Encoding-Decoding: the Encoding-Decoding: the TV audienceTV audienceStuart Hall & David MorleyMAC201robert.jewitt@sunderland.ac.uk

1

OutlineOutline Mass Communications Research and Cultural

Studies◦ i. the story so far◦ ii. ideology and institutions

Stuart Hall’s Encoding and Decoding model◦ i. history and application◦ ii. the model itself

David Morley’s Nationwide Audience◦ i. David Morley and Nationwide ◦ ii. the Nationwide Audience study◦ iii. results◦ iv. Nationwide conclusions

Conclusion◦ i. problems◦ ii. benefits

2

Mass Communications Mass Communications Research and Cultural Studies:Research and Cultural Studies:

i. the story so far…

1. audiences as mass2. media ‘effects’3. ‘positivist’

assumptions of direct link between media & audiences

3

The impact of The impact of broadcastingbroadcastingPivotal in changing the ‘collective

dimension of public audiences, dispersing them to their home’ (Butsch, 2000: 173)

◦ Brought concerns over foreign propaganda◦ Huge cost offset by commercialisation◦ 1st audience research: ratings analysis

(quantitative)◦ Audience as commodity

4

The impact of broadcastingThe impact of broadcastingPost WW1, highly influential political

scientists (Lippmann, Lasswell) with military links advised broadcasters in how best to develop ‘public opinion’ via their research

◦ Origins in wartime paranoia and national security

◦ Sought social administration rather than questions

◦ Shift towards ‘content and response’ analysis (1940-60s) especially around propaganda

5

Personal influence & Personal influence & communication flowscommunication flows1955/1964: Katz and Lazarsfeld shifted

away from simple causal role of media messages. They documented accounts whereby people turned to others for advice (a ‘two step flow’)

◦ Indirect transference of media messages◦ Opinion leaders in particular spheres (public

affairs, movies, fashion, etc) access information and convey it their networks of associates

◦ Assumed a homogenous audience◦ Difficult to explain media-audience relationship

6

The impact of popular The impact of popular psychologypsychologyTurn towards activity of audiences

(Blumler and Katz, 1974) via ‘uses and gratifications’ research which investigated the socio-psychological motivations for information-seeking activity via 4 basic audience ‘needs’

1. Diversion: media use as escapism2. Personal relationships: media as companion3. Personal identity: compare audience life with

media4. Surveillance: media as window on the world

7

Enter Cultural StudiesEnter Cultural Studies“shift from the analysis of what texts

do to the audience to what texts mean to them” (Ruddock, 2001: 116).

Note: this is quite different to the traditions of Media Effects (too passive) and Uses & Gratifications (too active)

8

ii. ideology and ii. ideology and institutionsinstitutionsNew approaches needed (1970s-?):

◦US – behaviourism (media & direct effects)◦Europe – neo-Marxism (ideology & culture)

Influence of:◦ Karl Marx◦ Louis Althusser◦ Antonio Gramsci◦ (For overview see J. Storey, 2006 – chapter 4)

9

10

The influence of Marxism(s)The influence of Marxism(s)The mass media…

◦ Define◦ Disseminate◦ Popularise◦ Protect…value system of the social elite (Stuart Hall)

“the ruling class in a society legitimizes its power by creating the ideas that people use to make sense of reality”

(Ruddock, 2001: 120)

The influence of GramsciThe influence of GramsciThe role of ideology as the place

where competing versions of social reality meet to win over popular consciousness in a continuous struggle to define the world in a particular way

nb this is what Gramsci called hegemony

11

Mass media as a site for struggle Mass media as a site for struggle over meaningover meaningPrince Harry in

Afghanistan:◦A hero?◦Normal soldier?◦One of ‘our’ boys?◦PR stunt?

12

Mass media as a site for struggle Mass media as a site for struggle over meaningover meaningPrince Harry in

Afghanistan:◦A hero?◦Normal soldier?◦One of ‘our’ boys?◦PR stunt?

13

Mass media as a site for struggle Mass media as a site for struggle over meaningover meaningTexts contain specific ways of

seeing the world – they are semiotic constructs

Texts are ideological – they serve to define and shape our perception of the social world

14

Need to note:Need to note:Concentration of media ownership &

competitionCapitalist monopolies own media

corporations & promote self interests

Routine dependence on government, police, juridiciary sources for information & interpretation (esp. re. law & order). ◦The PR industry?

15

Need to note:Need to note: Ideology as naturalising

◦Controls how people make sense of information.

◦Becomes ‘common sense’ to see the world a certain way

Further reading:See also Louis Althusser on ‘Ideological State Apparatus’ and ‘Repressive State Apparatus’

16

Stuart Hall’s Encoding & Decoding Stuart Hall’s Encoding & Decoding modelmodeli. history &

applicationHall: 1973University of

Birmingham’s CCCSBlended:

◦social science, ◦semiotics, ◦ ideology, ◦audience research

17

Marxism + SemioticsMarxism + SemioticsWhat a text says = cultural

convention

18

Marxism + SemioticsMarxism + Semiotics“The key to political power lies in

the ability … to make contestable signifier/signified relations seem like common sense” (Ruddock, 2001: 123)◦E.g. Thatcher and the ‘welfare state’

19

ii. The model itselfii. The model itselfto TV audiences

20

20

From TV producers

Encoding to decodingEncoding to decodingProducers

operate within standard professional conventions & routines

Create/encode ‘meaningful’ messages

Events/issues have to be ‘made to mean’

Messages are then disseminated

21

News stories are semiotically encoded & shaped ◦(i.e. they are constructs of reality, not

reality)

“Audience members are engaged in semiotic labour too. They bring their interpretive frameworks to bear on the message.”

