Glenn Sparks

 Professor
 Ph.D., University of Wisconsin
M.A., Northern Illinois University
B.A., Wheaton College

 Curriculum Vitae

Department Information
Communication // Faculty

Office Information
 Office: BRNG 2134
 Office Phone: (765) 464-9536
 Office Hours: Spring 2018: Tuesday & Thursday 1:30-2:50pm
 E-mail: gsparks@purdue.edu
 Website: http://www.glenngsparks.com/spark/welcome/

 Research
General research on the effects of mass media. Research has included experimental work on
the appeal of media violence, the effects of paranormal depictions in the media on paranormal
beliefs and beliefs about science, and the effects of frightening films on emotional reactions of
children and adults. Also conducting research on the "CSI effect" as well as the general impact
of electronic media on interpersonal relationships and close connections. Some of this research
culminated in the publication (with Dr. Will Miller) of Refrigerator Rights: Our Crucial Need for
Close Connection (2008, Willow).
 Representative Publications
o Decoster, J., Sparks, E.A., Sparks, J.C., Sparks, G.G., & Sparks, C.W. press (2015).
Opportunistic Biases: Their Origins, Effects, and an Integrated Solution. American
Psychologist. 70(6), 499-515.
o “Sci, Psi, and CSI: Police Officers’ and Students’ Paranormal TV Consumption, Real-
Life Experience with Paranormal Phenomena, and Perceptions of Psychic
Detectives,” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2014.
o “Eyewitnesses to TV Versions of Reality: The Relationship between Exposure to TV
Crime Dramas and Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System,” In D.A. Macy, K.M.
Ryan, & N.J. Springer (Eds.), How Television Shapes our Worldview: Media
Representations of Social Trends and Change, Lexington, 2014.
o “Using the C-SPAN Archives to Teach Mass Communication Theory,” In R. Browning
(Eds.), The C-SPAN Archives: An Interdisciplinary Resource for Discovery, Learning,
and Engagement, Purdue University Press, 2014
o "Media Violence," In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory
and Research, Routledge, 2009.
o "The Appeal of Media Violence in a Full-Length Motion Picture: An Experimental
Investigation." Communication Reports, 2005.
o "The Relationship Between Paranormal Beliefs and Religious Beliefs," Skeptical
Inquirer, 2001.
o "Investigating the Relationship Between Exposure to Television Programs that
Depict Paranormal Phenomena and Beliefs in the Paranormal,"
Communication Monographs, 2001.
o "Violence, Mayhem, and Horror," In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.),
Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal, Erlbaum, 2000.

Books

1|Page
 Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview (5th Edition) Wadsworth, 2015. More information
click here.
A First Look at Communication Theory (9th Edition, with Em Griffin and Andrew Ledbetter)
McGraw-Hill, 2015. More information click here.
Refrigerator Rights: Our Crucial Need for Close Connection (with W. Miller), Willow,
2008. More information click here.

Communication, mass media effects,

belief in the paranormal, media violence
and horror
Glenn Sparks, a Purdue University professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication, can talk
about mass media effects including media violence, scary TV images and how communication
technologies affect interpersonal relationships. Sparks is co-author of "Refrigerator Rights: Our
Crucial Need for Close Connection," which was published in 2002.

Sparks can discuss:

 The effects of frightening images on children, and how violence in films can affect people of all ages
 The appeal of violence in movies and the movie rating system
 Communication technologies and relationships
 Belief in the paranormal
 The science behind ‘a good scare’
 The CSI Effect: How TV consumption predicts opinions about the criminal justice system

2|Page
 Martin J. Medhurst

Distinguished Professor of Rhetoric and Communication &

Professor of Political Science

Martin_Medhurst@Baylor.edu

(254) 710-7840

Office Information:
Office Location: Marrs McLean Science Building 167

Office Hours (Spring 2017):

 TR 2:00 p.m-4:30 p.m.

