This paper considers the possibility that early sociological interest in the integrative role of mass communication may have been undermined (1) by the shortrun study of media "campaigns," and the declaration that such persuasive efforts have only "limited effect"; (2) by the wrangling over theories of "mass society"; and (3) by a quasi-journalistic emphasis on "media events." In spite of the theoretical basis for reconciling these traditions, the rift over the academic locus of communications research has not been repaired.Communications research seems to be flourishing, as evident in the number of universities offering degrees in communication, number of students enrolled, number of journals, etc. The field is interdisciplinary, and embraces various combinations of former Schools of Journalism, Schools of Speech (Midwest for Rhetoric), and programs in sociology and political science. The field is linked to Law, to Schools of Business and Health, to Cinema Studies, and, increasingly, to humanistically-oriented programs of so-called Cultural Studies. All this, in spite of having been prematurely pronounced dead, or bankrupt, by some of its founders.Sociologists once occupied a prominent place in the study of communicationboth in pioneering departments of sociology and as founding members of the interdisciplinary teams that constituted Departments and Schools of Communication. In the intervening years, I daresay that communications has attracted rather little attention in mainstream sociology and, as for Departments of Communication, a generation of scholars brought up on interdisciplinarity has lost touch with the disciplines from which their teachers were recruited. More recently, I believe, this