Originally booted in the 1930's; the theory refers to the idea that an audience can be controlled as if they are a passive being, it assumes they're sponges that simply soak up information.
It negates the free will and personality of the audience as individuals and assumes that they don't have opinions of their own. Rather than think for themselves, it determines that they'll simply follow and believe what they're told.
It follows the idea that anything they teach audiences will be set in stone; it adopts the theory that audiences are empty and totally open to information.
Diagram
Example
A prime example of this being utilised to the fullest would be propaganda, specifically Nazi Germany propaganda:
Propaganda is documentation that was hung around like advertising, it presents a mission or campaign like the Nazi or Communism agendas.
The propaganda would usually present the agenda of the party with very strong language and a strong focus on the idea that the party are the 'good guys'
They often also depict that the opposing party are the 'bad guys' l, for example. Communism posters would convey that Capitalism is cruel and evil.
In the terms of Nazi propaganda, it would feed the idea that Hitler and his regime are all mighty and heroic. While their opponents are in fact the bad guys.
So what does this mean for the audience? Presenting this Nazi propaganda to a member of the public who might not have much of an opinion on the world war is going to make them immediately believe it.
The point of the theory is that it presents potentially false information as if it's factual in the hopes that people will believe it unconditionally, it assumes that there will be no resistance in whether audiences believe what they're seeing or hearing.
Reception theory
The
reception theory refers to the idea that viewers will react differently to the
same media text; it is the idea that there are 3 specific ways in which an
audience will take in the information. Specifically, whether they decide if they agree with it or not:
-Dominant reading
-Oppositional reading
-Negotiated reading
A
dominant reading refers to when the viewer is totally submissive to what they
are hearing, this can be compared to the previous theory (The Hypodermic
needle) because of it’s belief that an audience will just believe and succumb
fully to what they’re hearing.
This
normally would apply to news watchers, somebody hearing a news report would
believe whatever is accounted as facts.
An
oppositional reading refers to someone who would strongly oppose to what they’re
hearing, hence the “Opposition”
It
could be compared to an audience member watching a political rally and
determining that what they’re hearing is absolutely false, particularly if
they’re listening to someone who opposes they’re beliefs.
Finally
a negotiated reading refers to a balance between the two, the viewer might
understand and accept what they’re hearing but they’ll still hold they’re own
opinion on the subject.
This
could be related to something like religion, a listener might agree with the
idea of religion; but fall under a different belief. Meaning they’ll accept
what they’re hearing, but it’s up for debate.
This diagram depicts a news report (The media text) being consumed by three different people.
The bottom left (Dominant) Chooses to accept it without question.
The top right (Negotiated) Chooses to accept it, but holds his own slightly alternate opinion.
And the bottom right (Oppositional) Isn't having it at all, he's choosing to reject the information.
Passive and Active audiences
The difference between a passive and active audience member is determined by how they would react to a media text, as stated above.
A passive consumer is identical to the dominant reading, if listening to a news broadcast: The passive listener would just accept and believe what they're hearing without challenging it or questioning it for a second.
While the Active audience plays an active part in how the media text is received, if they listened to the same news broadcast. They'd challenge what they're hearing potentially from they're own life experiences.
News companies strive to reach the passive consumer, the audience members whose desperate for some juicy gossip and wouldn't necessarily mind if it's a small stretch of the truth.
The active audience is going to act on what they see, take this graph:
This graph shows a scale from a passive audience member to an active member, in this case. It is involving a violent news report.
Notice that the passive audience is just listening to what they're hearing, they don't seem to express an opinion for themselves on the report. They instead just listen to the news unconditionally, as the graph progresses you can notice that the audience member is becoming more involved and affected by the report. Up to the point where the audience member is so involved that they decide to protest and rebel against what they're hearing.
An active audience member might also copy or re-enact what they're hearing, they learn from this feeding of news so they may very well learn something wrong. In a super radical case, it is possible that showing a crime on TV in a lot of detail and under a spotlight is going to spawn more cases of that crime. It'll perhaps inspire people or show them simply how easy it might be.
Uses and Gratifications
The theory of uses and gratifications refers to the idea that an audience holds the power to bend and alter media by their usage, particularly the way in which they react to it.
One way to explain this would be how as an audience we demand more content revolving around our interests as a consumer, If you were a Star Wars fan, you'd prefer a new Star Wars movie over a chick flick.
If we relate it to the news, an example would be how news companies are fully aware that the best coverage of the most juicy news is going to entice new audience members. Audience members who might be desensitised to violence due to pop culture and want to actually see this Hollywood level of drama conveyed through the news.
But this doesn't only apply to the news, this also happens in any other media outlet. Let's take a look at some advertising for new two movies for example:
Firstly we have Baywatch, the most important thing to note in this poster is the small amount of things that are going on.
You aren't given any visual context to anything, the actor and actresses don't seem to represent anything other than sexuality. And the colour scheme is very simplistic, relying primarily on red, white and black.
Let's compare it to a very different film, and it's extremely different poster:
You can immediately notice a difference in detail, the first thing that might stand out is how many more characters there are. Also, the poster is divided into 2 or 3 points of interest, where different things are being highlighted.
