Uses & Gratifications

Quick Definitions
- That audiences make choices about how and when they consume media texts.
- Audience is constructed of active individuals, consuming texts for own individual reasons.

Blulmer and Katz:

Diversion
I used to use Dawson's Creek as a programme for escapism as it was just picking up on relevant things at the time. Till this day I still watch friends and think that also allows me to escape from the streesful life I live. I think I use sitcoms and mostly films to help me escape from the harsh world we live in for just a few hours.

Personal Relationships
This should be interesting as I don't know where to begin. But nevermind that. Again similar to the above, alot of the time I find that I subconciously find some link to me and the protagonist suffering on screen. It's a habbit. I think this is because I'm quite a pessimist and only think negative thoughts, so immediately relate, sympathise with whoever's on.

Personal Identity
I don't think I construct my own identity, however wish to have those as cool people on screen. For example, after watching The Godfather, I would wish I would be like Michael Corleone, the don, or Tony Montana from Scarface. Obviously I know I won't act upon these urges, and therefore again can be seen as a form of escapism.

Surveillance
I try and regularly watch the news but never do. In terms of stuff like documentaries then I would have to say I am a big fan. BBC 1's Planet Earth is brilliant, and all the issue related ones on Channel 4 and Five are just as interesting as well as informative. It gives you something to talk about in the morning.


Denis McQuail:

Information
Again similar to surveillance I generally watch documentaries and gather information that way rather then watching the 6 'o' clock news. I rarely do watch the news and only do to find out the weather or if there is something big that's going on. Also I use the Sky Sports News channel to find out updates in the Premiership. The radio also in the background may give me some news updates and I really shouldn't have but stopped buying The Guardian daily, that really kept me to up to date.

Learning
I used to record the GCSE Bitesize programmes if hey were relevant but other than that I don't really gain knowledge from the t.v. The only other source is the internet, where I use google to find out the relevant websites for my research.

Personal Identity
Again like before, i don't apply myself to one specific person in the media. It would be to the characters on screen in films. And I think is done subconciously for the purpose of escaping my dull, boring mundane life.

Integration and Social Interaction
I relate to characters on screen and really put an emphasis on putting myself in their shoes, living their life, being a part of that fictional world portrayed in the film or sitcom or whatever. I don't find it as a major subsititute, where I am aware that I want to watch this film or programme to escape, it just happens when watching it. I do feel that the films seen and programmes watched definately achieves the water-cooler effect, programmes such as Lost and Desperate Housewives and previously Freinds. To some extent Eastenders does but had more effect back in the day. Television also helps to start a conversation in the family household as well.

Entertainment
Films and sitcoms are my form of entertainment. I hardly wtach anything other than Friends, The Simpsons, programmes on Trouble and films. They are the best form of escapism. You identify with characters on screen, you forget about your stressful worries and just enjoy what is infront of you on the screen. I must have seen every episode of freinds at least twice or even three times and don't get sick of it because I lose myself each time I watch an episode. If there is a particular emmotional film, I ain't ashamed to say that i can show my feelings, and if I cry, then I cry. I don't watch tele now to fill time, but becasue I want to watch specific programmes, and work around these times.

Effects Theory

Quick deffinitions:

- The effects of individual media texts on an audience

- Forced idologies on passive audiences

- The audience manipulated and indoctrinated by the hegemony of the ruling class

The Frankfurt School

- A group of social scientists based at the Institute for Social Research during WW2.

- Exiled to New York as they were concerned about the propaganda used by the fascist Nazis in

Germany

- The founders are said to be left-wing

- Criticised capitalist systems as they controoled media output, creating a mass culture

eliminating opposition and alternatives

- Their argument was with the impact of the rise of the media industries on society, and that the

rise of this culture industry resulted in increased standardisation in society

- Under capitalism, society controls everything where culture is something that can be bought

and sold, processed by the mass media

- The mass audience (passive consumers) are manipulated and indoctrinated by the hegemony

of the ruling class (society)

- The mass media prevent culture being authentic and original until it has been commodified to

fit the capitalist system

The Hypodermic Needle Model

- Demonstrates the effects of mass media on their audiences

- Based around the power of the mass media controlled by the ruling classes

- Like how a needle works, the passive audience are injected with hegemonic ideologies

- In particular film, e.g. Triumph Of The Will, Lenni Reifenstahl

- Repressive regimes control the media organisations in their countries, in belief of strict

regulation in contilling the media will help control their populations

- The audience seen as passive, will accept whatever version of events is given in the media

Violence in the Media

- Effects theory used as evidence for the portrayal of violence and dangers in the media

- Moral majority argue that T.V. output is too explicity sexually and violently

- Has to be censored as it may influence audience, who are passive, absorbing ideologies present

