Key quotes from books
Graeme Burton
Arnold publications
'More Than Meets The Eye'
'Hollywood consistent use of cultural norms as narrative devices'
suggesting that its normal to see the same narrative roles throughout media texts likes gaming. The dominant white male as the hero and narrative roles in gaming.
'Ethinic minorities are continually misrepresented by racial stereotypes'
Suggesting that minorities will continually be presented as the 'Other' and can be seen as the 'villian' in gaming
‘Some Individuals/institutions will always have greater power to portray how to react on situation’
( Howard Becker )
This suggests that issues and debates such as 'moral panics' will continue to shape the way in which the audience will portray power. Also how some institutions will act on moral panics and use scares such as 9/11 as a selling point.
‘To say we may judge what is or is not real based on what is shown to us’
This quote fits into my title as it would suggest how the audience portray narrative roles. How if games and television shows muslims for example to be terrorists and evil all the time or the 'other' than the audience will begin to believe this.
'If something is repeated often enough it will tent to be believed and remembered’
This also fits into my title production as it helps proove the relation to narrative roles and how they can be seen in the audiences eyes. This is because by games such Call Of Duty, narrative roles tend not to vary with the dominant white hero and minority passive muslim/russian villian. By continually showing this role of power to its audience repeatedly the audience tends to believe this is true.
Sunday 12 December 2010
Hyperdermic Needle
This is a theory in which suggests that the Media somehow 'injects' the audience on what they should belive, how they should act and what their veiws should be portrayed. ( as a syringe injects drugs into the body )
- draws attention to the power of the media producers over its audiences and how they are able to forcefeed infomation/views in which the audience should believe/trust
- It makes audiences seem 'passive' and 'powerless'
Does it influence us ?
Many theorists believed that the increase in violence was a direct result of violet images being shown in cinema through the Hyperdermic Needle theory. One such theorist stated that the new found media was manipulating the mainstream masses and deliberately causing crime and violence for financial gain. Although this argument has been cast aside man times it always returns in modern society when there is a severe outbreak of violence on TV.
Violence
This is not only done through influences of media but also how gaming violence and narrative roles influence how the audience portray things.
here are many things society as a whole and individuals can do to appease or inflame the issue, however each argument has a counter argument and a counter argument will exist for that and so on.
Because it is an issue of such heated debate with no answer or possibility of an answer should we just leave the issue be and choose not to address it further? Or should we make the issue widely known so society is more aware of the role the media can play. Or perhaps we should leave it to the media to publicise that. After all the media does have a strong influence.
History and Orientation
The "hypodermic needle theory" implied mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behavior change.
The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response.
(a bullet and a needle)
suggest a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head". With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message.
Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (1981). A History of Our Understanding of Mass Communication. In: Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (Eds.). Mass Communication and Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory and Effects (19-52). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Golden, L.L. & Alpert, M.I. (1987). Comparative Analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of One- and Two-sided Communication for Contrasting Products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18-25.Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cultivation Theory
Core Assumptions
Cultivation theory in its most basic form, suggests that television is responsible for shaping, or ‘cultivating’ viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The combined effect of massive television exposure by viewers over time subtly shapes the perception of social reality for individuals and, ultimately, for our culture as a whole
They emphazine the effects of televison viewing on the attitudes rather than the behaviour of the viewer. Heavy watching of televison is seen as a cutivating attitude which are more consistent with the world of television programmes than the everyday world.
This is a theory in which suggests that the Media somehow 'injects' the audience on what they should belive, how they should act and what their veiws should be portrayed. ( as a syringe injects drugs into the body )
- draws attention to the power of the media producers over its audiences and how they are able to forcefeed infomation/views in which the audience should believe/trust
- It makes audiences seem 'passive' and 'powerless'
Does it influence us ?
Many theorists believed that the increase in violence was a direct result of violet images being shown in cinema through the Hyperdermic Needle theory. One such theorist stated that the new found media was manipulating the mainstream masses and deliberately causing crime and violence for financial gain. Although this argument has been cast aside man times it always returns in modern society when there is a severe outbreak of violence on TV.
Violence
This is not only done through influences of media but also how gaming violence and narrative roles influence how the audience portray things.
here are many things society as a whole and individuals can do to appease or inflame the issue, however each argument has a counter argument and a counter argument will exist for that and so on.
Because it is an issue of such heated debate with no answer or possibility of an answer should we just leave the issue be and choose not to address it further? Or should we make the issue widely known so society is more aware of the role the media can play. Or perhaps we should leave it to the media to publicise that. After all the media does have a strong influence.
History and Orientation
The "hypodermic needle theory" implied mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behavior change.
The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response.
(a bullet and a needle)
suggest a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head". With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message.
Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (1981). A History of Our Understanding of Mass Communication. In: Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (Eds.). Mass Communication and Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory and Effects (19-52). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Golden, L.L. & Alpert, M.I. (1987). Comparative Analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of One- and Two-sided Communication for Contrasting Products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18-25.Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cultivation Theory
Core Assumptions
Cultivation theory in its most basic form, suggests that television is responsible for shaping, or ‘cultivating’ viewers’ conceptions of social reality. The combined effect of massive television exposure by viewers over time subtly shapes the perception of social reality for individuals and, ultimately, for our culture as a whole
They emphazine the effects of televison viewing on the attitudes rather than the behaviour of the viewer. Heavy watching of televison is seen as a cutivating attitude which are more consistent with the world of television programmes than the everyday world.
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver & Peter Braham (Eds.) (1987). Media, Knowledge & Power. London: Croom Helm.Condry, John (1989). The Psychology of Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dominick, Joseph R. (1990). The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.Evra, Judith van (1990). Television and Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976a). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976b). The scary world of TV’s heavy viewer. Psychology Today, 10(4), 41-89.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)