To me, what is most important about the article by Philip J Hanes is the limitations and inaccuracies of focusing on audiences and their interpretations of media.
Learning the “science” of media is of great significance when looking at our society and the way it is today, however, only assumptions can be made when studying this “science.” This is something I think we must come to terms with as the variables involved with this study only allow for ambiguity.
I do believe that no one will interpret the media in the same way, regardless of similar demographics, because each individual is unique and can therefore not be pin-holed into a certain category. This thought somewhat contradicts a previous theory I have made over the past couple of years that insists people are actually all the same. I justified this theory when analyzing men. Working on cruise ships the last four years with men from all over the world of different ages, classes, and cultures, has opened my eyes to many things, one being a congruency of ALL men. A man’s obsession for sex, and the extremities they will go to get it has really left me in awe. I’m not a bitter woman. I have just come to the conclusion that all men are the same… dogs! I have somehow come to terms with this, and have learned not to hold a man’s nature against him. I mean, what are my other options? Of course lesbianism is one, but not for me ( not that there’s anything wrong with that).
I want to believe in the possibility of enlightenment, but what I have been exposed to has seen nothing of the latter. I’m not sure if this theory applies to women, which would make us a whole other species, which is something I want to look further into. My conclusion: Men and woman are different and that’s just how it is.
Now that I’ve made my thoughts of man clear, I think it’s safe to go back to my thoughts of the article. The most accurate model in measuring individual responses to media involving encoding and decoding was made by Stuart Hall. I say it was most accurate because out of all the previous models, his emphasizes a combination of the producer and the audience when forming meanings. The text, which will always have a preferred meaning by the producer “is encoded by the codes and conventions of the particular medium to hide the text and interpret the message” (4). The audience’s socio/economic frameworks as well as their previous knowledge of the medium affect their interpretation of the text. I also agree with Hall’s “dominant audience view which acknowledges the presence of a strong preferred meaning, but also saw texts as polysemic-they have a number of possible meanings, and that it is up to the audience to analyse and interpret the text” (5).
Professor Lipton’s analysis of the Gap commercial with Missy and Madonna, or shall we say, Madonna and Missy, perfectly demonstrates the objective of this model. Lipton chose to argue that the commercial displayed Madonna “on top” reinforcing media’s use of racial stereotypes. The commercial, encoded by the producers, using various signs, revealed to Lipton a dominance of Madonna in the commercial. Madonna opening the clip, with a close shot, turning to the left, walking past a white board with the word “top” on the ground, clearly displays the producer’s intention. However, there was someone in the class who saw Missy playing the dominant role based on the distribution of lyrics and portrayed Missy as the lead. The encode/decode model is therefore accurate in placing power in the audience when constructing meaning, but still leaves too many variables to make this study an exact science. Media existing as part of our culture and the complexities of focusing on audience responses are the reasons this study cannot fairly represent truths.
Audience in Media Studies. April 2000. The Media and Communications Studies Site. 7 Oct. 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment