The Technology and Media

Kant’s “Theory of Enlightenment” and today’s society

We hear it said that the only difference between humans and animals is that humans have the ability to reason. (Kneller, 1998) Kant’s theory goes into the intricacies of this ability to reason and the development of rational thinking. Children have not developed their sense of rationality and all of their rules and ability to make good decisions are mainly with the assistance of someone who is rationally developed. He states that knowledge, along with moral value make one a mature adult. We’re introduced to maxims, rules in which one chooses to live by such as “always be on time”. The true test of morality is whether it agrees with the societal norm or whether this maxim would actually have a negative impact if done by a larger amount of people. Since people are largely emotional beings, it is more common than not to be self centered and narrow minded. Some people find it very difficult to ‘put themselves in someone else’s shoes’ or even to take the time to listen and comfort another. Society is currently struggling to look from every point of view instead of just the view of one person. It seems as though the media has almost desensitized us from actual feeling. We watch shows about violence and real problems to the point where when we encounter them in real life, we can merely shrug it off. Media brings out the selfishness in people by advertising a constant on slot of new products. We see this and we want in excess. Most people no longer live by need, they live by desire. People that don’t live in excess are looked down on. In this day and age, companies thrive off the individuals who always have to have that next best thing. Reintroducing Kant’s theory seems like a good idea, but maybe not so much a realistic idea. It would be amazing to imagine a world in which seven billion socially conscious individuals stepped up and did their part. When you look at different cultures, the problem is that each has a different understanding and set of rules for what is right and what is wrong. Not only would people have to set aside their customs and outlooks, they would have to sort out their differences with an open mind and understanding. Kant believed that reason would replace any response that would automatically come to mind with the need to look deeper into the situation and gather information and a true consideration of others points of view.  "There is only one innate right," says Kant, "Freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law" (Murphy, 1970) (6:237). As a moral adult with all the characteristics to determine right from wrong, we have the freedom of speech and the freedom to make our own choices with accordance to the law. Kant states that a truly moral person “cannot passively accept the customs and values of any society, the rules and decrees of any established authority, or even the deeply felt impulses of his or her own non-rational intuitions or spontaneous reactions.”

Ellul’s view on technique

With regards to Jacques Ellul and his theories on technique, it is clear that society is headed in the wrong direction. To simplify, technique is a universal category which embraces the self-consciously developed means found in various domains of life like, art, politics, law, economics etc. Fundamental to these means is the search for efficiency, which is the defining characteristic. Inherently, the developed means is reduced to one, the most efficient. Diversity is reduced and individuality is destroyed in the process, which creates a standardized culture. The instance between technological discovery of an idea or thing, and its public application has continually minimized. As a result technologies are being applied to everyday life before the consequences or impacts are fully understood. Technology is progressively expanding and beginning to take dominance over our moral being. Rather than focusing on qualitative outcomes, society focuses on the quantitative results. The pace of life is increasingly becoming rushed due to constant innovation, and immediate application of technological discoveries.

Media serves this efficiency by promoting standardized culture and a lifestyle of “out with old and in with the new”. The media fixes societies interpretation of reality, and promotes productivity and technological evolution. Media is constantly narrowing the pathway of communication and altering it to deliver messages in the most efficient manner.

There is no rush! Ellul is correct in witnessing the detriment this focus on efficiency causes. The rule of life has become “no sooner said than done” and this decreases individual’s ability to reflect, adapt, or take stock.  In succession, we have eliminated the relevance of the natural environment; we now see the social environment and technological environment as more important than life itself. If society continues down this path, the social environment will decrease as well. We cannot continue to blindly accept the “new”, we must consider and evaluate all outcomes and influences before it is too late. (Ellul, 1964)

