The role of mass media in social change without a doubt is huge. It is certainly the one medium that can reach masses all at the same time and influence tremendous changes in any society. For example social media can focus attention and bring issues that were once unknown to light, it can confer status, it can broaden ones horizon. However according to Wilber Schram, there is not much evidence to show that social media has such a major impcat in changing attitude and believe systems. This is true to some extent. A case for example like Turkana or Samburu in Kenya, or any of the cultures where practices of FGM are still practised, one cannot say that changes in these societies can be transferred through the media. Though yes to some extend it could, but it goes deeper. According to an excerpt from What mass Communication can do, Wilber mentions that their are deeper connections that would either facilitate the process of change or lack of it. And especially in Africa where society

Mass media has been used over years as a tool for social change, however it has not always been so as quite often according to the writing of  Antonio Pasquali,  the same mass media has been used as a tool for manipulation of the less dominant population from the more dominant.  In his writing by Bertoit Bretcht, explains that though a tool such as radio can be used for social change, many consumers of it, go to it mostly for entertainment. He critiques the medium as one that excludes the  audience completely and takes the role of informer. Sentiments that are also observed by Pasquali who says that certainly much of mass media is controlled by a select of few, who often are the elite, taking an informer position as opposed to a dialogue approach. However one cannot exclusively say that dissemination of information exclusively comes from one end as according to David Berlo, communication is a process, an ongoing one. One cannot quite tell the origin of the message as much of commu