Sunday 13 October 2013

How far do you agree with the comment that mass audiences are still passive recipients of media?

This question is asking me whether I agree that most people take in media passivley.

I do agree with the question quite a lot. When you are passive you are taking in meaning from the media without really noticing it. The media use this quite a lot to get their messages across, people subcontionsly take in meaning and ideas from the media without really knowing it. For example we all see adverts but most people probably don't really realise that they have taken in the message from it and that it influences on what they do. In the 1920's things were censored from films so the audience wouldn't repaet any of the actions or think in a certain way that wasn't considered aceptable. Things that were considered unsuitable were: white slavery, ridicule of the clergy, scences of actual childbirth, misusing the american flag, using words such as Christ, Lord and God in a rude way and showing leg above the knee. They didn't people to think it was ok to act in this way. This is ideology which is a set of beliefs that were dominant in society at the time. The idea of being able to inject ideas into someones head is the Hypodermic Neddle which was a type of audience theory.

The way we view people can be influenced by the media. We have ideas on stereotypes and what is acceptable but it is debatable whether its what we think or what the media has told us to think. The media shows us lots of stereotypes and we believe them and catagorise people because of them without really knowing them. However we have little choice to believe what the media tells us because we are shown the ideas all the time and they are everywhere. I almost completely agree that mass audiences are passive recipients of media.


No comments:

Post a Comment