 By appointment

Mailing Address:
Baylor University
Department of Communication
One Bear Place # 97368
Waco, TX 76798-7368

Dr. Medhurst Vita 2014

Education:
 B.A., Wheaton College, 1974
 M.A., Northern Illinois University, 1975
 Ph.D. Penn State University, 1980

Background:
Martin J. Medhurst is Distinguished Professor of Rhetoric and Communication and Professor of
Political Science at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He started his teaching career in 1979 as an
assistant professor of rhetoric at the University of California, Davis, where he was promoted to associate
professor with tenure in 1985. Dr. Medhurst became associate professor of speech communication at
3|Page
 Texas A&M University in 1988, where he was promoted to full professor in 1991. He joined the faculty
at Baylor University as Distinguished Professor of Rhetoric and Communication in 2003.

Professor Medhurst holds the B.A. from Wheaton College (1974), the M.A. from Northern Illinois
University (1975), and the Ph.D. from Penn State University (1980). He is the author or editor of
thirteen books, including Rhetorical Dimensions in Media: A Critical Casebook (1984 and 1991, with
Thomas W. Benson), Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology (1990 and 1997, with
Robert L. Ivie, Philip Wander, and Robert L. Scott), Communication & the Culture of
Technology (1990, with Alberto Gonzalez and Tarla Rai Peterson), Landmark Essays on American
Public Address (1993), Dwight D. Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator (1993), Eisenhower’s War of
Words: Rhetoric and Leadership (1994), Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency (1996), Critical
Reflections on the Cold War (2000, with H.W. Brands), Presidential Speechwriting (2003, with Kurt
Ritter), The Rhetorical Presidency of George H. W. Bush (2006), The Prospect of Presidential
Rhetoric(2008, with James Arnt Aune), Before the Rhetorical Presidency (2008), and Words of a
Century (2009, with Stephen E. Lucas).

Dr. Medhurst is a frequent contributor to communication journals, including The Quarterly Journal of
Speech, Communication Monographs, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Communication
Education, Communication Quarterly, Communication Studies, Western Journal of
Communication, and the Southern Communication Journal, among other disciplinary outlets. He has
also contributed to such interdisciplinary journals as Armed Forces & Society, Journal of Church and
State, Studies in Visual Communication, and Presidential Studies Quarterly. He has published more
than 100 articles and chapters. Professor Medhurst is the founder and editor of the interdisciplinary
journal Rhetoric & Public Affairs and of the scholarly book series of the same title, both published by
Michigan State University Press. From 1987-1989, Dr. Medhurst served as the Book Review Editor
of The Quarterly Journal of Speech. He has served on the editorial boards of Communication
Monographs, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Western
Journal of Communication, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Communication Quarterly, and as a
special guest editor for Communication Education. From 1996-2007, he served as general editor for
the Presidential Rhetoric Series at Texas A&M University Press and from 2004-2012 as editor of the
Rhetoric and Religion Series at Baylor University Press. He currently serves as the general editor of the
ten volume series, A Rhetorical History of the United States, published by Michigan State University
Press.

Dr. Medhurst is the recipient of several honors and awards, including the Julia T. Wood Teacher-
Scholar Award (2011), Michael Osborn Teacher-Scholar Award (2007), the Religious Communication
Association Scholar of the Year Award (2006), the National Communication Association Distinguished
Scholar Award (2005), the Paul Boase Prize for Scholarship (2004), the Marie Hochmuth Nichols
Award for Outstanding Scholarship (1995 and 1997), the NCA Golden Anniversary Monograph Award
for Outstanding Scholarship (1982, with Michael A. DeSousa), and the RCA Publication Award (1983).
Dr. Medhurst has lectured widely throughout the United States and his work has been supported by
grants from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library Foundation, the Texas Committee for the
Humanities, the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, and the National Endowment for the
Humanities.

Courses:
Undergraduate:

 CSS 3202 Introduction to Rhetorical Theory and Criticism

 CSS 4310 Politics and Communication (cross-listed with Political Science)
 CSS 4351 Criticism of Contemporary Public Address (cross-listed with Political Science)
 CSS 4353 Public Discourse and Foreign Policy (cross-listed with Political Science)
4|Page
 CSS 4354 African American Communication (cross-listed with Political Science)

Graduate:

 CSS 5350 Seminar in Presidential Rhetoric (cross-listed with Political Science)

 CSS 5352 Seminar in Medhods of Rhetorical Criticism (cross-listed with Political Science)

Teaching/Research Interests:
 Rhetorical theory and criticism
 Presidential rhetoric
 Civil-religious discourse

Dr. Martin Medhurst Interview

1. Q: First, a bit about your biographical background. Where are you from, and is there
anything about your adolescence that shaped your educational ambitions? You received a
bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL, a Master of Arts from Northern
Illinois University, and a Ph.D. from Penn State University. What were the concentrations in
these degrees, and what interested you in these? In short, what drove your desire for this
education?

