Sunday, May 9, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY! A CRITICAL LOOK
The Uses and Gratification approach focuses on why people use particular media rather than on content. In contrast to the concern of the 'media effects' tradition with 'what media do to people' (which assumes a homogeneous mass audience and a 'hypodermic' view of media), Uses and Gratification can be seen as part of a broader trend amongst media researchers which is more concerned with 'what people do with media', allowing for a variety of responses and interpretations.
The theory has been criticized as being individualistic and psychologistic, tending to ignore the socio-cultural context. As a theoretical stance it foregrounds individual psychological and personality factors and backgrounds sociological interpretations. For instance, David Morley (1992) acknowledges that individual differences in interpretation do exist, but he stresses the importance of subcultural socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which people interpret their experiences with TV (via shared 'cultural codes'). Uses and Gratification theorists tend to exaggerate active and consciouschoice, whereas media can be forced on some people rather than freely chosen. The stance can also lead to the exaggeration of openness of interpretation, implying that audiences may obtain almost any kind of gratification regardless of content or of 'preferred readings'. Its functionalist emphasis is politically conservative: if we insist that people will always find some gratifications from any use of media, we may adopt a complacently uncritical stance towards what the mass media currently offer.
Also some degree of selectivity of media and content is clearly exercised by audiences (e.g. choice or avoidance of TV soap operas. However, instrumental (goal-directed) accounts assume a rational choice of appropriate media for predetermined purposes. Such accounts over-emphasize informational purposes and ignore a great deal in people's engagement with media: TV viewing can be an end in itself. There is evidence that media use is often habitual, ritualistic and unselective (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988). But more positively, TV viewing can sometimes be seen as aesthetic experience in which intrinsic motivation is involved.
References:
1. Barwise, D. & A. Ehrenberg (1988): Television and its Audience. London: Sage
2. Morley, David (1992): Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
The theory has been criticized as being individualistic and psychologistic, tending to ignore the socio-cultural context. As a theoretical stance it foregrounds individual psychological and personality factors and backgrounds sociological interpretations. For instance, David Morley (1992) acknowledges that individual differences in interpretation do exist, but he stresses the importance of subcultural socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which people interpret their experiences with TV (via shared 'cultural codes'). Uses and Gratification theorists tend to exaggerate active and consciouschoice, whereas media can be forced on some people rather than freely chosen. The stance can also lead to the exaggeration of openness of interpretation, implying that audiences may obtain almost any kind of gratification regardless of content or of 'preferred readings'. Its functionalist emphasis is politically conservative: if we insist that people will always find some gratifications from any use of media, we may adopt a complacently uncritical stance towards what the mass media currently offer.
Also some degree of selectivity of media and content is clearly exercised by audiences (e.g. choice or avoidance of TV soap operas. However, instrumental (goal-directed) accounts assume a rational choice of appropriate media for predetermined purposes. Such accounts over-emphasize informational purposes and ignore a great deal in people's engagement with media: TV viewing can be an end in itself. There is evidence that media use is often habitual, ritualistic and unselective (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988). But more positively, TV viewing can sometimes be seen as aesthetic experience in which intrinsic motivation is involved.
References:
1. Barwise, D. & A. Ehrenberg (1988): Television and its Audience. London: Sage
2. Morley, David (1992): Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
CRITICISMS OF THE AGENDA SETTING THEORY OF MEDIA EFFECTS
The Agenda Setting Theory is a mass communication effects theory which states that the mass media has a huge influence on their audience by selecting the issues or stories they consider newsworthy or important to be discussed. This implies that the mass media transfer salient issues that sets the agenda of public discussions. This theory assumes that the issues the mass media lays emphasis on are the ones that the audience would consider as important and therefore pay attention to.
One criticism against this theory is that the mass media is that people are not the same as the theorists assumes. However some individuals may not pay attention to what is being covered by the media and therefore miss important details. Such a person may discuss issues but they might not be the ones that are propounded by the media. People who are conservative or partial to a particular issue may not be moved by the effect of the media agenda setting. This is due to the fact that such people have already made up their mind about a particular issue and may not be swayed by the agendas set by the media.
Also, the environment in which the media sets this agenda can be a factor that makes it ineffective. If there is unrest, strife and other factors that weakens the media's ability to set agenda, this theory becomes baseless. For example in a conservative Islamic society, the media in an attempt to promote a Christian value would fail drastically as the environment is not condusive enough.
The Agenda Setting theory is a great theory which is am improvement of the stereotyped Magic Bullet theory but like anything else it doesn't come without its weaknesses.
One criticism against this theory is that the mass media is that people are not the same as the theorists assumes. However some individuals may not pay attention to what is being covered by the media and therefore miss important details. Such a person may discuss issues but they might not be the ones that are propounded by the media. People who are conservative or partial to a particular issue may not be moved by the effect of the media agenda setting. This is due to the fact that such people have already made up their mind about a particular issue and may not be swayed by the agendas set by the media.
Also, the environment in which the media sets this agenda can be a factor that makes it ineffective. If there is unrest, strife and other factors that weakens the media's ability to set agenda, this theory becomes baseless. For example in a conservative Islamic society, the media in an attempt to promote a Christian value would fail drastically as the environment is not condusive enough.
The Agenda Setting theory is a great theory which is am improvement of the stereotyped Magic Bullet theory but like anything else it doesn't come without its weaknesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)