What does it really mean to speak to the masses? From kings carving words into stone to TikTok clips spreading across the globe, people have always tried to push their voices further than the moment in front of them.
Mass media, as John Durham Peters explains in Critical Terms for Media Studies (Mitchell & Hansen, 2010), is part of this long history of communication across distance and time. In our group’s presentation, we looked at how mass media reshape communication, power, and culture. Peters (2010) explains this through a triad: the message (content), the means (delivery), and the agents (authors and audiences). Together, these form an ecosystem of media.
Mass Media has transformed from speaking face-to-face, to broadcasting for unknown audiences in three main features:
- Generalization, where the content is made for public standards and interests rather than tailor for specific individual needs.
- Spatiotemporal Reach, which enables communication across space and time.
- Elective Participation, related to the targeted audiences’ availability in time and the method of access.
Classic Theorists on Media & Power
These three aspects allow the media to become “mass” by expanding its audience while addressing them as strangers.
Classic theorists like McLuhan and Innis deepen this argument.
- “The Medium is the Message”, one of Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrases, on how the form of media covers more meaningful information than the content it carries.
- Harold Innis shows a different perspective on power and different media forms, proved by the space-binding media like images, prints and audios serve better in Commerce, while time-binding media like oral traditions and scripture sustain Religious and Cultural authorities.
These key arguments of the chapter highlight why media matters while showing how mass media has always been tied to structures of power while still leaving room for audiences to interpret and resist.
Media’s Reach & The Power of Audiences
Our chapter on Mass Media looks at media through a general lens that broadly covers concepts about its development and reception. It begins by discussing how “any form of communication has potential for spillage,” meaning that any form of communication, but most significantly word of mouth/face-to-face communication, may not be limited to being understood by the target audience. For example, a conversation, a speech, or a broadcast always has the potential to be overheard by an external audience that the content is not intended for.
The second point, which the chapter elaborates on most extensively, is crucial to understanding the presence and efficacy of mass media: the Spatiotemporal Range. This basically refers to the presence of a media object across time and space, and how it maintains permanence through this.
The spoken word is a temporary form of communication. It addresses only a finite audience. Even though it can address large audiences at once, it cannot be passed on across cities or countries or years in the exact same way. In these terms, writing has a better spatiotemporal range. With the printing press, the written word could be replicated multiple times, which gives it permanence and the ability to be transported across landscapes. This becomes even easier with the internet and, in today’s age, social media. Now, ideas can be communicated instantly, reach an indefinitely large audience, and be preserved over decades effortlessly.
Lastly, the writer addresses the fact that interaction isn’t always two-sided. The way a piece of media is interpreted, and by whom, lies mainly in the hands of the audience/ consumers. Creators, authors, and speakers can curate their content to address a specific group of people and ensure it is understood in a certain way. However, the actual engagement with that content can always differ from the intended outcome.
These sections lead us to understand the place of mass media in culture and through its evolution, eventually guiding us to a main argument, which, according to Peters is that “power is perhaps the ultimate mass medium.” Keeping this in mind, we think that the most crucial point that the readers can latch onto is that, despite Mass Media being centered around institutions of power, ultimately, the power to choose what influences people resides with us as audiences and consumers of media. Or in simple words: audiences have agency.
This chapter is especially important and relevant now, when every individual has the ability to create independently, as well as easy access to any form of media through the internet. In such a digital environment, people of power can spread messages farther than ever. At the same time, this amplification of the spatiotemporal range, also amplifies the ability for audiences to reinterpret, resist, boycott, or support these messages and spread their own individual ideas. The vastness and accessibility of the internet allow the audience to do more than just accept or reject dominant ideas, which adds fragility to power.
Connecting the Dots: Finding Common Ground in Media Theory
While this chapter looks at mass media through a broad lens, we found that other groups’ presentations had many overlapping themes with ours and were able to dive deeper into certain concepts to provide further insight into areas of media.