- Moral panics are generated

Cultivation Theory

- A single text does not have that much of an impact on its audience

- Repeated exposure will make the audience less sensitive to it (desensitised)

- The effects of a text can change with time; social attitudes/expectations

Two-Step Flow

- The audience are seen as more active than passive

- Will discuss media texts with each other

- Audience may still be influenced by media yet are considered more media-literarte

My View On Effects Theory

- I agree that the mass media indoctrinate and manipulate the audience with hegemonic

ideologies

- E.G. Rupert Murdoch; media mogul, through BSkyB, Fox and The Sun, is able to impose his

ideologies on society

- I disagree withe the fact the audience are totally passive, the two-step flow seems more

accurate

- Present day, audience consume media more actively, are media literate and discuss current

affairs amongst one another

- Hypodermic needle model is accurate in depicting passive audiences being injected with

information composed of propaganda, however in present day, only occuring in current fascist,

communist countries

- Violence in the media is there to dramatise situations, acting as a aid for escapism for the

audience. Sex and violence fulfill our sadistic and masochistic needs, and are essential in life.

There are only a few that will leave watching a film, to act on what they have just

watched. This is also the reason for ratings, and that it is up to the parents descretion if they

want to expose their child to that information. However, if they are protected too much, they

will be more influenced than those exposed to it regulary, who will be desensitised to it

Pluralism

What Is Pluralism?

Pluralism is the opposite to Marxist views. It states that an individual has freedom to consume any media/product they desire. Pluralist ideologies allow for different viewpoints in media texts which can lead to conflicting ideas. Society is viewed as a system of competing groups and interests.

Pluralistic Coventions:

• audience are able to choose from a wide variety of cultural options
  
• individual has freedom to make choices about what text to consume
  
• media is seen as the fourth estate
  
• no hegemonic message
  

Fourth Estate:

The role of the media is seen as being that of the fourth estate, whose role is to keep the public informed about what is happening in each of the other three (government, legal system and the church)

Why Am I Pluralist?

I am pluralist as I agree that an individual has the freedom to consume and interpret texts in whatever manner they choose to do so. I agree with the fact that the media is seen as the fourth estate. It does allow the bublic to be aware of current affairs in the other three states. This allows the society to be safe, however, can be considered as an invasion of privacy. The audience is active, as everyone is being taught that individuality is important within a person.

Marxism

What Is Marxism?
It is a political practice and theory of of socialism which states that the oppression of the working class. Capitalism replaced feudalism, so socialism would supersed capitalism, It is based on the profit motive and that under capitalism, profits are generated by exploiting workers.

Marx argued that capatalist society is divided into two social classes:
1) The Working Class- sell their labour and don't own the means of production.
2) The Bourgeoisie (the establisment/ruling class) - Own the means of production and employ the labour (proletariat-masses); can be sub-divided into wealth bourgeosie who don't need to work, and petty bourgeoisie who employ others but work themselves.

Althusser identfified the ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) whereby the media maintains the class divide in society. Operate along side RSA (Repressive State Apparatuses (e.g. military/police)). Maintain bourgeoisie ideologies:

• religion
• education
• family (family values)
• legal and political system
• cultural and communications systems

Audiences are interpreted by media (put in our place) and accept this as 'common sense)- cultural myths- Barthes

What we see in the media nd the representations are hegemonic: reinforce dominant ideology

Gramsci came up with the concept of hegemony- Dominant ideology of the ruling class

Why Am I A Marxist?
I am Marxist. I agree that we live in a captalist society and that we sell ourselves to the bourgeoisie. There is a definite sense of hegemony as media moguls such as Rupert murdoch have a grasp over the public and impose their views in society. He owns FOX TV in the US as well as SKY TV in the UK thus American ideologies come through SKY and Sky News.

Lynx: Billions (full advert)

Women presented as objects of the gaze. Sexually objectified, semi-naked, breasts heaving, bodies are wet and glistening. Arousal of the male. Fetishisation of certain body parts, bottom and breasts mainly. Women are weak and feeble running to the man.

Nike Banned Advert

Women stereotypically presented as vulnerable at first. A parody of a slasher scene. Woman only escapes because of her love for sport not because of her intellect. However, the fact that she does escape shows that she is stronger than the male.

Sexy banned commercial micrsoft AD

Women presented sexually, however in control of the situation as the man cannot take off her bra. This also emphasises the fact that he is less educated then her or that men in general or dumber then women. The way she looks into the camera also emphasises this. She is on top of him showing she is more dominant and sexually stronger.

Too dull to miss

Trying to make snooker exciting is like asking a glacier to move faster. Slow, silent and unashamedly tedious, it is the most boring sport on TV. And that's just the way it should stay, says Barney Ronay.