(Moores, 1993: 17)

22

Encoding & decoding Encoding & decoding may not bemay not be symmetricalsymmetrical

23

A caveat…A caveat…‘There exists a pattern of “preferred

readings”’ or ‘common sense’ (Hall, 1973)

Interpretations depend on readers sharing a ‘general framework of cultural references’ (ie their political, religious, sexual beliefs, etc)

(Eco, 1972: 115)

24

25

DominantDominant

NegotiatedNegotiated

OppositionalOppositional

viewer interprets preferred meaning ‘full and straight’

viewer acknowledges legitimacy of message but operates with some exception to the meaning.

viewer decodes message in contrary manner

3 reading 3 reading positions positions (after Parkin, (after Parkin, 1972)1972)

26

David Morley’s Nationwide David Morley’s Nationwide AudienceAudience i. David Morley - Nationwide

Testing Hall’s hypothesisAnalysed ideological themes, mode of address, styleEmpirical study – qualitative interviewsMagazine style TV show – human interest

Morley & Brunsdon (1978: Morley & Brunsdon (1978: 92)92)“Nationwide constructs a picture of

‘the British people’ in their diversity. We are constituted together as members of the regional communities which make up the nation and as members of families … our shared concern with domestic life is grounded in Nationwide’s common sense discourse.”

27

28

ii. the ‘ii. the ‘NationwideNationwide AudienceAudience’’ study (1980)study (1980)Videos shown to 29 groups from

educational settings

Managers, students, apprentices, trade unionists, shop steward, etc

Class room interviews

2 different episodes – latest on Budget

29

iii. iii. resultsresultsBank Managers response to

style:

“it wasn’t sufficient … it’s entertainment … if I’d wanted to find out about the budget I’d probably rely on the next day’s newspaper … something like The Telegraph”

30

Shop Stewards (Union reps) response:

“it takes the issues of the day and it is quite entertaining”

rejected show’s ideological sympathy to middle management

31

Dominant readings: (accepted text’s ideologically encoded message)◦Management groups; apprentices;

schoolboys

Negotiated readings: ◦Teacher training students; university

arts students; some trade union officials

Oppositional readings:◦Some trade union stewards; black

college students

32

DominantDominant

NegotiatedNegotiated

OppositionalOppositional

Resistant?Resistant?

Shop stewards

Black FE students

Trade union officials

HE Arts /Photography Students

TraineeTeachers

Schoolboys

Bank managers

Apprentices

Print ManagementTrainees

Morley, 1980: 142-3Morley, 1980: 142-3Black FE students:

“In a sense they fail to engage with the discourse of the programme enough to deconstruct or redefine it”

They didn’t disagree with the show’s ideological message so much as failed to engage with it

33

iv. iv. Nationwide Nationwide conclusionsconclusionsReading position can’t be reduced to

socio-economic location only (it might limit reading positions available)

Still different reading positions available (age, gender, experiences, taste, etc)

No longer possible to divorce texts from their productive contexts and moments of consumption

34

Morley, 1981, ‘Interpreting Morley, 1981, ‘Interpreting Television: A Case Study’: 56Television: A Case Study’: 56 “We cannot analyses communications

separately from … the structure and divisions of the social formation … We must attempt to avoid a crude sociological reductionism … (e.g. all working class people, as a direct result of their class position, will decode messages in manner X) … we need to investigate ways in which the structural factors are articulated through discursive processes.”

35

Problems:Problems:Hall - broadcaster’s

replicate dominant social interests

‘Preferred reading’?Only 3 reading

positions?4th position:

Resistant reading or ‘aberrant decoding’ (O’Sullivan et al, 2001: 138)

Morley – is his study representative?

Enforced viewing of text

Role of environment?

Role of taste & cultural competences in programme selection choices?

36

BenefitsBenefitsHall & Morley stress that texts &

audiences cannot be viewed in isolation from each other◦ No simple textual ‘effects’

Complex social relations play important role (gender, class, experience, age, etc)

Move away from conception of audience as ‘passive’ receivers of media texts

37

Moores, 1993: 22Moores, 1993: 22“Even those viewers who made sense

of the Nationwide message within the dominant code performed active, if partly unconscious, semiotic labour. Their general acceptance of the programme’s preferred reading was the outcome of an interdiscursive encounter – rather than a result of them being ‘blank sheets’ for the text to write on.”

38

5: Conclusion5: ConclusionNo longer simple to make easy claims

about what the media do to people

In order to understand what sense audiences make of texts, we need to consider wider contexts of consumption

Texts do not exist in isolation and do not mean one thing to all

39

Useful sources:Useful sources: R. Butsch (2000), The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to

Television, 1750-1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955/1964), Personal Influence: The Part Played by

People in the Flow of Mass Communication, New York: The Free Press Stuart Hall (1974) ‘The television discourse – encoding and decoding’ in Paul

Marris & Sue Thornham (eds.) (2000), Media Studies: A Reader – 2nd Edition, New York: New York University Press, pp. 51-62 or in Ann Gray & Jim McGuigan (eds.) (1997), Studying Culture: An Introductory Reader – 2nd Edition, London: Arnold, pp. 28-34

Stuart Hall (1980) ‘Encoding/decoding’ in Stuart Hall et al. (eds.), Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson, pp.128-138.

Shaun Moores (1993), Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption, London: Sage.

David Morley (1980), The Nationwide Audience, London: British Film Institute. Frank Parkin (1972), Class Inequality and Political Order, London: Paladin Andy Ruddock (2001), Understanding Audiences: Theory and Method,

London: Sage. John Storey (2006), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction 4th

Edition, Pearson: Harlow – chapter 4

40