What Are the Implications of New Media Technologies and Practices for Established Models or Theories of the Audience?

What are the implications of new media technologies and practices for established models or theories of the audience?

In the current day new media and technological advances have a huge impact on society. Throughout history models and theories have been developed in order to explain audience relations with text and other media forms. These models and theories were established and made to fit with certain technologies and with the rapid emergence of new and superior technologies the question of whether these models are still relevant does apply. To complete this essay the term ‘New Media’ must be defined and as Livingstone points out this is not an easy task. Livingstone poses the question, ‘What’s new about the new media?’ (Livingstone, 1991, pg 64). She points out that while, clearly, there have been evolutionary changes in media types and technology, there must be careful examination to distinguish ‘questions of change from those of progress and questions of technological change from those of social change’ (Livingstone, 1991, pg64). Changes to Audience text relations have allowed an increased ability for media to provide the audience with growing interactivity. Lelia Green defines interactivity as ‘ the capacity of a communication medium to be altered by or have its products altered by the actions of the user or audience’ (Green, 2002). Due to this increase in audience opinion and ability to manipulate and evaluate new media, some earlier models and theories regarding audience relationships with text have been made superfluous. Four theories that have been affected by the emergence of new media both positively and negatively are; the Cultivation Theory, The Effects Model, The Uses and Gratifications Model and the Encoding/decoding Model.

Cultivation Analysis ‘focuses specifically on television’s contributions to viewers conceptions of social reality’ (Gerbner et al, 2002). This model assumes that the audience is passive, not active. The model looks at the effects of long-term exposure to television and focuses on the ways audiences perceive the issues in their world. In the current technological era this model ceases to be relevant because it’s audience has no interactivity with the media form. The emergence of new media and the increasing interactivity the audience has with new media has caused the cultivation theory to be made redundant.

The direct effects model of Media- Audience Relations is the idea that media has a direct influence on audiences. This model, like the Cultivation, assumes that the audiences are passive receivers and the relationship between media and the audience is one-way. However in the current day through the emergence of new media, audiences are anything but passive receivers. With the introduction of public opinion based forums and blogs as well as various social networking sites, people’s views on media are voiced and compared. In the effects model, in terms of interactivity, the audience is said to have limited power. With the emergence of new media such as the internet this is certainly not the case, if anything the audience now has more power because they are able to alter texts as well as voice their opinion on texts through the use of blogs and forums. This interactivity allows the audience to influence what media content and messages are produced. Audience with the aid of new media have become senders as well as receivers, causing the Effects Model to become invalid.

The Uses and Gratifications Model focuses on how one’s interests and desires motivate the types of media they choose to consume (Katz et al, 1974). The model assumes that there is an interactive relationship between mass media and audiences. It acknowledges that audiences actively seek out what media they wish to consume and that a person’s media use reflects their social values as well as the social patterns of society. The Uses and Gratifications Approach shows that the audience is an ‘active participant in what is always an interaction between media sender and receiver’ (McQuail, 1995, p 297). With the Uses and Gratifications Model interactivity is recognised in terms of the pattern of use. The audience has the power to switch between and choose content that interests them. While the audience doesn’t have the chance to change or create content they can respond to the content given. One of the main advantages that comes with the rapid emergence of new media is the ability for the audience to have a higher degree of interactivity with media forms. In today’s society there is an increasing amount of choice being given to audiences such as Pay TV and the recent digital channels on free-to-air TV. The Internet, through the creation of a vast array of websites with differing content and information, has allowed audiences to explore and expand their interests. Interactivity has also increased as the audience’s ability to generate as well as publish information on the Internet has materialised. The Uses and Gratifications Model can work in conjunction with new media technologies and practices. One example of this is the increasing amount of choice I have when watching free-to-air television. With the emergence of new channels, such as ‘One’ and ‘Go’, I have a greater ability to exercise my choice on what to watch-something that was only available to those who owned Pay TV in the past. While the audience may not be able to change and edit content with the Uses and Gratifications Model it is still valid in the current technological society due to the increased choice available to audiences using television and on the Internet.