There are some things in this poster that can only be seen upon close examination, for example; the original stormtrooper design down below, The classic ATAT's (Large walking machines at the bottom) Or the almost hidden Darth Vader face at the top right.
It's not a poster that can be understood upon first glance, it is very likely that once a Star Wars fan's eye has met the poster, they're going to take a look in further detail, then noticing these small little touches.
The explanation for why these posters are so different is not because of how different the films are, but mainly because of how different the audience will be. Not to say that someone couldn't enjoy both, but the posters are both made to attract the eyes of very different audiences.
The Baywatch poster is made for a modern sex culture, utilising sexy undressed characters to grab the attention of an easily impressed audience.
Where as the Star Wars poster is made for a more 'Nerdy' culture, the poster doesn't shy away from giving a viewer a lot of detail on the movie. It is essentially a mood board of things that Star Wars fans want to see in their movie.
Both of the posters were designed by people who understand both of these audiences what is going to really attract said audiences interest.
Bowling For Columbine
Negotiated Reading:
The entire documentary focuses on the purpose of being
against guns and the right to bare firearms, even if at some points it isn’t
explicitly clear; The director (Michael Moore) makes it obvious that he blames
the gun culture of America for the horrors of Columbine.
The reason I agree with him is that even if the documentary
is ultimately quite manipulative in it’s message, he covers a massive range of
points and variables that together build up into one big finale: The horrific
school shooting.
He covers the idea that the two boys responsible were in
fact really sad people, people failed by the awful school system that made them
feel worthless.
He approaches the horror from angles beyond simply the fact
that they shouldn’t have been able to acquire weaponry.
One clip I’ve looked at is a moment where Michael enters a
bank to apply for an account, upon signing up; he is given a gun. Even if the
footage is edited to make it appear like he’s given the gun immediately when
really he’d have to wait. The point still remains; the very idea that he is
given a gun for simply signing up to a bank is an outrageous disaster.
The reason I have a negotiated reading is because of how he
fakes the idea that he is given the gun immediately, it makes the situation
more dramatic and unbelievable. But it is not totally dedicated to the truth,
in a scenario as serious and horrific as this you want to be totally dedicated
to the truth. Coming from all angles in the absolute truth to really get to the
centre of what the problem really is.
Making a shock factor element like this really forces his anti-gun agenda,
rather than really honing in on EXACTLY what the prevalent problem might be.
Negotiated is absolutely the directors preferred reading.
Dominant Reading
At some points, I have a totally dominant reaction to the
documentary. Take this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHOq-6Mdu4
This scene presents how easy it is for someone to hide guns
just on their person, it specifically shows how a school boy with baggy clothes
and how he can hide a whole arsenal of guns within them.
This includes a collection of small handguns, and even
larger weapons; an automatic gun and even a full sized Shotgun.
This is a dramatic segment, because it presents simply how
easily a student could bring weapons into their school.
It really sells the idea of America being too comfortable
with guns and having too much leeway, a student could hide these weapons of
massacre without anyone noticing.
This is a totally dominant reading for me; the purpose of
the entire film is to present the idea that guns are too easily accessible for
Americans. And this sells the point in the strongest way possible. It shows you
how it’s kind of a disaster of a situation.
Oppositional Reading
Though it is not a personal opinion of mine, there is an
oppositional argument to be made with the documentary. As mentioned in the
first point, Michael Moore sometimes goes a bit over onto the dramatic side
when trying to sell his points. People who agree with the ownership of guns
might be aggravated by the documentary. It sometimes takes an approach that
almost says that the ability to have guns is the source of America’s problems,
take this clip:
In the beginning of this clip, Michael is interviewing
somebody at warehouse housing missiles. He presses the man and compares owning
a gun to owning nuclear weapons. Saying that there is no difference between
owning nuclear weaponry and encouraging the Columbine massacre. It’s an
extremely dramatic statement that might anger some viewers, making them totally
oppositional.
Moral Panic
Moral panic refers to the state of fear among the public
created specifically by news reports, if a news broadcast is released that
presents a dramatic, violent, scary or otherwise horrifying scenario. The
public is going to react in a panicked manner, being afraid of what might
happen next, even afraid for their own safety.
Moral panic primarily relates to when the public essentially
over-reacts in the panic, for example. As mentioned earlier, the panic may very
well encourage further action. Showing a school shooting in a gratifying
manner, could encourage a repeated act.
In a more likely case, showing a religious based crime;
terrorism etc. Could drive groups to have hatred towards the religion, creating
more crime.
Mean world syndrome
The mean world syndrome refers to someone’s vision of the
world after watching the news; news broadcasts are always made to be as dramatic
as possible. Having the juiciest stories for as long as they can be dragged
out. If you are someone who only watches the news, this is going to give you an
extremely wrong view on the world. Showing you that dramatic violence etc. is a
common occurrence. Perhaps making you feel less safe in your home, even if it
was perfectly safe.
The news gives you the impression that the world is a
harsher place that it really is, this can be compared to Bowling For Columbine.
This is because of how Michael really goes out of his way to present that guns
are pure evil, guns are the cause of all America’s problem and it is an
absolute tragedy that they are allowed on the streets. It is debatable whether
this is actually an overdramatisation. Meaning that the documentary gives you
mean world syndrome by conveying the idea to you that America really is as bad
as he presents because of the guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment