Confused Terminology in the Field of Communication, Information and Mass Media: Brillig But Mimsy

Abstract

The term "communication" has been misused by scholars, practitioners and laymen so long that definition is badly needed if solid study foundations are to be laid and meaning achieved for public participation. The word "Media" too is often used as a singular noun by laymen. "Mass Communication" is a contradiction in terms .and "the mass media of communication" an abomination. Pluralizing communication(s) to mean the hardware of "telecommunications" is found untenable as is the word "telecommunications" itself except for telephone. The word "communication" derives from the Latin communico which includes the prefix "co", implying "with", and the morpheme or cognate "commune" with some other forms such as "communion", "communism", "commonwealth" and "company". "Sharing" or "holding in common" are what is meant. Two or more persons are obviously involved in the etymology. The mass media, being one-way do not qualify as communication and the little feedback that occurs through polls, letters or phone-in programs are controlled trickles into the mainstream of media information. To be called communication, media must include operating cybernetic loops with significant exchange between senders and receivers; dialogue must replace the-present monolgue. Commercial media claiming to "communicate" have usurped the term; they do not communicate; they do inform, however, but because of their excommunication function they may actually alienate people. Scholars usuage over the years is examined including some now beginning to recognize this solecism and to argue against communication's further abuse. Telidon is questioned as to its interactive claims.