"

10. Mass Media and Communication

Overview

Whether we’re scrolling through social media, streaming news updates, or watching a TV show, we are constantly surrounded by media. But media doesn’t just entertain or inform, it shapes how we see the world, how we talk about important issues, and even how we understand ourselves and others. In this chapter, we’ll explore how mass communication functions as a powerful social institution. (MLO1)

We’ll start by examining how media influences culture, identity, and social norms. Like education or religion, the media helps reinforce values, uphold dominant ideologies, and reflect the priorities of society. (MLO1)

Next, we’ll dive into two key concepts in media studies: framing and agenda-setting. You’ll learn how the media doesn’t just tell us what to think, but what to think about and how to think about it. These tools shape public opinion by spotlighting certain issues while ignoring others, and by presenting events in ways that shape audience interpretation. (MLO2)

Finally, we’ll focus on media literacy and why it’s crucial in today’s fast-paced digital world. Media literacy helps us ask better questions about what we see, hear, and share. By learning how to spot bias, evaluate sources, and think critically about media content, you’ll gain the tools to become a more informed, reflective, and empowered media consumer. (MLO3)

Module Learning Outcomes

By the end of this chapter, students will have had the opportunity to:

  • Describe the media’s role as a social institution. (MLO1)
  • Analyze the effects of framing and agenda-setting on public opinion. (MLO2)
  • Apply media and literacy skills to evaluate bias and influence in media content. (MLO3)

These Module Learning Outcomes align with CLOs 1, 2, 3, and 6, and ULOs 1, 2, 5, and 6. See the Introduction for more details.

Media as a Social Institution

Mass communication is the process of creating, sending, receiving, and analyzing messages to large audiences via verbal and written media. These include print, digital, and broadcast formats. From a sociological perspective, mass media is more than a set of tools; it’s a social institution that plays a powerful role in shaping norms, values, and public opinion.

Historically, the invention of the printing press, the rise of radio and television, and the explosion of digital media have each transformed the way societies function. Each innovation expanded the reach of messages and the speed at which ideas could spread. Media doesn’t just inform, it constructs reality.

Sociologist Marshall McLuhan (1964) famously wrote, “the medium is the message,” suggesting that how we receive information can be just as important as the content itself. For instance, watching a political debate on TV is a different experience from reading a transcript or listening to a podcast. The format shapes perception, emotion, and meaning.

Media performs several social functions, including surveillance, correlation, cultural transmission, and entertainment—each of which plays a key role in shaping public perception and reinforcing norms (Chron, n.d.).

  • Surveillance: Monitoring world events (e.g., news coverage).
  • Correlation: Explaining and interpreting information.
  • Cultural transmission: Sharing values, beliefs, and traditions.
  • Entertainment: Offering escape, pleasure, and enjoyment.

These functions make media a powerful cultural force and a key player in the reproduction of social norms and ideologies.

Representation and Identity in Media

Media doesn’t just reflect reality; it helps create it. From the images we see on TV to the stories we hear in podcasts and the characters portrayed in video games, media shapes how we understand people, groups, and communities. The way someone is represented—or not represented—can influence how we see them, how they see themselves, and how society treats them.

Sociologists and media scholars have long studied how media representations affect public perception and reinforce social hierarchies. Groups that are marginalized in society, such as people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and working-class communities, are often misrepresented, stereotyped, or left out of mainstream media altogether.

Stereotypes and Symbolic Annihilation

Stereotypes are oversimplified and often harmful portrayals of people based on identity categories like race, gender, or class. For example, Latinx characters in film are frequently portrayed as criminals or domestic workers, while people with disabilities are often depicted as either pitiable or inspirational. These portrayals shape what audiences expect and believe about real people in these groups.

In some cases, groups are not represented at all. Media theorist George Gerbner introduced the concept of symbolic annihilation in 1976, which is the idea that lack of representation is a form of social erasure. When people don’t see themselves reflected in media, or only see narrow, negative portrayals, it can affect self-esteem, cultural visibility, and social power.

Media as a Site of Resistance

At the same time, media can also be a site of resistance. Independent creators, social media influencers, and activist filmmakers are telling new stories that challenge mainstream stereotypes and provide more complex, authentic representations. Shows like Pose, films like Everything Everywhere All At Once, and platforms like Black Twitter or Indigenous TikTok highlight how marginalized voices are reshaping cultural narratives.

