Page 142 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

Cultural Studies and the Political Economy of Media Scholarship 131

13. For a devastating critique of Lippmann’s doctrine, see Edward S. Herman and
Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Media, 1988;
revised, New York: Pantheon, 2002). For a debate on this and other matters between
Chomsky-Herman and the Langs, see: Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, “Noam
Chomsky and the Manufacture of Consent for American Foreign Policy,” Political
Communication 21 (2004): 93–101; Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, “Reply
to Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang,” Political Communication 21 (2004): 103–07; and
Lang and Lang, “Response to Herman and Chomsky,” Political Communication 21
(2004): 109–11. Another effort at rehabilitating Lippmann is by Sue Curry Jansen,
“Walter Lippmann, Straw Man of Communication Research,” in The History of Me-
dia and Communication Research: Contested Memories, ed. David W. Park and Jef-
ferson Pooley (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 71–112.
14. Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psy-
chological Warfare 1945–1960 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 16.
15. Jefferson Pooley, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” in
The History of Media and Communication Research: Contested Memories, ed. David
W. Park and Jefferson Pooley (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 51.
16. Quoted in Pooley, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” 53.
17. Simpson, Science of Coercion, 26–29.
18. Everett M. Rogers, A History of Communication Study, 10–11. Rogers notes
further that Lasswell’s communication model of “Who says what, to whom via what
channel, with what effect” was first published in a report of the Rockefeller Founda-
tion Communication Seminars (November 1, 1940). “[It] argued that the federal gov-
ernment should utilize communication research in the emergency situation of ap-
proaching war and detailed various types of research needed on communication. . . .
Lasswell’s communication model provided the framework for the Rockefeller report,
and thus for the wartime research in Washington, focusing on media effects” (p. 12).
19. Pooley, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” 56.
20. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People’s Choice
(New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944).
21. Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The Part Played By Peo-
ple in the Flow of Mass Communication (1955; reprint, New York: Free Press, 1964).
See also Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, “Uses of Mass Communi-
cation by the Individual,” in Mass Communication Research: Major Issues and Fu-
ture Directions, ed. W. P. Davidson and F. Yu (New York: Praeger, 1974): 11–35. The
exalted place of Personal Influence in the annals of American media/communication
scholarship is affirmed, inter alia, by the production of a commemorative video, The
Long Road to Decatur, released in 2008, celebrating the inception and fiftieth an-
niversary of the Katz-Lazarsfeld book; the video was sponsored by the Annenberg
School for Communication (University of Pennsylvania), the Institute for Social and
Economic Research and Policy (Columbia University), and the Department of Soci-
ology of Columbia University.
22. Deborah Lubken, “Remembering The Straw Man: The Travels and Adventures
of Hypodermic,” in The History of Media and Communication Research, ed. David
W. Park and Jefferson Pooley (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 25.