See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273590252

Revisiting ‘Mass Communication’ and the ‘Work’ of the

Audience in the New Media Environment

Article  in  Media Culture & Society · May 2010

DOI: 10.1177/0163443710361658

CITATIONS READS

106 1,291

1 author:

Philip Napoli
Duke University
130 PUBLICATIONS   2,840 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Journalism and the 2016 Election View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Napoli on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Media,http://mcs.sagepub.com/
Culture & Society

Revisiting 'mass communication' and the 'work' of the audience in the new
media environment
Philip M. Napoli
Media Culture Society 2010 32: 505
DOI: 10.1177/0163443710361658

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/32/3/505

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Media, Culture & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/32/3/505.refs.html

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Commentary

Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’

of the audience in the new media environment
Philip M. Napoli
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, NY

‘Mass communication’ has been an embattled term. As the media environment has
evolved, arguments have persisted that it has outlived its usefulness; that it fails to
capture the dynamics of the contemporary media system. Though diminished, the term
has endured. Technological changes now taking place compel further re-examination
of the term and its continued relevance in communications scholarship. However,
there have been few efforts to reassess mass communication as a concept in light of
the changes that new media technologies such as the internet have imposed upon the
media environment (for exceptions, see Chaffee and Metzger, 2001; Lorimer, 2002).
And no such reassessments have been conducted recently enough to fully consider the
implications of recent developments such as the rise of Web 2.0 platforms and user-
generated content.
In an effort to address this gap, this article revisits the concept of mass communi-
cation, paying particular attention to the role that the audience plays in the process of
mass communication, given, as Mosco and Kaye (2000: 33) note, ‘the term audience
has over time become embedded within the literature of mass communication studies’.
As this article illustrates, a contemporary approach to mass communication can be
articulated around a more robust conceptualization of the idea of the ‘mass’, in which
the term refers both to the senders and receivers of information. Such a formulation
of the concept of mass communication, and the role of the audience within it, better
reflects the contemporary dynamics of interactive media and user-generated content.
Such an approach highlights the changing nature of media audiences (Napoli, in
press). While scholars have devoted substantial attention to the ways new media
recast the notion of the audience (Cover, 2006; Livingstone, 1999, 2003), one set of
propositions about media audiences that has not been thoroughly reassessed involves
the ‘work’ of the audience (Jhally and Livant, 1986; Smythe, 1977). Like the concept
of mass communication, this notion of ‘watching as working’ (Jhally and Livant,
1986) has been on the wane over the past two decades. However, today’s reconfig-
ured dynamics of mass communication compel us to revisit the relevance and utility
of this notion of the ‘work’ of the audience.

Media, Culture & Society © The Author(s) 2010, Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol. 32(3): 505–516
[ISSN: 0163-4437 DOI: 10.1177/0163443710361658]

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

506 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

The rise and decline of mass communication

A key argument here is that the term ‘mass communication’ is inherently flexible
enough to satisfactorily account for the dynamics of the contemporary media envi-
ronment. This position contrasts with assessments over the past three decades that
have asserted that the term is something of an historical anachronism, incapable of
supporting a useful overarching framework for representing the contemporary media
environment (e.g. Chaffee and Metzger, 2001; Escarpit, 1977).

Origins of the term

It is difficult to locate the definitive origins of the term ‘mass communication’.

Chaffee and Rogers (1997) tentatively attribute its origins to Rockefeller Foundation
official John Marshall, who, from the 1930s through the 1950s was instrumental in
bringing together scholars from around the US with an interest in communications
research and funding a substantial amount of early research in the nascent field.
Buxton (1994) similarly speculates that Marshall’s use of the term in a 1940 memo-
randum may have been the first use of the term as an analytical concept, though the
term itself predates Marshall’s use (see Hettinger, 1935; Kaempffert, 1931).
It is within the context of these convenings that Harold Lasswell’s (1948) well-
known framework for the field: ‘Who says what to whom via what channel with what
effect?’ was developed. There has been speculation that this framework also originated
with Marshall (Buxton, 1994). As historians of the field have noted, the effects com-
ponent of this framework came to dominate, and thus characterize, early mass
communication research. This tendency reflected concerns about domestic and
international opinion formation and influence that were prominent at the time, in
response to events such as the two world wars and the Cold War (Gary, 1996; Peters,
1986). It is also important to note that, in light of the accumulation of findings over the
next two decades indicating low levels of the types of media effects that were being
investigated, some observers asserted, even at this early point in the history of mass
communication as an academic field, that the field was essentially a dead end
(Berelson, 1959; Klapper, 1960). Such assessments obviously approached mass com-
munication as an academic field with much narrower parameters than were articulated
by Lasswell (1948).
While a review of all of the definitional approaches to the term mass communica-
tion is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to recognize that, even in its
earliest incarnations, the precise scope of the term was contested territory. In 1953,
sociologist Eliot Freidson outlined what he perceived as the predominant definition
of mass communication, which included four distinguishing features of the mass
audience: (1) it is heterogeneous in composition; (2) it is composed of individuals
who do not know each other; (3) the members of the mass are spatially separated; and
(4) the mass has no definite leadership and a very loose organization (1953: 313).
An oft-cited definition by Wright (1960) emphasized the following three elements of
mass communication: (a) content is directed toward large, heterogeneous, anonymous
audiences; (b) content is transmitted publicly, and often reaches audiences simultane-
ously; and (c) the communicator tends to be, or operate within, a complex organization
that may involve great expense. Early on, the concept also was strongly associated with
the broader theoretical notion of the ‘mass society’ (e.g. Wirth, 1948), which tended to
emphasize audiences as an aggregate of somewhat passive, atomized individuals highly
susceptible to mass mediated messages (see Beniger, 1987; Peters, 1996).

