Post on 14-Dec-2014
description
1
Personalisation#MAC201
Are we being served?
Dumbing down, infotainment and social media.
“There is no subject, no abstract thing, that cannot be translated into terms of people”
(Williams, 1958: 220)
2
3
Mode of address Tabloidisation Personalisation
Why personalise?Forms of personalisationPotentialsProblems
4
Mode of AddressMode of Address
X
A B
Social environment (rock gig)
Receiver (friend)Communicator (you)
5
The description of the event will be organised ‘by the expectation you have of the hearer’s attitude to the event and to you’ (Hartley, 1982: 87)
6
Mode of AddressMode of Address
X
A B
Communicator (you)
Social environment (car crash, football
match, strip show, rave)
Receiver (police, opposite sex, boss, parent)
7
Communication as product of both ‘speaker and listener, addresser and addressee’ (Volosinov, 1973: 86)
‘[The press] must develop a practical “mode of address”’ (Hartley, 1982: 88)
8
TabloidizationTabloidization
Dumbing down?
Infotainment?
9
Bob Franklin (1997: 4-5): ‘newszak’
‘a product designed and “processed” for a particular market and delivered in increasingly homogonous “snippets” which make only modest demands of the audience’.
Franklin (2003): ‘McDonaldization of news’ and ‘junk journalism’
10
Consequences:Consequences:
‘urg[ing] us to look but not care, see but not act, know but not change’
(Nichols, 1991: 194)
‘The focus is on those things which are apt to arouse curiosity but require no analysis’
(Bourdieu, 1998: 51)
Clickbait?
11
12
‘at some level the criteria for “good journalism” must in part depend on its capacity to attract and engage the audiences, to stimulate the processes of meaning-making and critical reflection’
(Peter Dahlgren 1995: 50)
13
PersonalisationPersonalisation
The presentation of a news story in terms of the people or personalities involved; an emphasis on potential for “human interest” in a story“There are newspapers, even in large cities,
edited on the principle that the readers wish to read about themselves”
(Walter Lippmann, 1922, Public opinion)
14
PersonalisationPersonalisation
“[has] derived … not only from the common human interest in other people’s lives, but also from the peculiarly strong working class attachment to the concrete …the local and particular”(Richard Hoggart, 1962, The uses of literacy)
15
Why personalise?Why personalise?
To explain events with reference to personal motives and character The relationship between USA and UK was seen as
one between George W. Bush and Tony Blair
Now? Arnie & Cameron?
Why personalise?Why personalise? To breach the gap between the public and
the private, where it serves the public interestThe public are “interested” in knowing
whether Tulisa is a drug user
16
Why personalise?Why personalise?
To breach the gap between the public and the private, where it serves the public interestEd Miliband’s personal image may impact on
the public’s decision to vote for him
17
Forms of personalisationForms of personalisation
The ordinary individual in exceptional circumstances
NAKED DAVID NICKS A BURGLAR STARK naked David
Staines caught a night-time burglar in his Tring home and refused to let him go until police arrived.The plucky pensioner (pictured with his dog), who had been woken by his dog, gave officers a shock when he answered the door wearing nothing but his birthday suit and handed over the captured intruder. Hemel Hempstead Today
18
Forms of personalisationForms of personalisation
The exceptional person in ordinary circumstances
19
Forms of personalisationForms of personalisation
Comment of the “insider” journalist
20
From the journal section…
Rod Brookes et al (2004) “The media representation of public opinion” Media, Culture and Society Volume 26(1), pp. 63-80.On Sunspace
21
22
Forms of personalisationForms of personalisation
Citing “the public” References to opinion polls Inferences about public opinion Vox pops Interactions between members of the public and
authority
23
Potentials for personalizationPotentials for personalization
1. Merely provides an illustrative aid to journalism’s expository objective
2. Detracts from informational objectives via a focus on spectacle
3. Offers fresh insights into social and political processes
(Macdonald, 2003: 65)
24
Dangers of personalizationDangers of personalization
‘the isolation of the person from his [sic] relevant social and institutional context, or the constitution of a personal subject as exclusively the motor force of history’ (Hall, 1973: 183)
25
Dangers of personalizationDangers of personalization
The focus on individuals can lead to failures in exploring wider relevant social factors
The inclusion of personalities into their own reports
26
Dangers of personalising news Dangers of personalising news in terms of the individualin terms of the individual Offers (and misrepresents)
extreme individuals as giving insight into the character of the whole
Places undue stress on the emotion over the rational
Dangers of personalising news Dangers of personalising news in terms of the individualin terms of the individual News agendas can surrender
to popular sentiment, and submit to a “tyranny of the majority”
News makers can mobilise a constructed discourse of “public opinion” in whatever way they please
27
ConclusionConclusion
Fragmented and declining audiences means news producers have had to modify modes of address in order to connect to their core audience
An increase in human interest stories with emphasis on the personal
Negative impact on news quality (tabloid-style, infotainment agenda): encourages a modicum of passivity in audiences
28
29
SeminarsSeminars In thinking about personalisation, how do
we distinguish between “news” and “gossip”? Think of whether there is a distinction
between the public and the private Under which circumstances is it
acceptable to examine culture and politics through the personalities and personal activities of individuals?
30
Sources and further readingSources and further reading
Pierre Bourdieu, 1998, On Television and Journalism, London: Pluto Press. Rod Brookes et al, 2004, ‘The media representation of public opinion’ in Media, Culture and Society
Volume 26(1), pp. 63-80. Peter Dahlgren, 1995, Television and the Public Sphere, London: Sage. Bob Franklin, 1997, Newszak and News Media, London: Arnold. Bob Franklin, 2003, ‘“McJournalism: The McDonaldization Thesis and Junk Journalism’, confernce
paper presented at Political Studies Association - http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2003/Bob%20Franklin.Pdf
Stuart Hall, 1973, ‘The determinations of newsphotographs’ in S. Cohen and J. Young (eds.), The Manufacture of News, London: Constable.
John Hartley, 1982/1994, Understanding News, London: Routledge. Richard Hoggart (1962) The uses of literacy Walter Lippmann (1922) Public opinion Myra Macdonald, 2003, Exploring Media Discourse, London: Arnold. Bill Nichols, 1991, Representing Reality, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. John B Thompson, 1995, The Media and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press Graeme Turner, 2001, ‘Sold out: recent shifts in television news and current affairs in Australia’ in M.
Bromley (ed.), No News is Bad News, Harlow: Pearson Education. V. Volosinov in John Hartley, 1982, Understanding News, London: Routledge. Frank Williams, 1958, Dangerous Estate, London: Readers Union.