Greater diversity in storytelling doesn’t just benefit those being represented; it expands everyone’s understanding of the world and challenges dominant ideologies about who matters and whose stories are worth telling.

Real-World Example: Disability and Invisibility in the Media

Despite making up more than a quarter of the U.S. population, people with disabilities remain underrepresented and often misrepresented in mainstream media. When they do appear, their stories are frequently framed through lenses of pity, tragedy, or exceptionalism. A news segment might highlight someone “overcoming” their disability as inspirational, while ignoring the systemic challenges that shape their daily lives, such as inaccessible buildings, employment discrimination, or lack of policy support.

This moment reveals how media representation contributes to cultural invisibility:

  • Disability is often portrayed as a personal tragedy rather than a social justice issue.
  • Limited or stereotypical portrayals distort public understanding and reinforce ableist attitudes.
  • The absence of disabled voices in media sends a message that their experiences are unimportant or irrelevant.

This example shows:

  • Media shapes not only public perception but also individual identity and social inclusion.
  • Representation matters—not just in quantity, but in the authenticity and diversity of stories told.
  • Empowering disabled creators and centering their voices helps challenge ableism and expand how disability is understood in society.

Reflection Prompt:

Think about a time when a group or identity you belong to or care about was missing from the media, or only appeared in stereotypical ways. How did that shape your understanding of that group’s role in society? What kinds of stories or representations would help challenge those narratives?

Media Framing and Agenda-Setting

Media doesn’t just tell us what’s happening—it shapes how we think about it. Two important concepts—agenda-setting and framing—help explain how media influences public perception.

Agenda-Setting

According to Shoemaker and Vos (2009), the media play a key role in setting the public agenda by selecting which issues receive attention and which are left out. For example, if the media gives extensive coverage to crime, people may begin to perceive crime as a more significant problem than it actually is, regardless of actual crime statistics.

Framing

Framing goes one step further—it’s about how a story is presented. News outlets make decisions about which facts to include, which voices to highlight, and what language to use. Consider the difference between “protesters” and “rioters,” or between “illegal immigrants” and “undocumented workers.” These framing choices influence how audiences interpret events and individuals.

Real-World Example: Framing in Media Coverage of Protest Movements

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, news outlets offered dramatically different portrayals of the same events. While some highlighted the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations calling for racial justice and police accountability, others focused on property damage or isolated conflicts with law enforcement. The language, images, and story placement varied not just in content, but in the emotional responses they invited.

This moment reveals how media framing shapes public understanding:

  • Peaceful protests were sometimes overshadowed by sensational coverage of unrest, distorting the movement’s goals.
  • Framing choices evoked specific emotions—sympathy, fear, anger—depending on which aspects were emphasized.
  • Media outlets influenced how audiences understood both the protesters and the issues at stake, often reflecting institutional or political biases.

This example shows:

  • Media framing is not neutral; it shapes perception through word choice, imagery, and context.
  • The same event can be understood in vastly different ways depending on how it’s framed.
  • Critical media literacy involves asking whose perspectives are centered, whose are ignored, and how framing affects public discourse.

Reflection Prompt:

Have you ever noticed different news outlets covering the same story in different ways? What stood out to you in the coverage? How might framing affect your understanding of events, especially those related to protest, power, or identity?

Algorithms, Echo Chambers, and Media Influence

In today’s digital world, most of us don’t choose what we see online—algorithms do. Whether we’re scrolling through TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, or reading the news through a personalized app, algorithms quietly shape the media content we consume. These behind-the-scenes tools are designed to predict what we’re likely to click on, based on our past behavior.

At first glance, this might seem helpful. Algorithms save time and offer content that aligns with our interests. But there’s a hidden cost: they often filter out opposing views and create information environments where we’re only exposed to people and ideas that reinforce what we already believe. These personalized bubbles are called echo chambers or filter bubbles.

What are Filter Bubbles?

The term filter bubble was popularized by Eli Pariser (2011), who warned that when algorithms tailor content to our preferences, they also narrow our exposure to diverse viewpoints. For example, if you consistently watch videos about a particular political perspective, the algorithm is likely to show you more of the same, while hiding content that offers different or challenging perspectives.