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Napoli, Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ 507

A concept in decline

By the 1970s, scholars began to question the applicability of such formulations of the
concept of mass communication to the dynamics of a changing media environment,
in which a greater proportion of the media system was composed of outlets serving
relatively narrow segments of the audience (e.g. Maisel, 1973). In a 1977 article in
the Journal of Communication, Robert Escarpit described the notion of the ‘mass’ as
‘rapidly dissolving to be replaced by the puzzling yet far more workable image of an
intricate network of communication channels’ (1977: 47). As Maisel noted in 1973:

… we must begin to think of, and study, the individual in our society as a communi-
cator having access to a very powerful set of media tools and as a recipient of a wide
range of equally enriched communications directed to him by others. (1973: 170)

Certainly, these statements from over 30 years ago are quite reflective of the dynam-
ics of contemporary communication. Underlying them, however, was the premise that
the mass communication concept does not – or cannot – account for communications
dynamics that extend far outside of the mass society paradigm.
This impetus behind the decline of mass communication as an orienting term acceler-
ated in the late 1980s and picked up increased momentum in the 1990s (Turow, 1990).
During this time, the evolving media environment, with its ability to facilitate the targeting
of small, homogeneous audience segments due to increased media fragmentation (particu-
larly the growth of cable, the VCR and, later, the internet), and its ability to facilitate more
interactive forms of communication, increasingly became one in which perceived tradi-
tional notions of mass communication, involving the one-to-many dissemination of content
to a large, heterogeneous audience who simultaneously received the content, represented
an increasingly rare form of communication (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001; Neuman, 1991).
Such critiques affected the self-image of the field, as many academic departments
renamed themselves, abandoning the mass communication label in favor of terms
such as ‘media studies’ or ‘telecommunications’. In 1996, one of the field’s major
academic associations changed its name from the International Association for Mass
Communication Research to the International Association for Media and Communication
Research (Nordenstreng, 2008). In 2001, one of the prominent journals in the field,
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, changed its name to Critical Studies in
Media Communication. Clearly, the term mass communication has been on the wane.

Alternative interpretations

The above account represents the fairly standard narrative of the decline of mass com-
munication as an orienting term. It is important to emphasize, however, that some
scholars have sought to defend mass communication from decline by offering rein-
terpretations that better position the term to capture contemporary communications
dynamics (e.g. Budd and Ruben, 1988). Turow (1990, 1992) proposed an approach in
the early 1990s that stripped away many of the term’s (perceived) traditional defini-
tional elements and focused instead exclusively on the industrialized production and
distribution of content. Such an approach foregrounds a scholarly focus on the struc-
ture and behavior of media institutions and the consumption of the content they pro-
duce (Turow, 1992). This ‘re-positioning’ of mass communication can be seen as an
effort to maintain the relevance of the term in the face of the fragmentation taking
place in the media environment in the 1980s and early 1990s by ‘shifting the primary