A: I was born and raised in Alton, Illinois, which is on the Mississippi River across from St.
Louis, Missouri. I don’t think any of my early educational experiences shaped my ambitions.
Most of my ambitions at that time were to be a great football and track star. I didn’t really
become interested in rhetoric until the first year of my M.A. program at Northern Illinois
University. I had gone there to study media, but ended up being more interested in rhetoric.
So I pursued the Ph.D. in rhetorical theory and criticism at Penn State University. All of my
degrees are in Speech Communication, though with different emphases. My B.A. was more
performance oriented; the M.A. was in media studies; and the Ph.D. in rhetoric.

2. Q: You are an expert in communication, rhetoric, and logic, and your primary focus is in
analyzing the rhetoric of presidential speeches. Please explain for our readers what is meant
by a rhetorical study of presidential speeches, and what is involved in your approach of
analyzing the speeches. If you were to mention briefly a few insights or interesting facts
about presidential speeches over the years, what would you share? Is there anything unique
or noteworthy in the rhetoric of President Barack Obama’s speeches?

5|Page
A: Well, I wouldn’t include “logic” among my areas of expertise. Rhetoric is based in a sort
of “psycho-logic”; it is quasi-logical. I became interested in presidential speech at NIU,
where I wrote one of my first papers on an address that George McGovern, the 1972
Democratic nominee, gave at my alma mater, Wheaton College. I was in the audience for
the speech and then later wrote about it. I was studying the rhetorical theory of Kenneth
Burke at the time and used one of his concepts—the cycle of guilt-purification-redemption—
to analyze the structure of the speech.

I try to analyze each speech on its own merits. Some speeches invite attention to language
or style or imagery while others draw attention to ideas or arguments or particular kinds of
reasoning. I let the speech itself determine the analytical approach I will take. I’ve written
about many different kinds of presidential speeches—from famous foreign policy addresses
such as Truman’s “Truman Doctrine Speech” and Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace,” to
campaign speeches such as Ike’s “I Shall Go to Korea,” and inaugural addresses such as
Obama’s 2009 address. I discovered that Obama has a standard vocabulary that he draws
upon repeatedly to produce a mythic discourse of journeying toward the land of our destiny,
which he images as the quest for perfection.

3. Q: You have thirteen books under your belt that you’ve either written or edited.(2) These
books deal mostly with the intersection of communication and rhetoric in politics—why
concentrate on the rhetoric of politics in particular? What would you say is the most
compelling and/or interesting aspect of how politics uses rhetoric? Are there any themes
that are peculiar or specific to American political rhetoric throughout the history of our
Republic?

A: Well, I guess I concentrate on politics because that is what I am interested in. I believe
that politics is consequential—it has real effects on real people—and that makes it worthy of
study in my book. The President of the United States is the single most powerful individual
in the world. Surely it is important to understand one of the main sources of that power. All
politics involves rhetoric.

You can’t engage at any level in the political world without the aid of rhetorical discourse
whether that is in the form of a speech, a press release, a debate, a position paper, a
discussion among aides, an op-ed piece, or any other spoken or written piece of discourse
meant to influence someone’s thinking or behavior. American political rhetoric has many
standard themes and structures. Freedom is, of course, the main theme of American
rhetoric at any given period. We have also developed some standard rhetorical forms such
as the jeremiad that allow us to constantly renew the promise of America.

6|Page
4.Q: Much hay was made about the differences in communication ability between George W.
Bush and Barack Obama, when Obama first ran for the presidency, by popular media. What
is your opinion of the rhetorical differences between these presidents? Is it as stark as the
media portrayed?

