Question 4 - strengths + limitations of theories for LFTVDs Flashcards
(38 cards)
1
Q
outline the strengths of Livingstone + Lunt (Regulation)
A
- applicable to LFTVDS produced by European public service broadcasters, which may be regulated in interests of citizens
- applies to LFTVDs produced by American cable + streaming services, which treat audiences as consumers + are only lightly regulated to avoid harm
- draws attention to the challenges of globalised TV industries to traditional regulation
2
Q
outline the limitations of Livingstone + Lunt (Regulation)
A
- only applies to the consumption in Britain/ to British LFTVDS, as the study of Ofcom was from a national perspective
2
Q
outline the strengths of Hesmondhalgh (Cultural industries)
A
- draws attention to the forms + effects of ownership + control, e.g. difference between purely commercial US Television products + the public service ethos of most European producers
- draws attention to the issues of risk + profitability, where high budgets are at stakes, + ways producers try to minimise the risk (e.g. stars, genre)
3
Q
outline the limitations of Hesmondhalgh (Cultural industries)
A
- In prioritising the effects of ownership + control on the content of LFTVDs, this theory may not help understanding how ideologies, audience choice or media language conventions determine media content
3
Q
outline the strengths of Bandura (Media effects)
A
- may apply to a wide range of media products, e.g. LFTVDs
- draws attention to the need to investigate the direct effects on individuals who consume LFTVDs
- supports the arguments of those who think TV should be regulated to avoid public harm
4
Q
outline the limitations of Bandura (Media effects)
A
- complex + nuanced representations in LFTVDs are less likely to cause a direct effect on audiences
- prioritising the effects of the media on the audience many mean that the effects of the audience on the media are underestimated (e.g. Jenkins, Shirky)
4
Q
outline the strengths of Gerber (Cultivation theory)
A
- may apply to wide range of media - e.g. LFTVDs
- draws attention to the need to investigate long-term effects on individuals who consume LFTVDs, esp heavy ‘box set’ users
- suggests that TV programmes are creating the belief in audiences that the world is characterised by negative/dangerous events
- supports the arguments of those who think TV should be regulated to avoid public harm
4
Q
outline the limitations of Gerber (Cultivation theory)
A
- complex + nuanced representations in LFTVDs are less likely to cause an indirect effect on audiences
- prioritising the effects of the media on the audience may mean the effects of the audience on the media are underestimated (e.g. Jenkins, Shirky)
4
Q
outline the strengths of Hall (Reception Theory)
A
- applies to a wide range of media products, e.g. LFTVDs
- draws attention to different audience readings of LFTVD’s messages + values, while acknowledging the role of power in creating dominance within television messages + values
5
Q
outline the limitations of Hall (Reception Theory)
A
- assumes there is 1 dominant meaning to which the audience responds - does not fit messages with multiple possible readings (e.g. irony)
6
Q
outline the strengths of Jenkins (Fandom)
A
- applies particularly to the range + diversity of representations in LFTVDs for ‘textual poachers’ who wish to use these products to create their own culture e.g. via fan sites
- shows how LFTVDs can achieve cult status, adding to their value for fans
7
Q
outline the limitations of Jenkins (Fandom)
A
- optimistically views the power of LFTVD audiences, may underestimate the power of media conglomerates to shape + control TV content
- this view may underestimate the effects of LFTVDs on their audiences (e.g. Bandura, Gerbner)
8
Q
outline the strengths of Shirky (End of audience)
A
- draws attention to the way audiences for LFTVDs can provide value for one another by using websites to offer fan fiction, wikis, fan theories, merchandise
9
Q
outline the limitations of Shirky (End of audience)
A
- doesn’t apply to broadcast TV
- streaming services don’t reflect the view of the online media proposed by Shirky - they primarily operate like the ‘old’ media by offering centrally produced content
- optimistically views the power of audiences -underestimates power of media conglomerates to shape + control TV content
- this view underestimates effects of LFTVDs on audiences
9
Q
outline the strengths of Todorov (Narratology)
A
- widely applicable as it’s simple - it’s possible to identify the key elements in LFTVD (equilibrium and disruption)
- useful in teasing out the messages + values underlying a narrative, through pointing out the significance of the transformation between initial + new equilibrium
10
Q
outline the limitations of Todorov (Narratology)
A
- wasn’t designed to explain LFTVDs but single narratives with clear resolutions - doesn’t explain complex narratives
- doesn’t help to understand television’s tendency towards segmentation rather than linearity
10
Q
outline the strengths of Baudrillard (Postmodernism)
A
- can be applied to any cultural product, e.g. LFTVDs
- may be celebrated in LFTVD that refuse any simple identification of ‘the real’ in the fictional world
11
Q
outline the limitations of Baudrillard (Postmodernism)
A
- doesn’t explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it’s a high-level theory of the postmodern world
- is unfalsifiable - it can’t be proved false or true
11
Q
outline the strengths of Hall (Theories of Representation)
A
- is applicable to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs
- draws attention to the role of power in representations - both the general distribution of power in society + the power of the TV industry
12
Q
outline the limitations of Hall (Theories of Representation)
A
- doesn’t explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it’s a general theory of representation
13
Q
outline the strengths of Gauntlett (Theories of Identity)
A