Social construction of technology

The theory of SCOT was developed by Wiebe Bijker and Trevor Pinch. It is essentially a reaction to the traditional approach of technological determinism. Unlike technological determinism, which states that technology shapes society; the Social Construction of Technology argues instead that human action influences and shapes technology. SCOT is a way of understanding the social shaping of technology as well, in turn, the technological shaping of society (Forlano, 2011). Therefore, as Bijker states, “The technical is socially constructed and the social is technically constructed” (McLoughlin, 1999).  The theory’s framework consists of four related components: interpretive flexibility, relevant social groups, closure and stabilization, and wider context <sociocultural and political> (Klein & Kleinman, 2002). One of the key components is interpretive flexibility.  It refers to the different ways that social groups view the purpose, or goals of a technology, resulting in different artifacts(Moon, 1997) .This is in contrast to technological determinism, which sees technology as “autonomous”.  Furthermore, to show how the development of technology is societal, Bijker & Pinch gave an example on the development of the bicycle. They illustrate the ways relevant social groups shaped the design of the bicycle (Forlano, 2011). They, show how different social groups contributed to the development of the bicycle in relation to their various technical, legal, and cultural approaches (Forlano, 2011).  As Forlano states, “This viewpoint is in stark contrast to the perspective of technological determinism, which stresses the inherent properties of technologies and their impacts on society” (Forlano, 2011).  Thus, in contrast to technical determinism, which views the shaping of society as linear, the SCOT theory recognizes that the development of society is not “technologically autonomous”.

Lessig

"If there is any place where nature has no rule, it is in cyberspace. If there is any place that is constructed, cyberspace is it." (Lessig, 1999, p.24.) Lessig explains that the internet is a space of which we have control over, contrary to what most believe. He tries to increase this awareness as he is convinced that the cyberspace is wrong on two levels. Firstly, it leads us to believe that it self-sufficient and therefore makes us lazy and secondly, it increases our tendency of playing the blame game by not assuming our personal responsibility. We are the ones generating the content and our values and beliefs are directly reflected in this space. We must therefore assure that the information is always correct by being proactive and by reacting if we disagree with some that is posted. For example, if an unethical cult that we believe is discriminatory and destructive decides to form a website in order to recruit people, we should react and not let it happen by bringing it to court.  

Lessig justifies his standpoint by explaining that behaviour in the cyberspace, just as in concrete reality, is regulated by four different “regulators”:

1.    The law: we must obey to the Canadian Chart of Rights and Freedom.

2.     Social norms: what is considered unacceptable and acceptable in a community.

3.    The market: the costs and revenues associated with certain activities.

4.    Architecture: how the environment and structure is built, which, in cyberspace, would be represented by “code”, such as html, for example.

He explains that regulator number four, architecture, is the most effective way to control behaviour since it achieves the best results at a very low cost, or in some cases, at no cost at all. It can also explain why the internet is so successful.

However, we do not have access to the code and Lessig argues that this is another way for the government to control individuals. The code is only known and used by the big corporations and it has absolute power over us. For example, Google is now monopolizing our lives as everyone uses it as their go-to search engine. However, as shown in this following video, the corporation is undoubtedly biased, giving preferences to some sites, such as, for example, their own.  

Ironic, considering that the slogan of the corporation is “Don’t be evil.”

Also, according to Google’s 2010 Zeitgeist, Google is not only Canadians’ favourite search engine, but they also use it as a navigational tool, typing words such as “Facebook”, “Youtube”, and believe it or not, “Google”. Even for websites with seemingly short and simple addresses, Canadians still choose to go through Google’s portal, making it an essential tool in their everyday lives. This also relates back to Lessig’s statement of people becoming too lazy because of the internet.

Thus, Lessig’s solution is to form an open-source code as transparency is the key to achieving a democratic society.  Individuals must be able to participate equally on the WWW and have as much power as the big corporations. However, there is a limit to his solution: not everybody has something to say that is worth sharing to the world.

The medium is the message

 Marshall McLuhan coined this phrase which essentially means that the different mediums in which we communicate have as much value than the message itself. The central theory behind “the medium is the message” is that the medium through which content is carried plays a vital role in the way it is perceived (Gross, 2011).  Furthermore, as McLuhan states” the effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without resistance (Eid & Dakroury, 2010). Ultimately, McLuhan argues that the effect of communication media affects our habits of perception and thinking (Gross, 2011). In relation to the medium having as much value than the message, McLuhan states that there are two types of media - hot & cold.  Cold media is low in definition, but high in participation (Library and Archives Canada, 2007). The television would be an example of cold media. Moreover, hot media is high in definition, but low in participation (Library and Archives Canada, 2007). The radio and film are examples of hot media. In addition, the internet can be seen as both cold and hot media.  The internet requires much participation, like cold media. In the context of a website, information is rarely passed to the user as a linear experience; instead, it is up to the user to decide how to consume the information and reach a conclusion (Gross, 2011). However, instead of being low in definition (T.V), the information can be immensely rich. Thus, by examining the phrase” the medium is the message”, it is easy to see that the medium itself holds much value.

