Semiotics and Media
Media content consists of data and meaning. Different medium transmits data in print, sound or pictorial image, which the receivers can directly observe and is in a sense ‘fixed’. While the meanings, which are claimed to be embedded by the producers are variously received by the audience, and therefore not fixed, are largely unobservable. The most important question perhaps concerning media content is how it is received by the audience. Mc Quail (1994) states that most early research into media content tended to assume that content reflected the purposes and values of its originators … and that receivers would understand messages more or less as intended by producers.10 Further, the content of mass media has often been regarded by social commentators as more or less reliable evidence about the culture and society in which it is produced.
Some writers use the term media ‘text’ instead of media ‘content’. And the term ‘text’ itself has been used in two senses: 1) to refer to the message itself: the printed document, film, television programme or musical score …etc. 2) to refer to the meaningful outcome of the encounter between content and audience. For instance, a television programme “becomes a text at the moment of watching, that is, when its interaction with one of its many audiences activates some of the meaning/pleasures that it is capable of provoking”11 It follows from this that media messages can elicit numerous meanings, so that a text can be understood in a variety of ways. Mass media content is thus in principle polysemic, having multiple potential meanings for its audience. “They are mulitisemic because they can mean different things to the same person at different times, places, and situations, and in different moods.”12 Fiske argues that “polysemy is a necessary feature of truly popular media culture, since the more potential meanings there are, the greater the chance of appeal to different audiences and to different social categories within the total audience”.13 Summing up this point Fiske tells us that a programme is produced by the industry, a text by its audience. In this sense, the word ‘production’ can be applied both to the activities of the producers and the audiences. This is a central point in our discussion of the media content from the point of view of its reception by the audience.Mc Quail states that media content may be considered to be more or less ‘open’ or ‘closed’ in its meanings.14 According to Eco (1979), an open text is one whose discourse does not try to constrain the reader to one particular meaning or interpretation. Further, media content can be differentiated according to its degree of openness. For example, “news reports are intended not to be open but to lead to uniform informational end, while serials and soap operas are often loosely articulated and lend themselves to varied ‘readings’ … It has also been argued that television in general has a more open and ambiguous text than cinema film.”
It is French Semiotician Roland Barthes (1915-1980) who first showed the importance of studying media in terms of how they generate meanings. Semiotic method is fundamental because it focuses almost exclusively on hidden meanings.16 As Mc Quail too says, “The application of semiological analysis opens the possibility of revealing more of the underlying meaning of a text (content).”17 Semiotics can be applied to ‘texts’ which involve more than one sign-system and signs (such as visual images and sounds). Barthes (Mythologies, 1957) was of the opinion that the meaning structures built into media products and genres were derived from ancient myths, bestowing upon media events the same kind of significance that is traditionally reserved for religious rituals.18 It is clear from the above statement that semiological analysis of media content presupposes a thorough knowledge of the originating culture and of the particular genre. Burgelin (1972) writes: “The mass media clearly do not form a complete culture of their own … but simply a fraction of such a system which is, of necessity, the culture to which they belong.”19 Semiotics provides us with an approach, if not a method, to help us establish the ‘cultural meaning’ of media content. “It certainly offers a way of describing content: it can shed light on those who produce and transmit a set of messages.”20 Jensen (1991) speaks about ‘social semiotics’ by which he meant semiotics applied to media content in order to bring out its social significance. He writes: “When the discursive differences of mass media content and other cultural forms are interpreted and enacted by social agents, thus serving to orient their cognition and action, media discourses can be said, in the terminology of pragmatism, to make a social difference7 Now it might be right to state that the primary objective of media semiotics is to study how the mass media create or recycle signs for their own ends. It does so by asking: 1) What something means or represents, 2) How it exemplifies its meaning, and 3) Why it has the meaning that it has. For example, take the figure of Superman (in comic books, films, science fiction …). What or who does Superman represent? He stands for ‘a hero’ in the tradition of mythic Greek superman heroes, such as the Prometheus and Hercules. As a heroic figure Superman has, of course, been updated and adapted culturally – he is an ‘American’ hero who stands for ‘truth’, ‘justice’, and ‘the American way’. But like the ancient heroes, Superman is indestructible, morally upright, and devoted to saving humanity from itself.22 (At the moment the US needs a Superman to save itself from the Vietnam-like mess it has created in Iraq.) The gist of the semiotic story of Superman, therefore is that he is a ‘recycled’ or ‘mediated hero’. As this concrete example shows, media representations are, more often than not, recycled signifiers, dressed up in contemporary garb to appeal to contemporary audiences.23 It is said that, like their ancestors, modern-day people need heroes sub-consciously to ‘make things right’ in human affairs at least in the world of fantasy.