The Encoding/decoding Model was developed by Stuart Hall in 1973. According to Hall the Encoding/decoding model united the “two paradigms of cultural studies”, Structural Culturalism and the ‘European’ Structuralism. He then incorporated this union with the Sender-Message-Receiver Account of Mass Communication (Hall, 1980). The Encoding/decoding Model didn’t only look at the production of mass media or the ‘encoding’, but also saw the audience as active, not passive, observers of the media. The model looked at how audience members ‘decoded’ the meaning of the texts by looking at the reactions of different culture, gender and social sets.
Various studies, such as Liebes and Katz (1993) and their research on the Export of Meaning, have shown that people can draw both different meaning and have adverse reactions to the same text. Studies have achieved this research by recording the views of different sets of people. Researchers have also collected the opinions of people from different cultures, genders as well as ages to see what bearing these factors have when one is interpreting a media text. Under the encoding/decoding model the audience possess a great deal of influence over media content.
Rather than reducing the Encoding/decoding Model’s application, ‘new media’ has in fact enhanced the model. The evolution of the Internet has acted as the catalyst for the increase in the Encoding/decoding models relevance. The Internet provides opinion-based blogs such as Crikey, public online forums such as Response Planet, as well as various social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Opinion based blogs as well as public, online forums show the differing reaction of audience members to one subject, highlighting the models theory that while a text may be encoded with a certain meaning it is not, necessarily decoded with this meaning. These blogs give the audience an increased ability, to voice their different opinions, thus showing that new media does in fact amplify the role of the Encoding/decoding Model in today’s society. Film critiquing forums also highlight the Encoding/decoding Model’s validity by showcasing the differing opinions of audience members on one subject matter, the film.
Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter give information on what a person is thinking and doing at a certain time. Through these media forms content and ideas can be shared and different opinions can be formed.
I know, personally, that new media has enhanced the Encoding/decoding Model. I participate in online blogs (Ning), debating and voicing my opinions on a single subject matter against others. This shows that new media has not made the Encoding/decoding Model redundant. In fact, it has enhanced its application in the current day.

The four models above have each been influenced, both positively and negatively, by new media technologies and practices. Some have been enhanced while others have been made redundant. However, it is certain that through the emergence of new media the distinction between author, text and audience has become significantly blurred. As Rob Cover (2006) states, ‘The interactive and digital nature of computer-mediated communication results in several new tensions in the author-text- audience relationship, predominately through blurring the line between author and audience’ (p 140). This newfound audience interactivity, and ability to manipulate media texts has seen the audience transform into active participants in media production. Models such as the Cultivation Theory and the Effects Model, which established the audience as passive receivers of the media have thus been proved invalid. On the other hand models such as the Uses and Gratifications Model and the Encoding/decoding Model, which acknowledge the audience as active, not passive, have evolved and changed to fit with the evolution of new media in the current technologically driven society.

References:
Livingstone, S 1991, ‘New Media, New Audiences?’ in New Media and Society, Sage, pp 59-64.

Cover, R 2006, ‘Audience inter/active: interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history’ in New Media and Society, Sage, pp 139-156.

Gerbner, G, Gross, LP, Morgan, M, Signorielli, N & Shanahn, J 2002, ‘Growing up with television: cultivation processes’, in J Bryant & D Zillmann (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd edn, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., pp43-67.

Katz, E, Blumler, JG & Gurevitch, M 1974, ‘Utilization of mass communication by the individual’, in JG Blumler & E Katz (eds.), the Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Sage Publications, Beverly hills, pp 19-32.

McQuail, D 1994, Mass Communication Theory, Ca.: Sage.

Nightingale, V 1996, ‘ Encoding/decoding’ in Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real, Routledge, London, pp21-39.

Hall, Stuart, 1980. ‘Encoding/Decoding’, in Stuart Hall, D Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis, Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson.

Liebes, Tamar and Katz, Elihu. 1993. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Polity Press: Cambridge.

References: Livingstone, S 1991, ‘New Media, New Audiences?’ in New Media and Society, Sage, pp 59-64. Cover, R 2006, ‘Audience inter/active: interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history’ in New Media and Society, Sage, pp 139-156. Gerbner, G, Gross, LP, Morgan, M, Signorielli, N & Shanahn, J 2002, ‘Growing up with television: cultivation processes’, in J Bryant & D Zillmann (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd edn, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., pp43-67. Katz, E, Blumler, JG & Gurevitch, M 1974, ‘Utilization of mass communication by the individual’, in JG Blumler & E Katz (eds.), the Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Sage Publications, Beverly hills, pp 19-32. McQuail, D 1994, Mass Communication Theory, Ca.: Sage. Nightingale, V 1996, ‘ Encoding/decoding’ in Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real, Routledge, London, pp21-39. Hall, Stuart, 1980. ‘Encoding/Decoding’, in Stuart Hall, D Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis, Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson. Liebes, Tamar and Katz, Elihu. 1993. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Polity Press: Cambridge.