This doesn’t just apply to politics. Filter bubbles can shape how we view climate change, social justice, race, gender, health, and other important social issues. Over time, they can reinforce stereotypes, deepen polarization, and create the illusion that “everyone thinks like me.”

Why it Matters

When media systems prioritize engagement over accuracy or diversity, they encourage sensational content and emotional reactions. This makes it harder for people to hear one another across lines of difference, and harder to develop well-rounded views based on evidence rather than emotion or bias.

Understanding how algorithms work is part of being media literate. While we may not be able to see the exact formulas that guide what we see, we can learn to recognize the effects of algorithmic curation and take active steps to seek out different perspectives.

Video Example: Algorithms and Filter Bubbles

Much of what we see online is filtered through algorithms—automated systems that sort, rank, and personalize content based on our digital behavior. While these systems can make our online experience more convenient, they also raise important questions about visibility, bias, and control.

In this TED Talk, Eli Pariser explains how algorithmic filtering can create “filter bubbles”—personalized information environments that limit our exposure to diverse perspectives.

As you watch, consider:

  • How do algorithms shape what we see—and what we don’t see?
  • What are the potential consequences of living in a filter bubble?
  • How can media literacy help us resist algorithmic bias and seek out more inclusive, diverse sources of information?

Source: Beware online “filter bubbles” by TED Conferences, and is licensed CC BY-NC-ND.

Media Literacy and Critical Thinking

Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and create media messages in a variety of forms. In today’s media-saturated world, literacy is no longer just about reading words on a page; it also means interpreting images, videos, memes, social media posts, and news reports. Developing media literacy skills helps us move from being passive consumers to active participants in public life.

Media literacy matters because it equips us to spot bias and misinformation, recognize who controls media systems, and question how narratives are constructed. It encourages us to think critically about what we see and hear, and to understand how media shapes our perceptions, values, and behaviors. When we engage with media reflectively, we can begin to challenge harmful narratives and contribute our own perspectives to public conversations.

As media consumers, we can ask key questions to sharpen our analysis: Who created this message, and what is their goal? What techniques are being used to attract attention or stir emotion? Whose voices, values, or lifestyles are highlighted, and whose are left out? How might different audiences respond to the same message in different ways?

By asking these questions, we become more informed and empowered media users—capable not only of consuming content, but of reshaping it.

Media and Digital Inequality

Access to media isn’t just about having a phone or a Wi-Fi signal—it’s about who gets to participate in the public conversation, whose stories are heard, and who is left out. In other words, media access is a matter of social inequality.

Sociologists refer to the digital divide as the gap between those who have consistent access to digital technology and those who don’t. This divide often reflects broader patterns of inequality. People from lower-income communities, rural areas, older generations, or marginalized groups are less likely to have high-speed internet, reliable devices, or media literacy training. As a result, they may be left behind in everything from education and employment to political engagement and public discourse.

Even when access exists, not all media use is equal. For example, some people use techEven when access exists, not all media use is equal. Some people use technology to build networks, create content, and share ideas, while others may only passively consume entertainment. Media scholar Henry Jenkins (2006) refers to this inequality as the participation gap—a divide not just in access, but in the ability to meaningfully contribute to digital culture. Media literacy skills, mentorship, and the opportunity to develop them are not evenly distributed. As a result, some voices are amplified, while others go unheard—not because of a lack of interest or ability, but because structural inequalities shape who gets to participate fully.

When we think about media as a social institution, we must ask: Who is included? Who is excluded? And what can we do to close these gaps?

Surveillance, Privacy, and Data Ethics

Every time we scroll, click, like, or search, we leave behind a trail of digital data. Much of this information is collected by media companies—sometimes to improve services, but often to make money through targeted advertising or behavioral prediction. This raises important questions about surveillance, consent, and control.

Surveillance refers to the monitoring of people’s behavior, often without their full awareness. In the context of media, this includes algorithms that track our preferences, facial recognition in public spaces, or metadata from our devices. While some surveillance is framed as necessary for safety or personalization, it also reinforces existing power structures and poses particular risks for marginalized communities.