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

508 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

focus of the word “mass” from the nature of the audience to the nature of the process’
(Turow, 1990: 16).
Obviously though, Turow’s effort fails to maintain the term’s relevance in the face
of the ways that the dynamics of mediated communication have changed since the
pre-internet days of 1992, in which the diminished prominence of the institutional
communicator and the rise of the individual as mass communicator are defining char-
acteristics. However, efforts such as Turow’s do suggest a level of persistent defini-
tional ambiguity and flexibility in the term that allows for, and perhaps even justifies,
continued reconsideration in light of ongoing technological changes.
The interpretive flexibility of the term is further reflected in the alternative narra-
tive of its intellectual history that has been convincingly constructed – one in which
the logic of the term’s decline seems much weaker. Historical research has revealed the
prominence of a much richer conceptualization of mass communication, even in the
term’s early, formative stages. Peters (1996), for instance, argues that it was only after
the Second World War that the dominant approach to the process of mass communi-
cation involved the simplified one-to-many exchange between media outlet and a
large, undifferentiated, largely passive, audience. Prior to, and during, the war:

thinkers who pondered broadcasting were attentive to the potential for interchange
within large scale communication.… Many were fascinated and alarmed by radio’s
apparent intimacy, its penetration of private spaces, and its ability to stage dia-
logues and personal relationships with listeners. The question was often less how
radio amassed audiences than how it individualized them. (Peters, 1996: 109)

Along similar lines, many histories of media audiences have emphasized that the
arrival of what are typically termed ‘mass media’ operated early on with much more
robust, individualistic and interactive conceptualizations of the mass audience than is
commonly assumed (Butsch, 2000, 2008; Lenthall, 2007; Newman, 2004; Ross, 1999).
As this discussion suggests, the meaning of the term ‘mass communication’ has not
been as rigidly narrow as is often assumed. Ultimately, the extent to which one sees the
concept as having diminished relevance depends upon what one embraces as the con-
cept’s key defining characteristics. For instance, some approaches to defining the term
have downplayed the centrality of simultaneous delivery of content, given that the long
shelf-life of content allows it to aggregate audiences over time (Webster and Phalen,
1997). Similarly, the centrality of an undifferentiated, anonymous audience has been cri-
tiqued as more ideal-typical than realistic, given the history of efforts to segment audi-
ences according to identifiable criteria (Webster and Phalen, 1997). A number of
scholars have taken issue with mass communication ever being exclusively associated
with the one-way dissemination of content among a large, undifferentiated, and largely
passive audience (Cantor and Cantor, 1986; Corner, 1979; Mosco and Kaye, 2000). Such
perspectives extend back almost 60 years. Like many later scholars, Freidson (1953)
questioned these somewhat limited interpretive approaches to mass communication,
emphasizing instead the innately social character of being part of a mass audience.
Beniger’s (1987) overview of the theoretical perspectives that characterized mass
communication research from the 1930s through the 1980s illustrates the prominence
of theoretical approaches (ranging from uses and gratifications to audience decoding
to framing) that extend well beyond notions of one-to-many dissemination of mes-
sages, simultaneously received, and similarly interpreted, by large, heterogeneous and
largely passive audiences, that came to (mis)characterize the field in many circles.
Thus, it would seem that mass communication has always extended beyond the limi-
tations inherent in the mass society paradigm.
This continues to be the case, as many assessments of the ‘de-massifying’ effects of
the new media environment prompted by the emergence of the internet have concluded

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Napoli, Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ 509

that the concept of mass communication maintains a position of relevance – and even
prominence – in the online realm (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001; Downes, 2000; Napoli,
1998, 2008; Roscoe, 1999). The prominence of this perspective reflects that many of
the more critical approaches to the term have tended to significantly oversimplify its
meaning, and that these oversimplifications were misleading in terms of the charac-
terizations of the media audience produced by the field and in terms of the range of
scholarship being produced under the ‘mass communication’ heading (Beniger, 1987;
Lorimer, 2002).
As should be clear, at the very least we can see that a precise definition of ‘mass
communication’ has long been contested territory. Indeed, the main point here is that
this is a term whose definitional origins are sufficiently ambiguous, and whose defi-
nitional history has been sufficiently dynamic, to allow – and even to warrant –
contemporary reconsideration.

