As I read the different definitions of keywords posted by my classmates, I found one that particularly connected to our discussion on mass media. The keyword was “access”.
During our discussion of mass media in class and the “Critical Media Studies” reading, it was concluded that what differentiates mass media from individual media was the ability of mass media to reach remote locations efficiently. But, after reading the definition of access, I believe that the differential factor between mass media and individual media should be access, not the ability to reach a remote audience.
In the “access” keyword blog post, it talks about an example of a person and their computer. In the example, it is described that just by having a computer, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have access to what is on the computer. Your access depends on your cognitive ability to use the computer. According to the definition in the blogpost, access involves the opportunity to gain entry and obtain use of a system, network or file but does not stop at the physical sense. I believe the same applies to mass media. Just because a broadcasted concert in LA has the potential to reach an audience in France, it doesn’t mean that people in France have cognitive access to the broadcasted concert. To the people in France, their accessibility will not only depend on if they have a device to stream the concert but also, their comprehension of the concert. Perhaps not everyone in France can understand the lyrics of what is sang at the concert since it is in English, and therefore, lack access to the essence of the concert.
In short, I don’t think that the mere potential of something to reach a remote audience is enough to conclude something is “mass media”. The potential to reach remote audiences doesn’t guarantee access to the media in a cognitive way, access does.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your post! You raise an interesting point about the differential factor between mass and individual media; you suggest it should be access, rather than the ability to reach a remote audience. I also liked the example that the group included in their post about the person at their computer. What you say about access depending on one’s cognitive ability to use the computer made me think a lot about my grandparents. They have access to a computer, but they really don’t have access to what is on the computer. But what good is a computer if you can’t use it?
Hi Andrea you make a very interesting point about mass media. I also agree that just because something has the capability to have influence in many different areas it doesn’t mean that it is mass media. Something can only be mass media if it is has the ability to be accessed by people from different areas. Is something really mass media if nobody looks at it regardless if it can be viewed on a phone, TV or computer? Furthermore, just because someone has a computer it doesn’t mean that they can access mass media or have the ability to access it.
Something can only be mass media if it is accessed by people from different areas*