Introduction
Communication, a word with so many meanings, terms and buzz words attached to it, single-handedly forms the baseline for many of the facets of our everyday lives. Among everything that existent today, communication is the key to our understanding of events around us. It forms the basis of all sciences, all disciplines and the means by which we know, understand and “communicate” our ideas, beliefs, values to the members of our society. This is communication. It is this communication that differentiates us from the rest of the beings, in existence today. But how do we define communication? What exactly does communication mean to us? How does it impact our daily lives?
Any interaction between two or more individuals aimed at sharing thoughts, experiences, ideas, perceptions and messages can be termed as ‘communication’. Communication is a two-way process that involves the sender creating and encoding a message and transmitting it across the communication medium. The message gets transferred to the recipient, who receives it, decodes it to retrieve the contents and interprets the message, as sent by the sender (Com 2008).
Communications Revolution
During the past decade, the world has undergone a complete communications transformation, rather a revolution, owing in big part to the technological breakthroughs of today, which has shaped our new lives, both personal and professional in a manner previously not thought or unchallenged in any part of the globe.
There have been various reasons for such a revolution, the foremost of which is extensive and even more, exclusive control (Rev 2007) over the information content they wish to view or ignore. It is now becoming increasingly challenging for companies to stick only to the traditional norms. Without adapting to the newer environments, many companies and businesses today face risks of extinction, and starkly declining chances of leveraging from their existing customers. Due to a wide variety of media available at the disposal of the customers, companies now face a sharp challenge to deal with keeping uniformity in their messages/products across all mediums to project a steady image to customers.
The second reason, owing to increased control in the hands of the customers, is for customers to verify the credibility of the source/incidence of the communication message. In such a case, while companies adapted to the newer approaches to communicating with its customers, setting off in a new medium requires that companies embrace themselves against the challenge to deal with floating the same message across all channels of customer communication to ensure that consistent image/perception is built in the minds of the customers, interacting with the company simultaneously across multiple channels.
Communication gurus agree that there is a very fine line between the two closely related concepts, uniformity and authenticity. While uniformity is the consistency of the message being delivered across channels, authenticity has more to do with the essence of the message. A message through consistent in all of the media, on which it is broadcast to the intended recipients, might lack the basic element that has the most intended effect on the recipients, the emotions. The result of this communications revolution also poses a challenge for maintaining the basic emotion of the message, thereby communicating the actual purpose of communication.
Going back to the traditional setting, it was an impliedly assumed control of the company/sender broadcasting the message about the time, place, content, audience and other factors of the message. Today’s technology has delivered this control to recipients who possess complete authority over the message they wish to hear/discard and choosing one that interests them the most. It would be unequivocal judgment if it is said that technology has been a decisive force in today’s communication revolution and we owe it to technology that we have control over the information we wish to gain. On the other hand, technology has turned this message retrieval timely, as well as the ordered across all channels communicated. Organizations acting in large part have adapted themselves to these breakthrough technological advances, and are using them inappropriately to control the audiences’ reactions and responses.
Media Environments and Their Impact on Communication
We cannot disregard the fact that communication medium is both a social (Hong Kong Law Reform Commission 2004) as well as an economic enterprise that involves the provision of goods and services to both the public sector (necessary for the effective functioning of the society as a whole) as well as private (serving the private needs of individuals). Different communication media are hence said to operate in two environments (Calhoun 2005), public and private. These two environments have significant impact in affecting the nature of information and behaviors shaped as a result of media operations in these two entirely different environments.
Communication between the audience and the public officials creates the public sphere (Sphere 2008), which enables the open-flow of information between the two parties. In such a case, free and independent media systems are mandatory for the smooth operations of this system.
Similarly, flow of messages between communication media owners and audience, specifically restricted based on certain attributes or having interests other than those of the general public constitutes the private sphere. The message can flow freely between the two parties, who can communicate in a restrictive open fashion. This flow of information is restricted and hence content and authenticity of information may be questioned.
These two media environments are largely different from each other in shaping the lives of the audiences involved. While public environments are highly contested due to the level of details of information that should be made public, opposite is the case with private environments. Opposed to the public disclosure of information, the private environment has a drawback on the amount of information that should be limited to a specific audience, not making up the entire general public.
Although communications today have shaped and improved our lives in various manners, every revolution comes at a price, that some have to bear for the convenience to the overall social network. Communications, on many fronts, serves the purpose of elite few through the use of media and technology that enables them to control the general public in a manner previously unthinkable. Agencies and institutions create myths and stories for the general public and develop these storylines over a period of time through the use of different technological means, the most common examples of which are blogging (Intr 2004), discussion forums, social networks, story building etc. and gaining sufficient ground for acceptance.
Today, it is relatively common for organizations to hire bloggers / viral marketers for the sake of delivering their messages and collecting people on discussion forums through the use of the available technology and resources, to gather information about the level of acceptability of a concept as well as emotions of the public, to target information specific to an audience group. Various social networks operate that propagate messages that work on opinions not held by all individuals, rather followed (Tristan 2001). These communication networks are controlled by bloggers who frequently send messages, raising issues, gathering and expressing opinions not completely verifiable to the originating entity.