Bibliography

Eid, M. E., & Dakroury, A. D. (2010). Communication and media studies. Boston, Massachusetts : Pearson Learning Solutions.

Ellul, J. (1954) The Technological Society, American Edition: 1964, New York: Vintage Books.

Forlano, L.(2011) Social Construction of Technology. International Collaborative Dictionary of Communications (accessed DATE). R.K. Nielsen et al (Eds.), URL:http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/icdc-content-folder/social-construction-of-technology/

Google, Zeitgeist 2010, consulted on November 26^th, 2011. http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2010/regions/ca.html

Gross, J. G. (2011, July 4). The medium is the message. Smashing Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/07/04/the-medium-is-the-message/

Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. K. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28-52.

Kneller, Jane and Sidney Axinn (eds.), 1998. Autonomy and Community: Readings in Contemporary Kantian Social Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.

Lessig, Lawrence. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.


Library and Archives Canada. (2007, March 06). Old messengers, new media: The legacy of innis and mcluhan. Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/innis-mcluhan/030003-2050-e.html

McLoughlin, I. M. (1999). Creative technological change: the shaping of technology and organisations. (1 ed., p. 188). New York, NY: Routledge.

Moon, S. M. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change, Science, Technology, & Human Values. , 22(1), 127-129.      

Murphy, Jeffrie, 1970. Kant: The Philosophy of Right. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Modernism and New Media

Historical Introduction

"The only constant is change"
This was a phrase used in ancient Greece by the poet Heraclitus and it still stands true to this day, as it will forever. The concept behind Modernity is not a free standing object, but rather something that can be defined by the past and the post modern future. Modernity can be distinct from the past as it is characterized by institutional structures and processes. As Thomas J. Misa writes, "the transition to modernity [...], is characterized by the emergence of the notion of an autonomous subject, the transition from an organic to a mechanic world picture and the embrace of humanistic values and objective scientific inquiry" (2004, p.36). That is to say, modernity can be defined by the individual, the free mind and humanism. As a result, capitalism goes hand in hand with modernity since it is the primary economic model in the Western industrialized world.

When looking at the transition into modernity, it is crucial to examine the past. For a start, we will dive into the development of mass society. Stratification and organizing society into classes became out of touch with the beliefs of the general population. A society with no social classes became a radical new idea. Two famous authors that were at the forefront of a classless society are Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels. This idea would change the basis on which society is built as the structural alteration was necessary to follow the ideological fluctuation of the population.

Now, the second half of the 18th century is characterized by a switch in communication. Previously, it was top-down communication, meaning the richest dictated to the lower classes what societal values were. However, at this point in time, communication becomes horizontal, meaning the people began to create their own mass culture, not based on the beliefs or influence of the rich (Misa, 2004). This turned society into a functional order of subsystems. Wealth was still inherited but people were no longer bounded by their ancestral past.

Finally, all of this leads us to a society where the media of dissemination is king. The media, as a system, is larger than life and owned and operated by the higher echelons of our society (Misa, 2004). It is almost as if the bourgeois have found a new way to control the population, except now they don’t have to publicly behead people to scare them into following their beliefs. They simply have to project the everyday horrors of our world on television. For example, according to Time magazine, crime is at an all-time low since the 60s. However, if you were to poll the greater population, they would believe crime is on the rise. One can conclude that the media plays a great role in this because they are constantly showing bad news, which then skews the public’s perception of the reality that their society is in fact very safe.

Modernism
Matei Calinescu introduces us to the theory of modernism through his book "The Five Faces of Modernism." There are two ways to look at modernism, those being structural and philosophic. Philosophers such as Kant claimed that the modern age was a fundamental break from the past. The Project of Enlightenment was a huge part of the philosophic view. Philosophers believed that modernism would make people more unified and would broaden their knowledge. It can, in this sense, be considered by some as the "age of reason." This theory steers more away from religion and science to a "more artistic representation and the struggle for a humane society" (Hauptli, 2006). Modernism is broken down into its five faces, these being "modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch, and　postmodernism" (Călinescu, 1987). He sees that key elements of the state of modernity include truth (generally taken from scientific fact), beauty (can be differentiated from garbage) and morality (the human code of right from wrong). This was certainly a project with definite aims and goals.

Meanwhile, if we look at the structural approach of modernism, it mainly focuses on each man for himself. Individuals are defined on several different levels, each of which they have no control over, but may be uncovered in time if it is sought after by investigation. These levels are sociological, psychological and linguistic structures. In any circumstance, structure is what shapes and moulds. These changes are both quantities and qualities. Societies form changes internally, thus we see a structural change in the population whether it be political, social or economical.

With that in mind, media plays one of the biggest factors in modernism. It has enhanced modernism significantly with the "ability to process more information to larger audiences at a faster rate" (Baudrillard, 1983). It started with newspapers and radio. In the last century, as opposed to word of mouth, the paper and radio really became the new form of media. With even newer forms of media outlets, internet and interconnectivity, come new demands for more. Not only did the media give news and stories, it also became the main source for entertainment.

Times modernize with the media; they basically go hand in hand. Media outlets have changed with the times and will continue doing so. In our ‘modern’ society we live in, we rely on the media to inform us what we should be driving, what clothes we should be wearing and what’s going on in the world. There will always be a demand for media as the times change. If we take a look at a group of people, for instance, the Amish, we see that people can in fact survive without the media and technology. The society they live in is one we would have seen centuries ago and the world has progressed so much since then.

Even politics are mainly media based and super ‘modern’. Every election, scandal and bit of propaganda is fed to us via the mass media. In some cases it is beneficial that the media has coverage in just about every country on the planet. We are made more aware of world hunger and disasters in foreign countries and we, in turn, give them aid. In other ways though, the media has crippled our society in a way that we rely mainly on it to provide us with everything we think we need. The question comes to mind whether civilization would have gotten this far without mass media and the answer is no. The media is a driving force in the people of our generation. We are hooked. If today, we lost all contact to the media, it would set the population back because we have come to rely on our technologies to broadcast the information we need.

We currently live in a ‘just can’t get enough’ society and whether that be healthy or not, we are basically programmed to be like that. The process of modernization changes over generations, each more needy than the last. We have to give into the inevitable, educate ourselves and move with the times because they are going to move whether we like it or not. The more modern we become, the more we have the "what were we thinking" mentality about older media and technology.

The Negative Side of New Media　
The term "Culture Industry" was originated by Frankfurt School members Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. 　The concept was featured in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" in his Dialectic of Enlightenment (Ball, 2005). The foundation of the Culture Industry shows the distinct relationship between the capitalist system and the cultural life. This is seen through the mass production of cultural goods for mass consumption. 　Furthermore, multinational corporations produce these goods solely for profit. Thus, as Adorno states, "Society has come to be organized around the production of exchange values for the sake of producing exchange values" (Zuidervaart, 2011). As a result of this "exchange society" (through the mass production and consumption), it creates a more integrated and unified society. 　Due to the integration, "Culture now impresses the same stamp on everything: films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole" (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947). This sameness has a negative impact. Through the consumption of the same cultural products there is a loss of individuality. People are not aware, thus resulting in "pseudo-individuality". What makes the identity illusory is not that it does not occur, but that the moment of particularity itself is illusory (Adorno & Bernstein, 2001). For example, if one gets a customized blackberry or I-Pad they think it expresses a sense of individuality. However, this is not the case. Through the mass production of the cultural products there is a loss of particularity because as Adorno and Horkheimer state "Culture now impresses the same stamp on everything" (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947).

Moreover, Adorno argues that the Culture Industry dominates society. The individual’s integration within the culture industry has the effect of restricting the development of a critical awareness of the social conditions that confront us all (Fagon, 2005). Since cultural products are being massively produced; there is a sense of docility. Citizens are distracted by the "low art" of these mass produced culture goods. Thus, citizens ignore the real state of their lives. However, I believe that Adorno overvalues the control that the "culture industry" has on society. For example, current protests today (Occupy, Greek debt crisis), show that citizens do not act passively. These examples show that people do not just ignore their real problems. Instead, they are aware of the various social problems that affect them and speak up. 　

The Positive Side Of New Media　
Hans Magnus Enzensberger had an extremely positive view of new media. His theory was called Emancipatory Media and he believed that newer technology has facilitated communication between people and has given them the opportunity to control their media like never before (Garnham, 2000). Of course his theory was created in the 1970s, and we suspect that today he has a lot of positive things to say about the internet. Because the internet gives us unconstrained free speech, Enzensberger would say that new media has democratized a form of communication that was previously unattainable.

Key concepts to his theory depict a very libertarian view of what media and communication are becoming. For instance, he believes that every receiver is a potential transmitter. With the internet that is especially possible because now we, as amateurs, can make our own content. He also believes in a decentralization of power which means that communication becomes more horizontal, rather than hierarchical (Garnham, 2000). This is significant because when looking at the internet, it has taken billions away from big businesses, and has, in a Robin Hood sense, given to the "poor", or the greater population. Another key aspect of his theory states that new media has the potential to mobilize the masses. Whether it means we create our own content or we organize to protest in greater numbers, to Enzensberger, both of these (and everything in between) is democracy being practiced. When looking at modern times, we can see that the Occupy Wall Street movement is an example of mobilization of the masses through social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter. Because of the internet, these people were able to rally and find each other in a way that was never possible (or this easy) in the past. And so, Enzensburger would strongly support the new technologies that lead to the democratization of media as they shape our society from the ground – up, and not the other way around.

Is there too much optimism?　
Perhaps new media is slowly creating a more realistic and democratic social and political system by portraying the "real" in societies - with the help of reality tv, and by offering citizens the possibility of giving feedback on current issues, i.e. with comment boxes on the internet. However, is this platform a separate reality than the one we know? Or even a "hyperreality", as Jean Baudrillard names it?

Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette have made studies on Reality TV, which they define as an "unabashedly commercial genre united less by aesthetic rules or certainties than by the fusion of popular entertainment with a self-conscious claim to the discourse of the real." (Murray and Ouellette, 2009, p.3) They claim that Reality TV does not actually imitate reality, but rather, that viewers are the ones tempted to recreate the reality that is portrayed on the screen. Of Reality TV, what results is "an unstable text that encourages viewers to test out their own notions of the real, the ordinary, and the intimate against the representation before them." (Murray and Ouellette, 2009, p.8) Consequently, this recreation of Reality TV, which is, at its core, a wrongful representation of reality, creates a phenomenon of creating another reality different from our everyday life. For example, Alison O’Riordan, an Irish freelance journalist, explains in her article that ever since MTV’s infamous reality show, My Super Sweet 16, has aired, "Sweet 16 birthday parties for Irish teenagers have taken on a whole new look, influenced, no doubt, by the　MTV　reality series, […] which has been on our screens daily for the last two years." Thus, Reality TV, with its global reach, has a massive influence on viewers’ everyday life, forming and changing ideologies and even rituals and values.

Jean Baudrillard, a French Sociologist and Philosopher, goes a step further in the study, to see what cultural impact Reality TV has on society. He says that the influence that this kind of entertainment has on us consumers is so strong that it is actually changing reality itself. Media stimulates the real, rather than just representing it. Baudrillard explains that "nothing resembles itself, and holographic reproduction, like all fantasies of the exact synthesis or resurrection of the real […], is already no longer real, is already hyperreal." (Baudrillard, p.47) According to him, an exact reproduction of an element cannot exist. The imitated form of the element, the "simulacrum" is what he would call the "hyperreal".

This cartoon by Chris Madden represents the numerous dimensions that Reality TV can have.

