Mass Society Theories, Social Responsibilty Theory and the Media Essay

The first half of the 20th hundred played a vital role in the state of the present media. The century commenced with the influx of untested forms of media as modernization uncontrollably invaded all social forms. The dominant medium of the nineteenth century, the newspaper, sustained its force come out of the closet at the beginning of the century. Moving pictures, or film, was born and started to form its own cult of followers. The entrance of wireless and television also received a warm welcome from the cumulationes in the succeeding decades. These innovations in media technology received harsh criticisms from different sources (Baran & Davis, 1995).The impact of the new media technology in the recent caterpillar tread of history was evident. Thus, it incited chaos among the social elites that started relentless criticism of the power of media and the formulation of what is now known as the mass gild theory. Leaders of established social and political institutions paniced the kind of order that would grow out of this aspect of modernization.Long-term effects of the uncontrolled use of media were the focus of the mass society theory. Mass society theorists highly regarded the power of media, especially the new, more technologically-advanced ones, and how it could influence the average people in the society, which are potentially more powerful than the social elites. They also feared that the power of media could be a tool for the rise of a measureitarian social order in America, as what some parts of Europe had experienced (Baran & Davis, 1995).The report of the media also led the theorists to push their assumptions forward. The powerful people manipulated what was supposedly a free media. Yellow journalism was rampant to protect their reputation. Sensationalized and over-dramatized news stories were as widespread to attract audiences for profit. The elites also started to question the quality of destination the media projected. It was accused of being cheap and tasteless, and that the media practitioners were not qualified to formulate that type of entertainment which instantly became usual to the masses.With all these issues raised against the dominant and emerging forms ofmedia, scholars and some media practitioners volunteered and attempted to lead media reform and prescribe how media dust should function, giving birth to the normative theories. Earlier patterns of despotism and libertarianism were strongly criticized. Many were not convinced what pridefulism proposed to subject the media to governing authorities that would control these media and sustain social order (Baran & Davis, 1995). Libertarian thought, on the other hand, seeks total freedom of the media from control.After the World War II, the Hutchins Commission formulated the social responsibility theory that compromised the authoritarian and libertarian thoughts. The principles of the social responsibility theory could be considered innovative as it was able to make the two opponent thoughts meet at a certain point. It, somehow, answered the key points of mass society theory, but not all told scrapping them as these assumptions can unflurried be observed today.Social responsibility theory regarded the media the same as the mass society in terms of medias power. The theory considered how much these media could influence the society, and that the media has the power to dapple peoples minds. Social responsibility theory advised that media should consider their obligations to the society through professional ethics and by promoting what was lacking or needed in the society. At that point, most media companies had accepted this thought and strived to achieve its ideals.The social responsibility theory encouraged media owners to recognize their role to the society and that they were an effective throttle valve to social change, or to a Great Community, as the Chicago School envisioned. In that way, the fear of a totalitarian social order was reduced since social responsibility theory appealed for idealism of man-to-man media practitioners through being able to identify their active role in preserving democracy (Baran & Davis, 1995).As the twentieth century moved towards its second half, media systems had exerted efforts to absorb the ideals of the social responsibility theory. Itdiluted the bad image of media that the mass society theorists projected while the social responsibility theory aimed for informativeness, truth, accuracy, objectivity, and balance (Baran & Davis, 1995). Up until now when traditional media boundaries are slowly melting caused by the rapid innovations in technology, the threats posed by the mass society theory are still present and the social responsibility theorys ideals are still being tried and tested.ReferenceBaran, Stanley J., & Davis, Dennis K. (1995). Mass Communication Theory Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Belmont, CA Wadsworth Publishing Company.