Research Post #4

Bennett, W. Lance, and Jarol B. Manheim. "The One-Step Flow of Communication."Politics, Social Networks, and the History of Mass Communications Research: Rereading Personal Influence. Ed. Peter Simonson. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2006. Print.

This article is considerably different from the others I have chosen. Instead of recounting a study the authors are, instead, offering a reinterpretation of an existing theory.

In classic two-step flow theory messages are issued via mass media to a homogenous audience. Opinion leaders interpret and contextualize the message for smaller groups, allowing the same message to have different meanings for different groups. Bennett and Manheim hypothesize that social and technological changes leading to individual isolation, communication channel fragmentation, and message targeting technology have combined to change not just the message, but also the recipient of information.

When two-step flow theory was first proposed civil society was strong. The authors suggest that since the 1990s mass media audiences have declined while niche media audiences have grown. The fragmentation of society has meant that people have become more responsible for managing their own emotional and cognitive realities. The result of this has been a move toward participation in multiple, fluid, lifestyle-based social networks and less reliance on interpersonal influence.

Messages designed for this changed audience need to be framed in terms of the needs, wants, expectations, preferences, and interests of individual audience members rather than those of larger groups. The only way to do that, the authors contend, is through the use of technology in a one-step process.

It is interesting to wonder whether changes to the audience have necessitated new methods of message delivery, or whether new technologies have precipitated changes in the audience. Regardless of the answer to this chicken-and-egg riddle digitization and miniaturization are increasing individualization in delivery and reception of information.

Bennett and Manheim point to three results stemming from these changes. The first is evolving media habits. The authors compare the old “appointment-based” society of people gathering around network broadcasts to the new forms of on-demand news and podcasts.

The second change noted by the authors is a micro-level change in how people receive information. People physically process information differently dependent on the medium. Readers react differently than TV watchers. Cell phones and constant web connectivity have not been studied sufficiently to point out how they may differ from previous modes of communication.

The third result of technological changes has been at the macro level, with new forms of media replacing the old. Television replaced radio and is now being replaced by new digital media. With new media it is possible to preselect perceptions and values. For example, if I look at a page on Amazon.com I will be shown what other people who bought the item also bought, or how many of them chose this particular product over another offering. Amazon can send information through channels and embedded with clues that clarify how the information is relevant to me, as an individual.

The authors end by expressing some concern over how these changes will be used and what long-term changes may result. The technologies we choose to send messages, and how we use them, have the power to further isolate individuals or to build communities.