Massifi cation
generated television personality; followed by
Roxscene, the fi rst female. Th e Max Headroom
Show on the UK’s channel 4 won the Royal
Television Society’s Original Programme Award
in 1986.
McCombs and Shaw’s agenda-setting
model of media effects, 1976 The process
and effects of agenda-setting have been a
central interest for media research and study.
Two important contributions to our understand-
ing of agenda-setting theory have been articles
by Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw,
‘Th e agenda-setting function of mass media’ in
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (1972) and ‘Struc-
turing the “Unseen Environment”’ in the Journal
of Communication (Spring, 1976). Shaw followed
these up with ‘Agenda setting and mass commu-
nication theory’ in the Gazette XXV, 2 (1979).
In their 1976 publication, the authors write,
‘Audiences not only learn about public issues
and other matters through the media, they also
learn how much importance to attach to an
issue or topic from the emphasis the mass media
place upon it. For example, in refl ecting what
candidates are saying during a campaign, the
mass media apparently determine the important
issues. In other words, the mass media set the
“agenda” of the campaign.’ Thus in the view
of McCombs and Shaw, the media are highly
influential in shaping our perceptions of the
world: ‘This ability to affect cognitive change
among individuals is one of the most important
aspects of the power of mass communication.’
(See effects of the mass media.)
Issues and events are given an X, and each X is
subject to diff erential media attention. Accord-
ingly, the amount of media exposure an event
or issue receives governs the size of the X in the
perceptions of the public. In other words, what
the media treat as important is consequently
regarded as important by the public (a large X);
and what the media neglect, or fail to report,
remains a miniscule X.
Some writers have been critical of this model
for oversimplifying the process of media infl u-
ence, as it takes no account of infl uences other
than the media in setting personal agendas in
relation to public issues. Another problem with
the McCombs and Shaw model is highlighted by
Denis McQuail and Sven Windähl in Communi-
cation Models for the Study of Mass Communi-
cations (Longman, 5th impression, 1998).
Th ey identify not one, but a range of agendas:
‘We can speak of the agendas of individuals and
groups or we can speak of the agendas of institu-
tions – political parties and governments. Th erefor mass communications is ‘collectively unique
to modern society’.
It is an ‘aggregate of individuals united by
a common focus of interest, engaging in an
identical form of behaviour, and open to activa-
tion towards common ends’, yet the individuals
involved ‘are unknown to each other, have only
a restricted amount of interaction, do not orient
their actions to each other and are only loosely
organized or lacking in organization’.
What occupies current media analysis is how
far the internet has modifi ed the seven pillars
of mass communications – indeed, shaken those
pillars, fragmented the ‘common focus of inter-
est and threatened the very notion of collective
experience’.
Massifi cation However large the population, it
is made up of individuals. Massifi cation, a US
term, is the process by which the population
is regarded as, and treated as, a lumpen mass
with similar if not identical tastes and attitudes.
Massifi cation serves as an excuse by society’s
privileged and elite to regard the mass as
‘only capable’ of benefi ting from art, education,
information, entertainment if it is presented in
its simplest, most unchallenging form. Massifi -
cation only makes headway when large numbers
of people accept the image of themselves as
projected by the purveyors of mass culture. See
advertising; public service broadcasting
(psb).
Mass manipulative model of (media)
communication See commercial laissez-
faire model of (media) communication.
Mass media See mass communication.
Mass media eff ects See effects of the mass
media.
Mass Observation An organization founded in
1937 by Charles Madge and Tom Harrisson with
the purpose of furthering the scientific study
of human behaviour in the UK. Large numbers
of volunteer observers were used, recruited
through advertisements in the national press;
at one time it is estimated that there were over
1,000 such volunteers. The object of Mass
Observation was ultimately the ‘observation of
everyone by everyone, including themselves’.
Data that has been collected is to be found in the
Tom Harrisson Mass Observation Archives in
the University of Sussex. See media analysis.
Mass self-communication See mass commu-
nication.
Mathematical theory of communication See
shannon and weaver’s model of communi-
cation, 1949.
Max Headroom The first male computer-