Reconceptualizing mass communication

The concept of mass communication can effectively account for the dramatic changes
taking place within the contemporary media environment when the term ‘mass’ is
conceptualized a bit more inclusively, to account not just for the receivers of content,
or for the nature of the production process, but for the senders of content as well. The
communication dynamics reflected in Web 2.0 (see Mabillot, 2007) applications such
as YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter increasingly foreground an approach to
mass communication in which the individual audience member operates on nearly
equal footing with traditional institutional communicators. The new media environ-
ment is one in which the tools of participation in public discourse and creative activ-
ity are much more widely distributed (Beer and Burrows, 2007; Benkler, 2006;
Kendall, 2008). Mass communication is now a much more egalitarian process, in
which the masses can now communicate to the masses (Fonio et al., 2007). The one-
to-many dynamic at the core of the meaning of ‘mass communication’ persists here –
there simply are many, many more instances of it. This proliferation of the one-to-many
capacity represents the communication dynamic that was largely absent from previous
incarnations of our media system, in which the capacity to mass communicate was
confined to a select few.
Terms such as ‘prosumers’ and ‘produsage’ have been coined to capture the ways
in which the media audience is evolving, and the ways in which content production
and distribution are migrating beyond the traditional industrial paradigm (Bruns,
2007; Deuze, 2003). As Beer and Burrows (2007: 8) note: ‘Perhaps the key defining
feature of Web 2.0 is that users are involved in processes of production and con-
sumption as they generate and browse online content, as they tag and blog, post and
share.’ One forecast estimates that, by 2010, 70 percent of the content available online
will be created by individuals (Slot and Frissen, 2007).
What is surprising about many user-generated content discussions is that the focus
is often misguidedly on the revolutionary or disruptive aspects of users’ abilities to
produce content. Even the term user-generated content reflects this misplaced empha-
sis. This is not the aspect of contemporary developments that is new or of the great-
est significance. Users’ capacity to generate content has been around for some time,
due to the long-established availability of technologies such as home video cameras,
PCs, typewriters and home recording equipment. What is different today is the ability
of users to distribute content, to use the web to circulate their user-generated content
(as well as, to media companies’ dismay, traditional media content) to an unprece-
dented extent.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

510 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

Shifting our focus to the distribution issue highlights how the increasingly global
reach of the internet eliminates any notion of the relevance of the mass communica-
tion concept being undermined by the dramatic fragmentation of media audiences that
has taken place over the past 15 years. As fragmented as the media environment may
be, it is still possible for homemade videos produced by individuals sitting at their
computers to be watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people world-
wide via YouTube, or for a song produced by an unsigned band to attract a similarly
large listenership via online distribution. The globalization of the potential audience
available online serves as a counterweight to media and audience fragmentation. A
study by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company indicated that the primary rea-
son that people post user-generated videos online is to achieve fame and recognition
(Bughin, 2007). Clearly, the intention here is to reach as large an audience as possible –
not to target narrow niches. In the contemporary media environment, the masses often
seek to reach the masses.

The diminishing importance of institutional communicators

This re-orientation of the mass communication concept runs contrary to some previ-
ous efforts (e.g. Budd and Ruben, 1988; Turow, 1990, 1992) in one very important way –
it suggests a definition of the term that is not dependent upon the involvement of an
‘institutional communicator’. Though the notion of mass communication emanating
from some form of complex organization has been central to many definitions of the
term (e.g. Budd and Ruben, 1988; O’Sullivan et al., 1983; Turow, 1990), it has not
been central to all of them. Some definitions do not directly address the nature of the
source of the communication, focusing instead on the nature of the content and/or the
audience (e.g. Freidson, 1953). In other instances, the presence of the institutional
communicator has been expressed as a tendency, rather than as a fundamental com-
ponent. Wright (1960: 606), for instance, states that: ‘the communicator tends to be, or
operate within, a complex organization that may involve great expense’ (emphasis added).
An approach to mass communication that eschews the centrality of the institutional
communicator does not seem to contradict the term’s intellectual history. In addition,
to the extent that the de-institutionalization of mass communication is a defining char-
acteristic of the new media environment, such an interpretive approach to the term is
fundamental not only to the term’s continuing relevance, but also to its logical con-
sistency. An adherence to a definition that accounts exclusively for the institutional
communicator is one in which, in assessing two different speakers utilizing the same
medium and transmitting the same type of content to an audience of the same size and
composition, we would – based solely on the characteristics of the speakers – determine
that one is engaging in mass communication while the other is not (think, for instance,
of a record label’s and an unsigned band’s use of the web to distribute music).
Utilizing the institutional communicator as a point of distinction made more sense
when the institutional communicator had exclusive access to communications plat-
forms that other speakers did not. Of course, online this is no longer the case.
The point here is that the traditional institutional communicator has no status of
exclusivity within the mass communication concept. That being said, it is important
to recognize that many of the de-institutionalized forms of mass communication that
are now taking place still involve traditional institutional communicators – only in
more ancillary roles as content aggregators, navigation services or platform providers
(e.g. Google, YouTube, MySpace and Facebook). These forms of integrated activity
between the institutional communicator and the individual user are, in fact, central to
the emerging significance of the ‘work’ of the audience.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Napoli, Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ 511

The new mass audience and its work

The previous section suggested an approach to mass communication involving a definition

of ‘mass’ that encompasses both the senders and the receivers of messages. This rede-
finition strikes directly at the notion of the ‘mass audience’ that has long been a cen-
tral element of the concept of mass communication (see e.g. Neuman, 1991; Webster
and Phalen, 1997).
One important outgrowth of this proposed re-orientation is the way it resurrects a
line of thinking about the mass audience that has been largely dormant in recent years.
Specifically, when we consider an approach to mass communication that incorporates
the mass audience not only as receivers of messages but also as senders, and when we
also look at how the place of the audience as mass communicators is now being inte-
grated into our media system, we are confronted with the issue of the ‘work’ that the
audience engages in in the new media environment.

