When people first started speculating about the what effects that the mass media had on the audience, two distinct viewpoints began.  First of all there were those who felt that the media represented a "new dawn of democracy," giving the public equal access to valuable information.  Others saw the media as "agents of evil" ready to destroy the defenseless minds of all citizens (Katz et al, 1955, p.16).

Beginning in the 1920's, much research was done on how the mass media of film, radio, and print reached and impacted the large audiences (Lazarsfeld et al, p. 95).  A 1940 study of voters was an important point in time as this "confirmed and supplemented certain regularities of mass media exposure" (p.96).

  It became clear that those people that learned about certain events through one channel were more likely to have learned about it through a second and third as well.  They also paid attention to issues that they already had an opinion on.  But even more surprisingly was the importance of face to face communication and the advantages this had over mass media (Lazarsfeld et al p. 96).

It was found that this face to face communication provided a powerful tool to reach those undecided and even opposed to a position.  It provides personal immediate feedback.  After noticing the unexpected importance of personal influence in the voting study, it attracted much attention and further research and recognition.  Through this research, the importance of opinion leaders was introduced; who they were, how they became leaders, and what power they had over the public and their decision making processes.  After the voting study, it was suggested that communications flow in two steps, from the media to opinion leaders to the less active people in society.  Katz examined the two-step flow of communication more in depth later.