The Future of the Mass Audience was published in 1991. Just as the Internet is beginning to emerge as a mass medium, W. Russell Neuman examines its potential to change public discourse.
Neuman first acknowledges the rapid pace of technological change in our post-industrial society, and considers Ithiel de Sola Pool’s thesis that the large-scale social institutions and mass media we now take for granted are only very recent developments in human history.
He considers two competing communications theories: mass society theory, in particular the potential for a centralized government to use a new medium as a propaganda tool to control its citizenry (in the manner of Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984); and democratic theory, emphasizing the potential for new technology to decentralize communications, thus empowering a diversity of citizen groups to have a greater voice in a pluralistic society.
He identifies three forces that will help determine which model prevails: the technology behind the “communications revolution” that allows both centralized control and diverse two-way expression vs. the psychology of the mass audience and the political economy of the mass media (particularly the capitalistic U.S. communications industry). Pluralism will prevail, Neuman contends, if there is a balanced level of both political centralization and political communication.
Neuman examines the characteristics of networked, digital electronics technology as a communications medium, identifying decreasing costs and distance sensitivity, as well as increasing speed, volume, channel diversity (leading to content diversity), two-way flow, user flexibility, extensibility (or ability to upgrade), and interconnectivity — ultimately leading to a universal broadband communications network — as drivers of change.
He considers the psychology of media use, describing a sophisticated, active, but not always fully engaged audience (with the ability to resist propaganda messages) that could embrace new media’s interactivity but also might choose not to use that interactivity to its full potential.
He acknowledges audience fragmentation, but points to
studies showing similar preferences across demographic groups in television
viewing and newspaper content.
Neuman examines the profit-oriented nature of the U.S. communications
industry, and demonstrates how that leads to homogenization of media content.
Finally, he concludes that these countervailing technological, audience and
economic pressures are likely to lead to “evolutionary rather than
revolutionary” change in the public’s use of mass media. Neuman writes (pg.
164):
"It
would be counterintuitive to conclude that fundamental changes in the
technology of communications would not have equally fundamental effects on the
flow of public information. But that, in large measure, is what the evidence
indicates."
It would be difficult to critique The Future of the Mass Audience without considering the changes that have taken place since its publication. Internet use has increased along with advancements in connection speeds, from dial-up services such as America Online to today’s high-speed DSL and cable-modem services; Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo have grown in audience and market value. However, large search engines primarily aggregate content from other sources, including news organizations that existed in 1991 such as major broadcasters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle, which have established their own Internet presences. On the other hand, news sites that generate their own content have emerged, including Gawker, Politico, TechCrunch and VentureBeat; individuals can post user-generated content on social-networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook.
Even so, Neuman’s analysis
seems remarkably prescient. The Internet indeed has brought us “evolutionary
rather than revolutionary” change in our political discourse. In the United
States, the political process is still dominated by two major parties, although
politicians such as President Barack Obama and government agencies use the
Internet to connect directly with the public through Web sites, e-mails, text
messages and videos, bypassing established media organizations. In other
countries, dissidents use the Internet as an organizing tool, but governments
such as China use technology as a means of maintaining centralized control.
However, it’s worth considering
economic pressures that have developed. Neuman observes that U.S. news media
are primarily profit-driven, and that (pp. 130-137) many large media
organizations thrived because of monopoly powers enjoyed by holders of
broadcast licenses, and by newspaper owners because high production and
distribution costs eliminated smaller competitors over time. In markets such as
Silicon Valley, the Internet has provided readers greater access to national
and international news sources with large reporting staffs such as The New
York Times. Locally based online
news sources such as tech blogs and the proposed nonprofit Bay Area News
Project have emerged, but they do not operate at the same scale as previously
established media including the Mercury News and the Chronicle. Newspapers and broadcasters, though, have been
pressured by the loss of advertising revenue to Internet marketplaces such as
eBay, Craigslist and other sites. The revenue loss, exacerbated by the economic recession, has
led to smaller news staffs; the Mercury News, for example, has about 125 newsroom employees,
about a quarter of its peak size in 2001. While Neuman predicted that economic
pressures would lead to evolutionary, but not revolutionary change in the
diversity of content providers (and he briefly examined the prospects for
transactional activities online), he did not consider the possibility of
disruption to established media from competitors that don’t bear the costs of
providing news content.
It would not be entirely fair
to expect an author in 1991 to foresee every possible technological and
economic development over two decades. Furthermore, the technological drivers
identified by Neuman offer some cost-saving solutions for local news organizations.
The Internet connects readers directly to national and international news
sources, so perhaps local media could drop expensive content readers can find
elsewhere. The Internet also is a tool for more-efficient news gathering,
eliminating barriers of distance and time for research, and providing
technology such as video links that reduce travel.
Finally, technological drivers
allow innovators to operate outside established news organizations.
(VentureBeat, for example, was founded by a former Mercury News business reporter.) However, as Neuman observes
(pg. 163), readers “rely on the editorial judgment of established news media”
despite the potential to find news from a diversity of sources. More entrepreneurial
news media, then, would require further evolution in audience behavior. Readers
would need to learn to rely on individual reputable journalists rather than
long-trusted news organizations.
Comments