It is a most commonly held belief that such agencies and institutions today control all the information that is communicated to the intended recipients, keeping such technology in store for use at a later stage, and becoming influential in regulating policies, processes as well as the functions governing communication to the recipients.
Impact of Communication Media Environments
We can safely say that communication today is a controlled entity. This revolution has resulted in a number of outcomes that are prevalent in our society today.
Reversed Fragmentation (Langlois 2002): Communications revolution as a result of the adoption of newer technological means has brought up the community into larger groups, consisting of hundreds and millions of people from around the world sharing similar interests/information.
Access to Information: The new communications revolution has resulted in an increased access to information for all sort of audiences, television, print as well as the new era of ‘online’ communication where everything from television to online news updates are available through the internet.
Cooperative Learning: Due to reduced fragmentation enabling the formation of larger groups, it has now become possible to enhance learning more effectively through cooperation and discussion with a larger audience, that is virtually impossible to gather in a physical setting.
Increasingly Opinionated Audience
The media revolution has helped developing an audience that has access to a wider range of sources, effectively enabling them to gather a great variety of information in a short span of time. This has helped in taking reducing the amount of time required to shape the opinion of an audience. The audience, in the general sense, is becoming more aware and opinionated about the information available to them, in an easy, befitting manner.
Role of Media in the Past Decade
Considering the overall scenario, the media has generally failed (USMed 2002) in fulfilling its role in serving the public interest. Technology has made it possible for the media to wage war long before an incursion even starts, fueling more into the recipients through the use of hate networks.
It is commonly held that media has a large impact on the outcome/reaction to warfare before, during and after the war. Communication media has a large role to play in shaping the general public’s perception about warfare, as well as serving in the national interest to promote patriotism, unity as well as ‘telling the truth’ which most often is not considered. There is a large variety of cases that show that media acts in large part in favor of one party rather than serving the general public.
Some of the possible reasons of vast media failure in the event of warfare are:
- Passing of unchecked information: A major reason for media failure is that information is communicated without verifying the source of its origination.
- Readiness to join the drumbeat: It is common for sources playing ‘to the same tune’ in order to gain acceptance/coverage among the public. A media frenzy is followed after large news is broken by a member of the media, and the rest of the ‘followers’ quoting without verifying the sources, in order to gain exposure among their audience for ‘being the first’
- Willingness to follow an implied leader: An important reason for media failure is serving the interest, based on their confidence in the authenticity of information broadcast by a larger media (Moyers 2009) group impliedly the business leader in controlling information in the communication medium.
- Failure to state the obvious: One of the most important reasons for ineffective role of media is the incorporation of unverifiable, often incorrect information, usually based on adaptations from other sources to join the parade, rather than stating what obvious right in front of them looks. Many believe that the general public is more interested in ‘myths and stories’ rather than knowing the truth, usually following the notion ‘people are not worried about the things they do not know’.
- Following an inexistent story: A principal reason behind the failed role of media is the pressure put on the communication organizations.
- Dummy sources: These sources are created by the media itself to promote the originality of their story as well as ‘being the first’ in breaking the news to the public
- Failed governance: Inadequate measures exist that govern the operations/boundaries of the media, control and content of information that is shared with the public etc.
In the words of Noam Chomsky (Chomsky 1998), media exists to serve the interests of a relatively smaller group with interests far reaching than those of the general public. The communication medium is controlled largely by a small group, aimed to control the general public and serving their own interests, ignoring at large, the interests of the nation. This is a major reason why the media fails to paint the ‘actual picture’.
Conclusion
Communication forms the core of any interaction. It is a way of exchanging ideas, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, providing means of stronger communal integration between members of the society. Media acts as a major source of communication between different parties aiming to collect/gather information for the various purposes. It is a social force that brings us together regardless of physical barriers. New age communication media has made the general public more informed, aware and opinionated. But this media has a larger role to play, keeping integrity as a cornerstone of its operations. In some parts, these opinions can be safely shaped, but in my general opinion, as the media goes on and on about rights of freedom of speech, information communication should be governed with integrity, serving all, not a specific group of people.
Communication media operates in two environments, public and private, specific to the nature of recipients and content of the information communicated. Over the past decade, the information media has failed in its role of acting with integrity, as well as its failure to inform the general public during warfare for a variety of reasons. There have been inconsistencies with the sources of information, negligence, failed regulatory controls and others that need to be addressed to create media that operates with its actual role that it has to play in due accordance with its responsibility to the general public.
Works Cited
“Communication” Communication definition, communication skills and more (2008): Web.
“The Internet communications revolution and the Republic” Australian Review of Public Affairs (2002): Web.
“The Communication Revolution” ComPRehension (2007): Web.
“The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission” Privacy and Media Intrusion (2004): Chapter 7. Web.
Tristan T. Utschig. “The Communication Revolution and Its Effects on 21st Century Engineering Education” Idaho State University (2001): Web.
“Defining the Public Sphere” The World Bank Group (2008): Web.
Craig Calhoun. “Rethinking the Public Sphere” Social Science Research Council (2005): Web.
“Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War” Exposes the Media’s Failure to do Their Job” Common Dreams (2009): Web.
“Manufacturing Consent – A Propaganda Model” Third World Traveler (1998): Web.
“The Failure of US Media” Information Clearing House (2002): Web.