We have been studying the impact of Reality TV on the audience through textual analysis.One of the Questions we have analysed is why the audiences find appeal in the concept of ,effectively, watching other people live their lives.
I think the appeal is easiest to identify in the modern world. For example, for the same reasons people take great intrest in Reality TV, the same mind sets and themes are what drives social networking. If you're on Facebook, you consume mass amounts of other peeoples lives. A portion of them is on the web, for all to see.
Both tend to be interactive experiences as well. If you dislike somone on a show like Big Brother then you can interact by voting them off. If you're on Facebook and somone posts content you disagree with, you can block them as a friend. Reality TV and Social Networking allow you to become a part of someones life that you don't know, without any consequences. We all have a nosy neighbour quality.
I have explored Audience Response theories in my textual analysis, which explain WHY the audience feel this way. I felt the best application here was the Uses and Gratifications theory, which explains how the audience get something out of the experience.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Week 5 - Censorship
The Media industry isn't free to produce and distribute products as they like. As with most industries, there are regulations that must be met. In the media industy there are strict rules on Censorship and Certification. Individual sectors of the industry have their governing bodies and all published media has to meet the requirements of the Obscene Publications Act.
While we know about organisations like the BBFC and PEGI, the question this yar is more about the relationship between producer and audience. Is it justifiable to make explicit movies and call them art. Who are they aiming this material at?
Often explicit material is good for creating media hype around a product. For example, when games like Grand Theft Auto are released, the medias scare mongering about the harmful effects of themes in the game could cause more people to want to buy it. The main hope of the powers that be is to protect children from explicit content. However, younger audiences have always wanted to see censored media and making a fuss about often helps with sales. We all want what we can't have.
Also we live in a desensitized society, were extreme, explicit content is everyday, on our news, in our TV shows and importantly, freely available on the internet. The question for both producers and distributors is, can anything shock the public anymore, and can we censor art?
While we know about organisations like the BBFC and PEGI, the question this yar is more about the relationship between producer and audience. Is it justifiable to make explicit movies and call them art. Who are they aiming this material at?
Often explicit material is good for creating media hype around a product. For example, when games like Grand Theft Auto are released, the medias scare mongering about the harmful effects of themes in the game could cause more people to want to buy it. The main hope of the powers that be is to protect children from explicit content. However, younger audiences have always wanted to see censored media and making a fuss about often helps with sales. We all want what we can't have.
Also we live in a desensitized society, were extreme, explicit content is everyday, on our news, in our TV shows and importantly, freely available on the internet. The question for both producers and distributors is, can anything shock the public anymore, and can we censor art?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)