But Wait: Do We Really CONSUME Media?
Summary
TLDRThis video explores how we interact with media, proposing that we don't just consume it but decode it, influenced by Stuart Hall’s theory of encoding and decoding. Media, unlike food, isn't simply used up, but contains encoded messages shaped by culture and context. The process of decoding is complex, involving personal interpretation that can align, negotiate, or oppose the intended meaning. The video critiques the metaphor of media as consumable goods and discusses how decoding offers a more active role for the audience in shaping media's impact on their lives.
Takeaways
- 🧠 Media is not just consumed but decoded, suggesting a deeper interaction with content beyond passive consumption.
- 📺 The metaphor of media as consumable goods shapes how we perceive and engage with it, even though media isn’t 'used up' like physical products.
- 🍽️ Terms like 'media diet,' 'binge-watching,' and 'devouring a book' reinforce the metaphor that media consumption is similar to eating, influencing us in a manner akin to how food affects the body.
- 🧐 Stuart Hall’s encoding and decoding theory emphasizes that media is encoded with meanings during production, and audiences must actively decode these meanings to understand the content.
- 🔄 Decoding media can take different forms: dominant (agreeing with intended meaning), negotiated (partially accepting meaning), or oppositional (rejecting or reinterpreting meaning).
- 🎭 Media's effects on the audience depend on how well the audience's 'codes' align with the producer’s intent, creating potential for miscommunication or reinterpretation.
- ⚙️ The process of decoding is more active than consumption, offering space for critical analysis and even adversarial interpretations of media content.
- 📚 The media metaphor of 'you are what you consume' parallels dietary concerns with the notion that media affects minds, influencing values, morals, and perceptions.
- 🔄 Media encoding reflects the social, cultural, and political context of its creation, which is then decoded differently by diverse audiences based on their background.
- 🎨 Hall’s theory empowers audiences, showing that media interaction is complex and participatory, influencing not just understanding but also the reproduction of ideas in society.
Q & A
What is the main idea of the media consumption metaphor in the script?
-The script argues that the metaphor of media as a consumable good simplifies how we talk about and understand media. This metaphor frames media as something we take in, like food, but overlooks the complexity of how we process and make meaning from media.
How does the media consumption metaphor differ from actual consumption of goods like food?
-Unlike physical goods, which are used up when consumed, media doesn’t get depleted through use. Media consumption is more about taking in information or entertainment, which stays available and may influence us in more complex ways.
What is Stuart Hall's theory of encoding and decoding, and how does it relate to media consumption?
-Stuart Hall’s theory suggests that media is 'encoded' with meaning by its creators and 'decoded' by the audience. This process involves interpreting media, and decoding doesn’t always align perfectly with the original intentions of the creators. Hall’s idea contrasts with the media consumption metaphor by emphasizing active interpretation over passive intake.
Why does the script suggest that the metaphor of media as food could be misleading?
-The metaphor suggests a passive process, similar to eating food, where the audience absorbs whatever is present in the media. However, media interpretation is more active, with audiences decoding and assigning meaning in various ways, which may not align with the content's original encoding.
What is the significance of the 'media diet' metaphor mentioned in the script?
-The 'media diet' metaphor emphasizes how the media we consume influences us, similar to how the food we eat affects our physical health. Just as certain foods are deemed 'healthy' or 'unhealthy,' the script suggests that culture determines what media content is considered good or bad for our minds.
How does Hall’s concept of 'reproduction' fit into the media decoding process?
-Reproduction, according to Hall, refers to how audiences, after decoding media, bring its messages and meanings into their own lives. These meanings influence their actions, opinions, beliefs, and possibly even the media they create in the future.
What role does cultural and ideological background play in decoding media according to Hall?
-Cultural and ideological backgrounds significantly influence how people decode media. If the audience shares the same codes as the producer, they are more likely to decode the media as intended. Otherwise, misunderstandings or different interpretations may arise.
What does the script mean by 'dominant,' 'negotiated,' and 'oppositional' codes in media decoding?
-These terms refer to different ways of decoding media. A 'dominant' code means fully accepting the intended message, a 'negotiated' code means partially accepting the message while also questioning it, and an 'oppositional' code means rejecting the intended message and creating a counter-interpretation.
How does Hall’s theory challenge the idea of passive media consumption?
-Hall’s theory challenges passive consumption by showing that audiences actively decode media messages. People can interpret, question, or even reject the encoded messages based on their individual perspectives, making media engagement a more active process.
What does the script suggest about the relationship between media creators and audiences in terms of meaning-making?
-The script suggests that meaning-making in media is a dynamic process. Creators encode media with their intended messages, but audiences actively decode and interpret those messages. The relationship is not one-way, as audiences can derive meanings that differ from or even oppose the creators' intentions.
Outlines
🎥 Decoding Media Consumption
The opening paragraph introduces the idea that media is not just consumed but decoded. It highlights how we commonly describe media interactions (listening, watching, reading), yet these actions are abstracted into 'consumption.' The metaphor of media as a consumable good is explored, drawing from linguistic and media theorists like Stuart Hall and the concept of framing our understanding of media through language. Unlike food, media isn’t 'used up' upon consumption, and the paragraph begins to unpack this metaphor, exploring how media content impacts us.
📺 Stuart Hall and Media Encoding
The second paragraph shifts focus to Stuart Hall's theory of encoding and decoding in media. It critiques the idea of media messages as deterministic packets of meaning, proposing instead a more nuanced process involving production, circulation, and reproduction. Hall emphasizes that before consumption, audiences must extract meaning through decoding. The metaphor of consumption is challenged here, arguing that audiences do not passively ingest media, as they would with food, but instead actively decode it based on their own experiences and cultural backgrounds.
🔍 The Complexities of Decoding Media
In the third paragraph, the script delves deeper into Hall’s encoding/decoding theory. It explains that the codes used to create media may not align with the codes used by audiences to decode them, leading to misunderstandings or different interpretations. The text introduces different types of decoding—dominant, negotiated, and oppositional—showing that audiences have agency in how they interpret media. Unlike food consumption, where digestion is passive, decoding is an active process that allows for varied and even contradictory interpretations of the same media.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Media Consumption
💡Encoding and Decoding
💡Dominant Code
💡Negotiated Code
💡Oppositional Code
💡Media as Consumable Good
💡Media Diet
💡Miscommunication
💡Hypodermic Needle Theory
💡Reproduction
Highlights
The idea that we don’t merely consume media, but we decode it, moving beyond the simple metaphor of consumption.
Consumption as a metaphor frames media as a product, but unlike food, media doesn’t disappear when used—it lingers and influences us.
Media, like food, is something we ingest and process, leading to phrases like 'media diet,' 'binge on TV shows,' or 'devour a book.'
The metaphor of media as consumable affects how we view the content and its effects on our minds, drawing parallels with the phrase 'you are what you eat.'
The concern that media, particularly violent or immoral content, could have negative effects on the mind, similar to how junk food harms the body.
The encoding/decoding model proposed by Stuart Hall, which argues that media creators encode meaning into content, and audiences decode that meaning, adding complexity to the idea of media consumption.
Hall’s model suggests that media messages are not deterministic but are decoded by audiences who bring their own codes, experiences, and contexts.
Miscommunication arises when audiences and producers have different codes or worldviews, leading to distortions in meaning.
Decoding is an active process, where audiences can accept, negotiate, or oppose the intended meaning of the media they consume.
The concept of oppositional decoding, where audiences extract meanings contrary to those intended by media creators, showing agency in interpretation.
Media isn’t passively consumed; it’s actively decoded and contributes to discourse, with people reproducing its meanings in their own lives.
Hall’s theory challenges the idea that consuming media is a passive act and emphasizes the active role of audiences in making sense of content.
Decoding allows for nuanced interpretations of media, such as viewing violence as critique rather than celebration.
The idea that audiences may not always decode media in the way it was intended, leading to interpretations that go beyond the surface meaning.
The relationship between consuming media and decoding media changes how we think about the power and influence of content on individuals and culture.
Transcripts
Here's an idea.
You don't necessarily consume media so much as you decode it.
[THEME MUSIC]
When talking about what we do with the music, TV
shows, movies, books, and comics in our lives,
we may say that we listen to, watch, or read them.
But in the same way we may abstract media itself
into the homogeneous monad of content,
what we do with that content may also
get abstracted into the totalizing
process of consumption.
We consume content.
We are content and media consumers.
The metaphor of media as consumable good
isn't so much a media theory as it
is a convenience of language.
We need to be able to talk about what we do with information
and entertainment, how it gets into our brains
through our various sense organs and has an effect on us.
But really, it's not just talking.
The way we talk about things frames how we think about
and understand them, cf.
Lackoff and Jonson's The "Metaphors We Live By."
Or as media theorist Stuart Hall wrote, "reality
exists outside language, but is constantly mediated
by and through language.
And what we can know and to say has
to be produced in and through discourse."
The media is consumable good metaphor can actually
frame and influence what we think media is, what's in it,
and how it works.
True, this metaphor does get weird
when you think about how most consumable goods get consumed.
When they're used, they're used up,
which is not the case with media.
Media we consume doesn't go away like food, water, cleaning
products, or office supplies.
You could argue that physical media specifically
degrades with use, but that similarity seems
convenient and not fundamental.
That it goes away isn't the functional access
of consumptions use for media.
What is functional, I think, is the idea
that media, like food, is something
we ingest, we take it in.
I mean, just look at extensions of the media
as consumable good metaphor.
