From effects to reception theory slides


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

From effects to reception theory slides

  1. 1. From Effects to Reception Theory• Learning Objectives:• To understand newer ways of thinking about audiences – To discuss Stuart Hall’s Encoding / Decoding Theory – To understand the notion of Global Village – To discuss whether Media is becoming more democratic and consider current debates.
  2. 2. Jürgen Habermas• “The advanced capitalist phase of modernity transformed the public sphere from a culture- debating one to a culture-consumer one”• Advertising and PR have diluted the public sphere and dragged it into the ‘levelling down’ pit of mass-media.• Modern day consumers are ‘hoodwinked’ into ‘constant consumption training’ that shapes public opinions into a soft exchange of views. (1989)
  3. 3. Stuart Hall, 1982• The meanings of messages are able to be distorted and interpreted differently by audiences than intended by the producers.• Language / messages are encoded (=made to mean something) by those with ‘the means of meaning production’ and are then decoded(=made to mean something) by audiences
  4. 4. Reception oftext:Dominant codeNegociated codeOppositionalcode
  5. 5. Reception of text:Dominant code - preferred readingNegotiated code – negotiated readingOppositional code – oppositional readingHowever - hegemony works to allow dissenting voicesbut to suppress the force of opposition by activelyseeking out support from all parts of societyThe professional code (producers) operates WITHINthe hegemony of the dominant code. “Make-belief democracy”?
  6. 6. Resistance to dominant ideologies• Sub-cultures operate through a system of oppositional codes that offend the majority and threaten the status quo.• Aim to resist incorporation into the mainstream• Role of new media – helpful or destructive for sub cultures?• Also, more and more niche audiences.
  7. 7. McLuhan’s Global Village• Telephone, TV and now the internet are shrinking the world and bringing people closer together.• Eg. The world’s online Marketplace, Ebay, MySpace, Facebook etc… as global villages where users spatially distant from each other can converge around common tastes and interests.• But social and economic exclusion for many.
  8. 8. Democratisation of the media?
  9. 9. Is the media more democratised?• Buckingham on Media/Web 2.0• McDougall on Media 2.0•
  10. 10. About New Media Democracy and new era journalism Posted by busingeImagine a world where all journalism was of the people, bythe people, for the people. Where all people have a chance toparticipate, where anyone has a chance for their voice to beheard, where all participations in the media are gearedtowards the people, and where people (general publicinterest) are the center of all media interactions. That, whilenot perfect, would be the best journalism.New information and communication tools are already almostdeveloping this ideal. There are new media tools enabling allto communicate, engage, offer feedback, have their say etc.But the noise in the crowd is too much to facilitate anysubstantial conversation and understanding necessary forinformed decisions-the essence of democracy and freeparticipation. So we still need the people who specialize ingathering information on particular issues and disseminatingdistilled information in the public interest.
  11. 11. Opinion 1• In many ways, it helps to look at new media as a form of media democracy where there is better chance that what the media does is of the people, by the people and for the people. So while it is unsettling for many media houses and journalists, I have come to accept that the new media tools and trends present the best chance for the media and journalism to do their best in informing, educating and entertaining while providing the best chance for audience engagement and citizen participation.
  12. 12. Opinion 2• Ive been rather busy of late, but I did manage to read some articles on how social media have promoted democracy, and how people are more involved with politics, elections, campaigns ... and with one another... due to web 2.0 tools. I also had a read about democracy and social media. I believe that the Internet has given an opportunity to all people to be more involved, share their views and take action ...oh and donate money... So, people are more engaged and their views are out there for politicians to take them into consideration. But wait... just because I Blog and use facebook and social groups or use twitter to write what Im doing does not make me an active citizen in my community in real life. Sure, it makes me an active member, but, in an online constituency, sharing my views with like minded people. Participatory democracy needs people to be involved, and YES you can be involved through social media. You will also need to act in real life.
  13. 13. Opinion 3Data traffic indicates that, online, we are increasinglytalking to people just like ourselves, relying on ourfriends directions to navigate the web. Its ironic that,rather than opening us up to an ever-greater number ofopinions and attitudes, social networking sites such asFacebook and Twitter may actually be narrowing ourworldview, confirming what we already believe andreinforcing attitudes we hold already.So what happens when we only communicate with peoplelike ourselves, and the messages we share only reinforceour mutual hatred? Its a technique radical religious andracist organisations have always used to make sure theirmembers conform, but now theyre employingtechnological tools to create global communities of like-minded ideologues.
  14. 14. Research topics• Eastenders cot death plot line• Untangling the Net webpages – hate and bullying• Weakileaks• Tunisia• UK Uncut• Trolls• Mumsnet