Difference between Objective and Interpretive Approaches to the Study of Communication - Assignment Example

Exam: Communication Studies Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Describe the difference between objective/positivist and interpretive approaches to the study of communication and identify the standards of good objective/positivist and good interpretive approaches. The interpretive approach is among the many approaches to the study of communication. The approach is based on the notions of language and communications that are different from the traditional attitudes of communication. The strategy has a speaker-oriented approach to an act of conversing focusing on the speaker’s use of lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistics and other knowledge of language in production and interpretation of messages. The main analysis of the approach is connected with internal structures and the mechanisms of language. In this approach a lot of views can be understood from a certain conversation; if one says something that is not morally compatible with the norms of our society then the reaction from the audience will depict the fact that the speaker is out of place despite the reasons as to why the speaker uttered as he/she did. The concept of interpretive approach therefore focuses on such difference and tries to bring an understanding as to why such methods of communication are used (Inoue, 2006; Beck, Bennet & Wall, 2005; Baran &Davis, 2009). Objective/positivist approach simply introduces a realistic point of view. It states that cultural attitudes and beliefs should influence our modes of communication and that culture defines how we think, behave and communicate with one another (Jiang, 2006). The approach is scientific and presumes that individuals might try to reduce vagueness in their first meeting with people from different cultural backgrounds by intentionally predicting their attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviour, as well as contemplating explanations about the behaviours of others (Jiang, 2006). The difference between the two approaches is therefore in the way they look at communication; one looks at it from a scientific point of view and the other tends to take a more natural outlook into the study of communication (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995, Williams, 2003; McQuail, 2010). The standard of good interpretive approach to the study of communication should be the unification of the concepts behind the understanding of a particular message. Communication depicts the understanding of a particular message regardless of cultural or educational back grounds. The same applies to the positivist/objective approach. Through observation, we should be able to understand why people communicate as they do. This creates a link between the two approaches in the study of communication. What is meant by ‘commodification of audiences’ and ‘audience labour’ and how do these concepts fit in the overall theoretical framework of the political economy of communications? According to Mosco (2009), commodification is the process of changing something valued for its usage into a product that can generate income. A good example is the transforming of a novel or story into a motion picture so that people can enjoy the product on a different level of visualization Therefore, how does such a commodity become a product produced for the purposes of generating income? The said product goes through spatialisation, a process through which mass media and technology overcome the constraints of geographical space. A good example is the television; it transmits a lot of information through great distances to reach a desired audience. Through this process a lot of technicalities are avoided as the same information is turned into a signal that can be transmitted over great distance to reach the audience. The commodification of audiences therefore falls under the same processes. The relationship between the media and the audience is based on the availability of information that is considered valuable by both. It is therefore imperative for this to continue in order for the media to continue existing (Mosco, 2009). The role of the media in this case is to ensure that the audience has access to information that they deem valuable. This varies because different people prefer different things but also this works to the advantage of the media. Preference is key in this situation. Hence, the media, through a number of processes, ensures that all this information is available through a number of mediums. The result is that the audience becomes a commodity. As described above, commodification is the transforming of something of value into a product that can generate exchange; in this case the transformation occurs at the level of the audience. The media transforms the audience into a product that various companies will want to reach in order to advertise or make aware the variety of products available in the market. In this case the media entices the audience by availing information through the various mediums - in effect transforming the audience into a commodity that the advertisers will buy from the media in order to put information about their product within reach of the audience (Louw, 2001). Audience labour is the situation in which the audience is used to generate specific information that the media can use to ensure that the content they produce for the masses is still fresh and viable. For example, the music played in music shows largely depends on the preference of the audience. Because of this preference then the media is obligated to produce certain type of music that will entice the audience to watch the television or to listen to the radio (Glass, 2006). Are the ‘five filters’ of Hermann/Chomsky ‘propaganda model’ still relevant in times of the internet? The propaganda model states that the media is influenced by the market. Secondly, that the media is profit minded - it has neglected its role of ensuring that the society is informed on issues that matter because it is largely owned by the wealthy in our society who in most cases hold high offices within the same society (Hermann 1996). The media according to the model is therefore a tool used by the said owners to spread lies and other false information to defame others. A good exemplar is the role the western media played in defaming communism before and during the cold war. The five filters of the model include