But although they may not have sponsors (some are on educational networks, or they are non-commercial) and they may be owned by local people rather than corporate owners, it is untrue that they have no biases. Independent programs and publications can absolutely be biased, whether towards a particular cause (like prison reform, or environmentalism, or curbing government spending) or towards a particular religious belief (there are Catholic channels, Evangelical Protestant channels, etc), or towards a particular political viewpoint. There are independently run programs on radio or internet TV that favor one political viewpoint, whether Tea Party, Libertarian, ultra-left, ultra-right, etc. Thus, independent broadcasters and publishers can advocate for their viewpoint just as much as some commentators in the mainstream media do. And while most mainstream news reporters are accustomed to striving for balance, some independent reporters see themselves more as advocates than as reporters.

In the end, you may find that neither the mainstream media nor the independent media are 100% reliable when it comes to news. Certain individual programs or hosts or reporters may be more credible than others, and you may find you trust those people, while perhaps not being entirely happy with other voices on that network or in that magazine. It is always a good idea to be skeptical of what you hear, see, and read; while you may trust the reporters you believe always report fairly and accurately, it never hurts to fact-check the way the news is reported, and compare various news sources to make sure you get both sides of the story.

This is a wonderful question, because we saw this process take place when the internet came along. At first, in the 1970s and early 1980s, the internet was more like an early version of the telephone. There were few people who had the needed equipment to connect with it, and you had to dial up to get a connection. Early users were generally in the military (it was originally known as ARPA-NET) or they were computer engineers on college campuses; most of the users were familiar with each other. But by the 1990s, all of that had changed. Connections improved, equipment became affordable, and suddenly there was a mass audience (often large numbers of people, none of whom knew each other). The internet was no longer a small activity for people in the army or computer engineers. Now, it had an international reach: it has gone from being an interpersonal medium to a mass medium, capable of reaching large numbers at the same time.

In general, a mass medium (such as radio, TV, movies, recorded music, newspaper, magazines, books, the internet) not only can reach large numbers, but the people in the audience (those who use it) are often anonymous. I write books, and bookstores carry them, as do online booksellers; but I have no idea the names of the people who bought my books; I've never met most of them. I know they exist, but they are anonymous to me. Further, a mass medium has delayed feedback. Information is sent out over the radio, for example-- the host makes some kind of controversial statement. You are furious and can't believe it. You call the station to complain. But there is a delay from when the host said it to when you call in, and even if you get through, you may have to wait on hold. I might love an article I read online, and send an e-mail to the author; but he or she won't receive it immediately.

Thus, when a technology is new, it tends to have only a small number of users, and its possibilities are only known to that handful of people. As it becomes part of the media landscape, and is no longer so new, it takes its place among the other media (the plural of mass medium is mass media). Now, it has users in diverse places, who are receiving the messages it sends and participating in what media theorist Marshall McLuhan called the "global village." Members of the audience of readers, listeners, viewers, etc. are now linked to people all over the world by both the old media (like books, which have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years) and the new media (like the internet, which has only really been popular with the mass audience since the mid-to-late 1990s).

The best reason for studying the theories of the great mass communication scholars is that it will give you new perspectives in how to analyze and evaluate mass media messages. While learning how to be a journalist or a practitioner of public relations (to name two examples of careers that are involved with mass communication) requires hands-on experience, it also requires an understanding of how mass communication developed and how messages are created, shaped and disseminated. Theorists like Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, Walter Ong, Sherry Turkle and others have varying and often-fascinating opinions on the power and influence of mass media, and I am sure you will find their research worth learning about.

While it is not true to say that "video killed the radio star," it is certainly true that video made certain people stars who were not stars before... and who may not deserve to be stars. For example, some people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian have become media stars mainly for being high-profile celebrities, rather than for any great achievements in life. The mass media have always done this: when someone is in the news, people will talk about that person's actions and want to know more about him or her. Years ago, this used to mainly apply to political leaders, military generals, and the occasional stage actor or actress. But with the rise of the modern media, especially television, a more intense (and often temporary) focus could be placed on certain people, some of whom were in the news for breaking the law or for being outrageous in some way. On TV, new celebrities and new media stars are always being created: popular athletes (like certain successful football or basketball players) have gotten some of this attention, but so have the stars of various TV talent contests and so-called "reality" shows.

This isn't really new-- in the 1950s, baby boomer kids ran home after school to watch "American Bandstand," which turned some ordinary kids from Philadelphia into media sensations as they danced to the hits and rated the new music. Viewers had crushes on the Bandstand kids and wished they too could be on TV. Years later, there were the "reality TV" shows, and suddenly, people were following the exploits of Snookie and her friends on "Jersey Shore" or identifying with various of the participants in "Survivor" or discussing what the guys in "Duck Dynasty" were saying. The more popular a program is, the more viewers and fans follow it and even obsess over it. And giving them a chance to vote-- as programs like "Dancing with the Stars" or "American Idol" do, provides fans an opportunity to feel invested in the people on those programs. As new celebrities are created, there are also new opportunities for marketing of these newly famous folks, via celebrity magazines (People, Us Weekly), tabloid gossip sites (TMZ for example), and social media polls ("tweet with us about which contestant deserves to be eliminated tonight!"); more importantly, products can be sold that the celebrities are said to like, or that celebrities have officially endorsed-- fashions they are wearing, or in the case of shows like "Duck Dynasty," entire lines of show-themed merchandise (hats, shirts, even hunting gear).