Talking about one's media diet, how we binge on TV
shows or devour a good book.
In each case, there's a process whereby something outside of us
is absorbed.
And the subtext of this process is
very food related, that what we consume affects us.
In dietary terms, this has been rendered
into a rhetorical diamante.
You are what you eat.
The food goods that we consume have an impact on our bodies.
Good food, good body, bad food, bad body.
There's a similar idea about media,
except what's bad or good is arrived at culturally
not nutritionally, which is not to say
that nutrition is divorced from culture or economics,
for that matter.
And this does actually make me wonder what the media
equivalent of calories may be.
Anyway, what hangs in the balance
with media is not our physical health, but our minds.
The pearl clutching worry is that media full of sex, drugs,
violence, cussing, and like Satan worship, I guess,
will rot your brain.
Or your morals and sense of propriety, really,
in the same way that candy will rot
your teeth or nonstop steaks will give you heart disease.
The sub-subtext then of the media
as consumable good metaphor is that what we get out of media
is what was put into it by whomever
made it, be it nature or a man in the factory downtown.
If there's sugar in the candy we consume,
we are necessarily consuming sugar.
So if there is violence in "A Clockwork Orange,"
we are necessarily consuming violence.
Right?
And still sub-subtextually, in the same way
our digestion of food is complex and ongoing but ultimately
passive, this metaphor suggests so too is our digestion
of media messages.
If you eat candy and therefore sugar,
it's not like you have an active role in your response
to that sugar.
You were active in the mastication and ingestion,
but not the digestion and nutrient
extraction, all of which are part of consumption.
So if you watch "A Clockwork Orange,"
then aren't you necessarily absorbing a wee
bit of the old ultraviolence?
Certainly seems that way.
Of course, not everything is what those [INAUDIBLE] is it?
There are more than a few ways to think
through how media works.
We've talked about some of them in past "But Wait" videos.
The hypodermic needle compares media messages to medicine.
Uses and gratifications casts media as information
that we use.
In his "Hot versus Cold" media theory,
Marshall McLuhan describes media as messages built fundamentally
on interaction, even if you feel like a passive, well, consumer.
Right now we're going to talk about Stuart Hall, who
you may remember from a few minutes we go.
We're going to talk about his concept of encoding
and decoding.
Hall wasn't responding to the consumption metaphor
specifically.
He even uses it here and there.
But the framework that he builds involves a process
which takes place prior to, and in some senses supersedes
consumption.
Writing about television in the '70s and '80s,
Hall became frustrated that media messages
were treated as these distinct packets
of deterministic meaning.
It was thought that audiences received meaning from media
because it was put there by creators
or it occurred naturally.
If audiences didn't get the right meaning,
it was a miscommunication.
The results of this process, then,
were fed back into production to fine tune
the whole thing in the hopes of reducing miscommunication.
In his essay "Encoding and Decoding,"
Hall's suggestion is that it is a lot more complicated
than that.
He says it goes far beyond sender, message, receiver
or production, distribution, production
to a complex set of interlocking and distinctive moments.
He names production, circulation,
distribution/consumption, and reproduction.
And he says that before consumption even takes place,
there's a step where the audience extracts meaning.
This moment sets up the success of the next steps.
Hall says that if no meaning is taken,
there can be no consumption.
This may seem backwards.
If you don't consume something, you
won't get anything from it, duh.
But if you've taken nothing from it, even if you've ingested it,
has nothing been consumed?
How would you even go about consuming something but taking
nothing from it?
This disconnect is probably due to the limits
of the consumption metaphor.
You can't consume candy but not consume its sugar.
So Hall's thought sort of seems bizarre.
Media though, is different from candy, sort of.
When media is made, Hall says it is
encoded by a complex meaning-making system that
exists prior to the media itself.
And that system is informed by all kinds of things.
The capabilities and mandates of the producing entity,
their goals, their ideologies, their thoughts
about the audience, the relative success
of previous media messages, the conventions
of media messages in general, and so on and so forth.
In the production of media, all of that stuff, all
those thoughts and ideas and politics,
they're crammed into both language, because remember
reality is mediated by discourse,
and also the language of that media specifically,
the conventions of photography, print, video, audio,
illustration, whatever.
In short, media always reflects the conditions of its creation.
It's an artifact that has encoded
all that complicated meaning, purposefully and carefully
in some respects, but also passively and nearly
invisibly in other respects simply
as a result of having been made by people in a culture.
After media is encoded and produced,
it's released as a product for people to use.
To use it, Hall says audiences must decode it.
And it's in the decoding that we get the things we
identify as coming from media.
Hall writes "It is this set of decoded meanings
which have an effect, influence, entertain, instruct,
or persuade, with very complex perceptual, cognitive,
emotional, ideological, or behavioral consequences."
