Active & Passive Audiences

Name two theories which are associated with effects debate.

Explain these two theories using examples.

A theory associated with the effects debate is the Inoculation/Desensitisation Model, this theory suggests that an audience whom are exposed to a particular media message repeatedly  makes them more likely to become "immune" to the genre or message. For example, watching many violence genre-based films constantly may make an audience member desensitised to the media genre; therefore, they're no longer by shocked by the explicit actions. Another theory that is corresponding with the effects debate would be the Sensitisation Model, which is in fact the exact opposite as the Inoculation Model, meaning that if an audience were to be shown the violence genre repeatedly they wouldn't become immune but, actually be so shocked that they're able to change their views on violence and come to realisation of the consequences it has on other people's lives. 

With reference to examples, explain the difference between 'active' and 'passive' audience reception.

There are many differences between an active member and a passive member of an audience. An active audience member will form their own opinions on a text and look at the text from their point of view; they are always focused and independently minded of the meaning of a text and throughout the text. Whereas, a passive audience member is usually seen to be quite naive of a text as they are easily manipulated and weak willed; by not looking at a text in more than one way, the way the text intended them to view it. Passive audience members will never attempt to look at a text in a different way, and could be considered the 'sheep' of society meaning they're easily influenced by the majority of an opinion.

How far do you think that violence on television causes violent behaviour.

Violent media texts are seen to be influential and I do agree to an extent that this is true as the audience member can potentially have an idea forced into their head about a violent action from watching a violent act on the television. However, I believe the influence to only be minor as there must be a much bigger underlying problem than just the media if the act is actually performed. There could be issues from a person's upbringing or mentality changing their moral beliefs so they don't know the difference between right and wrong or they may misunderstand the idea of right and wrong. Everybody, everyday is faced with violence in the media- for example: the news but the majority of people still do not lead a violent life. 

Are active audience theories more acceptable than passive audience theories? 

Give reasons for your answers.

I believe that active audience theories are more acceptable than passive audience theories, this is because passive audience theories imply we are all zombies to the media and we are easily influenced or dominated by the media texts as though we can't think for ourselves. If this theory was to be true, everybody who has played violent video-games or watched violent films would be criminals or threats in today's society. This can simply not be true due to the many people who regularly watch violent films or regularly expose themselves to violent video-games and still have a mind of their without being easily influenced. The active audience theories acknowledge that most of us are focused and independently minded; having control over our own opinions on any form of media texts/ media messages.  

Choose a media text which you particularly like and apply the 'Uses & Gratifications' theory to explain why you enjoy it so much.

Divergent is a media text I enjoy and using the Uses & Gratifications Model, my opinion would be that it fulfils the escapism/entertainment and personal identification needs. This is because the film has a futuristic type setting, making me able to elude the mundane everyday pressures and situations I face. Personal identification is fulfilled because I am able to relate to the main character Tris, this is because I'm unsure in what to do with my life and as is she, she is stuck between which faction to choose from: the safe option and the more thrilling/uplifting option. Of course, I don't have to stay faithful to one "career" for the rest of my life like she does. But. I do have to decide on whether I should choose to further my academic subjects safely as I'm good at them or whether I should just do something for fun that I have never done before and take a risk. Divergent means that something is headed in more than one direction and not on a straight path that can also cause other objects or people to stray from their paths. So, I'd like to see my options as Divergent which relates to Tris as she in Divergent.

Find an advertisement online, in a newspaper or a magazine. 

Write down what the preferred reading would be.

Make suggestions for the oppositional reading of the advert.

This advertisement is raising awareness on instructions to driving your car safely, by fastening your seat belt, which is an illegal act and you could suffer great consequences if you are not following the law. A preferred reading of this advert would notice the dangers of crashing your car as we can see physical damage on the woman's face who we assume to be the driver. As well as this we can also notify that the woman could potentially be mentally damaged/scarred as she has crashed the car and will have to "live with guilt" of one of her friends dying. We can see the guilt in her facial expression as she's looking down as though she is disappointed in herself for not checking her friends were belted up, she also looks sad and disheartened or as thought she is about to cry, because she has lost a friend due to a stupid mistake. The oppositional reading of this advert would note how coincidental it is that a woman driver has crashed a car as women are stereotypically known for being awful drivers. The woman is also quite young which would also imply that only youths would have made such a terrible mistake; meaning the advert is biased. This isn't a fair representation of driving with seat belts undone as anybody of any age could commit the same crime.