Revisiting the audience commodity and its work

The notion that media audiences work began with Dallas Smythe (1977), who, in
providing the initial influential formulation of the media audience as a ‘commodity’
manufactured and sold by ad-supported media, argued that the act of consuming media
represented a form of wageless labor that audiences engaged in on behalf of advertisers.
According to Smythe (1977: 6), the work that audiences engaged in was to ‘learn to buy
particular “brands” of consumer goods, and to spend their income accordingly. In
short, they work to create the demand for advertised goods.’ Smythe’s observation
was central to his critique of what he saw as a failing by Marxist theorists to ade-
quately account for the production of audiences in their analyses of the political econ-
omy of the media, which, according to Smythe, tended to focus overwhelmingly (and
misguidedly) on content production.
Smythe’s notion of the work of the audience was taken up and expanded by Jhally
and Livant (1986: 127), who, with a focus on television, argued that the advertising
revenue programmers earn that extends beyond the costs of the programming repre-
sents ‘surplus watching time’. Jhally (1982) and Livant (1982), in earlier iterations of
the ideas that would be central to their later collaborative piece, emphasized their
departure from Smythe in the extent to which they saw audiences working not for the
advertisers but for the mass media (Jhally, 1982: 208; Livant, 1982: 213). The viewing
audience, having already received their ‘wage’ in the form of free programming, was
now, in their program viewing, working on behalf of the programmer. The program-
mer is then able to convert this surplus watching time into additional advertising revenue.
This perspective on the media audience was the subject of substantial debate and
discussion at the time (e.g. Livant, 1979; Murdock, 1978; Smythe, 1978). In the years
since, however, this perspective has received relatively little attention in communica-
tions scholarship (Artz, 2008; for exceptions, see Andrejevic, 2002; Cohen, 2008;
Shimpach, 2005). However, just as contemporary developments in the media environ-
ment have invited a reconsideration of the concept of mass communication, so too do
they invite reconsideration of this corollary notion of the work of the mass audience.
Again, the key driver here is the way that the new media environment empowers
the audience to serve as both receivers and senders of mass communication.
Specifically, the notion of the work of the audience, which may have been a bit more
tenuous when the work being monetized was isolated to media consumption, becomes
more concrete in an environment in which the creative work of the audience is an
increasingly important source of economic value for media organizations.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

512 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

This brings us back to Web 2.0 applications and the ways they help the masses to
mass communicate. Here, the concern is not just with the fact that such communica-
tion is taking place, but also with the fact that the communication itself often becomes
a revenue generator for media organizations. The dynamic under consideration here
is well-expressed by Cohen:

Web 2.0 has altered the terrain of the media business, notably by adjusting con-
sumers’ roles in the production process. Business models based on the notion of the
consumer as producer have allowed Web 2.0 applications to capitalize on time
spent participating in communicative activity and information sharing. In mass
media models, the role of consumers has been just that, to consume, or to watch
and read the product. Web 2.0 consumers, however, have become producers who
fulfill a critical role. (2008: 7)

