As seen onFavicon for

La comunicación de masas ya no es lo que era

Unos hablan de una nueva época de efectos mínimos de los medios de comunicación. Otros hablan de que la expresión comunicación de masas ha perdido su sentido y otros deducen que seremos islas con intereses particulares. Del siglo XX al XXI, algo ha cambiado radicalmente.


  1. En 2001, Steven H. Chaffee y Miriam J. Metzger publican The End of Mass Communication?

  2. - The word mass in mass communication should be replaced with the term media.- Maybe "mass communication is a fleeting idea, a purely 20th-century phenomenon. This notion is certainly shocking, but could it be true? What is the future of mass communication in the new media environment?
    - T. S. Eliot’s famous quip about how television allows us all to “laugh at the same joke at the same time” captures nicely this aspect of mass communication
    - For others, the term mass communication is an oxymoron. These people tend to focus on the second word, communication. Because traditional definitions of communication are based on the idea of exchange, and because the technologies formass communication (until recently) only allowed information to flow in one direction, true communication on a mass scale was impossible, according to this view.
    Mass communication as a set of media institutions:  Thus, by the middle of the 20th century, the mass media could be characterized by their “bigness and fewness” (Schramm, 1957).

  3. En 2003, Patrick B. O‘Sullivan publica Masspersonal Communication: An Integrative Model Bridging the Mass-Interpersonal Divide

  4. No sólo la comunicación de masas ha cambiado. También la interpersonal.

    "One of the more important benefits of new technology studies is the opportunity to compare how well – or how poorly –communication activities involving new technologies fit existing theory that was based primarily on older technology use (or face-to-face)".

    En realidad, lo único - y muy importante- que distingue a la comunicación online es que es mediada. Computer-mediated. le llaman, aunque computer puede ser un móvil, una tablet o una PSP.

    "Traditionally, mass communication is defined as (a) one-way, (b) technologically mediated messages, (c) delivered to large audiences (d) of individuals not known personally by the sender".

    De acuerdo pero, ¿qué hace entonces un tuitero que tiene 100.000 seguidores sino comunicación masiva?

    "Interpersonal communication is traditionally defined as (a) two-way, (b) nonmediated message exchange between (c) a very small number of participants (usually two), (d) who have personal knowledge of each other."

    Un tuitero que supera una cifra de seguidores que serían un grupo pequeño, hace algo que no es comunicación interpersonal pero si no llega a una cifra macro (¿cuál?) tampoco es comunicación masiva.

    "The Masspersonal Communication construct emerges from observations of instances when (a) individuals use conventional mass communication channels for interpersonal communication, (b) individuals use conventional interpersonal communication channels for mass communication, and (c) individuals engage in mass communication and interpersonal communication simultaneously."

    Desde luego hay individuos que pueden hacer esto de una forma más señalada: los periodistas. Trabajan profesionalmente en el ámbito de la comunicación de masas y se comunican por Twitter.

    "This approach is consistent with the uses and gratifications framework that views individuals as active selectors of media seeking social goals (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). It supplements the uses and gratifications framework with what diffusion theory calls ―reinvention‖ (Rogers, 2003), which is defined as instances when individuals use an innovation in ways other than the developers intended. Recent history of communication technologies provides many instances when individuals have used computer-mediated communication technologies in creative and novel ways that expand its recognized capabilities in supporting human interaction. It is this phenomenon that prompts a re-examination of prevailing scholarly assumptions and definitions regarding newer and older communication technologies".

    "The Masspersonal Communication Model introduced here conceptualizes mass communication, interpersonal communication, and masspersonal communication as related forms of communication distinguished by their variation on two dimensions: (1) exclusivity of message access and (2) message personalization".

    "Access. This dimension involves the degree of access to a particular message at any particular time"

    El acceso más estrecho, un individuo. El más ancho, la multitud.

    "Personalization. Personalization involves the degree to which receivers perceive that a message reflects their distinctiveness as individuals differentiated by their interests, history, relationship network, etc".
  5. Es decir, no hay una frontera clara -con la cibercomunicación, cada día menos- entre comunicación de masas y comunicación interpersonal. Los medios tradicionales y los sociales pueden hacer cualquier cuadrante de comunicación. No sólo los medios, que son instrumentos, sino que una empresa comunicativa o un individuo usan ambos tipos de medios de cualquiera de las maneras que arriba se exponen.
    Un tuitero con miles de seguidores no personaliza ni hace exclusivo su mensaje: es comunicación de masas.
  6. En 2004, nace la red social más masiva, Facebook

  7. En 2005, se realiza un vídeo profético: EPIC 2015

  8. Epic, como sera Internet hacia el 2015?
  9. Y un día de 2006, unos chalados empezaron a trastear con un SMS para Internet

  10. En 2008, W. Lance Bennett y Shanto Iyengar publican A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication

  11. Campos sobre los que hay que reflexionar:

    1.-The impact of audience structure and communication technology. The principal impact of the revolution in technology has been to exponentially increase the supply of information.

