Wk 10 Lectorial
This week’s lecture focused on the audience. Granted that as media practioners we are constantly drilled with idea of “considering the audience” when devising media products it was important for us to break down several terms and move beyond a shallow division of audiences into “passive” or “active” groups.
Referring to history, the 1980s saw the feminist influence of analysing texts. Madonna was influential in constructing and reconstructing ideas about this. Focusing on (1991) film Simple Men there existed a problem raised of only people of privilege analysing media, this conflicted with audiences who were young teenage girls, unlike the predominantly white older males conducting research into the nature and extent of the media’s influence.
The lectorial also acknowledge the stakeholders who share an interest in audiences.
These included:
Advertisers
Comm. broadcasters
Production houses & individual program makers
Govt. Policy makers
Social scientists/psychologist
Cultural theorists / media scholars
The digitalisation of technology imagines the audience differently.
The Media Effects Theory is drawn to the idea that “Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies”. We looked at the case of Adorno and Horkheimer, who saw the mobilisation of the country for war by hitler’s propaganda. When they went to Hollywood they noticed similar effects, the believed that media suppresses political dissent. The same was thought by R. Williams who explores the idea of “mass culture” and “mass audiences.” However, “there are infact no masses; there are only ways of seeing people as masses”
The term “Taste” relates to identity, we can express our taste(s), what we like to watch. Sets up distinction between you and others that don’t share that taste.
social distinctions ads maintained and identities forged.
When looking at the concept of Fandoms, here I considered my own reception of media texts. Particularly TVs hows that are easy to become so attached to. I recalled media that I had deep interests in over the years and found that my own behaviour, admittedly whilst not as extreme was not too dissimilar from the Fans stereotyped as culturally obsessive, freakish, hysterical and regressive social subjects” I would argue that the fandom in modern times has been embraced and as a result not seen as odd. In a general observation of social media platform Tumblr there a literally 100s of blogs devoted to “Fandoms” who take on their own indentities including so called ‘Whovians’, ‘Superwholocks’ a convergent breed of fan who share multiple tastes in Television shows (Supernatural,Dr.Who, Sherlock). I would also consider the idea that these forums enable discussion of the shows with heavy analysis of their content encouraging these behaviours. I would not doubt that these forums are watched by producers and writers of shows either, allowing for audiences to directly interact and influence with the persuasion of the Television narrative. This forming an unofficial “ratings system” not too dissimilar in result from the OzTam system employed for commercial television. This supports the idea that fan modes of engagement have indeed become more normalised and that the perceived boundaries between the producer and consumer are consistently blurred.
Incidentally, as I type this a group of teenage boys on the train are enthusiastically debating over which video game Call of Duty series is their favourite. Within this discussion. I observe the fans analysing features of the game and it’s form making several suggestions regarding changes and developments the makers of the game should make.
The reading this week complimented the idea of reimagining conventional ideas regarding audiences. Audiences are no longer reduced to viewers or listeners. Audiences also merge into the category of producers. This has been enabled by the ease of accessibility of content production. For example audio service “SoundCloud” has allowed local producers to stream their soundscapes online.