We are living in a culture of instant celebrity and instant popularity, where a combination of appearing on certain hot TV shows and being marketed by magazines and social media creates a new kind of fame-- Andy Warhol said that in the future everyone wouuld be famous for 15 minutes, and to some degree, that is what we have, as "stars" come and go. But again, this is not new. What has changed is there are more outlets (especially on social media and on various celebrity-focused websites) to amplify the person's popularity, and celebrities are now "products"-- marketed to the public along with items that are identified with the celebrity and can be purchased by his or her fans.

There are two basic kinds of newscasts: national news and local news. Local news refers to stories that occurred in one city or one area only. For example, channel 4 in Boston does a local newscast that covers the important stories from greater Boston, as well as Boston sports and Boston weather. National news, on the other hand, refers to a newscast that covers the biggest stories from all over the country and even the world. NBC Nightly News, for example, covers important stories from the entire nation (stories about the president & congress, stories about big events in other cities, weather trends that will affect the whole country, etc); it also covers some international news stories the audience might find important to know.

Most theorists say the mass media have the following functions: to inform, to educate, to entertain, and to transmit the culture from one generation to another. There are also sub-groups within those categories. For example, some critics say the media set the agenda-- they tell us what issues and pieces of information are important, and what we ought to be thinking about. Other critics say the mass media promote the views of the dominant ideology (the people in power), whether through messages in favor of capitalism, consumerism, the majority religion, or whatever.

If you are asking about today, radio is far less influential now than it was when it debuted in 1920. Back then, in the early 1920s, radio was the first mass medium to take the audience to an event live, in real time, and let the public hear the voices of news-makers: athletes, celebrities, politicians, clergy, etc. This had never happened before-- prior to radio, if you wanted to hear a famous person speak, you had to go to one of their events (assuming you could afford it, and assuming the event wasn't segregated). But thanks to radio, the events came to you, and this made more news, sports, and entertainment available to a wider audience.

Today, there are many ways to enjoy entertainment or keep up with sports and politics. There is television (which lets us see the event, as well as hear it) and the internet (which gives us access to people and events all over the world). But radio is not dead. Radio still influences Americans because it is the home of talk shows, which are still very popular among older Americans (the typical talk show listener is over 50, white, and conservative; 95% of talk shows are hosted by Republican and conservative hosts as a result); radio is also the home of a number of all-news stations and also the home of National Public Radio: most news stations tend to be neutral (non-partisan) and provide in-depth coverage to local and world events, helping the public to know what is going on throughout the day. Radio is also still the home of the top-40 format, where large numbers of kids, teens, and young adults still can hear their favorite songs and then download them to their devices; radio continues to influence musical preferences, playing the hits and playing new music to specific audiences that like country, or rock, or dance, or other kinds of music. And radio is also popular with ethnic and foreign language audiences, as well as with people who like to listen to sports while they are driving. In fact, car-radio listening is still extremely popular. So, radio can influence a person in many ways, affecting their political views, musical views, views about the news, and views about sports.

Particularly for conservative politicians and conservative media, it's very much the other way around.

Stories are more likely to become in accurate or less thorough APEX

Radio and Television

First, it is difficult to say which mass medium is "better"-- both serve entirely different purposes. Radio is a more intimate medium, since it talks to you directly. Radio is more portable (you can listen while driving, for example) and can be taken anywhere. On the other hand, television is a more interesting medium for many people because it is visual and you can see (in addition to hear) what is happening. But critics of TV say television makes you focus too much on the physical appearance of the speakers, rather than on the points they are trying to make; and critics of radio say it makes you focus too much on whether the person has a pleasing speaking voice, rather than on what the person's message is.

So, depending on what you prefer, you may find radio's portability to be a benefit, and you may find radio is better for some purposes-- such as getting the news and weather, or hearing your favorite hit songs, or listening to a call-in talk show. But TV has many fans and millions of viewers; they believe it is better than radio for watching a news event unfolding, watching an entertaining drama or comedy, or watching a program that lets you see what is happening in distant countries or exotic locations. Thus, there are good points and bad points about both of these mass media, and each is important in its own way.

The Apollo 13 mission launched on April 11, 1970. Back then, there was no internet, no cable TV, no social media (no Twitter or Facebook, for example), and the public still relied on newspapers or magazines as well as radio in addition to the big TV networks like ABC, NBC and CBS; PBS was getting started as well. There was thus no expectation of instantaneous access to information. People waited for the networks to break in with bulletins, or they waited for an extra edition of the newspaper (newspapers published print editions a few times a day).

Today, the news would be transmitted instantly-- and not just via ABC, NBC and CBS, but also via cable networks like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera America as well as satellite radio networks. People on social media would be Tweeting the latest information, Facebook and other social media sites would be commenting as the news unfolded, and every major newspaper, radio station and TV station would have up-to-the-minute updates on their websites. Networks would undoubtedly go with wall-to-wall coverage, especially as news spread that the crew might be in trouble and in danger of not landing safely. Experts would be called in to comment, and after the astronauts did in fact land safely, the public would continue to weigh in, on talk shows or online, in addition to receiving the latest information via the web, smartphones, iPads and Notebooks. There would also be print coverage in newspapers and magazines, so that the public could reflect upon what had happened and read opinions from experts.

As for reporting, today it is much easier for reporters to fly to distant locations and get the story, plus videotape is easier to edit than the film used many years ago. People could get photos on their smartphones or upload photos to radio or TV station websites, and both audio and video would be transmitted from the location of the events in a much more up-to-the-minute way. Of course, there would be limitations to what information was known at the time, but the reporters would certainly be better able to use modern technology to get the story out more quickly than they would have in 1970.

internet