The advertising revenues that sites such as YouTube, Facebook and MySpace gener-
ate are derived substantially from audience attention captured with content produced
by members of the user/audience community. Aggregating or providing a common
platform for user-generated content, and then selling advertising on these platforms,
represents the core business model of most Web 2.0 applications. User-generated
content such as comments, ratings and reviews has also become an important source
of added value for organizations involved in the production or distribution of tradi-
tional institutionally produced content. Examples along these lines include the user
ratings/comments on sites such as Netflix or Amazon, and the increasing extent to
which newspapers’ websites incorporate reader feedback and comments into their
presentation of traditional journalism.
The work of the contemporary media audience can be taken one step further.
Increasingly, not only are audiences contributing content that can be monetized by con-
tent providers, but it is also increasingly the case that audiences engage in the work of
the advertisers and marketers who traditionally support these content providers.
Audiences today assist with the marketing of products in a variety of ways, ranging from
producing commercials to engaging in online word-of-mouth endorsements, to integrat-
ing brand messages into their own communication platforms (e.g. their MySpace or
Facebook pages) (Cheong and Morrison, 2008; Deuze, 2007; Spurgeon, 2008).
Contemporary marketing and advertising strategy increasingly focus on taking the value
of consumer ‘word-of-mouth’ to entirely new levels and developing new methods for
encouraging consumers to do the work of the marketers and advertisers in the dissemi-
nation of brand messages. Thus, the early division between those who perceived the
audience as working for advertisers (Smythe, 1977) and those who perceived the audi-
ence as working for media organizations (Jhally and Livant, 1986) seems to have been
bridged in the new media environment, in which audiences seem to be working for both.
The nature of these extensions of the work of the audience highlights one of the most
distinctive, yet under-examined, aspects of the economics of media – the extent to
which individuals engage in the production of media products absent any guarantee –
or even expectation – of financial compensation. This has always been the case, rang-
ing back to unpublished novels and short stories stashed in desk drawers, to garage
bands toiling away without a recording contract. What is different today, of course, is
that producers of content now have access to potential audiences that was largely miss-
ing in previous generations. Another distinguishing characteristic of the activities of
today’s audience is their demonstrated willingness to allow others (typically media
organizations) to capture the revenue generated by their aggregated efforts.
This latter point reflects the value that individuals place on enhancing their opportunity
to reach audiences. This need helps to maintain a role for the institutional communicators

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Napoli, Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ 513

who typically manage the Web 2.0 platforms that provide an opportunity (via the
aggregation of content and the investment in marketing resources) for greater audi-
ence reach than individual communicators could likely achieve on their own. Thus, it
is this enhanced ability to access an audience with one’s creative expression that
online media organizations are now providing in exchange for that creative
expression – which they in turn monetize. This is obviously a very different con-
tent production/distribution/exhibition/consumption dynamic than has characterized
traditional media, and one that requires substantial further research.

Conclusion

As Morris and Ogan (1996: 42) noted in an early assessment of the internet: ‘A new
communication technology … allows scholars to rethink, rather than abandon, defi-
nitions and categories.’ In engaging in such an effort, this analysis has focused on
why the concept of mass communication can effectively reflect the communication
dynamics of the new media environment. However, it is also important to address the
question of why it should continue to be used; otherwise, this analysis is primarily a
semantic exercise. Maintaining the use of the term ‘mass communication’ in the new
media environment is, in many ways, a corrective to the narrow approaches to the
term that, as this article has illustrated, to an extent misrepresented and over-simplified
what the term actually meant throughout its history, and the nature of the academic
field that emerged around it. Maintenance of the term reflects the continued relevance
and analytical utility of associated theoretical approaches such as uses and gratifica-
tions and agenda-setting (regarding the latter, for instance, we are only just beginning
to understand the complex inter-media agenda-setting effects taking place between
the mainstream media, the ‘blogosphere’ and the public). The concept of mass com-
munication has never been the poor fit for the communications dynamics of the new
media environment that many of the term’s more recent critics have asserted.
In many ways, the field is at an historical moment today that is not unlike that
nearly 50 years ago, when the absence of evidence of powerful attitudinal media
effects was seen by some as signifying the death of the field (Beniger, 1987).
However, mass communication was always about more than narrowly defined media
effects, as Lasswell’s original framework makes very clear. Thus it was a mistake to
define the field of mass communication purely in terms of its ability to document sig-
nificant, empirically measurable effects on attitudes and opinions. So too is it a
mistake – in terms of mischaracterizing the field’s history and in terms of mischarac-
terizing the historical meaning of the term – to define the field of mass communica-
tion purely in terms of the analysis of the mass production and one-way dissemination
of messages by institutional communicators to audiences. In this regard, then,
reasserting a more robust, well-rounded – and historically grounded – conceptualiza-
tion of the term and its associated field highlights the relevance of both to today’s
media environment.

References

Andrejevic, M. (2002) ‘The Work of Being Watched: Interactive Media and the Exploitation
of Self-Disclosure’, Critical Studies in Media Communication 19(2): 230–48.
Artz, L. (2008) ‘Media Relations and Media Product: Audience Commodity’,
Democratic Communiqué 22(1): 60–74.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