In other words, to be affected by media is to have decoded it.
And having decoded it, one then brings
what they've learned in the process
back into the world as action, opinion, belief, perception.
Hall calls this reproduction.
Hall also points out that "the codes of encoding and decoding
may not be perfectly symmetrical."
This is super important.
The closer an audience is to the codes of media producers,
the easier they'll be able to decode its meanings.
If audience and producer have vastly different codes,
there's going to be trouble.
Hall writes "what are called distortions
or misunderstandings arise precisely
from the lack of equivalence between the two sides
in a communicative exchange."
Lots of signs may be obvious.
Like a video of a cow obviously represents cow.
But at more abstract levels, encoders and decoders
have to share higher and higher levels of understanding
if an audience is to get out of a piece of media
exactly what producers meant to put into it.
Except, hold the phone, what if audiences don't want to?
Or they want to get more out of it than what was meant?
Hall stipulates the decoders can choose their code.
Unlike consumption and digestion,
decoding isn't passive, or rather, it doesn't have to be.
Hall talks about different types of decodings
and how the type that you use, which you are by no means bound
to, even during the course of one particular piece of media,
determines what you get from that media.
For instance, if one accepts the meanings intended,
then they are quote "operating inside the dominant code."
A negotiated code is a take it and leave it approach.
One understands that media has authority, but also has
a necessarily non-nuanced view of the world.
Acknowledges both the legitimacy and the shortcomings
of the dominant code.
And an oppositional code reads perpendicular
or even counter to the dominant, finding meanings which
are implied or even contrary to its encoding.
Someone may choose their code reflexively or purposefully.
They may do it academically or for laughs, for all media
or in response to certain messages
only, or for different reasons at different times.
You may see now some similarities between decoding
and consumption.
Similar to how our bodies treat food, one's history and past,
their experiences changes how they
digest something, what they can take in,
and how it will sit with them.
But digestion, though it is an always evolving process,
remains ultimately an unconscious one.
Decoding, as a theory and a metaphor,
places agency where it should be,
with audience members purposefully interacting
with media messages.
Unlike consumption, it sets up the ability
for nuanced or adversarial interactions,
finding meanings which aren't on the face of the media.
Ultraviolence as critique, not celebration.
Or meanings which weren't intended, but exist,
nonetheless.
Sort of like consuming candy, but digesting kale.
Except it's consuming a kid's show,
but digesting one for adults.
Consuming news, but digesting propaganda.
Consuming horror, but digesting comedy.
And finally, when decoding is complete,
that is when the audience has received the media
and it enters that discourse, the one involved
with the conventions of its media
and the experiences of its audience.
Who will then reproduce its meanings and conventions
in their own lives, and possibly other pieces of media
that they make for other people to decode.
Which I know it doesn't sound as good to say they
that you are going to go like decode
your new favorite TV show.
We may never widely call ourselves content decoders.
Though it may be more accurate.
What do you all think?
What is the relationship between consuming media and decoding
media, and how does each change how we think media works,
what's in it, and what we do with it?
Let us know in the comments, and I will respond to some of them
in next week's comment response video.
In this week's comment response video,
we talk about your thoughts regarding the changing
nature of the label "troll."
If you want to watch that one, you
can click here or find a link in the doobly-doo.
Hey also, it's really nice to be back.
It's nice to see everybody again.
And thanks again to everybody who came to the Nerd Night
a couple weeks ago, the PBSDS series of talks
we did of the YouTube space here.
It was great to see everybody, to hang out, get to say hey.
In next week's episode, we're going
to be talking about the first thing we read for the Idea
Channel Book Club, which is a short story by Jorge Luis
Borges called "Pierre Menard, the Author of Don Quixote."
We've already shot that episode, so if you write a comment,
it won't make its way into the video.
But that's not an excuse for not reading it and getting
involved in the conversation that's on the Subreddit that's
really good, super interesting.
We'll put a link to the book club thread in the description
as well.
We have a Facebook, an IRC, and Subreddit links
in the doobly-doo.
And the tweet of the week comes from one C7,
who points us towards a passage written
by Jean-Paul Sartre about anti-Semites
that smacks remarkably of the rhetorical tricks of trolls.
It's a really interesting read.
This passage is from Sartre's book "Anti-Semite and Jew,"
an exploration of the etiology of hate.
It's good food for thought.
And last but certainly not least,
this week's episode would not have been possible or good
without the very hard work of these media encoders
and decoders.
[THEME MUSIC]
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Introduction to Media Literacy: Crash Course Media Literacy #1
Media Studies - Stuart Hall's Reception Theory - Simple Guide For Students & Teachers
Lesson 5: Media and Information Languages | Media and Information Literacy
The Process of Communication
Stuart Hall Reception theory explained!
Pop culture is dead! | Phil Miller | TEDxWoking
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)