Section A Unseen (32/32)
You must read the information provided for Section A in detail. You will be given approximately 15 minutes to study and make notes on the two texts. These notes will not be marked during the assessment process. You must spend 45 minutes answering the three compulsory questions in detail.
Clips
The first clip is a UKIP Party Electoral Broadcast entitled ‘Common Sense on Immigration’, first shown on British television April 2014 and featuring their controversial party leader, Nigel Farage. UKIP represent the far right wing of British politics.
The second clip is a party electoral broadcast by the Labour Party for the European Parliament Elections in May 2014. It was first shown on British television on 22nd May, 2014. Traditionally, Labour represents the left wing of British politics.
1. How do the broadcasts use narrative and audio-visual representations to persuade audiences into understanding values and ideology? (8 Marks) Extended response to Question 1 to develop a full understanding of textual analysis.
Using Stuart Hall, the audience are positioned into a dominant preferred reading by the UKIP broadcast in the hope that they (the audience) will share their values and ideology – UKIP’s values represent a far right wing political ideology which encodes nationalist sentiment and belief in ‘Britain for the British’. The broadcast emphasises notions of inclusivity through mediation with talking heads representing a range of age, social class, gender and to a lesser extent, ethnicity.
The opening establishing shot of the broadcast has connotations of Britain as an island nation with a wide shot of the shoreline and repeated shots of water lapping up against the shore. An upbeat non diegetic soundtrack anchors a direct mode of address which sees the camera constantly panning and zooming suggesting a form of electoral dynamism – use of words like ‘we’ and ‘our’ ensure audiences understand the values and ideologies encoded but also create the myth of speaking to them personally as individuals in a direct mode of address e.g. “If you agree with us….”
The first interviewee is with an elderly, middle class Asian businessman that attempts to offset accusations of racism within UKIP which is echoed in the line “you don’t have to be racist to care about immigration”. The mise-en-scene shows the businessman sitting in a comfortable, modern, affluent environment, wearing a pinstriped suit with its traditional connotations. All interviewees are framed centrally in medium shot suggesting their importance as ‘ordinary people’ – equality of gender representation is foregrounded on several occasions including a young farmer, an attractive Asian woman, a pensioner and a middle class, middle aged woman. Each location is deliberately diverse e.g. rural England, a northern city (evidenced by a wide shot of a northern industrial town with smoking factory chimney), London and what seems to be a wealthy town furthering the notion that UKIP finds its support from all over the country. London is anchored by a talking head represented by the iconic, working class black cab driver.
Direct address continues in the broadcast with lines like “If you’ve got a skill, you should be given a chance to live here”…..”we can gain control of our borders”. The speed of the editing builds towards the climax of the broadcast, suggesting almost a Todorovian narrative with Nigel Farage offered in a piece to camera as the solution/resolution. Again, framed centrally he appears in a traditional, working class pub setting using a traditional, de-saturated colour palette using browns and yellows. Objects and props as part of the mise-en-scene that anchor this traditionally British representation include a pint of bitter and a flat cap. Farage uses the term ‘we’ three times in the scene as he touches on a moral panic fresh in the mind of the audience, eastern European immigration.
The Labour party broadcast in contrast represents values and ideologies more commonly associated with the working class, left wing electorate. Like UKIP (on occasion) the broadcast focuses on the ‘ordinary family’, one family in particular to ensure audience identification throughout the broadcast. At the beginning of the broadcast the camera tilts down to reveal a stereotypical image of ‘normality, a 3 bedroom semi detached house (as establishing shot) and inside the family. A narrative voice over leads the audience into a preferred reading while the visuals anchor normality with early morning shots of the family at breakfast including close ups of milk pouring and cereal. Emotive shots of the young son ensure that audiences are manipulated into a sympathetic reading while the voice over identifies the key focus of the narrative – ordinary families in financial difficulty.
Narrative disruption (again Todorovian after the early equilibrium) comes in the form of close up shots of bills falling on the doormat, shots of stereotypically the father whose concerned facial expression encodes fear while reading the latest household bill – the voice over and non diegetic music parallel his concern and touches on a recent media debate and concerns over high, and increasing gas and electricity energy bills. This emotive representation continues with shots of the young child at nursery and concerns over rising childcare costs. This then cuts to stereotypically the mother (the broadcast exploits the hegemonic nuclear family) in a supermarket while deep focus reveals recognisable high street brands that the family may be struggling now to afford.
