Objective [1] to review understanding of representation
Objective [2] to begin consideration of how media constructs a sense of identity
By definition, all media texts are re-presentations of reality. This means that they are intentionally composed, lit, written, framed, cropped, captioned, branded, targeted and censored by their producers, and that they are entirely artificial versions of the reality we perceive around us.
When studying the media it is vital to remember this -
every media form, from a home video to a glossy magazine, is a
representation of someone's concept of existence, codified into a series of
signs and symbols which can be read by an audience. However, it is
important to note that without the media, our perception of reality would be
very limited, and that we, as an audience, need these artificial texts to
mediate our view of the world, in other words we need the media to make sense
of reality. Therefore representation is a fluid, two-way process: producers
position a text somewhere in relation to reality and audiences assess a text on
its relationship to reality
Extension/Restriction of Experience of
Reality
By giving audiences
information, media texts extend experience of reality. Every time you see a
wildlife documentary, or read about political events in a country on the other
side of the world, or watch a movie about a historical event, you extend your
experience of life on this planet. However, because the producers of the media
text have selected the information we receive, then our experience is
restricted: we only see selected highlights of the lifestyle of the creatures
portrayed in the wildlife documentary, the editors and journalists decree which
aspects of the news events we will read about, and the movie producers
telescope events and personalities to fit into their parameters
Truth or lies?
Media representations - and the extent to which we accept them - are a very political issue, as the influence the media exerts has a major impact on the way we view the world. By viewing media representations our prejudices can be reinforced or shattered.
Generally, audiences accept that media texts are
fictional to one extent or another - we have come a long way from the mass
manipulation model of the 1920s and 1930s. However, as we base our perception
of reality on what we see in the media, it is dangerous to suppose that we
don't see elements of truth in media texts either.
The study of representation is about decoding
the different layers of truth/fiction/whatever.
In order to fully appreciate the part representation
plays in a media text you must consider:
Who produced it?
What/who is represented in the text?
How is that thing represented?
Why was this particular representation (this
shot, framed from this angle, this story phrased in these terms, etc) selected,
and what might the alternatives have been?
What frame of reference does the audience use
when understanding the representation?
Below is the Media Gaurdian article from March 2007 on the banning. this is followed by 2 links to the BBC and to a Creative Marketing website. these both explore :
[1] the adverts and reaction
[2] the context of the campaign
[3] the implications
Trident ad: calls on the nation to join a 'gum revolution'The Advertising Standards Authority has banned an ad for Cadbury's Trident chewing gum after more than 500 complaints that it was racist.The ruling against the ad derails Cadbury's £10m marketing bid to break Wrigley's near-monopoly of the UK gum market.The first ad shows a black "dub poet" speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent in what looks like a comedy club.The series of four TV and one cinema ads, created by ad agency JWT, encourages viewers to take part in a "gum revolution" and try the new Trident chewing gum.The ASA has received 519 complaints about the ad.Viewers complained that TV ads were offensive and racist because they believed they showed offensive stereotypes and ridiculed black or Caribbean people and their culture.Some viewers also challenged that the ad was offensive and insensitive because Trident was the name of the Metropolitan Police's "black-on-black" gun crime initiative. Cadbury Trebor Bassett argued that the campaign had in fact been inspired by revolutionary poets and the lead character had been chosen because he had a "charismatic quality that appealed to the target audience of 16- to 34-year-olds".Further, Cadbury provided research covering the first three weeks of the campaign to show that there was a decline in the number of people finding the ads offensive and an increase in those who found it fun.The ASA noted that while Cadbury had undertaken "careful consumer research" before the campaign launch and consulted members of the British African Caribbean community, its own findings had shown that the ads were likely to result in a polarised reaction from viewers with one in five finding them offensive. Complainants to the ASA included a comment that the ads had a "near Driving Miss Daisy degradation".The ASA noted that from the complaints many viewers had been offended by what they saw as the "negative stereotype of black or Caribbean people and their culture".The ASA ruled that the ads should not be shown again. However, it did not uphold complaints about the Trident brand name and the Met Police initiative.The ad watchdog ruled that the chewing gum brand had existed for over 40 years in global markets and concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in this point.
Below is the Media Gaurdian article from March 2007 on the banning. this is followed by 2 links to the BBC and to a Creative Marketing website. these both explore :
[1] the adverts and reaction
[2] the context of the campaign
[3] the implications
No comments:
Post a Comment