the ownership of the medium meaning that the media can be used in a biased way. The media in this case as mentioned above will tend to fall greatly under the influence of the owners; this goes against the concept of a free media. Second is the funding of the media houses. Funding is fundamental within any organization. The media is in most cases funded by advertisers whose main target is the market. They are therefore less concerned with the proper functioning of the media. The third filter is about the source of information for the media. According to the propaganda model, the sources of information for the media are mainly the government and major business firms. These sources are therefore sufficiently capable of influencing the information the media publishes; they inhibit the freedoms of the media in trying to inform the society. They can also coerce the media into publishing or broadcasting certain information that only benefits them. The forth filter is what has been described as flak. These are mainly negative responses to the media and may come in the form of lawsuits by the major stakeholders in the society, that is, the government and the large and influential businesses. The other form is the control over media houses, for example the government can decide to withdraw a media house’s license because of a certain publication that criticizes the government. Fifth is the anti communist ideology. The basis of this anticommunist ideology was the cold war. The western government could use the media to instigate fear and anxiety against the communist ideology, thereby generating the necessary public support for the government anticommunist activities. This was popular during the cold war (Brady, 2008; Louw 2010). The propaganda model therefore cannot work in the internet era because of a number of reasons. First is that the internet is mainly driven by the same audiences that the said forces could try to influence. This means that the information generated through the internet cannot be filtered as it would when it came from the media houses. The rules that govern media houses do not govern the internet. Second, there are clear rules that govern the use of the internet. Governments have failed in trying to control the use of the internet. Third, the cold war ended; this effectively meant that the anticommunist ideology came to an end. Are ‘fake news’ (as Jon Stewart and his co producers label their work) better news? Discuss. Fake news can be described as the satirical side of news. It takes news broadcasting to another level that stripes the seriousness out of the news and introduces a laugh into the broadcasting of news. The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart is a good example of fake news; he criticizes various institutions within the American society using humour. The question therefore is whether this form of news broadcast is better compared to the traditional methods. Looking at the target audience for the news then it is true to say that many people don’t watch news because it is ‘boring’. Very few people appreciate the traditional form of news broadcasting though it still holds a significant part in our society. News with a touch of satire still functions in the same way as the traditional news broadcasting but it also manages to make the audience laugh. Whether this makes the news better is arguable but it definitely gets a lot more people to watch and listen to the news. If this is the case then it is definitely better (Perrucci & Wysong 2008). Many people have come forward to criticize this notion. Their argument is based on the fact that more and more young people are not watching news or getting news through the traditional sources. Their criticism is fuelled by the idea that many young people are lazy and that they have a poor reading culture. This I must say is quite misinformed. Fake news has taken precedence over real news because of the nature of news itself. The fact is that news tends to be repetitive and boring. The news can be defined as lifeless and at times disjointed from the real life scenario. This is what fake news has introduced in effect and has managed to capture the young audience as it is. As said above, fake news is characterized by satire; the comical effect is indeed entertaining. But on the other hand, it still tackles the real issues affecting our society and that is why it is still called fake news. The issues covered are not less in information affecting us as human beings; the seriousness is still there in the message (Jones, 2009). The comic effect is therefore good to enable young people watch and understand issues. Fake news explains things in a way that young people can understand. References Baran, S. J. & Davis, D.K. (2009). Mass Communication Theory. Foundations, Ferment and Future (5th edition). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage. Beck A, Bennett P, & Wall P. (2005). AS Communication Studies: The Essential Introduction. New York: Routledge. Brady Anne-Marie. (2008). Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Glass, G. (2006). Audience Labour: The Asymmetric Production of Culture. Retrieved 22 June 2010, from http://www.geof.net/research/2006/audience-labor. Hermann, E. S. (1996). The Propaganda Model Revisited. Monthly Review. Retrieved 21 June 2010, from http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm. Inoue, I. (2006). The Interpretive Approach Revisited: Towards an Integrated Framework Interactional Sociolinguistics and Intercultural Communication. Jiang, X. (2006). Towards Intercultural Communication: From Micro to Macro Perspectives. Guangzhou: Guangzhou University Press. Jones, J. (2009). Common Culture: Reading and Writing about American Popular Culture (6th edition). NJ: Prentice Hall Press. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1995). Social Approaches to Communication. New York: Guilford Press. Louw, E. (2001). The Media and Cultural Production. London: Thousand Oaks. Louw, E. (2010). The Media & Political Process (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications. McQuail, D. (2010) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (6th edition). London: Sage. Mosco, V. (2009). The Political Economy of Communication. London: Sage Publications. Perrucci R. & Wysong, E. (2008). The New Class Society: Goodbye American Dream? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Williams, K. (2003). Understanding Media Theory. London: Oxford University Press. Read More