Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PR Principles & Practices Chapter 8

    Uploaded by

    MME FTE
    22 views21 pages
    PR Principles & Practices Chapter 8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    PR Principles & Practices Chapter 8

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    22 views21 pages

    PR Principles & Practices Chapter 8

    Uploaded by

    MME FTE
    PR Principles & Practices Chapter 8

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 21
    chapter 8 Communication Theories and Contexts LEARNING OUTCOMES ‘After studying Chapter 8, you should be able to: 1m Differentiate between “communication” and “public relations” 1 Identify the frst task of public relations communication inthe crowded message environment. 1m Define communication as a two-way process of exchanging signals to inform, persuade, and instruct within intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social context. 1 Diagram the communication model, and label and briefly discuss its elements. List and briefly discuss the four major categories of publi relations communication effects. 1 Identify and discuss the five dimensions of public opinion. Define attitude and opinion, and distinguish between them, ‘§ Diagram and explain the mode of individual orientation and the model of coorientation. IW Define the four states of coorientational consensus. No human capability has been more fundamental to the development of civilization than the ability to collect, share, and apply knowledge. Civilization has been possible only through the process of human communication. —Frepenick WitLtAM Publicity is a great purifier because it sets in action the forces of public pinion, and in this country public opinion controls the courses of the nation. —Cuanuas Evans HucHies, 117i Cuer Justice, US. Supreme Courr (1930-1941)" synonymous. In fact, they are not, As explained in Chapter 1, public relations is about Fs building and maintaining relationships between organizations and their stakeholder publics. maple 11 through 14 explain the four-step process of strategic public relations: research, planning, imple- inthe ory itd evaluation. In contrast to this four-step process, “communication” is done by organizations * third step of strategic public relations, when the plan is being implemented. M any people confuse “communication” and “public relations,” believing the terms to be 167 168. Part + Foundations FIGURE 8.1 Communication Process Model As Figure 8.1 illustrates, communication is « reciprocal process of exchanging signals to inform, persuade, or instruct, based on shared meanings and conditioned be the communicators’ relationship and the social context. This chapter explains some oft. theoretical and practical contexts in which communication takes place, while Chapter 13 offen ‘ore specific information on how to design and implement communication messages, ‘Understanding the various contexts for communication is important because each of us, every day, is exposed to thousands of messages. Even as you read this chapter of Effective Public Relations, you may be exposed to many other messages fom other sources, These could ince postings on your Facebook wall, numerous Tweets from people you follow, Lady Gaga's lates hit on your iPod, the sound of your neighbors’ argument coming from the unit next door, your roommate asking if you want to order pizza, and a text from your mom asking how last weeks test went. During the rest ofthe day, you are exposed to many more messages, most of which you probably do not seek out. You may scréen out many because you have little or no interest in the content. You skip some because you do not have time to pay attention. You miss others simply because you are preoccupied with something else and “tune out." In short, getting your attention is the goal ofa fierce competition. The contenders include not only individual people, bu aso advertisers, news media, entertainment media, political parties, and all manner of other special interest groups, To defend against the onslaught of attention seekers, people become choosy, even resistant. As a result of this onslaught of messages and information overload, few messages get their attention. Even fewer have an impact. No wonder some communication scholars refer ‘© “the obstinate audience.”* Public relations communications compete in this crowded message environment. The fist tasks to get the attention of target publics. The second is to stimulate interest in message conte ‘The thied is to build a desire and intention to act on the message. And the fourth i to direc the action of those who behave consistent with the message. Unfortunately, the communication ‘Process is not as simple as many apparently believe. DISSEMINATION VERSUS COMMUNICATION ‘The myth of communication suggests that sending a message is the same as communical ing a message. In essence, dissemination is confused with communication. This confusion apparent in public relations when practitioners offer media placements (clippings, “mentions, Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 169 proadcast logs, etc.) as evidence that communication has occurred. These ts Hy subscribe to the communication model introduced by information robably Weaver, based on their work for Bell Telephone Laboratories in the ese rs P Sannon # snd Weaver's model consists of an information source, message or signal, ee Se reg eae ome eer process produces relatively few and simple problems. Technical prob- inal o channel itis or