For instance, though our presentation used the term ‘communication’ loosely, the group that presented on communication further explained how it works and the systems within it. They compared two models of communication: the transmission model, which focuses on the one-way transfer of information, and the constitutive model, which views communication as a dynamic, reflexive process. The latter describes how meanings are not fixed and are instead created during interaction, as the decoding of a message by a receiver heavily relies on social and contextual factors. We found that the constitutive model is similar to our chapter’s discussion of mass media’s indefinite form of address, in which it is explained that different audiences outside of the target group can interpret the same piece of information differently and thus change the original meaning.
Furthermore, we emphasised the significance of power in mass media, which is a theme that runs through many other chapter presentations. The presentation on image talked about how we as humans heavily rely on images to act as tangible representations of concepts, which is why religious imagery, such as paintings, has such a strong influence on audience perceptions. The group that covered writing detailed different forms of writing such as recordkeeping or numerical notion for trade, and how the ability to write distinguishes those who have access to knowledge, and therefore power and control. Thus, image, writing, religion and art are some of the many chapters that relate back to our chapter’s argument that media is always tied to institutions of power, which makes mass media a tool of global influence.
Reflective Conclusion
Looking back on our presentation, we think there are a few things we could have done differently. One main thing we wish we had included was more examples, both from the author’s text and from our own media experiences. The chapter itself is filled with vivid illustrations from medieval manuscripts to modern broadcasting, and bringing more of those into the presentation might have made the theory feel less abstract. Even more importantly, connecting the ideas directly to examples familiar to us as BMS students, maybe like current events, pop culture or how we consume global media. We think this could have made it more interactive and relatable for our audience.
What we found challenging about this chapter was its sheer scope. The author moves from ancient kings and religious sermons to radio and television, and at first it was difficult to pin down what exactly he meant by “mass media.” Was it a modern invention or a timeless human practice? Eventually, we came to see that his answer is both: the urge to reach the many, to preserve messages across space and time, has always been central to communication. Even face-to-face speech, the author argues, carries the potential for mass communication because words inevitably spill beyond their intended audience. That realization reshaped how we think about communication itself, it is never fully contained.
Preparing this presentation also taught us something valuable that we think matters for the rest of the class: the importance of studying media historically and critically. It’s easy to treat mass media as something that began with the printing press or exploded with radio, television, and the Internet. Still, the author shows us that the logic of mass communication is much older. Religious texts, oral performances, decrees, even monuments, all functioned as forms of mass media long before the digital era. For us, that was a crucial takeaway. Mass media is always entangled with institutions of power but it has also always been reshaped by the audiences who interpret and respond to it.
If we had to summarize our own takeaway, it’s that mass media is never neutral. It carries with it histories of power, control, and institutions, yet it is never completely one-sided. Audiences always bring their own interpretations and agency, whether that’s through critique, resistance, or creative re-use. That tension, between institutional influence and human response, is what makes studying media so relevant to us today. In a world where media can both oppress and liberate, the responsibility falls on us to recognize its power, challenge its narratives and imagine new possibilities for how stories are told.
Contributors: Maryam Abusamak, Adela Lynge, Minh Ha Nguyen (Eira), Kenisha Sukhwal
Reference: Peters, J. D. (2010). Mass media. In W. J. T. Mitchell & M. B. Hansen (Eds.), Critical terms for media studies (pp. 267–280). University of Chicago Press.
I really enjoyed your group’s presentation and this blog! The idea that “mass media is never neutral” really stuck with me because mass media always reflects power and audiences are never passive. I really do think that the way media carries messages across time and distance is beautiful because it leaves space for audience interpretation. I also like that you guys reflected on what you would have done differently as well!
Thanks so much, Kim Chi! I agree with you, the fact that mass media is never neutral really shapes how we see its role in power and interpretation. I like how you described the beauty of media in carrying messages across time while still leaving space for audiences to respond. That balance between influence and interpretation is exactly what makes it so important to study.
