Introduction to Communication Science week 4: 4.7 Getting Through the Filter

Download links

1. not in the Coursera site:

Transcript of all Week 4 videos: https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/commscience/transcripts%2FTranscript_Week_4_Coursera.pdf

This lecture in .webm: http://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/commscience/recoded_videos%2F4.7.cccf1d7987a16daa0380529007d32738.webm

2. In the Coursera site, but apparently unaffected by the login block, for this lecture:

Subtitle text: https://class.coursera.org/commscience-001/lecture/subtitles?q=71_en&format=txt

Video mp4: https://class.coursera.org/commscience-001/lecture/download.mp4?lecture_id=71
*****

Week 4 description:
The reception and signification perspective
This week we'll cover some basic theories on message construction and (selective) processing. We will see that scholars are working towards theoretical models that give audiences a more active role in communication processes.

In the previous sections we talked about
message construction and audience activity.

We saw that people - contrary to the traditional
mass audience paradigm

are actually quite adept at selecting the
messages they want to

process. Both on a conscious level, by selecting
specific media for consumption

and an unconscious level because of cognitive
shortcuts.

We all have our own shortcuts or filters based
on our personal background,

experiences, interests et cetera.

But studies also suggest different ways in which
our cognitive shortcuts

are actually influenced by mass media.

So maybe in some ways, our filters are not so
personal and unique after all.

Some messages for instance, go through our
filter because the media tell us that they are

important, that we should concern ourselves
with them, and form some sort of opinion on

them. Last week I discussed the agenda-setting
theory, which proposes exactly this.

The media don’t tell us what to think, but they
do influence what we think about.

McCombs and Shaw asked people, in their
study of the 1968 presidential election

in the United States, what the most important
election issues were.

Interestingly enough, the results corresponded
to a large extent

with the amount of attention these items were
given by the local and national news.

Of course we could assume that news
professionals were keen observers of public

opinion and therefore the news media serve as a
mirror of the public agenda.

But McCombs and Shaw suggested the exact
opposite.

That the amount of media attention influenced
the public agenda.

They called this theory Agenda Setting.

The idea in its simplest form is that media tell
us which (news) events are important,

who important people are and where important
things happen.

It is usually used in relation to the news, but can
also be used in other ways.

Since the seventies, many studies have added
to our knowledge of agenda-setting.

One important later addition to the theory is the
concept of priming.

Scholars noticed that people, when asked to
evaluate political candidates,

use the criteria that the media give attention to.

This is called priming. And I will explain:

if the media would give a lot of attention to, let’s
say the near-extinction of pandas.

Then people are primed to connect this item
with their evaluation of political candidates

so basically they will start with asking

“What is politician x view on panda extinction
and how does he or she plan to battle it?”.

If the media give a lot of attention to something
else, like the economy

than people will link this to their evaluation.

A movie review can also prime the potential
audience,

if the review goes on and on about the special
effects of a movie,

then the audience is more likely to include the
special effects in their evaluation process.

If the review focuses more on the storyline,

than the audience is primed to pay attention to
that.

Well, you can see how this is an addition to
agenda-setting,

the media don’t persuade people to think this or
that,

but they do influence what people think about,
when evaluating.

Of course some items won't receive any media
attention at all.

This has become a separate field of study within
communication science

called Gatekeeping. It is, simply put, the study
of how the filtering process of the media works.

Gatekeeping theory addresses the question why
some items are let through the ‘gate’

while others are filtered out.

Finally, media professionals who can make the
decision to admit topics through the gate,

or keep them from the media agenda, are called
gatekeepers.

So before messages can reach our own
personal filter,

they are first filtered by gatekeepers in the
media.

If you think about it, it’s a miracle that
messages reach us at all.