Decoding and Encoded 'Reality'

This week we are looking at Decoding and encoded 'Reality' in relation to Media discourse and Analysis. There are a five key points to take into consideration when it comes to decoding media content in order to figure out why a message was encoded in the first place.

1. Who created the message? i.e what paper, TV channel, journalist, reporter wrote the article. McQuail argues is not objective or impartial rather it is a socially manufactured product  because it is the end result of a selection Process, in which gatekeepers such as editors, journalists and even sometimes proprietors, make choices about what events are important enough to cover and equally important how to cover them.
2. What Creative techniques are used to attract my attention? i.e is there sound or intro music that sets the tone. A video montage at the start of a football match for example might set the stage for a 'heroic' comeback. Colour, Camera and Sound are very important when it comes to attracting the viewers attention. 
3. How might different people understand this message 'differently' than me? i.e If a Liverpool Fan agreed with what John Aldridge had to say in an article about a Liverpool v ManU match, the United fan would be likely to have a difference of opinion. John Aldridge, being an ex-Liverpool player, is known to be biased towards the team he also supported as a boy. However if somebody who disliked football gave out about how boring the article was, then both football fans would have similar ground to agree upon, in-turn disagreeing with the non-football fan.
4. What values, Lifestyles and POV are represented in, or omitted from, this message? i.e Has the publisher of the Televised Interview chose to re-edit/cut out certain sections of an interview to ensure the interviewee fits his/her perceived image. Mainstream beliefs sell. Alternative theories are seen as risky and publishers/broadcasters may chose not to air them because of this. That said Don't assume alternatives are true either. I.E Michael Moore's documentary 'Bowling for Columbine' contained manipulation of interviews and Moore gained accessed to the interviewee, Charlton Heston, under false pretense.
5. Why is this message being sent? 
   Lets consider the "Renting Eye Balls" Theory: The reason behind putting programmes on TV (commercial) and articles in a magazine is to create an audience (and put them in a receptive mood) so that the network or publisher can sell time or space to a sponsor.
   i.e if a news station has had a particularly slow day for news, they might edit an interview to sensationalise a news item. This is more likely to generate a bigger audience which in turn will lead to revenue for advertisement. News values determine newsworthiness. A story may not be always considered as 'real' but the meanings we take from them has a real impact.

Briefly just to add some important points to our 5 key considerations.

One way of helping us to decode an encoded 'reality' is to look at syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. To help understand Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, let us imagine they are positioned on an X and Y axis Graph. 

If the syntagmatic relation was the X axis of a graph, then the Paradigmatic would be the Y axis of this imaginary graph. Syntagmatic is the construction of meaning arrived at the completion of a sentence The Paradigmatic is seen as a substitution of a word. So if a word in the constructed syntagmatic is changed, or substituted by the Paradigmatic, then the Syntagmatic will take on new meaning. Where the X and Y graph intersects can be likened to the relations between Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic. An example of this would be how Michael Collins was reported as a 'Freedom Fighter' in the Irish Media whereas he was known as a 'terrorist' by English media during the Irish war of independence. The paradigmatic substitute of 'Freedom Fighter' for 'Terrorist' changes the Syntagmatic meaning.

Finally Let us consider the Reference to elite nations: McLurg's Law:

1 dead Briton = 5 dead French = 20 dead egyptians = 500 dead Indians = 1000 dead Chinese People. The idea behind this is that a dead Briton is as much breaking news in the UK Media as the deaths of 1000 Chinese people would be. The news is more personal if people can relate to it. British people will be interested in the sad news that 'one of their own' has died, whereas the death of a China man/woman is less likely to attract interest. The opposite could be said for news Story being reported in China.