“Mass media is always entangled with institutions of power but it has also always been reshaped by the audiences who interpret and respond to it.”
I really liked this explanation and your presentation! It is a very relevant topic when investigating the influence of media both now and in the past, and especially when putting these objects or ideals in the context of institutional and technological revolutions. We have evolved in tandem with the medias/technology were created (as Marx and McLuhan theorized), and as such, they are part of how we experience the world. We have agency, yes, but as you said “it [media] is never fully contained”; the scope of its influence spans both time and space, and we are really just barely beginning to understand the influence (ramifications?) of this relationship.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! Your point about co-evolution is really important. McLuhan’s idea that “we shape our tools and then they shape us” sits so well beside Peters’ idea that power is the ultimate mass medium. I also agree with your point about us only beginning to understand the scope of this relationship. It reminds me that studying media is less about pinning down fixed meanings and more about tracing how power and audience agency constantly reshape one another..
I was thinking about the Spatiotemporal Range and how it relates between spoken vs written content in the context of mass media. And while it is true that with the printing press you could replicate the word over and over again, I wonder if the same concept applies to the spoken word in the context of audio recordings. With modern-day technology, if there is an audio recording of the “spoken word”, this can be copied and replicated over and over, much like the written word. We see this in music too, how the written word and spoken word are combined and then replicated, being pushed out to large audiences via radio and in other spaces in modern day. I wonder how this would change the way in which we see mass media moves and shifts throughout different mediums, and how that continues to change the message of the media itself?
You’re absolutely right to bring up the spatiotemporal range, whose evolution continually transforms how information is created, shared, stored, and interpreted. So historically, the spoken language was limited by time and space, and the written word, especially printing, broadened the communication’s spatiotemporal reach. And now, with modern technologies, as you mentioned, it has been lifted into the same space of replicability and endurance once reserved for writing, which means spoken words now can travel across time and space, exactly how written words once did, just as effectively and sometimes more intimately with the emotion and different tones that voice carries. So, the ability to record and replicate the spoken word changes not only the range but also the nature of Mass Media. It deepens the meaning of the message with multiple layers, which shifts the power dynamics around the sender(s).
e.g., a viral speech that’s clipped, remixed, and shared across social media. The original message, once spoken to a live audience, now travels globally, layered with new meanings and interpretations, which shows how the medium and replication can change the message itself.
I really enjoyed this blog and your take on power in relation to mass media! I especially appreciated that you acknowledged the overarching control power holds in mass media, but also highlighted that audiences are not merely passive recipients; they have agency in the information they choose to engage with and resonate with. This perspective struck me because it portrays media holistically, as a space of multi-way communication rather than a one-way flow of information. To me, this view feels hopeful, almost rebellious, as it pushes back against the dominance of higher societal powers and restores a sense of influence to individuals.
I really appreciate your comment! I like how you described this perspective as “hopeful, almost rebellious.” That really resonated with me. I think you’re right that there’s something powerful in remembering audiences aren’t just passive consumers. Even when mass media is shaped by institutions of power, people can reshape the narrative, resist, or reinterpret it in ways the original creators never intended.
It makes me wonder, maybe that’s where real change begins: in the cracks where audiences push back and reclaim the narrative. Power might set the stage but it’s never the final word.
Very enlightening post. I definitely resonated with the importance you’ve expressed about studying media both critically but also retrospectively through time in a historical sense. Randomly, I remember watching The Holdovers and recalling a scene where Paul Giamatti says that we must begin in the past to really grasp an understanding of the present. This could apply to anything, really, but it somehow stuck out to me in this context. There is such a rich and often times forgotten past in terms of how media was created predating, like you said, the printing press or the radio. I really agreed with your emphasis on today’s mass media’s perpetual link to institutions of power as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgCy1LFUkJY
Thank you for your insightful comment and for providing a link to the scene you are referring to! I found it very relevant to our point that mass media should not only be studied in its modern forms but also through a historical lens. A quote from the scene that stuck out to me was “History is not simply the study of the past, it is an explanation of the present.” Indeed, older forms of media, such as religious texts or spoken word, should not be studied in isolation but instead in tandem with mass media’s current forms such as television and social media. This scene reminded me that there is nothing new in human experience. Although the tools through which messages are disseminated have greatly evolved to make communication much faster and more widespread, many of these messages point toward behaviours and ideologies that are not too far off from the current society we live in.