Thus, as consumers, we must be skeptical as to what we watch and what we choose to believe as being real or not. Bill Guttentag, a documentary filmmaker, reminds us that Reality TV is not actually what it claims to be since editors intentionally deforms and rebuilds episodes, to make it more commercially pleasing. He says that editors frequently uses what is called "franken bites", which are "sound bites that are taken out of context from the participants, by stealing a word from here, two words from there and then artificially constructing sentences and putting them over neutral footage." (Guttentag, 2007, 2:34 mins)
　　

As viewers, we cannot ignore the financial motivations of the ones producing the shows. Since they are always looking in getting the most viewers as possible, they will not let immoral issues stand in their way of doing so.

Conclusion
To conclude, New Media in our Modern Age raises a lot of new issues that makes us rethink and restructure the social and
political system in which we live. The contemporary consumer must be skeptical and always question the motives of the media producers.



Bibliography
Adorno, T. A., & Bernstein, J. B. (2001). The culture industry selected essays on mass culture. (pp. 1-19). Florence, KY: Routledge Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/lib/oculottawa/docDetail.action?docID=2002749

Adorno, A.T., & Horkheimer, H.M.(1947). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.

Bluden.A, Dialectic of Enlightenment. Retreived Nov.8.2011 from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm

Ball, K. B. (2005). Rethinking the Frankfurt school: Alternative legacies of cultural critique (review). Comparative Literature Studies, 42(2), 306-309.

Baudrillard, Jean (1983). In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York: Semiotext(e).

Baudrillard, Jean. (1994) Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press, United States of America, 164 pages.

Călinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Moderninity. Duke University Press, 1987

Drehle, David. (Feb 22, 2010). What's Behind America's Falling Crime Rate. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html

Fagon , A. F. (2005). Theodor Adorno (1903-1969). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/

Garnham, Nicholas (2000). Emancipation, the media, and modernity: arguments about the media and social theory, Oxford; New York : Oxford University Press.

Guttentag, Bill. (2007) The Real and The Reality of Documentary Film, Commonwealth Club, http://fora.tv/2008/02/13/Bill_Guttentag_Reality_of_Documentary_Film, consulted on October 29, 2011.

Hauptli, Bruce W. The Enlightenment Project, 2006, Web. http://www2.fiu.edu/~hauptli/TheEnlightenmentProjectLectureSupplement.html

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press

Misa, Thomas J.(2004) (Editor); Brey, Philip (Editor); Feenberg, Andrew (Editor). Modernity and Technology. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2004. p 36.

Murray, Susan and Ouellette, Laurie. (2009) Reality TV: remaking television culture, New York University Press, 377 pages. http://books.google.ca/books?id=4_W19oHGzZQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false, consulted on October 29, 2011.

O’Riordan, Alison. (2007) Sixteen is the new 18 for sweet party girls, Independent Freelance Jounalist, September 2, 2011. http://alisonoriordan.com/sixteen-is-the-new-18-for-sweet-party-girls/, consulted on October 29, 2011.

Zuidervaart, L. Z. (2011). Theodor w. Adorno. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/adorno/

The Power of Absolution

Introduction

Influence, control and power have always been at arm’s length for those who rule over society. Formerly, the elites with power were royalty but nowadays, the businessman is king. To use a term that C. Wright Mills coined, the “power elites” are defined as people whose decisions have major consequences in society. They’re in command of the “major hierarchies and organizations of modern society” as they run big corporations, the state and the military establishments (Mills, 1984, p. 72). As the media is a series of conglomerates, corporations and monopolies, the elite of course own and operate them. The media is used as a tool to influence society and culture by the elites. Three points will be hit when analyzing this topic. First, the historical setting of the past will be used to demonstrate the omnipresence of media.  Second, the historical evolution of media and how humans have progressed from oral communication to a mass media of dissemination. Third, we will look at media as an evolutionary achievement and how the theories of communication have come to be shaped.  Finally, Chomsky’s Propaganda Model will be used as a modern theory that explains the filtering process of the news before it reaches its final audience.

Omnipresence of Media 

In the 21^st century, media is everywhere we turn. It is in our homes on TV, in our cars on the radio, and when we turn on our laptops, the internet is there to greet us. Communication is the basis of modern society. When analyzing communication, Harold Lasswell described the process in terms of who says what, to whom, in which channel, and with what effect (1953, p.84). This analysis gives us the basis of the transmission of information.  The media, being the presenters of information, are those who communicate the message, their audience is the general population, their channels are diverse (radio, newspapers, television, the internet) but reach all corners of the earth and the effects of their messages are immeasurable. Or to put it in Marxist terms, those who own the means of production (capitalists/bourgeoisie/the elite) also own the factories of meaning (1867, p. 198). That is to say, the media frames ideas and thus the public’s perception of society. 