A: George W. Bush and Barack Obama are two very different kinds of communicators. Bush
was a tremendous campaigner. His campaign speeches were among the best, as was his
ability to interact with the crowds. Bush was also better than average on major platform
addresses—things like his nomination acceptance address, his inaugural addresses, and his
September 20, 2001 speech on the terrorist attacks. He gave some pretty powerful
speeches at times.

But most of the time, in the day-to-day rhetorical activities of the presidency, he was rather
glib and sometimes unprepared or unwilling to engage the issues. Obama was also a great
campaign speaker, one who could rally the crowds to his cause. His major addresses have
been mixed, with some of them being landmark speeches—his “More Perfect Union”
campaign speech of 2008 and his Nobel Prize lecture of 2009 come immediately to mind.
Both Bush and Obama are adequate, but not great debaters. Each has his strengths and
weaknesses.

5.Q: To what degree does modern rhetoric shape how we think and/or what we believe in
modern culture at large? Is it significantly different than, say, the WWII generation? Does it
tend to shape our modern society in any unique way, i.e., that truth is now relative, science
has final authority, Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, the only thing that matters
is your own personal journey, etc.? Are there always buzz-words that loom large and carry a
lot of currency in an age’s thought?

A: Rhetoric is one of the forces that shape culture because the driving force of any culture is
its animating ideas, and ideas are conveyed rhetorically. Clearly rhetoric has played a part in
“normalizing” such ideas as same-sex marriage, sexual liberation (such as living together
before marriage), and the general idea that if it feels good, do it. As you can tell from my
examples, I am a conservative.

I draw my ideas about rhetoric and culture largely from the writings of Richard M. Weaver,
one of the foremost rhetorical theorists and critics of the twentieth century. He wrote about
“god-terms” and “ultimate terms,” terms that demand sacrifice and whose invocation
authorizes belief and action. What do you think are the “ultimate terms” of our age? They
are continuously changing from one generation to the next.

7|Page
6. Q: You’ve written and currently write for many academic journals in the field of
communication(3) and you’re the founder and editor of the journal Rhetoric & Public Affairs.
Would you shed some light on what is involved in being such a prolific writer as a
professional academic? Does it mean constantly staying abreast of the latest state of the
art, reading other communication academics’ writings, considering new theories, etc.?

A: First, it means wanting to become a publishing scholar and following a pathway toward
that end. Not all college professors are interested in publishing. I became interested at an
early age (22) when one of my professors at NIU suggested that I submit one of my term
papers for publication consideration. I did, and it was accepted for publication. And ever
since then I have been submitting my work for publication, not only to journals in
communication but also such interdisciplinary outlets as Presidential Studies Quarterly,
Armed Forces & Society, and the Journal of Church and State, among others. Second, it
means being willing to risk yourself by exposing your ideas to professional criticism.

Seldom is any article accepted exactly as it is submitted. You have to take the criticism into
account and revise the piece until it meets the standards of the referees and the journal
editor. Third, you have to be persistent and confident in the worth of your product. If you
don’t believe in your ideas why should anyone else? While I am still publishing, I now spend
most of my time editing other people’s scholarship. This past year (2013) Rhetoric & Public
Affairs received 134 submissions. I’m responsible for making sure all of those essays are
properly processed and that the authors receive useful feedback so they can improve their
work. I also edit 4-5 book manuscripts per year in my capacity as a series editor at Michigan
State University Press.

7. Q: Can you explain generally what is involved in getting an undergraduate and graduate
degree in communication? What advice would you give to students in pursuing a degree in
communication? What are some common careers that communication degree holders can
look forward to upon graduation?

A: Like all liberal arts degrees, communication requires the completion of a core set of
courses and then anywhere from 30-36 hours in the major itself. Courses range from
interpersonal and group communication, to organizational communication, to rhetorical
theory, to persuasion, to argumentation and debate, to rhetorical criticism, and, in some
departments, courses in media as well. My advice to communication majors is the same as I
would give to any undergraduate—make the most of your college years because they only
come around once in a lifetime.