Some writers use the term media ‘text’ instead of media ‘content’. And the term ‘text’ itself has been used in two senses: 1) to refer to the message itself: the printed document, film, television programme or musical score …etc. 2) to refer to the meaningful outcome of the encounter between content and audience. For instance, a television programme “becomes a text at the moment of watching, that is, when its interaction with one of its many audiences activates some of the meaning/pleasures that it is capable of provoking”11 It follows from this that media messages can elicit numerous meanings, so that a text can be understood in a variety of ways. Mass media content is thus in principle polysemic, having multiple potential meanings for its audience. “They are mulitisemic because they can mean different things to the same person at different times, places, and situations, and in different moods.”12 Fiske argues that “polysemy is a necessary feature of truly popular media culture, since the more potential meanings there are, the greater the chance of appeal to different audiences and to different social categories within the total audience”.13 Summing up this point Fiske tells us that a programme is produced by the industry, a text by its audience. In this sense, the word ‘production’ can be applied both to the activities of the producers and the audiences. This is a central point in our discussion of the media content from the point of view of its reception by the audience.Mc Quail states that media content may be considered to be more or less ‘open’ or ‘closed’ in its meanings.14 According to Eco (1979), an open text is one whose discourse does not try to constrain the reader to one particular meaning or interpretation. Further, media content can be differentiated according to its degree of openness. For example, “news reports are intended not to be open but to lead to uniform informational end, while serials and soap operas are often loosely articulated and lend themselves to varied ‘readings’ … It has also been argued that television in general has a more open and ambiguous text than cinema film.”
It is French Semiotician Roland Barthes (1915-1980) who first showed the importance of studying media in terms of how they generate meanings. Semiotic method is fundamental because it focuses almost exclusively on hidden meanings.16 As Mc Quail too says, “The application of semiological analysis opens the possibility of revealing more of the underlying meaning of a text (content).”17 Semiotics can be applied to ‘texts’ which involve more than one sign-system and signs (such as visual images and sounds). Barthes (Mythologies, 1957) was of the opinion that the meaning structures built into media products and genres were derived from ancient myths, bestowing upon media events the same kind of significance that is traditionally reserved for religious rituals.18 It is clear from the above statement that semiological analysis of media content presupposes a thorough knowledge of the originating culture and of the particular genre. Burgelin (1972) writes: “The mass media clearly do not form a complete culture of their own … but simply a fraction of such a system which is, of necessity, the culture to which they belong.”19 Semiotics provides us with an approach, if not a method, to help us establish the ‘cultural meaning’ of media content. “It certainly offers a way of describing content: it can shed light on those who produce and transmit a set of messages.”20 Jensen (1991) speaks about ‘social semiotics’ by which he meant semiotics applied to media content in order to bring out its social significance. He writes: “When the discursive differences of mass media content and other cultural forms are interpreted and enacted by social agents, thus serving to orient their cognition and action, media discourses can be said, in the terminology of pragmatism, to make a social difference7 Now it might be right to state that the primary objective of media semiotics is to study how the mass media create or recycle signs for their own ends. It does so by asking: 1) What something means or represents, 2) How it exemplifies its meaning, and 3) Why it has the meaning that it has. For example, take the figure of Superman (in comic books, films, science fiction …). What or who does Superman represent? He stands for ‘a hero’ in the tradition of mythic Greek superman heroes, such as the Prometheus and Hercules. As a heroic figure Superman has, of course, been updated and adapted culturally – he is an ‘American’ hero who stands for ‘truth’, ‘justice’, and ‘the American way’. But like the ancient heroes, Superman is indestructible, morally upright, and devoted to saving humanity from itself.22 (At the moment the US needs a Superman to save itself from the Vietnam-like mess it has created in Iraq.) The gist of the semiotic story of Superman, therefore is that he is a ‘recycled’ or ‘mediated hero’. As this concrete example shows, media representations are, more often than not, recycled signifiers, dressed up in contemporary garb to appeal to contemporary audiences.23 It is said that, like their ancestors, modern-day people need heroes sub-consciously to ‘make things right’ in human affairs at least in the world of fantasy.
Comments
Post a Comment