I found the concept of spillage or the idea of media “spill[ing] beyond” its “intended audience” through “mass communication” to be extremely relevant to many social platforms today. On Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, users are constantly surrounded by short-form videos previewing controversial events. These short pieces of content can exclude important contextual information and generate misunderstandings. A short video or a carousel of images meant to garner a user’s attention and inspire them to research a pressing topic, may reach an audience who will use such media to confirm their biases. In the distracting environment of these platforms, users often scan headlines but refuse to read their linked articles. I think these tendencies show that “communication…is never fully contained”; differing perceptions of mass media are produced through the varying habits of media consumers .
Thank you for your comment! Yes, this concept of mass media and its “spillage” is especially true in today’s social media landscape, where audiences also do not have complete control over what they consume beyond a “curated algorithm,” especially when it comes to scrolling through short-form content. This is a very insightful comment, as in our blog, we focus more on the idea about “audiences having agency” because of social media, but the same qualities about social media also contradict that thought, which makes me realise that it becomes increasingly difficult to theorize based on generalisations and every individual’s experience of media consumption is full of nuances.
I really like your point that mass media isn’t a modern invention, but rather has its roots in older forms of communication like sermons and monuments. I also find your perspective on audiences reshaping meaning very interesting, as it illustrates how communication is never one-way. This is similar to the transmission model we discussed in our communication group. Communication requires a response; if it’s one-way, it’s not communication. For example, if a text message isn’t sent due to a signal interruption, it’s not communication. Media, on the other hand, is the very act of transmitting information across time and space, creating communication, and this is a reflection of the evolution of our time.
Hi Saber, thank you for drawing that connection between our chapters! Your comment made me think about how two-way communication has become more prevalent in mass media over time: people can now provide feedback through social media platforms, while something like traditional TV broadcasting makes it hard for audience opinion to be heard. You also brought up a good point on how media creates communication; communication cannot exist without the medium through which a message is transmitted.
I enjoyed your post!! It revealed to us the history of mass media so uncomplicatedly yet so engagingly. I liked how you started with the idea that people have never ceased desiring to have their voices heard further, whether it was through stone inscriptions or viral videos. It made the topic universal and relatable. Your breakdown of Peters’ message, means, and agents made the concept so clear, and bringing in McLuhan and Innis was truly added dimension. I especially liked the way you kept everything coming back to power and audience agency and showed how although media might control us, we can also, in some way, control it. The conclusion reflection was genuine and thoughtful. I do believe it would be wonderful to add more recent examples as a means to make these theories appear even more concrete. This post in general was concise, informative, and connected theory to our world today!!
Your introductory is really grabby, I feel hooked, I really like it. This chapter has a lot of complex ideas, but I really like how you guys approach it. I also think the notion of mass media = power is quite important, it reminds me of a lot of similar ideas we’ve all discussed in past courses. That the power to globally address massive audiences is overwhelmingly powerful. I’m curious if you guys think that the power today’s technology grants mass media is creating worse funnels of power, or giving an opportunity for smaller voices to be heard?
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! : ) I’m really glad you found the introduction engaging, we wanted to make such a dense topic feel approachable.
And that’s a great question. I actually think it’s both. On one hand, digital platforms have concentrated power in new ways, with algorithms and corporations shaping what we see. But at the same time, these same tools have opened space for smaller, independent voices to reach global audiences in ways that were never possible before. It’s like the internet amplified both the hierarchy and the resistance to it.