    2.- The fragmented audience in an era of selective exposure

    3.- The demise of the inadvertent audience: los telediarios prime time tenían un porcentaje alto (quizá hasta el 50%) de televidentes que estaban allí porque luego iban a poner su serie favorita. El caso es que, sin querer, se estaban enterando de las noticias. Ahora no sucede así, nadie ve las noticias si no quiere y paradójicamente, en la era de la sobreabundancia informativa, cada vez menos gente accede a la información de interés público. Una de las consecuencias es la brecha cada vez mayor entre personas informadas y no informadas.

    4.- Partisan selective exposure among information seekers.

    5.- Technology and the new partisan selectivity It is not a coincidence that the increased availability of news sources has been accompanied by increasing political polarization. Given the intensification of partisan animus, it is not surprising that media choices increasingly reflect partisan considerations. People who feel strongly about the correctness of their cause or policy preferences are more likely to seek out information they believe is consistent with their preferences. In addition, selective exposure enables the popular lifestyle choice of political avoidance, meaning that staggering numbers (perhaps half or more depending on the issue) essentially eliminate the political world from personal reality.

    6.- The future is now
    There is reason to think that the interaction between increasingly individualized reality construction and proliferating personal media platforms has accelerated in just the past few years.(...) The ‘‘haves’’ will find it easier to keep abreast of political events and the ‘‘have-nots’’ will find it easier to ignore political discussion altogether. Second, the increased availability of information implies an important degree of selective exposure to political information. Among the relatively attentive stratum, partisans will gravitate to information from favored sources, while ignoring sources or arguments
    from the opposing side. Meanwhile, the large ranks of inadvertent citizens will continue to elude those who attempt to communicate with them, fueling the costs of political communication, while diminishing the effects.

    Broader implications: Biased news as a recipe for market success? As part of the American audience polarizes over matters of politics and public policy, it is possible that rational media owners stand to gain market share by injecting more
    rather than less political bias into the news.
    More generally, the evidence on partisan bias in news consumption is consistent with the argument that technology will narrow rather than widen users’ political horizons. Over time, avoidance of disagreeable information may become habitual so that users turn to their preferred sources automatically no matter what the subject matter.
    Implications for media effects
    The increasingly self-selected composition of audiences has important consequences for those who study media effects. Survey researchers, who rely on self-reported measures of news exposure, will find it increasingly difficult to treat exposure as a potential cause of political beliefs or attitudes
    In substantive terms, we anticipate that the fragmentation of the national audience reduces the likelihood of attitude change in response to particular patterns of news. The persuasion and framing paradigms require some observable level of attitude change in response to a media stimulus. As media audiences devolve into smaller, like-minded subsets of the electorate, it becomes less likely that media messages will do anything other than reinforce prior predispositions. Most media users will rarely find themselves in the path of attitude-discrepant information.
  12. Si no se creen que los medios se han desmasificado, lean el siguiente post. 

  13. En 2010, el artículo de Lance Bennett y Shanto Iyengar tiene respuesta. Ya se ve que es una cuestión debatida.

  14. We wish to state at the outset of this response essay that we do not disagree with all of Bennett and Iyengar’s conclusions (as will become evident later in this work). However, we do take issue with some of the core assumptions and conceptualizations offered by Bennett and Iyengar, and these assumptions and conceptualizations shape their conclusions.
  15. We outline 4 key criticisms. First, Bennett and Iyengar are too quick to dismiss the importance of attitude reinforcement, long recognized as an important type of political media influence. Second, the authors take too narrow a view of the
    sources of political information, remaining fixated on news. Third, they offer an incomplete portrayal of selective exposure, exaggerating the extent to which individuals avoid attitude discrepant information. Finally, they lean toward determinism when describing the role technologies play in shaping our political environment. In addition, we challenge Bennett and Iyengar’s assertion that only brand new theory can serve to help researchers understand today’s political communication landscape.
  16. Our conclusion is that a full range of effects is not only plausible, but distinctly probable, even amidst the extraordinary sociotechnical change occurring in our media system and democracy.
  17. A central conclusion, perhaps the central conclusion, of Bennett and Iyengar (2008) is as follows: ‘‘The increasing level of selective exposure based on partisan preference thus presages a new era ofminimal consequences, at least insofar as persuasive effects is concerned’’ (p. 725).