Chapter 15 in the McQuail text focuses on ‘Audience Theory and Research Traditions.’ The chapter goes on to state “Audiences are both a product of social context (which leads to shared cultural interests, understanding and information needs) and a response to a particular pattern of media provision” (McQuail, 396). Audience consumption of media outlets often has some type of personal impact on their lives in one way or another. These similarities can group these individuals together in communities. The chapter talks about the media when they set out to appeal to a certain social group, gender, political or religious belief, etc.
Though the media may set out to appeal to its viewers, they have on many occasions been accused of being biased towards a particular group of people within their audience. An example of this comes from the radio station that produces the ‘Don Imus’ talk show:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=257556>1=7703.
He is under fire for his racial slur he used while on air about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team. I found this article to be very interesting because we see how audience voices are just as powerful as media personalities. From this story viewers have the chance to see how this host could have possibly lost some of his female audience as well as portion of his minority audience. Don Imus and the radio network gave a much need apology, but I am certain his audience will have somewhat of a different outlook on him from now on. The McQuail chapter states, “It is plausible to suppose that the media need their audience more than audiences need their media…” (McQuail, 401). How do you think such incidents like this one could have been avoided? To what extent do the media have to consider their audience and their feelings and beliefs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A word about audiences in general…
Because of the increasing number of new media outlets (i.e. blogs, web pages, XM Radio, etc.) it’s possible to market programs to very specific audiences. The old media outlets (Television, FM/AM Radio, Newspapers) were and still are weary of specializing their content, and justifiably so. These outlets are dependent on the general public. Newspapers especially are expected to provide as unbiased coverage of events as possible. And unless people begin to expect differently, this kind of rift between new and old media will remain. Whether it is fortunate or not, the new media can afford to be bold, even racist and sexist, as the article on Imus revealed, because there are enough people who are entertained by it. I agree with McQuail that audiences typically do not need to listen to any particular talk show host; there are more than enough choices to satisfy the pickiest consumer of infotainment. On one hand I find this discouraging because it allows bigots to voice their opinion on things, influencing the public in negative ways. That said, part of democracy is allowing individuals to express their opinions freely. In my opinion it was terribly wrong of Imus to refer to the Rutger’s team as hoes and insult their looks. But regardless of how I feel or even MSNBC might feel, Imus will continue to have an audience because there are enough bigots in the world who agree with him. Imus has clearly chosen his audience and it’s a rather poor one.
The questions…
1) It’s hard to actually avoid this type of incident, especially if you’ve hired an individual who is known to be caustic and nasty on the air. Ideally networks should set down very firm and clear guidelines for what syndicated announcers can say, perhaps even build provisions into their contracts. However, once an incident occurs, networks should issue a fast apology and promise to hold those responsible accountable for their actions (i.e. suspending the announcer(s) and forcing them to attend sensitivity classes). It is unlikely that these actions will change the opinion or attitude of the offending announcers, but it is at least some sort of gesture. Networks will lose money as an audience declines, especially if the severity of the comments were such that it affected multiple demographics; that is a given. Ethics aside, if the money lost is significant enough than the announcer(s) should be fired.
2) The media should always consider their audiences’ feelings and beliefs, if only to learn how to better promote their product. However there is an ethical piece here as well. Networks have an official voice in that they can dramatically alter public opinion. With that being the case networks should strive to produce shows that heighten public awareness and create intelligent dialogue; entertainment shows should be entertaining not offensive and cruel. I think it’s important to remember that shows are not created in a vacuum and that audiences are often very narrow…consider FOX News. To a limited extent these shows create and mold individual belief, but are far better at engaging immediate emotional responses, whether positive or negative—especially talk radio or talk television. And sometimes people like to be made angry; they want to laugh, cry, yell, or smile. Seldom however will people tolerate their beliefs being ridiculed. So to that end, networks should be overly cautious is preventing such offensive dialogue. If you want to challenge a person’s beliefs do so with facts and compassion for their pre-established beliefs.
I found out about Imus' recent outburst when I was home for Easter this past weekend. My Dad brought it up as a 'hey did you hear...' My brother and I responded: yeah, when is he going to retire or get fired?
The fact is he does have a big following and the previous post describes pretty well that these people do enjoy tuning in. It reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell on "The View" and viewers who are attracted as to what she will say next.
There are a million of media outlets that contain very different media content as well as delivery, from Curt Schilling's blog where he weighs in on just about anything to Don Imus on his morning talk radio show (which also airs on TV) - they exist because there is an audience.
Because of this incident, I don’t think fewer or more people will tune into Imus’ show because that’s what people expect when they tune in. It’s a good example of a media outlet existing because there is an audience for it.
Although McQuail stated that audience studies have not fundamentally changed, it does seem that as outlets increase and audience behavior becomes harder to define, the studies will have to change.
I agree that as audiences we have a huge effect on what gets said in the public by the media. We are constantly scrutinizing people for every little thing they say. Audiences also have a big effect on people’s careers. We can get people fired, we can make people post apology blogs....the media is ultimately there to make us happy as an audience, and if they are not making us happy, they are not doing their job, and they know they could lose it.
Imus did a very unethical thing, and if the station loses a lot of money over it, as they probably will, then he should face the consequences and lose his job over the comment he made.
The story has further developed and Imus's show is suspended for 2 weeks, which I think is a reasonable punishment. I'm sure Imus won't have a sudden change of heart and become a warm and fuzzy radio host, but I bet from now on he'll think again before he speaks. For a second, I asked myself if he'd be censoring himself. Maybe he would be...but he'd be saving his job and playing to his audience, just like all other media (which is fine, in my opinion, except in the case of the news media).
I think the public outcry against Imus's offensive remarks illustrate the quote by McQuail that Tia included in her post. Audiences are both a product of social context and a response to media provision. Imus listeners may usually enjoy his crass style but he crossed the line, and listeners and non-listeners let him know that wasn't acceptable. Therefore, we are shaped and help to shape the media we consume.
Post a Comment