OER Peer Review
Open Source Text Link: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Mass_Media
Subject: Communication
Topic: Introduction to Mass Communication
Reviewer: Chris McCollough
1. Comprehensiveness
The open source text in no way comprehensively covers the subject, nor does it even cover the
basics of each component of mass communication. Here is a list of the more notable problems:









Critical omission of sections on journalism, Internet, Print Media, Telegraph and Telephone. This
is an awful lot of material that helps explain career options and how we reached modern media
practices to not contain in a textbook.
The theory section offers a very limited explanation of postpositivism, hermeneutic, critical, and
normative theory types.
In the explanation of media theories, the authors offer no meaningful discussion of different
theories, and how each fits into a broader spectrum on research. A better approach would
include an organization that breaks down each eras, and then talks about the most important
theories that define each respective era.
As the book moves on to discussing each genre of mass media, it becomes clear the author(s)
are only covering a limited scope of each era. For example, in the radio era, the history of the
invention begins with Marconi’s use in 1904 and jumps to Orson Wells and the “War of the
Worlds” telecast. What isn’t discussed in the 34 years between is the growth of the industry, the
rise of popularity, and the impact of radio on society. After discussing the 1938 telecast, the
author then makes pit stops to cover modern terrestrial radio and the rise of satellite radio. This
gives the student no understanding of how media use evolves over time.
Going further, none of the genre chapters really cover the economics of each industry. If the
professor is tasked with helping students understand the professional elements associated with
mass media (particularly mass media students looking to enter the discipline), than this book is
doing students a disservice.
No coverage of the early controversies in film making that prompted the ratings systems, and
modern media effects research.
History of television is summed up in 3 paragraphs.
TV’s relationship to and impact on radio consists of one paragraph. The invention of television
signaled a genre reformat and repurpose. That this is not explored is a critical deficiency in the
text.
While the authors do a nice job of covering social media history through 2012, they do not
address how substantive the impact of social media is proving to be on journalism, public

relations, entertainment film and television, as well as marketing and advertising. This, again, is
a critical deficiency in the text.
We have a chapter on ethics for journalism, photojournalism, public relations, and advertising.
As far as media law goes, there is no discussion of the first amendment, whatsoever, and the
legal discussion reads like a “Cliff’s Notes” on how not to get sued for doing your job.
2. Content Accuracy
Content accuracy is not a big of an issue as the lack of depth in explaining each concept,
providing meaningful examples that students can identify with. That said, here are some notable errors
in organization and content.


Public Relations definition is outdated, should be using one from 2011 that PRSA adopted
focusing on the cultivation and maintenance of relationships, rather than pure content creation.
There is a very incongruent organization of eras of media theory. The authors try to break media
down into, “Mass Society, Scientific Perspective, Limited Effects, and Cultural Criticism.” A more
useful approach to explaining theory might break each era down into the following perspectives:
o Mass Effects  1890s-1938
o Hypodermic Needle Perspective  1938-1960
o Limited Effects Model  1960s-Present
o Critical/Cultural Perspective  1960s-Present
3. Relevance/Longevity
The relevance of some material to the subject is questionable, not to mention that much of the
research in some chapters seems to stop around 2009, which in mass communication is fast becoming
outdated scholarship on many concepts. Here is a list of the more notable problems:


The decision to include theory types in explaining mass communication effects theories is far
less useful than a far greater depth in explaining theories and where each falls in the evolution
of media effects research.
“Future of PR” only incorporates research until 2009. Kind of a limitation on the content area.
4. Clarity
While the text is simple and easy to read on the basis of each section, the incoherence is
apparent when the reader tries to take a step back and address how each section fits together and why
they are a part of the text.

One clear example of a lack of clarity is the incorporation of chapters on public relations,
marketing, and advertising. In a well-written book, the authors would work to differentiate
between the 3 clearly before explaining professionals in any one of the 3 fields will find
themselves working on elements of all 3. Instead, the authors help blur the perspectives for the

reader, such that it would seem including any more than 1 chapter might be a redundant
exercise.
The international media chapter reads as 3 gigantic run-on sentences that offer a limited
literature review of the global reach of media and only scratches the surface of diversity issues
in media, which is one of the foremost concerns in international media today.
5. Consistency
A very large contributor to this lack of clarity is the inconsistency among the chapters. This text
reads very much like a different author or a team of students wrote a text book. Some chapters are
passable (public relations, social media history) and others are nonexistent. The voice is never a singular
one across all 12 chapters. Another example in the advertising chapter illustrates the inclusion of
research in the chapter, which is a critical part of public relations and marketing, as well. Yet, when you
compare the three chapters, there is almost no effective explanation of the importance of research to
public relations or marketing.
6. Modularity
If you ignore all of the above glaring problems, then you could easily assign each 3-5 page
chapter as a homework assignment. That the authors think this can be covered in 3-5 page wikis is the
root problem, unfortunately.
7. Organization/Structure/Flow
This really depends upon the chapter, and it never gets consistent. For example, the chapter on
film jumps through sections, as such:






History of Film: 1920s-1940s, 1990s, and today.
Genres of film and ratings
Diversity
Film Studios and Moguls
Technological Advancement
Home entertainment
There is no flow in organization that would lead a logical reader through the key concepts commonly
present in this kind of chapter.
8. Interface
While the content and organization of the text might confuse a reader, the interface does not.
9. Grammatical Errors
Very few grammatical errors, but plenty of formatting inconsistencies between APA, MLA, and
Chicago Style, depending on the chapter you read.
10. Cultural Relevance
This book is not presenting any culturally offensive approaches to delivering content.