Abstract
With the ongoing evolution of media channels, debates over the concept of mass communication have been reignited. When we live in a society of filter bubbles and AI-generated content, the very notion of a large uniform audience has been undermined. Indeed, the process of mass communication looks different today than in the early days of the field, which naturally affects how to define and measure media effects. In this forum, leading communication scholars provide arguments as to whether we should keep using the term “mass communication,” adapt its definition, or develop entirely new concepts that better reflect our fragmenting media environment.
This JMCQ invited forum “The Necessary Evolution of Mass Communication Research in a Fragmenting Media Landscape” serves to spark a much-needed discussion about the relevance and future of the term “mass communication” in a time with undeniable media fragmentation, audience segmentation, digitization, algorithmization, and sooner-or-later AI-zation. Conferences and special issues are rapidly filled with these subjects—and with that, the concept of mass communication seemingly disappears into the background. Is this transgression inherent to the passing of time? Has mass communication become irrelevant in an age of smartphones and social media? Or, are there simply more urgent subjects to study today?
Notwithstanding these developments, mass communication is still highly visible within the field of Communication and Media Studies (CMS, see Demeter, 2019); think of academic journals, including Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly or Mass Communication and Society; university departments, such as the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at University of Wisconsin–Madison; ICA’s Mass Communication Division (once one of the association’s largest divisions); or the foundational courses that we offer to our students. The first book that I read during my undergraduate studies was McQuail’s (2005) Mass Communication Theory, which is still one of the few books I occasionally consult in my daily work. Browsing through this book, I have been worrying whether we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater: What do we actually lose if we forget about the history, the original topics, and the theoretical foundations that originated from mass communication once the term becomes less visible and fades to the margins?
Following the #ICA25 conference, this forum brings together scholars that have pondered about the question how CMS as a discipline should move forward with mass communication—either in terms of the subjects we study, the way we define or label this (sub)field, or the theoretical perspectives that are still missing. All of these, as a recent JMCQ article points out (Singer et al., 2023), ultimately revolve around what should be understood as “mass” in mass communication: does it refer to the (mass) media that send the message or does it refer to the (mass) audience that is on the receiving end?
Media fragmentation has been taking place, at least, since the introduction of cable TV—going from a handful of national TV stations, radio channels, and newspapers to a wider but still limited array of channels that could cater to their own niches (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999; Prior, 2007; Singer et al., 2023). With the rise of the Internet and social media, the options to self-select one’s personal media diet have become unlimited; and so, one may question whether mass communication with mass media targeting a general audience is still relevant. If one intends to only refer to those few radio/TV channels or newspapers that once made up the media landscape, then the term mass communication would be inappropriate, and the term legacy media may be more applicable. The Merriam-Webster (n.d.) dictionary defines legacy as “something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past.” Indeed, if the messages from those legacy media were at the core of mass communication, this would be just a dead field walking.
Does this mean that mass communication does not exist anymore? Perhaps not in the traditional (i.e., legacy) sense of the word, but there are still major channels or (mediated) personas that leave their mark on this world—or rather leave a stain (in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt). Even more than the legacy media that once captured a national audience, there are currently mediated personas that reach and influence a massive global audience. For example, MrBeast is a U.S. YouTuber with more than 440 million subscribers, who easily hits 100 million views with a single video: If that is not mass communication, then what is it? His tweet, “If we lower the age to run for president I’ll jump in the race” received more than 37 million views. Or Andrew Tate; his online appearance strongly contributed to the “manosphere” and the promotion of misogynistic ideologies with an influence that extends far beyond national borders.
From this perspective, one must conclude that a mass influence of media still exists; perhaps even more massively than ever before. And where algorithms are often held accountable for creating filter bubbles or echo chambers (i.e., breaking up the mass audience into a plurality of fragmented public spheres; Gitlin, 2002)—they simultaneously expose similar groups to the same kinds of messages. Thus, rather than simply fragmenting the audience, algorithms still funnel the public to a few dominant messages. As Metzger (in this forum) convincingly argues, this requires a revision of existing theories that have long structured scholarship in CMS.
