Communication in its nature is a very complex word. As shown by Hanno Hardt in “Myths for the Masses: An Essay on Mass Communication” the word communication derives from the term “to make common”, however it is not enough to settle for this broad definition given the different methods of communication like transmission (information going one way) and sharing (interaction between sender and receiver)[1]. Hardt is certainly on to something with this approach to defining communication. This is very much connected to the benefits of advanced technology. With more options to make information common comes much more careful consideration of the unique forms of communication. Technology has allowed us to stray more into sharing communication, particularly with the rise of modern social media. That being said there still is room for transmission in today’s world. In fact, modernized communication actually benefits transmission greatly. Journals and news sources now have more platforms to release their news and more importantly the audience now has greater accessibility to new information. Overall, communication at its roots is a very simple word. With that in mind, the emergence of more advanced and sophisticated forms of communications technology has made communication a much deeper process than simply making information common.
[1] Hanno, Hardt. Myths for the Masses: An Essay on Mass Communication. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publication, 2004. Print.
This is an interesting perspective on communication. It takes an optimist approach to the effects of the digital age. However, it is important to think about the receiver as an agent for communication as well. It's great that the sender has a large audience but how effectively will that audience receive the senders information. As you noted, communication is increasing in depth with technology. Could these advances be simplifying the information disseminated?
ReplyDelete