distorts the message beng tansmited from the ‘Symantic or fidelity problems occur when the receivers perception ofthe sendy pave not the same as those intended by the sender. Influence problems riers message did not produce the desired result onthe part ofthe receiver. voto change a message into a signal and the effects of noise. lc relations practitioners know, however, communication with target publics is Butas publi ees plicated than tis et of questions suggests. As the late Wilbur Schramm pointed pmmore compl Gamansnication is complicated by people: Communication (human communication, at least is something people do, Ithas nolifeof its own, There isno magic about it except what people inthe communication relationship put int it. There is no meaning in a message except what the people put into it. When one Seudies communication, therefore, one studies people—relating to each other and to their | soups, organizations, and societies, influencing each other, being influenced, informing and being informed, teaching and being taught, entertaining and being entertained—by jeans of certain signs which exist separately from either of them. To understand the F human communication process one must understand how people relate to each other.S Ahis is no simple task. In fact, Schramm’s concept of communication requires a two-way- ss model in which sender and receiver operate within the contexts oftheir respective frames ference, their relationship, and the social situation. | The process ofinforming involves four steps (1) attracting attention tothe communication, hieving acceptance of the message, (3) having it interpreted as intended, and (4) getting the ig® stored for later use. The process of persuasion goes beyond active learning to a fifth epting change: ylelding to the wisheS or point of view ofthe sender. The more demanding of instruction adds a sixth step: stimulating active learning and practice, Clearly, barriers Ghieving the outcomes of informing, persuasion, and instruction increase with the addition of th and sixth steps in the processes.” IENTS OF THE MASS COMMUNICATION MODEL Bde gs aston researchers studied the individual elements in the communication process ed. etmine the effect of each on the process. Most studies dealt with persuasion as the outcome, but more recent research has expanded the range of effects stried, Mais of mage sores fet reaver nl acepane ofthe message bt have is nga gett message impact, Hovland and his colleagues called this long-term tiveneas oe Sleeper effect.”* For example, according tothe theory of source credibility and 170 Parti « Foundations are more readily accepted as believable when presented by highly credible sources, such recognized medical authority, than when presented by peers. R More recent research suggests both short-term and long-term source impacts. Source dg credibility amplifies the value of information, according to one scholar. The theory suggests thee the perceived status, reliability, and expertness of the source add weight to messages. Multiplyin, dl the three source characteristics by each other yields the weight factor of the source in the d ‘communication process.® | Researchers have concluded that although source characteristics affect the communication x process, their impact varies from situation to situation, from topic to topic, and from time to time, ‘Ata minimum, however, source characteristics affect receivers initial receptivity to messages, Message Message characteristics surely have amimpact in the communication process, but many communication scholars say, "Meaning is in people, not words.” This observation leads naturally to the conclusion that different people receiving the same message may interpret it differently, attribute different meanings to it, and react to it in different ways. All the sim, message characteristics can have powerful effets, even if they do not conform to simple and direct cause-and-effect explanations. As suggested by the notion of the obstinate audience, message effects are mediated by receivers, thereby frustrating the search for rules that apply in all communication situations. In the final analysis, however, many characteristics ofthe source, receiver, and communi- cation situation mediate the impact of messages on receivers. One writer concluded, ‘When main-effect findings demonstrated relationships between the selected variable and some measure of attitude/behavior change, additional variables such as source characteristics, power, and receiver variables were investigated." Medium or Channel ‘ New technologies for delivering messages challenge conventional wisdom, For example, in many organizations, e-mail has changed communication within orgeniations and even acres national boundaries. Meetings take place in a variety of virtual or dgital formas, changing the nature ofthe interaction but providing benefits in cost and convenience. ‘Communication scholats and practitioners historically have cansideted face-to-face Interpersonal communication the most ditect, powerful, and preferred method for exchanging information. In contrast with mass communication, interpersonal communication involves as few as two communicators (typically in lose proximity), uses many senses, and provides | immediate feedback. This description of the interpersonal communication situation, hov. | ever, does not take into account the possiblity that mass media messages may be directed © only a few in a very specific public. Likewise, physical proximity can be less important thet. | the nature ofthe relationship between communicators, what one scholar calls the “intimacy transcends-distance phenomenon.” What began as impersonal communication when people initially exchanged messages can become interpersonal communication as the communict&" develop a relationship." Extending time and distance, however, often requires using message delivery system i other than in-person presentations. In much of contemporary society, face-to-face contacts g* ‘way to mediated transmissions. Spoken words give way to written communication, Individual addressed letters give way t targeted publications. Printed publications give way to broadcast i ‘words and pictures, Broadcast messages give way to networks of computers carrying digit! signals translated into all manner of information. Emails give way to text messages, avaible ‘anytime and anyplace simply by accessing a mobile device. Choosing the right medium (sing” lar) or media (plural) requires an understanding of media and media effects, Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 174 and public relations programs—often mistakenly consider the model j of a message transmission process. This tradition ive eecipien at the en« sie research evidence and constant references 10 “wo way” suggest a & yen tt Po role for the audience. early mee ges and media manipulated by those in control, Critics saw people as alien- pple to megrom the Kind of strong social and psychological forces found in traditional go iol rnsequence of industrialization, urbanization, and modernization. However, gear espousing positions counter £0 those of the group. Those who are persistently ns SSS Fe ob esate pruave messages On hoe han ec Beages than are people with high self-esteem and feelings of indifference toward others.!? anor te notion of a monolithic and passive mass audience does not describe reality. snot the masses ce gat Bens dem es nce audiences are knoven to be evasive at best and recalcitrant at worst efforts are pine at argeting mestages fr different audience segments and promoting audience E involvement wherever possible"? jonship Contexts nication occurs within the contest ofthe communicators’ relationships. The range of sah includes close and intimate relationships, as wel as forma, competitive, and sntapersonal relationships in a variety of settings. The point of course, is thatthe brahips themselves affect much about the communication process. Bra trent apramunication reflects four basic dimensions (1) emotional arousal, com fe and formality, (2) intimacy and similarity; (3) immediacy os liking: and (4) dominance- ission.* For example, a supervisor announces changes in work schedules for student fa without consulting with the stadents (the Grst dimension just listed) by posting the chedule on the office bulletin board (the second dimension). The notice also expresses Bperisr’s hope thatthe nev schedule does not inconvenience any of the assistants (the n) but indicates that the supervisor has the power to establish work schedules rth dimension) at surprisingly, nonverbal behaviors play important roles in relational communica- oximity communicates intimacy, attraction, trust, caring, dominance, persuasivencss, Fags Smiling communicates emotional arousal, composi formality, intimacy, liking. Touching suggests intimacy. Eye contact intensifies the other nonverbal behay- Obviously, these interpretations of nonverbal behaviors do not take into account cultural Fes For cape in Navajo and sme Asan clue ej contact can be interpreted as a erp or chalnge. In ome cures touching publi eo Whether verbal or nonverbal, communication in relationships beps the partes sme sions bout others inthe lationship. Communication reduces uncertainty about the probable sof fue exchanges and provides a bass fr the continuing relationship. Understanding Gzmnleaton proces, however, requires an understanding of ot ony he relationship communicators, butalso the larger social context within which communication occurs. 472 Part Il + Foundations Social Environment Communication affects and is affected by the social seting. Thus, communication occurs asa structured process within evolving systems of related components and activities. Social systems include families, groups, organizations, and all kinds of collectivities that are at the same time both producers and products of communication For example, when people think they can achieve something through joint action that they cannot accomplish individual they form groups. Communication in groups depends onthe nature of the group (primary vs. secondary, formal vs. informal, task-oriented vs, experiential), character istics of group members, group size, group structure, group cohesiveness, and group purpose.'© Successful group decision making requires accomplishing four tasks: (1) developing an adequate and accurate assessment of the problem, (2) developing a shared and complete under. ‘standing ofthe goal and the criteria for suecess, (3) agreeing on the positive outcomes of decisions, and (4) agreeing on the negative outcomes of decisions. Decision-making effectiveness, therefore, depends on the extent to which members’ communication helps achieve these group functions." Organizations impose additional layers of complexity and constraints on communication, Forcesat playin the larger society affect how all communicators—individuals, groups, and orga nizations—approach their publics, shape the content of their messages, define communication ‘goals, and condition audience responses. Recall our ongoing connection to systems theory: All elements ofa system are interdependent and mutually influenced by forces in their environment In short, communication—when it occurs—results from a complex reciprocal process in which communicators try to inform, persuade, or negotiate within the contexts of thet relationships and the larger social setting MASS COMMUNICATION EFFECTS Communication effects have long been the object of concern and study. The range of effects runs the gamut from early concerns about “all-powerful” media to “no eflects.” Hypothesized unlim ited effects of movies on helpless children motivated the Payne Fund studies ofthe 1920s. Maybe critics simply feared too muich, After ambitious public persuasion and political campaigns in the 1940s and 1950s produced disappointing results, many concluded that mass communication hed almost no impact. Maybe the campaign planners simply asked too much of mass communica: tion. More recent evidence supports theories in which mass communication effects occur under specified conditions, Apparently, the answer depends on what question you ask. Creating Perceptions of the World Around Us Early theorists cast mass communication's role as telling about events, things, people, and places that could not be directly experienced by most. Walter Lippmann said it best when he wrote about “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He described a “triangular relationship” between the scene of action (interpreted to include people, places, actions, and the entire range of possible phenomena), perceptions ofthat scene, and responses based on the perceptions. Thelast side ofthe triangle is complete when the responses have an impact on the original scene of action, Mass melt fit in the model between the scene of action and audience perceptions (see Figure 8.2)* Lippmann pointed out that most of us cannot or do not have direct access to much of the worlds it is “out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.” The mass media help us create a “trustworthy picture” ofthe world that is beyond our reach and direct experience. His notions of media impact ‘on public perceptions not only set the stage for studying mass communication effects but as arguably established the conceptual basis for much of what later became publi relations. ‘Communication scholar George Gerbner followed up on Lippman’s work. His studies o! television viewing led to what he called “cultivation theory”—the homogenizing effect of crett ing a shared culture.” For example, those who watch a great deal of television have a differett picture of the world—social reality-—than do those who do not watch much television. He FIG of opi hay alt {ow In: age tol (Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts Perceptions of Se ( Seene ofthe ‘tion Response based on the perceptions ine 0.2 Mass Median Public Opinion Formation Fes se the world as portrayed on television, not as it really is. The most dramatic example set is referred to as the “mean world syndrome.” meaning that heavy television viewers world as more dangerous and less trustworthy—and view it more pessimistically—than nt viewers. Maybe the most dramatic ofthe cultivation theory studies was the finding that Grctizens who watch a great deal of television see the world outside their homes as too dan- fs to venture int, even though reality has little relationship to the levels of muggings, purse Bchngs robberies, murders, and so on portrayed on television. In sum, the findings show that edict of television viewing is less one of individual impact than itis of a collective impact on and people's views of the world around them.” Hing and Building the Agenda “igenda-setting” theory of mass communication effects also builds on Lippmann’s notion dla impact by distinguishing between what we think about and what we think. The differ- is thatthe former includes what we know about (cognition), whereas the later refers to our bions and feelings (predisposition), Farly agenda-setting theory suggested that mass media can ja substantial and important impact on the cognitive level without affecting predisposition, ough more recent research shows that media affect predispositions as well?" | For example, early explorations of agenda setting by the press during presidential elections that relative media emphasis on issues has a cumulative effect on the electorate. The same fs, withthe same relative emphasis as that given by the media, make up the voters’ agenda. = words, the issues considered least to most important by voters reflect patterns of media Erage rather than a particular political agenda. Furthermore, the relative number of people Hered about issues parallels the relative media emphasis of those issues. Media and public ffs were most similar during the early stages of the campaign and for those issues least likely PE within people's direct experience? McCombs elaborated on how the process works: {iiessenda-settng influence ofthe press results in large measure from the repetition of majo istes in the news day after day. The public learns about the issues on the press Seti ite effort on thei part, and considering the incidental nature of this learning, ues move rather quickly from the press agenda to the public agenda.”> (azine the potential consequences of media agenda setting. First ofall, media coverage erate public sanding of sues people organizations instions and s forth, Second, BP" the amount of media atention can lea to changes in public priorities, Third, the oping People are about something, the more they tend to learn about i, the stronger ms arf, and the more they tend to take acon on it (Notice, however, tha the 174 Part I « Foundations agenda setting theory doesnot predict what information they wl eek, which way ther op ions will change, or what types of actions they wil tke.) Fourth, media coverage can ate agenda priorities of some specific and important publics, such as legislators, regulators, and ge, policy makers. i tn summary, mass communication can affect public opinion by rasing the senso tssues and positions taken by people and groups in the news. Furthermore ike Lippmayst theory of media eet, the agenda-seting theory contributes othe conceptual foundation public relations mass communication For public relations practitioners, geting an issue onto the media agenda can be & goog thing (ie., when you want to raise awareness of an issue) or a bad thing (eg, when somes embarrassing, dangerous, or iegal happens at your organization) Being aware of the power ‘media agenda setting is a key to the strategic management of public relations communication Public relations can contribute tremendously tothe effectiveness of the organization when carefully and strategically considers its en issues in regard to the media agenda, Often, pubig relations saves an organization money and resources by resolving a problem before it gets onto ‘the media agenda. In other instances, getting an issue onto the media agenda is a crucial part of press agentry and a valuable method of creating symmetrical dialogue on an issue. ‘Two conceptsin agenda-setting theory and research are especially usefil in public relations 1, Issue salience determines the prominence and penetration the issue has with the audience, or how well it resonates with each public. People care the most about issues that are close to their own interests. Researchers found that frequency of discussion was the single largest predictor of issue salience. Interpersonal communication enhanced the ‘agenda-setting effect of the media or interfered with the agenda-setting effect when the interpersonal discussion conflicted with media content.2® 2. Cognitive priming describes the personal experience or connection someone has with an issue, Researchers thought that a person with little or no personal experience on an isue ‘must rely on the media for information, Scholars initially expected to find that the media had weak or no agenda-setting effects on issues with which people had personel experience. ‘To the contrary, they found support for the cognitive priming hypothesis, which states that previous or personal exposure to an issue stimulates interest in that issue's media coverage, thus enhancing the agenda-setting effects.2° In recent years researchers McCombs and Shaw have reformulated and expanded agenda setting theory: “Media not only tell us what to think about, but how to think about it, and, consequently, what to think” In other words, media affect both cognitions and predispos tions, a phenomenon researchers call “second-level agenda-setting.”*® This enhanced theory of mediated, powerful effects provides a promising theoretical framework for application in the practice of public relations In particular, one aspect of second-level agenda-setting theory that has generated much scholarly research in public relations isthe idea of agenda building. Agenda-building theory tries to answer the question of who is building the agenda ofthe media. Ths isan important ques tion. Ifthe media set the public agenda, then the public should know who is building the media agenda, So far, esearch has shown that typical builders ofthe media's agenda include politicians and elected officials, as well a—yes—the public relations practitioners who work for them. iffusing Information and Innovation Beyond setting the issues agenda, mass communication also facilitates social interaction and change, Sources may come from different social, economic, and educational backgrounds but are accessible through the media. The media, then, provide information from sources that would otherwise not be available through interpersonal networks in which “ike talks to like.” Once people get information from the media, however, they enter conversations armed with useful Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts a that. ide information to those who seek itand supply information needed for ue axe majority,” and “laggards.” Characteristics ofthe individuals in each of the th the nature of change being adopted and the context." Be fon of innovation studies identified opinion leaders as key components of Bs 7a sources and then become themselves the source to others in thelr network 2 ation. Wh madi He cess Het © 3a, (3) simpl ort vary wi Fever a hee my be many d B Whatever the number of steps 0 Brant in the process of diffusion of innovation: influence is very important in this process. People raise awareness of the Interpersonal they talk with one another about it. They share opinions, discuss their expe- Finnovation as Fence with the innovation, sometimes advocate its use, and sometimes resist it.™* ‘Diffusion and adoption processes illustrate the impact that mass communication has on Bpenonal communication and networks, More important, they show how mass and interper- f communication interact in social systems and in social change, 1005 0 Late Majority oo Percentage Adopting Innovation Innovators 4 Time ——> RE 83 Dif ron, spfusion of innovation Curve Source: Adapted from Everett M Rogers, Difusion of 1. (New York: Free Press, 2003), 11 4176 Part I + Foundations Defining Social Support “Spiral of silence” theory suggests @ phenomenon commonly referred to as “the silent majority Individuals who think their opinion conflicts with the opinions of most other people tend to remain silent on an issue. Carried to an extreme, even if a majority actually agree but do not individually recognize social suppor, thei silence and inactivity can lead tothe errone0us con. clusion that not many people support a particular view. On the other hand, individuals who think thet many others share their view or that the number of people who agree is growing rapidly are more likely to express their views. Under these conditions vocal minority that ses itself on the winning side can appear to represent a widely shared perspective, In either case, Lippmann pointed out more than 50 years before the spiral of silence theory, people “respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities, and ...in many cases they help to creat the very fictions to which they respond.”™> : in essence, public opinion arises as individuals collectively discern support for their views through personal interaction and by attending to the mass media. Individuals observe land assess their social environments, estimating the distributions of opinions, evaluating the Strength and chances of sucess for each, and determining the social sanctions and costs assoc. ated with each. The spiral begins when individuals choose to remain silent or decide to express their views. Itcontinues as others observe the presence or absence of suppor for their own views It gains apparent legitimacy when increasing numbers of individuals translate their observations {nto either public silence or expression Its reinforced when the media cover the views being displayed most forcefully and most fequently and do not make an effort to determine the actual distribution of views. ‘Media coverage can reflect, enforce, or challenge the spiral of silence effect on public opinion. But understanding the dynamics of individuals’ collective observations oftheir social environments and public opinion translates rather directly into public relations practice Examples include public information campaigns designed to break the spirals of silence assoc ated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking, to lst only a few. In each instance, and for many other public issues, mass conimunication plays a key role in redefining socially accepted expression and behavior. ‘As illustrated in Figure 8.4, mass media messages can provide individuals pictures oftheir social environment, of whether there is social approval or disapproval of their views or actions. ‘This “sociocultural mode!” of communication effects suggests that “messages presented via the ‘mass media may provide the appearance of consensus regarding orientation and ection with respect to a given objector goal of persuasion," "To sum up, the late communication scholar Everett Rogers concluded: “.. [T]he media can have strong effects, especially when the media messages stimulate interpersonal communication about atopic through intermedia processes." Denes | Forms or alters (cr redefines) S| etntions of H sociceutural F B| socially approved Fe process of behavior for oun) ‘group members FIGURE 8.4 Sociocultural Model of Persuasion Source: Melvin L DeFleur and Sandra J. BalRokeach Theories of Moss Communication, 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1982), 25, Chapter 8 + Communication Theoties and Contexts 177 gic opinion has steadily gained strength around the world, especially with the sis technologies. Governments and institutions formerly somewhat isolated O fmedia attention and public scrutiny now see their actions or inaction reported tj pews media, For example international pressure against various dictators in . .creased during the “Arab Spring” of 2011, when citizens used social media to Fae cen repression of protestors seeking democratic reforms. sO hLeentury writer and first editor of The Atlantic Monthly James Russell Lowell sve of public opinion is like the atmosphere; you can't see it-but al the same Square inch.” Lowell’s words have even more relevance now. Public jineteent he pres een pounds to the s Seranover been more powerful, more fragmented, more volatile, and more exploited pes a For example, researchers studying US, presidental eampaign coverage found sijence of a powerful relationship between news media coverage and public opinion in lections.”** = jamming, and even corporate decision making, In short, much as Lowell suggested, public Public opinion is not necessarily logical; it is amorphous, ambivalent, contradictory, E volatile. Consequently, those of us who would hope to influence publie opinion can only expect that our efforts, over time, may nudge the consensus toward some reasonable perception ofthe issues.” _ Organizations of all types must deal with real and perceived public opinion as they estab- §ind maintain relationships with their many internal and external publics, But organizations the actors; public opinion is simply the “energizer” of their actions, (Public opinion) is ... an expression of social energy that integrates individual actors {nto social groupings in ways that affect the polity. This understanding takes the Communication, then, not only moves information from one party in a relationship to another, but also defines the relationships and social environment within which all people fanc tion: as students, citizens, employees, managers, and policy makers, Not surprisingly, the media of

    You might also like