- can be applied to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs
- LFTVDs (esp non-English) often attempt to reach + engage an international audience by offering a local representation with international resonance, thus increasing the diversity of representations of place + cultures
- shows how LFTVDs can achieve cult status, adding to their value in helping to create identities
13
Q
outline the limitations of Gauntlett (Theories of Identity)
A
- assumes audiences are powerful, active agents, which underestimates the power of media conglomerates + the forces of global capitalism to shape popular culture, tastes + identities
14
Q
outline the strengths of Van Zoonen (Feminist theory)
A
- is applicable to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs, esp representations of gender
- can be used to apply the concept of patriarchy to the ownership + control of TV, the recruitment + ethos of TV professionals, and the representation of gender in LFTVDs, esp the representation of W’s bodies
15
Q
outline the limitations of Van Zoonen (Feminist theory)
A
- in prioritising gender inequalities, the theory doesn’t aid analysis of other forms of inequality in representations in LFTVDs
- doesn’t explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it is a general theory of patriarchy
16
outline the strengths of bell hooks (Feminist theory)
- can be applied to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs, esp representations of gender
- applicable to intersectionality to misrepresentations + stereotypes based on one or more of gender, race, class, and sexuality, + their interrelationship in any LFTVD representations
17
outline the limitations of bell hooks (Feminist theory)
- does not explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it is a general theory of patriarchy
- in prioritising gender linked to other inequalities, the theory may overlook similarities or equalities in representations of LFTVDs
18
outline the strengths of the Butler (Theories of gender performativity)
- can be applied to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs, esp representations of gender
19
outline the limitations of the Butler (Theories of gender performativity)
- doesn't explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it is a high level theory of gender
- is unfalsifiable - it can't be proven false or true
20
outline the strengths of Gilroy (Postcolonial theory)
- applicable to any media product, e.g. LFTVDs, esp representations of race, ethnicity, and the postcolonial and post-slavery world
- draws attention to the continuing role of racism/ superiority of White Western culture across a range of representations in LFTVDs
21
outline the limitations of Gilroy (Postcolonial theory)
- does not explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it is a general theory
- in prioritising race + the postcolonial experience, the theory may not aid analysis of other forms of inequality in representations in LFTVDs
22
outline the strengths of Curran + Seaton (Power and Media Industries)
- applies esp to the international dominance of US TV products + US streaming services distributing many LFTVDs
- studying TV as an industry draws attention to issues, e.g. forms + effects of ownership and control, the working practices of creators, and issues of risk and profitability
23
outline the strengths of Barthes (Semiology)
- can be applied to any sign, including language and image to tease out connotations and ideology
- useful for 'micro' analysis of media language
24
outline the limitations of Curran + Seaton (Power and Media Industries)
- in prioritising the effects of ownership + control on the content of LFTVDs, this theory doesn't help in understanding how ideologies, audience choice or media language conventions determines media content
24
outline the strengths of Neale (Genre theory)
- was developed to explain film genre, but can be applied to LFTVD as this is the most filmic form of TV output, requiring an 'intertextual replay' of pre-publicity + reviews to generate the large audience required
- draws attention to processes of difference-within-repetition (variation). and hybridity in LFTVD
- the theory of genre as 'shared code' can be applied to the LFTVD itself as a form despite the fact that these dramas range across various different genres
25
outline the limitations of Barthes (Semiology)
- doesn't explain anything specific to LFTVD as it is a general theory of signification
- less useful for analysing 'macro' media language elements, e.g. narrative, genre
- doesn't reveal anything about the ownership + control of TV + the process of mediation that leads to the narratives in TV
- doesn't explain how audiences interpret LFTVDs + give meaning to the same signs in different ways
26
outline the limitations of Neale (Genre theory)
- many LFTVD have resources to rely on, e.g. high production values, the star system, tone and exoticism, rather than genre, to market themselves, emphasising individual difference rather than generic similarity
- some LFTVD generic descriptors, e.g. 'Nordic Noir' arose after the showing of key programmes, suggesting that thus was not a 'shared code' with audience at the time.
26
outline the strengths of Structuralism (Levi Strauss)
- is applicable to any cultural product, e.g. LFTVDs
- can be used to analyse LFTVD narratives, e.g. how they set up an 'inside' + 'outside' opposition, asking the audience to identify with the inside and then in some cases (Deutschland 83) playing around with this opposition
- can be used to analyse representations + their ideological effect, by establishing which side of an opposition the narrative values
27
outline the limitations of Structuralism (Levi Strauss)
- doesn't explain anything specific to LFTVDs as it an extremely high-level of theory of culture
- doesn't tell us about the ownership + control of television or the process of mediation that leads to the narratives in LFTVDs.
- doesn't tell us how audiences interpret television + give meaning
