However, to continue to view this architecture in terms of ‘interaction’
becomes problematic, a matter which even Thompson has reservations
about, in his ad hoc remark that what he calls quasi-interaction should
really be called quasi-participation, which nevertheless sustains reciproc-
ity as per the above. What is missing from Thompson’s account is the way
these agents of media (the media workers, the culture industry) carry a
form of social integration, what James and Carkeek (1997) have called
‘agency-extended’ integration, which we shall return to below in the section
on ‘levels of integration’.
It is insofar as broadcast can be regarded as a form of reciprocity or
‘quasi-social’ or ‘para-social’ interaction that the second media age thesis
becomes unsustainable. Broadcast can only be considered a one-way form
of communication to the extent that the metaphor of the media as chan-
nel, rather than environment, is adhered to. Broadcast media enable a
form of reciprocity without interaction in which many individuals are
‘metaphorically’ interacting with each other constantly.^14 The broadcast
medium becomes the agent through which each audience member is able
to ‘reflexively monitor’ what it is that other audience members are con-
suming. Of course, if a broadcast programme is consumed in the mutual
presence of others, this reflexive monitoring will bring in their reactions.
In Figure 5.1, therefore, broadcast, like network forms of interactivity,
is characterized as a form of the many speaking to the many. This can be
appreciated only if broadcast is viewed as a medium of social integration.
The main relationship that is active for the audience is with other audi-
ence members, not with performers and celebrities. The latter are merely
the conduit by which solidarity is achieved with other viewers, listeners
and readers. Here, we can take issue with Meyrowitz’s No Sense of Place
(1985) for characterizing para-social interaction as illusory. Certainly indi-
vidual members of audiences may come to feel they ‘“know” the people
they “meet” on television in the same way as they know their friends and
associates’ (119), but the intimacy being established is really with other
members of the audience, most of whom they will never meet.
Broadcast, like network activity, when conceived either as a technical
environment or as a form of social connection, is able to facilitate a sense
of belonging, security and community, even if individuals are not actually
directly interacting. Both these mediums, in different ways, enable forms
of social integration rather than extensions of face-to-face interaction.
They offer modes of relating which can determine the form of general
interaction in a given media society (see Table 5.3).
Broadcast integration also brings about a high level of recognition
between audiences and media producers, but, as we have seen, low lev-
els of actual interaction. In such a mode of integration, audiences come to
identify strongly with media presenters, news teams, and film and soap
stars (see especially Langer, 1997). Some actors can readily acquire a cult
status whilst many news programme presenters may be endowed with
authority. All are bestowed with charisma as a reflex of the concentration148 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-05.qxd 2/15/2005 1:00 PM Page 148