Friday October 27, 2006

The Guardian

An odd thing happened at the end of Ronnie "the Rocket" O'Sullivan's televised defeat of David Gray in snooker's Grand Prix on Wednesday night. As the two players shook hands, it became clear that something wasn't quite right with the Rocket's opponent. He looked dazed. He didn't seem to be completely aware of what was going on. In fact, he looked exactly like someone who had just sat through every second of seven long frames of snooker. Gray's dopey demeanour, which even the prospect of a winner's prize of £60,000 seemed unable to dispel, was quickly seized upon by those outside the sport. Breakfast television broadcast pictures of him shaking hands and looking a bit like your slightly daft octogenarian uncle when he's just been woken up from his afternoon nap and asked his opinion on the new Lil' Jon album. And once again snooker was being dragged, blinking, out of its natural habitat - the garage, the lockup, the dingy and fetid members' club - and asked to explain exactly what it thinks it's doing with its tuxedos, its long silences and, most of all, its insistence on stretching itself out all this week across three hours of prime-time BBC2 .

Not that snooker wasn't expecting it. Snooker won't be fazed by this kind of talk. The arguments always tend to boil down to the same thing: is snooker unbelievably tedious? It's a question snooker itself has never been afraid to confront. Last year at this very tournament O'Sullivan was booed by spectators after describing the sport as "boring" in a press conference. There are those who see it as a strangely British quirk that what is essentially a parlour game maintains a stranglehold over such a large volume of publicly funded air time. What exactly is all this snooker doing here, they ask - and how do we make it go away?

Oddly, the bits of snooker people tend to attack are precisely the things that make it great. Let's get the big one out of the way. Is it boring? Yes. Proudly and triumphantly boring. Snooker draws strength from its boredom. It presents its boredom to you unashamedly. Like many great British pursuits, like waiting for a bus or queueing at the post office, snooker moves to its own gentle and unhurried rhythms. It may not offer instant thrills. It may not be interactive, fast-paced or well suited to a jerkily edited hip-hop montage. Everything else is already like that; snooker offers you something else.

For a start, no other televised pursuit involves quite so much sitting down in a chair and staring into space. What could be more soothing than that? It is no accident that snooker is so closely associated with late nights, sweaty clubs and, above all, drink. Snooker is comforting. It's always there. It comes to you from a dimly lit place where people move slowly, where smoking is not just permitted but positively encouraged; where going to work on the train, fresh air and daylight are all things that other people do.

And beyond the boredom, there is substance. As a contest, snooker is about character. It all boils down to bottle. There are no rewards here for athleticism, agility or physical power. You can't throw money at it. The only way to get really good at snooker is to play loads and loads of snooker. A snooker match is all about the slow, incremental revelation of character. Drama, intrigue, smart suits, smouldering male leads, lovely upholstery - it could be a lavish BBC costume drama. Except snooker is much, much cheaper and doesn't feature anybody called Rufus.

There are other reasons snooker deserves to be on TV. For a start, it even looks like a TV. The green baize table fits perfectly into the rectangle of your box. It's simply meant to be there. All those primary colours: it looks like a Rothko painting. Who needs abstract expressionism when you've got 18 frames of Peter Ebdon versus Graeme Dott? Not only that, the players are, without exception, really nice chaps. Modest, unassuming and very good at snooker - if slightly pale - these a re the kind of sporting role models we want on our screens.

But couldn't it just jolly itself up a little bit, you ask? This is a mistake snooker has made in the past, noticeably during its televisual heyday 20 years ago. Helped by the absence of live football, snooker gradually gathered momentum as a spectacle, reaching a peak in the mid-80s, when Barry Hearn's Matchroom stable of high-profile cuemen became household names. An audience of 18.5 million watched Steve Davis lose to Dennis Taylor in the 1985 final. A year later the song Snooker Loopy entered the charts, a cheerful Chas and Dave singalong featuring the vocals of five leading snooker players. Snooker had never had it so good.

The idea of the "charismatic" snooker player had already been floated around with the success of Alex Higgins. Now so-called "flair" players, showmen of the baize, were being presented to us as exciting, larger-than-life figures. Kirk Stevens wore a white suit and developed (oddly, for such a sedentary pursuit) a cocaine habit. Housewives' favourite Tony Knowles was pictured lolling in a Jacuzzi surrounded by blondes before a world championship semi-final. It couldn't last. Quietly, methodically, boringly, the unreconstructed purist Steve Davis hoovered up most of the titles and most of the airtime too. The crash was coming. By the early 90s, snooker's popularity was on the wane. Dependent on the oxygen of television, it has periodically found itself shunted to one side by its noisier cousin, darts. Darts is like drunk snooker. It's snooker without the dignity, the bow ties, the air of severity. Darts is caveman snooker.

In all its terribly apologetic attempts to make itself less boring, snooker has experimented with format. Shorter matches are in vogue. The current Grand Prix kicked off with a weird league format. Even the TV companies have attempted to jolly things along with snappier graphics and instant slow-motion replays (yes, really) featuring an exciting "thunk!" noise when the ball hits the pocket. Needless to say, none of this has made any difference. "I want to be like Billy the Kid. Lots of snooker players are too intense and serious," O'Sullivan said this week. This is, of course, just talk. Billy the Kid didn't play snooker. And if he did, he would have been rubbish at it. Snooker remains unchangeably what it is: a business of potting balls, sitting in a chair and occasionally shaking hands.

Which isn't to say that vultures aren't circling the professional game. Rumours persist that many leading players have been tempted by offers to join the lucrative US pool circuit, where they can be given silly nicknames and paid lots more money to pot five balls rather than 21. There is much hopeful talk of the sport's fevered popularity in China, a country with a vast and mythical appetite for boredom.

Whatever happens, the game itself will remain the same. Gray shouldn't be hounded for falling asleep during his own match. Far from betraying the sport, he may just have been making a public stand for the great, boundless, glacial - and occasionally very boring - forces that make it so much fun in the first place.

My Oppinion

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is this guy serious!!! I love snooker, it probably is my favourite sport, so where does this d*** head get off by saying its boring. If he actually played it, he would see the skill thats required, like with all sports, and that it isn't as easy as it looks. Fair enough it doesn't physically tire you but it does mentally, especially when there are the long matches to play. This guy doesn't know what he's chatting about by calling it boring, with all his sarcy comments.

Murdoch hangs on to poison pill defence

Tycoon sees off challenge from Liberty Media· News Corp snaps up stake in Australian paper group

Andrew Clark in New York

Saturday October 21, 2006

The Guardian

Rupert Murdoch narrowly succeeded yesterday in winning an extension of his "poison pill" defence against a takeover of his News Corporation empire, despite vehement opposition from the company's second biggest shareholder, Liberty Media.

At News Corp's annual meeting in New York, 57% of votes were cast in favour of retaining the provision, including a 30% block controlled by the Murdoch family. The so-called poison pill, which makes hostile bids prohibitively expensive, was created in 2004 to prevent Liberty Media's John Malone from advancing beyond his stake of 18%.

In a surprise move indicating frosty relations between the two media moguls, Liberty abstained from voting on the re-election of New Corp's directors.

News Corp, which owns the Times, the Sun and a big chunk of BSkyB, and Liberty have held on-off talks over Mr Malone's stake. One possibility has been a swap of that holding in the Murdoch empire for News Corp's 37% stake in the DirecTV cable television operation.

Mr Murdoch said: "If we are to believe Liberty, we're very close to closing a deal, but only time will tell. We're not in any rush or hurry at all; we've just got the poison pill through for another three years."

About 200 investors attended the meeting, including representatives from several conservative organisations who peppered Mr Murdoch with questions about News Corp's television output. In answer to one query, Mr Murdoch revealed that he had intervened at the personal request of a leading shareholder, the Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, to query Fox News's description of riots in Paris last year as led by Muslims.

Mr Murdoch said he was concerned because he understood that many of the rioters were from an Algerian Catholic background. "All I said [to Fox] was 'you ought to look at that and see if it's right. If it isn't right, you ought to change it'."

Leon Weil, of the conservative Parents' TV Council, queried the wisdom of the drama series Nip/Tuck, which he said featured "misogyny, sex, violence, incest, bestiality and necrophilia".

He added: "The producer of this series has publicly stated that his goal is for mainstream television to show a rear-entry sex scene. This is what News Corp is forcing millions of people to pay for as part of the basic cable subscription."

Mr Murdoch said all such programming was shown after a 10pm watershed.

Another right-wing activist, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, asked whether he approved of Channel 4's drama, Death of a President, which features a mock-up assassination of George Bush.

Mr Murdoch said News Corp's BSkyB business in the UK was legally required to run an open platform carrying free-to-air channels such as Channel 4 and the BBC. "It's not in our business, not in our power, unfortunately, to censor the BBC or ITV," said Mr Murdoch, who later said his use of the word "unfortunately" was a joke.

Meanwhile, News Corp has widened its position in the Australian newspaper market by snapping up a 7.5% stake in Fairfax, its main print rival. Mr Murdoch called it a "strategic stake" and rejected any suggestion that he was interested in buying Fairfax's flagship titles - the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age - to add to his the Australian.

My Oppinion

Murdoch is a media conglomerate and owns literally all major indusries in the print and televison media. The fact that he has so much power emphasises how easy it is for him to control the public, manipulating them into believing his views. Also, by being able to fight off his only compttion Liberty Media, shows that he will eventually aspire to the domination that he so desires.