A further model of communication is that of George Gerbner, developed in 1956. While at its core a liner model in the same vein as Shannon and Weaver’s model, it goes into much more detail, introducing more advanced concepts such as perception and meaning into the equation. Indeed the model focuses primarily on perception, namely how someone may perceive a message once it has passed through various elements. The basic way the perception element of the model works, according to Fiske (1982) is that an Event (E) occurs, which is perceived by M (M being either a human or machine). M’s perception of E is E1. The difference between E and E1 is based on the selection. If M is a machine, E1 is based on its physical restrictions (e.g. A camera could only capture one moment of E from one angle). If M is human, the selection can be more complex with issues such as personal biases affecting the way M perceives the message.
In 1956, Theodore Newcomb developed his own model of communication, which departed radically from the linear core of Both Gerbner and Shannon and Weaver. It uses an ABX system, where A and B are the communicators, be they governments, individuals, managers, etc. X is their social environment. In this model A, B and X are interdependent, meaning that if A changes their attitude towards X, B will also have to change their attitude to A or X. The example given by Fiske (1982) to explain the model is one where A is the government, B is the TUC and X is a pay policy. If A are a Labour government, then A and B will be on relatively good terms, meaning that there will be pressure to agree on X. If A is a Tory government, then they will not be on good terms with B and there is less pressure for them to agree on X, keeping the system in equilibrium.
There we have three models, Shannon and Weaver, Gerbner and Newcomb. Two are Linear, one is not. The reason for choosing these three is simply so that it is possible to compare both linear models with different focusses and equally how these two compare to a non-linear model. We must also make these comparisons trying to assess each model for its usefulness in the field of international relations.
The Shannon and Weaver model is renowned for its simplicity. It deals simply with how communication travels from the transmitter to the receiver worrying only about the concept of noise scrambling the content of the message, regardless of if the meaning is still intact. It is considered by some to be too simple, with Chandler (1994) asserting that the model is “not merely a gross over-simplification but a dangerously misleading misrepresentation of the nature of human communication”. And this is certainly a fair argument. Let us take for the sake of argument, the example of language. Say the Transmitter is speaking in French on a telephone connection that is crystal clear, and his message is received perfectly clearly by the Receiver, who is unable to speak French. According to Shannon and Weaver, the message can be classed as having been successfully sent, even though the receiver cannot speak French and therefore is unable to get any meaning out of the message.
This was, however, the intent of Shannon and Weaver, that they focus simply of how well the message gets sent from the Sender to the Receiver, regardless of if it is understood. According to Shannon (1948) “Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.” which explains why it lacks focus on meaning or purpose.
Contrast this with Gerbner’s model. While also linear, it focuses mainly on the perception of an Event. This means that, if we took the same example used previously, the Sender speaking a language that the receiver does not understand, when the message is received by the Receiver, his perception of it will be one of confusion. We can therefore get a better understanding of human communication than with Shannon and Weaver. We can understand that for communication to be successful there needs to be some sort of mutual element which is understood by both sides.
Ultimately however, both Shannon and Weaver and Gerbner are relatively unusable for models of communication in the field of International Relations. The reason for this is that these two models “are linear, suggesting that we simply receive a message as it is sent, but we interpret the messages we receive, bringing our own understanding to them” (Reynolds, 1997). It is the element of interpretation and personal understanding of a message that both these models forsake. Shannon and Weaver lacks any mention at all of the way the message is received, while Gerbner deals with the way one can perceive a message based on how it is received, but does not go into how a person will interpret the message. If one takes the example of body language, in the Western World a thumbs up sign is a symbol of approval or satisfaction. In the Middle East however it is one of the crudest physical insults similar to the raising of your middle finger to someone in the Western World. However, both Gerbner and Shannon and Weaver would not focus on this distinction.
But what of Newcomb’s model? While it also contains communication between a Sender and Receiver (A and B in this model), it not only outright asserts that communication can travel both ways, but also adds an extra element in the form of X, a societal condition that will affect communication between A and B. Back to the thumbs up example, if A were from the western world and B were from the middle east, X would be the way one interprets a thumbs up. As B interprets it badly, it means that A will not use it, thereby keeping the communication in equilibrium.
It is this element of interpretation that makes Newcomb much more suited in the field of International Relations than Shannon and Weaver or Gerbner. The added X element serves as a way of regulating the communication to help ensure that the interpretation of the Receiver is as intended by the Sender. But the X element is only as useful if one knows what it is. According to Fiske (1982) “This model assumes ... that people need information”. Which is true. If one is not aware that a thumbs up is offensive to someone, they will not know to avoid it, meaning that being well informed is a must for the success of the model.
Therefore in conclusion we can see that the Shannon and Weaver and Gerbner models of communications are sufficient if one wishes to take an academic, simplified look at communication and the way it works, but their lack of the necessary extraneous elements of communication make them next to useless in any real world scenario, representing, as they do, overly-simplified models of how communication works. Newcomb on the other hand is better suited for real world communication if only because of the added X element which ensures that interpretation can be controlled by either party, even if the X element can be rendered useless due to ignorance.
References
Chandler, D (1994) The Transmission Model of Communication. Available at (Accessed: 23rd Nov. 2008)
Fiske, J (1982) Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Methuen & Co.
Reynolds, K (1997) What is the Transmission Model of Interpersonal Communication and What is Wrong with it? Available at (Accessed 23rd Nov. 2008)
Shannon, C E (1948) “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379-423