Find some teachers who inspire you and take their courses. Pursue your loves. Try not to be
overly concerned with what “job” you’ll get when you graduate. An undergraduate degree is
meant to “educate,” not necessarily to be preparation for a specific career. This is especially

8|Page
true of the communication degree. It is wonderful preparation for a long list of careers that
require human communication skills, from sales, to personnel, to teaching, preaching,
advertising, marketing, and the list goes on and on. But we don’t teach people how to
preach or how to sell. We teach them rhetorical precepts that can be applied across a wide
range of careers.

8. Q: What are the mediums of communication, such as writing, radio, television, film, oral
communication, etc., that are taught in a communication degree? What can a student
expect to learn in pursuing this degree, such as, will students learn logic, methods of
persuasion, argumentation and debate, etc.?

A: The specific media to which students will be exposed in a communication department

vary from one department to the next. There is no one-size-fits all communication
department. They are all different. Some include broadcast media, some don’t. Some
include journalism, some don’t. Some include film or theatre, some don’t.

Almost all departments will include interpersonal, group, and organizational communication
courses, and most will have courses in persuasion and rhetoric. Beyond that, it is hard to
give generalizations. A good communication degree should teach students to think clearly,
reason rationally, analyze systematically, and speak and write clearly.

9. Q: Would you please explain generally how a study of communication and rhetoric is also
very beneficial in life outside of politics, such as in law, teaching, business, the ministry,
etc.?

A: Any field that requires either speaking or writing on a regular basis is benefitted by the
study of rhetoric. Lawyers prepare briefs and argue cases. Teachers prepare lesson plans
and then delivery them orally. Business professionals, especially those in sales, advertising,
marketing, and personnel use persuasion on a daily basis. Preachers prepare and deliver
sermons and spend countless hours counseling parishioners. Learning to think rhetorically
benefits a large number of professions.

10. Q: What would you emphasize as important for students in general, studying in any
discipline? What do you like to see in your students, that you regard as making a complete,
well-rounded successful student, not only in grades, but also in the entire college
experience, shaping them for the future?

A: Being well-rounded is important and there are many different ways to become so.
Certainly participation in extra-curricular activities is important, whether it is a campus club
9|Page
of a religious or political nature, or volunteering for service projects, or participating in
intercollegiate or club sports, or being a peer counselor. Your resume should reflect that
you’ve done more than just go to class and (hopefully) earned good grades.

 (1) Dr. Martin Medhurst is the recipient of several honors and awards, including the
Julia T. Wood Teacher-Scholar Award (2011), Michael Osborn Teacher-Scholar
Award (2007), the Religious Communication Association Scholar of the Year Award
(2006), the National Communication Association Distinguished Scholar Award
(2005), the Paul Boase Prize for Scholarship (2004), the Marie Hochmuth Nichols
Award for Outstanding Scholarship (1995 and 1997), the NCA Golden Anniversary
Monograph Award for Outstanding Scholarship (1982, with Michael A. DeSousa),
and the RCA Publication Award (1983). Dr. Martin Medhurst has lectured widely
throughout the United States and his work has been supported by grants from the
Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library Foundation, the Texas Committee for the
Humanities, the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, and the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
 (2) Including: Rhetorical Dimensions in Media: A Critical Casebook (1984 and 1991,
with Thomas W. Benson), Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology
(1990 and 1997, with Robert L. Ivie, Philip Wander, and Robert L. Scott),
Communication & the Culture of Technology (1990, with Alberto Gonzalez and Tarla
Rai Peterson), Landmark Essays on American Public Address (1993), Dwight D.
Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator (1993), Eisenhower’s War of Words: Rhetoric
and Leadership (1994), Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency (1996), Critical
Reflections on the Cold War (2000, with H.W. Brands), Presidential Speechwriting
(2003, with Kurt Ritter), The Rhetorical Presidency of George H. W. Bush (2006),
The Prospect of Presidential Rhetoric (2008, with James Arnt Aune), Before the
Rhetorical Presidency (2008), and Words of a Century (2009, with Stephen E.
Lucas).
 (3) Including: The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Communication Monographs,
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Communication Education, Communication
Quarterly, Communication Studies, Western Journal of Communication, and the
Southern Communication Journal, among other disciplinary outlets. He has also
contributed to such interdisciplinary journals as Armed Forces & Society, Journal of
Church and State, Studies in Visual Communication, and Presidential Studies
Quarterly. He has published more than 85 articles and chapters. Professor
Medhurst is the founder and editor of the journal Rhetoric & Public Affairs and of
the scholarly book series of the same title, both published by Michigan State
University Press. From 1987-1989, Dr. Martin Medhurst served as the Book Review
Editor of The Quarterly Journal of Speech. He has served on the editorial boards of
Communication Monographs, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, Western Journal of Communication, Presidential Studies Quarterly,
10 | P a g e
 Communication Quarterly, and as a special guest editor for Communication
Education. From 1996-2007, Dr. Martin Medhurst served as general editor for the
Presidential Rhetoric Series at Texas A&M University Press. He currently serves as
the general editor of the ten volume series, A Rhetorical History of the United
States, published by Michigan State University Press, and as series editor for the
Rhetoric and Religion Series at Baylor University Press.

