Custom essays on The relationship between the audience and television and its effects

Functional relationships between television and audience are implemented in a number of private connections (relations). The audience is characterized by multiple links with television, known collectively as the notion of “attitudes of audience to the media” and ‘uses and gratifications’ model.
Characteristics of the audience are not limited only such behavior factors as the choice of source material, duration of use of television, etc. The similar behavioral acts of audience have different needs, interests and expectations. On the other hand, the same needs, interests, and expectations are expressed in different ways in the behavior of the audience.
Among the links (relations) between the information system and the audience there can be defined the objective factors (choice of sources of information, both written and oral contact with the “journalist”) and subjective (the interests and opinions, perceptions and requirements, and many other forms of internal relations of the audience).
Karen Ross and Virginia Nightingale (2003) identify 5 elements of media events that are sources of audience research interest:
– the audience participants as individuals;
– the audience activities of the participants in the media event;
– the media time/space of the event; the media power relations that structure the event; and the mediatized information with which people engage (p. 7).
Thus, in order to understand how audiences have been conceptualised, it is necessary to consider the various theoretical models employed in audience analysis.

The role of the media as a tool of manipulation was explained by the Frankfurt School, principally by Theodor Adorno, who said that the mass media was ‘the
culture industry’ that acted ideologically to control the masses (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1979, p. 121). According to Adorno, the culture industries produce ‘standardised’ products which precludes any critical or political engagement with culture and society.
It is important to mention Katz views on the status of the audience as a ‘mass’ of alienated individuals, rather they proposed the audience consisted of individuals involved in complex social networks. Thus, these studies indicated how the media functioned as a facilitator for social interaction and opened up the possibility of a more ‘active’ audience that the simple stimulus-response model denied.
Weaknesses in the “effects model” prompted the development of the “uses and gratifications” approach that was informed by Katz’s statement that ‘less attention should be paid to what media do to people and more to what people do with the media’ (p. 2). This thinking enabled studies to investigate long-term attitude changes and the role of the active audience. (Blumler & Katz, 1974)
Thus, the uses and gratifications approach accommodated an understanding of audience members as active agents within a social network rather than fragmented individuals within a monolithic mass. The model acknowledges media content and how attitude change extends to include the audience’s knowledge, behaviour, beliefs and value systems (Abercrombie, 1996, p. 141).
Although the “uses and gratification” approach opened up new possibilities for audience research, a number of criticisms have been levelled against it as a tool of analysis. Nicholas Abercrombie (1996, p. 142) asserts that it is ‘too positive’ – crediting the audience with far more autonomy and control than they have in actuality. In addition, he states that the approach does not interrogate how audiences ‘create’ meanings in their interpretation of media texts.
For example Barker and Kate Brooks (1998, pp. 87-88) criticize the approach as it does not consider: needs generated by the media; the consequences of needs not being gratified; in some cases media contact may constitute a need in itself; it does not consider changes that may result from a need being satisfied nor does it acknowledge that some audience members use the media more than others.

Conclusion

Modern media is especially dynamic in its development and now the mass media occupy a leading role in influencing public opinion and mood. The work showed the important role played by television in modern society, influencing the social environment and life of people. The topic of television audience, which is provided with an opportunity to make a wide range of media selections was covered.
The word ‘audience’ is actually rather complex, and establishing its exact definition poses a number of conceptual difficulties for social research as ‘audience’ is fundamentally an abstract concept. A survey of the literature showed that conceptualizations of the audience vary significantly between theoretical models and theories. The paper analyzed theories that propose the media as a powerful force which has ‘effects’ on people’s behavior, and perspectives which suggest individuals use media to satisfy psychological and social needs, thereby attributing audiences a more active role.

Bibliography

Abercrombie, N. & Longhurst, B, 1998, Audiences: A sociological theory of performance and imagination, London, Sage.
Barker, M and Brooks K., 1998, Knowing Audiences: Judge Dredd: Its Friends and Foes, Luton, UK, University of Luton Press,
Becker, L.B, 1978, “Measurement of Gratifications”, Communication Research, 53, pp.28 -33
Blumler, J.G. and McQuail, D, 1968, Television in Politics: Its Uses and Influence, London, Faber and Faber.
Blumler, J., & Katz, E, 1974, The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, Beverly Hills and London, Sage.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T.W, 1976, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Continuum International Publishing Group
Liebes, T and Curran, J, Media, ritual and identity: essays in honor of Elihu Katz, London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 237-255

Kent, R, 1994, Measuring Media Audiences, London: Routledge.
Livingstone, S, 1998, “Relationships between media and audiences”. Media, ritual, and identity, New York, Routledge, pp. 237-255

McQuail, D, 1997, Audience analysis, London: Sage Publishing.
Ross K. and Nightingale, V, 2003, Media and audiences : new perspectives, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England : Open University Press