514 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

Beer, D. and R. Burrows (2007) ‘Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial
Considerations’, Sociology Research Online 12(5), URL (consulted January 2010):
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html
Beniger, J.R. (1987) ‘Toward an Old New Paradigm: The Half-century Flirtation with
Mass Society’, Public Opinion Quarterly 51: S46–S66.
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms
Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berelson, B. (1959) ‘The State of Communication Research’, Public Opinion
Quarterly 23: 1–6.
Bruns, A. (2007) ‘Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-led Content
Creation’, Proceedings Creativity and Cognition 6, URL (consulted September
2008): http://eprints.qut.edu.au
Budd, R.W. and B.D. Ruben (eds) (1988) Beyond Media: New Approaches to Mass
Communication. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bughin, J.R. (2007) ‘How Companies Can Make the Most of User-generated
Content’, McKinsey Quarterly August, URL (consulted January 2010): http://
www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Marketing/Digital_Marketing/How_companies_can
_make_the_most_of_user-generated_content_2041?gp=1
Butsch, R. (2000) The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to Television,
1750–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Butsch, R. (2008) The Citizen Audience: Crowds, Publics, and Individuals. New York:
Routledge.
Buxton, W. (1994) ‘From Radio Research to Communications Intelligence:
Rockefeller Philanthropy, Communications Specialists, and the American Policy
Community’, pp. 187–209 in S. Brooks and A.G. Gagnon (eds) Political Influence
of Ideas: Policy Communities and Social Sciences. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Cantor, M.G. and J.M. Cantor (1986) ‘Audience Composition and Television Content:
The Mass Audience Revisited’, pp. 214–25 in S.J. Ball-Rokeach and M.G. Cantor
(eds) Media, Audience, and Social Structure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chaffee, S.H. and M.J. Metzger (2001) ‘The End of Mass Communication?’, Mass
Communication and Society 44): 365–79.
Chaffee, S.H. and E.M. Rogers (1997) ‘The Establishment of Communication Study
in America’, pp. 125–80 in S.H. Chaffee and E.M. Rogers (eds) The Beginnings of
Communication Study in America: A Personal Memoir by Wilbur Schramm.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheong, H.J. and M.A. Morrison (2008) ‘Consumers’ Reliance on Product
Information and Recommendations Found in UGC’, Journal of Interactive
Advertising 8(2): 38–49.
Cohen, N.S. (2008) ‘The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a Political Economy
of Facebook’, Democratic Communiqué 22(1): 5–22.
Corner, J. (1979) ‘“Mass” in Communication Research’, Journal of Communication
29(1): 26–32.
Cover, R. (2006) ‘Audience Inter/Active: Interactive Media, Narrative Control and
Reconceiving Audience History’, New Media and Society 8(1): 139–58.
Deuze, M. (2003) ‘The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of
Different Types of Newsmedia Online’, New Media and Society 5(2): 203–30.
Deuze, M. (2007) ‘Convergence Culture in the Creative Industries’, International
Journal of Cultural Studies 10(2): 243–63.
Downes, D.M. (2000) ‘The Resurrection of the Mass Audience in the New Media
Economy’, M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3(1), URL (consulted September
2005): www.media-culture.org.au/0003/mass.html
Escarpit, R. (1977) ‘The Concept of “Mass”’, Journal of Communication 27(2): 44–7.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

Napoli, Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ 515

Fonio, C., F. Giglietto, R. Pruno, L. Rossi and S. Pedriol (2007) ‘Eyes on You:
Analyzing User Generated Content for Social Science’, paper presented at the
‘Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0’ conference, York, UK, May.
Freidson, E. (1953) ‘Communications Research and the Concept of the Mass’,
American Sociological Review 18(3): 313–17.
Gary, B. (1996) ‘Communication Research, the Rockefeller Foundation, and
Mobilization for the War on Words, 1938–1944’, Journal of Communication
46(3): 124–47.
Hettinger, H.S. (1935) ‘Broadcasting in the United States’, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 177: 1–14.
Jhally, S. (1982) ‘Probing the Blindspot: The Audience Commodity’, Canadian
Journal of Political and Social Theory 6(1–2): 204–10.
Jhally, S. and B. Livant (1986) ‘Watching as Working: The Valorization of Audience
Consciousness’, Journal of Communication 36: 124–43.
Kaempffert, W. (1931) ‘Communication and World Peace’, Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 70(3): 273–84.
Kendall, L. (2008) ‘Beyond Media Producers and Consumers: Online Multimedia
Productions as Interpersonal Communication’, Information, Communication and
Society 11(2): 207–20.
Klapper, J. (1960) The Effects of Mass Communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Lasswell, H. (1948) ‘Structure and Function of Communication in Society’, pp. 37–51
in L. Bryson (ed.) The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute for Religious
and Social Studies.
Lenthall, B. (2007) Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern
Mass Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Livant, B. (1979) ‘The Audience Commodity: On the Blindspot Debate’, Canadian
Journal of Political and Social Theory 3(1): 91–106.
Livant, B. (1982) ‘Working at Watching: A Reply to Sut Jhally’, Canadian Journal
of Political and Social Theory 6(1–2): 211–15.
Livingstone, S. (1999) ‘New Media, New Audiences?’, New Media and Society 1(1):
59–66.
Livingstone, S. (2003) ‘The Changing Nature of Audiences: From the Mass Audience
to the Interactive Media User’, pp. 337–59 in A. Valdivia (ed.) Companion to
Media Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lorimer, R. (2002) ‘Mass Communication: Some Redefinitional Notes’, Canadian
Journal of Communication 27: 63–72.
Mabillot, D. (2007) ‘User Generated Content: Web 2.0 Taking the Video Sector by
Storm’, Communications and Strategies 65: 39–49.
Maisel, R. (1973) ‘The Decline of Mass Media’, Public Opinion Quarterly 37(2):
159–70.
Morris, J. and C. Ogan (1996) ‘The Internet as Mass Medium’, Journal of Communication
46(1): 39–50.
Mosco, V. and L. Kaye (2000) ‘Questioning the Concept of the Audience’, pp. 31–46
in I. Hagen and J. Wasko (eds) Consuming Audiences? Production and Reception
in Media Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Murdock, G. (1978) ‘Blindspots About Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas
Smythe’, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 2(2): 109–19.
Napoli, P.M. (1998) ‘The Internet and the Forces of “Massification”’, Electronic
Journal of Communication 8(2).
Napoli, P.M. (2008) ‘Hyperlinking and the Forces of “Massification”’, pp. 56–69 in
J. Turow and L. Tsui (eds) The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in
the Digital Age. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