Evolution of Media

The evolution of media can be credited to the development of new technologies. When discussing technologies, we are not only referring to the physical creations such as television and phones, but we also include the crucial basis on which these things rely - like symbols and language.  Communication has always been a part of human nature. Beginning with cave markings, in other words, pictorial dissemination, we have developed into very social species. During antiquity much of the communication was oral, religious icons and high status individuals would communicate religious debates, authority, and news to the general public. This was the seed of a universal media.

Media has evolved in sequence, for example in order to write, society first had to develop language. Once we could write we then created printing and so forth. With each addition to the prior forms of media, the messages being communicated reached larger populations. Once the printing press was developed by Johannes Gutenburg in the 1400’s, the duplication of documents was possible and this accelerated media immensely. Society now had some form of documentation whereby information was universal and concrete. In progression, newspapers and literature became the media and everyone was on “the same page”. Because society referred to these forms of media for entertainment and insight, those in control of the media, “the elite”, were able to decide what was said, but more importantly how it was said. Taking full advantage of the possibilities of manipulation, the government and organizations began inserting both direct and indirect advertisements, encouraging society to live a consumer lifestyle. 

Moving forward, the amount of media sources today is overwhelming. Adding electronic broadcasting and the internet to the list, media has become inescapable. Society is extremely influenced by the media and we have become susceptible to the manipulation of the elite.  The elite have all of our information, from the demographic of consumers to society’s motivations and fears. Garnham notes that ``we create ourselves, but not in the conditions of our own making. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before.’’ Historically, society has continued to support media without concern, it is only recently society has begun to realize that media is not just information for the masses, but a tool for the elite to establish control.

Media as an Evolutionary Achievement

According to Niklas Luhmann, a German sociologist, communication is the operation that allows the reproduction of social systems (Luhmann, 1984, p. 98). To him, communication and media shapes and moulds society, directly impacting the way society is built and structured. However, he failed to cover the importance of power that the elite holds in the construction of these said social systems.

Luhmann states that there are two forms of communication that are imperative to evolutionary achievement of every human social system. The first one is Language (Luhmann, 1984, p. 94), which extends the possibilities of communication beyond the sphere of mere perception by attaching meaning to concepts. However, Paul Simpson and Andrea Mayr, in their book Language and Power, develop this notion of language being fundamental in societies by saying that it is used to “shape and create institutions” and in turn, these institutions “have the capacity to create, shape and impose discourses.” Since institutions are evidently the product of every society’s leaders, Language is used by the Elite to favour their impositions of ideologies and beliefs upon the masses and to therefore, control them.

The second form of communication, which cannot exist without the first, is Media of dissemination (Luhmann, 1984, p. 162). These forms of media, such as writing, printing and electronic broadcasting, allow the transmission and documenting of information to a larger body of individuals and create coherence in a society. This information is however controlled by those in charge of dispersing, which are the media tycoons who monopolize the printing and broadcasting agencies.  In our modern age, this information does not only leak in the community but also eventually in the “global village”,  terms which Marshall McLuhan explains as being the village that the world has been contracted into due to electronic technology  (McLuhan, 1964, p. 88). Power is given to the countries that can efficiently disperse and impose their ideologies on weaker countries. There is therefore a two degree stance of power that is created – one that is local and what that is worldly.   

Continuing on this concept of dispersal media, one of the distinct changes is how wide and fast information is disseminated through technology. For example, information from the television and internet is spread rapidly to a mass audience making the media difficult to escape. As the spread of information becomes advanced, the influence of media becomes more significant. By looking at various communication theories, it will be easier to see how influential the media is.