One example is Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) Spiral of Silence, which predicts that when the media present one ideology or thought to be dominant, this will lead to a homogenously perceived opinion climate—where others would fear speaking out, which further reinforces the perceived dominant opinion. With algorithmic media selection (or rather: media provision) that tailors to every niche’s existing preference, a set of reverse spirals of silence—one could perhaps coin this as Spirals of Amplification—may occur: People may feel that their ideas are shared—even when these are marginal—because they repeatedly see it reflected in their timelines and, therefore, they dare to speak out their opinions even if they are a minority. When being confronted with a rebuttal of their opinions, they may not be silenced but rather voice their opinions even louder and argue that the “mainstream media” is not willing to present their (perceived) dominant perspective. Hence, the field has to consider which theories still remain up-to-date and which require adaptation to the current contexts.
Even if it is not one and the same mediated message that reaches a large audience, it may be many similar messages spread across various channels that can have a homogenous influence on a large part of the audience. As Bucy and McDevitt showcase in their contribution to this forum, even when one misinformation message may have small reach by itself, it may still circulate in many different variations and thereby create a sense of mass confusion in the society.
Also, without accounting for algorithms and social media platforms, a mass media audience does still exist. Think of the messages transmitted in pop music or blockbuster movies. Leonhard, in this forum, points out that the long-term impact of mediated entertainment is not yet fully understood—and, in many aspects, is still in its infancy. Whereas the (mass) news media and their potential effects have been researched widely, entertainment formats that succeed in capturing a large(r) audience—often without necessarily being transmitted via the legacy media—leave a more lasting impact with great(er) societal relevance and, therefore, deserve more scholarly attention. Think of House of Cards (2013–2018), which pioneered the binge-watching model via streaming, and must have influenced perceptions of the U.S. political landscape. Squid Game, notably a non-Anglo show, which addressed the theme of social and economic inequality globally. Or, recently, the series Adolescence (2025) sparked discussions in media and politics about the complexities faced by today’s youth.
As the contributions to this forum put forward, there are currently a multitude of (mass) media phenomena that influence a large part of the public. Yet, what has changed is that these media are not just found at regular intervals (daily newspapers, weekly shows) or regular places (Channel 2 on the TV’s remote control or 103.3 FM on the radio dial). Instead, the media with the largest reach today are fragmented across algorithmically curated social media profiles, streaming platforms, or clipped fragments from legacy media that are shared and reframed across platforms. Mass communication, in a literal sense, has thus become more episodic. And, it has become difficult to predict which media will lead to mass communication.
Similar to mass communication that brings together a large audience via or in media (Deuze, 2023), the academic domain of mass communication has the potential to unite scholars in CMS that would otherwise operate in their own topical and epistemological silos; political communication scholars mainly interacting with PolCom researchers, health communication scholars with HealthCom scholars, etc. Having a shared space—whether at conferences, in journals, departments, or handbooks—where scholars from across the CMS spectrum share their works, allows for an indispensable synergy in the field, where one can learn from each other’s theoretical models or methodological innovations and, thereby, accommodate scientific progress.
Yet, the unresolved question remains whether “mass communication” is still the right umbrella term to study these phenomena. Arguably, the term has an outdated connotation among large parts of the academic community; a connotation that is intertwined with research about the legacy mass media. Whether this is the right impression of what mass communication is, does not matter per se; it is this widely shared perception of being an outdated concept that hampers its bridging function to unite scholars with diverse topical interests. Therefore, a better label is much-needed; one that raises fewer questions and has a clearer profile for the study of mediated phenomena with a wide reach and great societal impact. Valuable insights in that regard are offered by Schmierbach, Holbert, and Rasheed in this forum.
Having myself severely doubted the future relevance of “mass communication” as a term—ever since taking up a leadership role within the ICA’s Mass Communication division—editing this forum has convinced me of the enduring relevance of mass communication; or a more compelling, comprehensive, and appealing replacement of this term. It is my hope that this forum will highlight the continued relevance of the phenomena that are understood as mass communication, and that it eventually may support a sustainable progression of common spheres where scholars with diverse backgrounds gather and exchange their latest knowledge across topical barriers.