 516 Media, Culture & Society 32(3)

Napoli, P.M. (in press) Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the
Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
Neuman, W.R. (1991) The Future of the Mass Audience. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Newman, K.M. (2004) Radio Active: Advertising and Consumer Activism, 1935–1947.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nordenstreng, K. (2008) ‘Institutional Networking: The Story of the International
Association for Media and Communication Research’, pp. 225–50 in D.W. Park
and J. Pooley (eds) The History of Media and Communication Research: Contested
Memories. New York: Peter Lang.
O’Sullivan, T., J. Hartley, D. Saunders and J. Fiske (1983) Key Concepts in
Communication. New York: Methuen.
Peters, J.D. (1986) ‘Institutional Sources of Intellectual Poverty in Communication
Research’, Communication Research 13(4): 527–59.
Peters, J.D. (1996) ‘The Uncanniness of Mass Communication in Interwar Social
Thought’, Journal of Communication 46(3): 108–23.
Roscoe, T. (1999) ‘The Construction of the World Wide Web Audience’, Media,
Culture & Society 21(5): 673–84.
Ross, S.J. (1999) ‘The Revolt of the Audience: Reconsidering Audiences and
Reception During the Silent Era’, pp. 92–111 in M. Stokes and R. Maltby (eds)
American Movie Audiences: From the Turn of the Century to the Early Sound Era.
London: British Film Institute.
Shimpach, S. (2005) ‘Working Watching: The Creative and Cultural Labor of the
Media Audience’, Social Semiotics 15(3): 343–60.
Slot, M. and V. Frissen (2007) ‘Users in the “Golden” Age of the Information
Society’, Observatorio Journal 3: 201–24.
Smythe, D. (1977) ‘Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism’, Canadian Journal
of Political and Social Theory 1(3): 1–27.
Smythe, D. (1978) ‘A Rejoinder to Graham Murdock’, Canadian Journal of Political
and Social Theory 2(2): 120–9.
Spurgeon, C. (2008) Advertising and New Media. New York: Routledge.
Turow, J. (1990) ‘The Critical Importance of Mass Communication as a Concept’,
pp. 9–20 in B.D. Ruben and L.A. Lievrouw (eds) Mediation, Information, and
Communication. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turow, J. (1992) ‘On Reconceptualizing “Mass Communication”’, Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 36(1): 105–10.
Webster, J.G. and P.F. Phalen (1997) The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant
Model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wirth, L. (1948) ‘Consensus and Mass Communication’, American Sociological
Review 13(1): 1–15.
Wright, C.R. (1960) ‘Functional Analysis and Mass Communication’, Public Opinion
Quarterly 24: 606–20.

Philip M. Napoli, PhD, is Professor of Communications and Media Management

in the Graduate School of Business, and Director at the Donald McGannon
Communication Research Center at Fordham University in New York. His
research interests focus on media institutions and media policy. He is the author
of the books Foundations of Communications Policy (2001), Audience
Economics (2003) and Audience Evolution (in press). Address: Donald
McGannon Communication Research Center, Fordham University, 113 West
60th St, New York, NY, 10023, USA. [email: [email protected]]

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at Tehran University on December 2, 2010

View publication stats