The agenda setting theory examines the direct effect of mass media on audiences. Bernard Cohen (1963) highlights how the media may not be able to tell audiences "what to think", but they could tell them “what to think about" (Carrier, 2009, p. 81-92). The issues people think are important to deal with will be correlated with the issues that the media most often presents as problems for the society (Carrier, 2009, p. 81-92). Also, when an issue is continually at the fore-front it can have an effect on the masses because it makes them take notice. People tend to put importance according to media exposure. For example, during the 2004 presidential election, the safety and security of the state was one of the key issues. It was discussed heavily through the television, newspapers, and radio. The media attention on security was a significant reason why George Bush got re-elected. That is because he emphasized the importance of safety to Americans. Thus, agenda setting aided Bush in getting re-elected because the media focused on his message which the public held in high regards. Lastly, the “Two step flow of communication” theory states that influence comes from opinion leaders. They are people who influence the opinions, attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and behaviours of others (Valente & Pumpuang, 2007, p. 87). Examples of opinion leaders would be religious and political figures. In society today, the powerful opinion leaders are the media moguls. Since the moguls are monopolistic, they get to choose which stories get more exposure and attention in regards to their views and beliefs. For example, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who is a well-known conservative, has his views widely displayed on newspapers’ and television stations that he owns. He was a strong supporter of the U.S invasion of Iraq and it was shown through his media empire. A 2003 Guardian survey found of 175 NewsCorp controlled newspapers, they mimicked Rupert Murdoch’s support of the invasion, George Bush and Tony Blair. Furthermore, they were critical of the anti-war protestors (Arsenault & Castells , 2008, p. 88). This exemplifies that dominant opinion leaders are the moguls who have a lot influence in society. 

Propaganda Model

The Propaganda model created by Chomsky and Herman explains how content in the media is cleared through five filters before it reaches the audience. Those filters are ownership of the corporation, funding of the programming, sourcing of the information, lobbyist responses to messaging, and a fear tactic slant in order to maintain societal control (Chomsky, 2002, p. 75).  An example of the Propaganda model in action is when looking at the ownership habits of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. When attempting to change the healthcare system in the States, Obama was highly criticized by Fox News because this change would affect the status quo, the rich, and the elite.


Summary
To conclude, the media's major function is to influence society, as wielded by the hands of the elite. As they are the ones who own the media, they also play a major role in shaping, forming and moulding societal norms and beliefs and communication as a whole. The first section that was analyzed discussed the omniprescence of media and its effect on tha greater population. The second category examines the evolution of media and how historically, the elites have had a great strangehold on the flow and distribution of communication. The third category, media as an evolutionary achievement. aided wen furthering the point that the dominant opinion is controlled by moguls, monopolists and the elit who carry much influence in society based on what they own. Finally the Propaganda Model was used to show how the elites filter the media and the message before it reaches the audience. Now, what is important to retain from this discourse? One can personally reclaim that power that was first given to the elites by using his or her analytical abilities to choose what information to accept, and which to reject.

Bibliography

Arsenault, A. A., & Castells , M. C. (2008). Switching power: Rupert Murdoch and the global business of media politics: a sociological analysis. International Sociology, 23(4).

Carrier, R. (2009). History of mass communication,  In Eid, M, and Dakroury, Aliaa (Eds), Communication and mass media, Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Learning Solutions. 

Cromwell, David (2002). The Propaganda Model: An Overview, excerpted from Private Planet Corporate Plunder and the Fight Back; chomsky.info.http//www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

Garnham, N. (2000). Emancipation, the media, and modernity. New York: Oxford. 

Lasswell, H. D. (1953). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Co. 

Marx, K. (2000). Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Lanham, MD: An Eagle Publishing.

Mills, C. Wright.  The Power Elite, in David B. Grusky & Szonjo Szelenyi (eds.) Inequality: Classic Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. Cambridge MA: Westview Press.

McLuhan, Marshall and Gordon, W, Terrence, Understanding media: the extensions of man, Gingko Press, Corte Madera, CA, 2003 – 616 pages.

Luhmann, Niklas, Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1995 - 627 pages. 

Noll, A. (2007). The evolution of media. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc.

Simpson, Paul and Myr, Andrea, Language and power: a resource book for students, Taylor & Francis, 2009 - 256 pages.

Valente, T. V., & Pumpuang, P. P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education & Behavior , Volume 34(6).