Kay Marty naman : Interpretive approach - assumes that multiple meanings or

truths are possible

Communication Theory & Practice summation of

chapters 1 thru 4
Posted by blbierbrauer on January 7, 2014

Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

I used to think theories were only important in science and geometry. Remember those
confusing theorems in high school geometry class? I can remember thinking, “Just show me how to
work the problem. I don’t want to hear the theory behind it!” Anyway, after high school I learned that
theory is more than just Plato or Newton. Theory is used in every aspect of life from planning a financial
budget to choosing which lane of traffic will get you to work the quickest.

In Em Griffin’s book, A First Look at Communication Theory, I especially liked Judee Burgoon’s
definition of theory as being a “set of systematic hunches about the way things operate.” Chapter one
is devoted to explaining how these [informed] hunches have to be developed by reading articles, talking
with people, observing actions, and running experiments. Then, and only then, can you declare your
hunches a theory.

Chapter two (my favorite) dissected a Peyton Manning/MasterCard television commercial from a few
years ago that feature the then-Colts quarterback coaching and encouraging everyday people through
everyday situations. The commercial was analyzed from both an objective approach and interpretive
approach. Glenn Sparks, a social scientist from Purdue University, claims that MasterCard used
celebrity appeal in Manning to persuade consumers to be part of the team. Rhetorician Marty Medhurst
of Baylor University, interprets the verbal and non-verbal messages of the commercial by saying, “To
be a man is to have the right attitude about the little trials of life; it is to be part of the home team.” In
other words, having a MasterCard helps you overcome the obstacles that stand between you and your

11 | P a g e
goals. I believe Medhurst is overthinking MasterCard’s intent in this commercial. I agree with Sparks
that consumers want to emulate celebrities they see in advertising campaigns and have a tendency to
believe whatever the celeb is pitching. The most important lesson from chapter two, however, is the
emphasis placed on being both objective and interpretive when researching a human theory.

Chapter three offers a half-dozen standards to judge the quality of both objective and interpretive
theories. For example, author Griffin says social scientists believe a good objective theory is as simple
as possible. The theory must explain the past and present, and predict the future. A good objective
theory must also be testable, useful, and be supported by quantitative research. Interpretive scholars,
on the other hand, don’t have a set of standards like scientists do, buy they do believe theories should
accomplish the following: Create an understanding of the human condition, clarify human values, be
aesthetically pleasing, generate agreement, promote reform, and use qualitative research. A weak
example of this chapter would be describing the difference between newspaper beat writers and
columnists. Beat writers are kind of like social scientists – they want the “who, what, where, why, when,
and how” of every event. Columnists are like rhetoricians – persuading, promoting, clarifying, and being
colorfully articulate.

Chapter four describes seven established traditions of communication theory from University of
Colorado professor Robert Craig. Rather than describe all seven traditions, I’ll instead distinguish the
method that most fits my style and/or belief. Being an old radio newsman, I just need the
proof. The socio-psychological tradition described in chapter four epitomizes the objective
perspective. The criteria of research, interviews, checking sources, etc., all resonate with me. I’m huge
on research and surveys – which translate into more believable theories, or in my case, more believable
news stories. If I desired to be a communication theorist, I would certainly lean on the socio-
psychological tradition the majority of the time – easily the most objective of traditions.

Bryan Bierbrauer, University of Northwestern-St. Paul student

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e