Privacy is not just a personal issue—it’s a social and political one. People with less power often have less ability to control how their data is used or to challenge misuse. Scholars like Safiya Noble (2018) and Virginia Eubanks (2018) have shown how algorithmic systems often replicate and amplify structural inequalities. For instance, predictive policing technologies disproportionately target Black and brown communities, while search engine algorithms can reflect and reinforce harmful racial and gender stereotypes. These tools, far from being neutral, can entrench systemic injustice by automating bias under the guise of objectivity.

Understanding data ethics means asking: Who collects the data? How is it stored, shared, or sold? Who benefits and who is harmed? These questions are especially important as artificial intelligence becomes more involved in shaping media narratives and moderating content.

Media literacy includes not only evaluating the messages we consume but also understanding how we ourselves are being watched, tracked, and categorized within media systems.

Real-World Example: Algorithms in Public Services

In Indiana, the state rolled out an automated system to manage applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and other public assistance. People were denied benefits not by caseworkers, but by computers. The system flagged thousands of applicants for fraud or “failure to cooperate”—even when they had submitted paperwork or missed a deadline due to illness or lack of internet access. Entire families lost access to healthcare or food assistance because the algorithm decided they were ineligible.

Virginia Eubanks (2018) argues that systems like this don’t just make services more efficient—they create new forms of digital punishment. Marginalized communities, especially poor people and people of color, are often the test subjects for high-risk automation. The logic behind these systems treats poverty as a personal failure rather than a structural issue, and the result is that the most vulnerable are burdened with the harshest oversight.

This example highlights:

  • Automated systems in public services can wrongly deny benefits and increase hardship.
  • Algorithms often target those with the least power, reinforcing stereotypes about poverty and criminality.
  • Data systems are often designed without input from the people most affected by them.

When we use technology to make decisions about people’s lives, especially in areas like housing, healthcare, and food security, we must consider the ethical implications. Who is being monitored, and why? What assumptions are baked into the code?

Discussion

As this chapter has shown, media is more than entertainment; it’s a powerful social institution that shapes how we think, feel, and communicate. From how issues are framed in the news to whose stories are represented (or erased) on screen, media influences public opinion, cultural norms, and our sense of identity. Algorithms, digital access, and data surveillance also affect what information we see, how we engage with others, and whether all voices are heard equally.

Let’s reflect on how media shows up in your life and how your own communication is shaped by what you consume and share.

Communication in Everyday Life

Discussion Prompt:

Think of a moment when a media message shaped how you felt about a group, issue, or event, positively or negatively. What was the message, and how did it influence your perception or beliefs?

Follow-up question:

How might that message have been framed differently? What voices or perspectives were included or left out? How does this moment connect to the role of media in shaping social norms or reinforcing power structures?

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Media institutions shape the stories we hear, the values we absorb, and the ways we see each other. As a social force, media doesn’t just reflect reality—it constructs it. Whether through news, entertainment, advertising, or social platforms, media has the power to reinforce dominant ideologies or challenge them. By understanding how media frames public opinion, filters what we see, and structures representation, we can become more informed, ethical, and engaged communicators.

Key Takeaways

  • Media is a powerful social institution that shapes cultural values, identity, and public opinion. (MLO1)
  • Agenda-setting and framing are tools the media use to influence what we think about and how we interpret information. (MLO2)
  • Representation matters. Media can reinforce stereotypes or challenge them by amplifying diverse voices and stories. (MLO1, MLO2)
  • Algorithms and filter bubbles limit the range of perspectives we encounter, reinforcing existing beliefs and contributing to polarization. (MLO2, MLO3)
  • Media literacy involves questioning who created a message, why it was created, and how it influences audiences. (MLO3)
  • Digital inequality and surveillance are critical issues in media access and ethics, with disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. (MLO1, MLO3)

Check Your Understanding

References

Chron. (n.d.). What are the four functions of mass communication? Houston Chronicle. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-functions-mass-communication-20342.html

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press

Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Media gatekeeping. In D. Stacks & M. Salwen (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 75–89). Routledge.

Licensing and Attribution: This chapter is an adaptation of:

It has been remixed with original content and is licensed CC BY-NC-SA.

definition

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Sociological Communication (2nd edition) Copyright © by Veronica Van Ry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book