Faster paced editing changes the tempo of the broadcast as it starts to offer negative criticism of big business, classic old Labour values and ideologies. Speeded up film shows the city of London skyline and a close up reveals a higher end saloon car as binary oppositions are developed between the ‘ordinary family’ and tax cuts offered to higher earners – the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’. Tilts and low angles are used to show the power of the city of London with again emotive language like ‘weighed down” and “lifetime of debt” linked to a university education. Simple intercutting to shots of statistics reinforces a subjective epistemology with a long take of the whole family towards the end of the broadcast particularly pertinent.
As the music changes to a more upbeat tempo like the UKIP broadcast, a solution or resolution is suggested – visuals are now more of smiling faces with promises of ‘one nation’ and the taxing of bankers and controlling of “rip off energy companies’.
2. Why does the media rely so heavily on conflict? You may also refer to other media texts to support your answer. (12 Marks)
The media relies on conflict for commercial reasons, for purposes of entertainment and for purposes of audience identification – Reality TV shows like Big Brother deliberately create hype and controversy to generate, and maintain interest in a show when ratings may be falling. In turn, high ratings have a positive impact on advertising revenue. Hybrid talent shows like the X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent will also ensure that a conflict of opinion between the judges will be a source of entertainment for an audience who thrive on this form of communication e.g. Louis Walsh and Simon Cowell.
Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader was in February 2014 seen in a televised debate arguing and going head to head with the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg over Britain’s involvement in the European Union. These series of live debates received high ratings and served to publicise the political role of both men in the run up to the European elections. American Presidential candidates take the same approach, turning political ideologies into theatrical farce at times that makes an election campaign more of a battle of media personalities rather than a debate on important political values and ideology. In the same way, the BBC political panel show Panorama mediates opinion by selecting panellists who views conflict and who represent different political parties and pressure groups for example. It is as entertaining and voyeuristic to see argument as it is to take part in an interactive debate on the issues of the day.
Using the uses and gratifications model as a framework, conflict can be an entertaining diversion from everyday life – whether as a character based narrative in Eastenders or Coronation Street or a tabloid or mid market tabloid headline deliberately constructed to create controversy, conflict and viral talkability. Personal relationships can be developed in terms of web 2.0 e.g. blogging and conflict via social networking feeds. Facebook and Twitter have become popular platforms commonly used as a voice to vent the personal opinion of the user on a wide range of issues from political matters to trivial popular culture related topics. The act of being in conflict with somebody else on a blog for example ensures that interactivity through personal relationships is furthered. In the same way, conflict allows audiences to identify with protagonists in more ‘traditional’ media e.g. in the James Bond franchise with antagonists like Raoul Silva in Skyfall or Trevor, Michael and Franklin in the iconic action adventure video game GTA V. Conflict positions the audience into a dominant preferred reading in the same way a narrative voice over leads the audience by the hand – Bond films. Through conflict used to offer a metaphor on who were seen to be the ‘real’ political villains in society through the fictional characters seen on screen.
Surveillance, as part of the same theoretical model provides audiences with information through conflict. News broadcasts, film and television documentaries like Nick Broomfield’s Aileen Wournos: Portrait of a Serial Killer, printed and online news media give information to audience while at the same time presenting media representations as a source of conflict, allegedly encoding objective epistemologies by reference to data, ‘experts’ and facts and figures. Notions of ‘We Media’ have been a challenge to traditional forms of news reporting with non-professional journalists using digital media to report news and offer at times subjective epistemologies on events and issues. Conflict by its very nature is a form of interactive communication but at times it is often used as key focus for commercial exploitation used by media organisations.
