Community structure theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:39, 20 April 2017

Revision as of 07:25, 28 April 2017

Line 9:

The modern community structure model originated with the work of University of Chicago’s Robert Park, who in ''The Immigrant Press and Its Control'' <ref>{{Cite book|title=The immigrant press and its control|last=Park|first=R.|publisher=Harper|year=1922|isbn=|___location=New York|pages=}}</ref> first suggested society could influence media. Morris Janowitz <ref>{{Cite book|title=The community press in an urban setting|last=Janowitz|first=M.|publisher=The Free Press|year=1952|isbn=|___location=Chicago and Glencoe, IL|pages=}}</ref> later introduced the concept that press coverage could serve as an index of the [[social structure]] and values of distinct [[Community|communities]]. Janowitz employed multiple methodologies for his research, including reader surveys, in-depth interviews with journalists, and content analysis of 82 different community newspapers in the Chicago area.

Tichenor, Donohue and Olien<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tichenor|first=P.J.|last2=Donohue|first2=G.A.|last3=Olien|first3=C.N.|year=1973|title=Mass communication research: Evolution of a structural model|url=|journal=Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly|volume=50 (3)|pages=419–425|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Community conflict and the press|last=Tichenor|first=P.J.|last2=Donohue|first2=G.A.|last3=Olien|first3=C.N.|publisher=SAGE|year=1980|isbn=|___location=Beverly Hills, CA|pages=}}</ref> evolved Park’s and Janowitz’s work with their concept of [[Structural pluralism|structural pluralism,]], finding differences between newspaper reporting in smaller, relatively homogenous metropolitan areas and that in larger, more demographically diverse areas, the latter manifesting more progressive coverage. These University of Minnesota theorists later developed the “guard dog” hypothesis, emphasizing the “social control” role of media, whereby local media function less as watchdogs and more as guard dogs protecting the interests of powerful, elite members of society.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Donohue|first=G.A.|last2=Tichenor|first2=P.J.|last3=Olien|first3=C.N.|date=1995-06-01|title=A Guard Dog Perspective on the Role of Media|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00732.x/abstract|journal=Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=45|issue=2|pages=115–132|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00732.x|issn=1460-2466}}</ref>

Other scholars in the late 90s (Hindman, 1999; Demers & Viswanath, 1999; McLeod and Hertog, 1999) also recognized a connection between mass media coverage and community characteristics, but emphasized the role of media less as mechanisms for social control than for social change.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/231777603|title=Mass media, social control, and social change : a macrosocial perspective|last=P.|first=Demers, D.|last2=Viswanath|first2=K.|date=1999-01-01|publisher=Iowa State Univ. Press|year=|isbn=0813826829|___location=|pages=|oclc=231777603}}</ref> When Hindman compared media coverage in large vs. small ethic populations, he found a difference in how similar stories were covered based on the relative size of ethnic groups in communities. Similarly, McLeod and Hertog (1999) found news media covered protest mobilizations more favorably in communities with a greater numbers of protesters. Demers and Viswanath (1999) enhanced previous structural findings by exploring the role of media as agents of both social control and social change.