Page 143 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

132 Chapter Four

23. Jefferson Pooley, “Fifteen Pages That Shook the Field: Personal Influence, Edward
Shils, and the Remembered History of Mass Communication Research,” The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 608 (November, 2006): 130.
24. Katz and Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence, 17, 16.
25. Robert Hackett, News and Dissent: The Press and the Politics of Peace in
Canada (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1991), 52–60.
26. Everett M. Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A
Cross Cultural Approach (New York: Free Press, 1971).
27. Stephen Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication (4th ed., Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1992), 351.
28. Steven H. Chaffee and John L. Hochheimer, “The Beginnings of Political
Communication Research in the United States: Origins of the ‘Limited Effects’
Model,” in Mass Communication Review Yearbook 5, ed. Michael Gurevitch and
Mark R. Levy (Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1985), 75.
29. Wilbur Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study, 61.
30. Chaffee and Hochheimer, “The Beginnings of Political Communication Re-
search,” 95.
31. Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study in America, 61.
32. Shearon A. Lowery and Melvin DeFleur, Milestones in Mass Communication
Research (2nd ed., White Plains, NY: Longmans, 1983), 138.
33. Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study in America, 101.
34. Elihu Katz, “Foreword: The Toronto School and Communication Research,” in
The Toronto School of Communication Theory: Interpretations, Extensions, Applica-
tions, ed. Rita Watson and Menahem Blondheim (Toronto and Jerusalem: University
of Toronto Press and The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007), 1.
35. Schramm, referring to Klapper’s book, described reinforcement in terms of au-
diences selectively seeking out content that strengthens their preexisting beliefs and
perceptions, as opposed to media indoctrinating audiences through endless repetition.
Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study in America, 61.
36. Schramm, The Beginnings of Communication Study in America, 109.
37. Pooley, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” 56.
38. Robert E. Babe, Canadian Communication Thought: Ten Foundational Writers
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), chapter 5.
39. Gerbner maintained that in contemporary society people no longer attain their
identities primarily from their families, schools, churches, and communities, but
rather from “a handful of conglomerates who have something to sell.” He claimed
further that people who watch large amounts of television are more likely to believe
that the world is mean and violent, and he backed up these contentions with prodi-
gious analyses of media content and comparisons in outlooks between light and heavy
television viewers. See George Gerbner, Against the Mainstream: The Selected Works
of George Gerbner, ed. Michael Morgan (New York: Peter Lang, 2002). In Congres-
sional testimony of 1981 he summarized: “Fearful people are more dependent, more
easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong,
tough measures and hard-line postures. They may accept and even welcome repres-
sion if it promises to relieve their insecurities. That is the deeper problem of violence-