Hollywood film narratives rely on character, narrative and conflict to generate audience interest as part of the promotion and marketing of a film – the binary opposition of good versus evil is historically embedded into mainstream film narratives like X Men: Days of Future Past and The Wolf of Wall Street to ensure a directed reading through conflict between character. Filmic narratives are also often written into video games like Bioshock: Infinite – released in March 2013, the controversial first person shooter has been argued to have an extreme, right wing macro narrative that deliberately marginalises ethnic minority groups, promoting instead pro American ideologies. Even as a micro narrative, conflict determines outcome with Booker DeWitt, Elizabeth and Comstock engaging in battles and skirmishes. In this regard genre perhaps also has a role with the whole idea of FPS and RPG games for example dependent on the completion of tasks and quests that are only achieved through conflict. Even games with the most simplest of USP and format, e.g. Angry Birds rely on the concept of conflict between birds and pigs.
Genre is crucial in understanding narrative, arguably one of the conventions of action, science fiction and fantasy but also more realist genres like documentary. The media is all about conflict as true verisimilitude provides limited entertainment for audiences.
3. We are moving towards an era of media deregulation. Should media forms be regulated? You should refer to other media products to support your answer. (12 Marks)
Regulation arguably exists to prevent vulnerable audiences becoming victims of passive consumption, but the concept of regulation evolves and changes – this reflects changes in technology, societal values, cultural competences and legislation. David Gauntlett in ‘Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond’ (2005) would argue that the effects debate that constantly rages relating to media regulation is far less relevant now because of the above changes stating: “It is clearly the arguments about violence on screen which tend to dominate the mass media coverage”. Certainly, deregulation is evident as the UK and US begin to adopt a model more commonly found in European countries like Holland, France and Italy reflecting liberal cultural regulation – the BBFC review and consult with the public every five years and every five years approaches to classification become more liberal with many violent films, films with nudity and sexual references and films with significant swearing releasing with a 15 certificate instead of an 18. The HBO television drama, Game of Thrones contains a large amount of nudity, sexual scenes and sexual references but has achieved a mainstream audience. Digital technology and convergence has questioned the concept of regulation and censorship with media forms produced and distributed on a range of platforms and made available to audiences on demand.
Digital technology has dramatically changed what we perceive as ‘media’ and how this in turn has opened up debate on the concept of regulation – in previous times, even 10-20 years ago and certainly going back much further to the first acknowledged media artefacts the media was subject to much tighter regulation and censorship. This is to the point that many contemporary films like the Saw franchise simply would not have received a certificate – we have moved into an era of desensitisation however where audiences are saturated with media from a very early age and are far less shocked or effected (so the argument goes) by what they see and hear. The institutional result of this is that media regulatory bodies like Ofcom, the ASA, BBFC and the PCC have recognised this social and cultural shift and have responded with the concept of deregulation; moving away from the cultural straightjacket of media regulations by the relaxation of codes of practice and the liberalisation of approaches to the regulation the media.
The concept of whether media should be regulated or not has become a political and a moral issue. The Leveson Inquiry has spent millions of pounds of public money debating whether there should be statutory regulation of the press – this in many ways would be the binary opposition of deregulation with some suggesting a tighter, more state run media model where newspaper editors would face prison for transgressing guidelines and rules laid down. This is what places print regulation in binary opposition to audio-visual media; while films, television and computer games have become a more deregulated format, debates rage on the future of the press. ASA advertising guidelines have become more relaxed, Ofcom deals mainly with trivial complaints relating to programmes like the X Factor while statutory print regulation remains a possibility.
The incumbent print regulators, the PCC are set to have a shortened life span with a new regulatory body set to be established, replacing it focussing on recommendations made by the Leveson Inquiry. The probability however, is that statutory press regulation will not be their remit and instead, the new body may in the end have the same ‘toothless’ narrative that the PCC is often accused of having. Most complaints currently made to the PCC involve accuracy and rarely are they seen to intervene in what are perceived to be ‘serious’ issues. The problem for the press and regulation is while important issues may be publicised and very much seen to be in the public interest, many stories are exploitative and are published for commercial reasons e.g. the current phone hacking controversy still being dealt with in the British courts and invasive paparazzi photography and journalists seeking to write voyeuristic articles on celebrities to please a public who apparently are engaged by titillation, gossip and personal stories.
What underscores the regulation debate however is the need to protect vulnerable sections of society e.g. children. In this regard, the question on whether media forms should be regulated is yes but with reference to Gauntlett’s argument that audiences are more sophisticated, and literate readers of the media than a ‘nanny state’ would suggest.
No comments:
Post a Comment