Meaning Behind Passages and Audiences' Interpretation of Media Content

Part One
One of the readings you were asked to do for this exercise - the one by Vidmar and Rokeach - is an early and still very famous study that looked at entertainment media with a political twist. Despite being several decades old, it illustrates selective perception of media issue quite well. Their study centers on a sit-com called All in the Family. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time. If you watch it today, it can still seems a bit edgy. It centered on a working class man named Archie Bunker, who lives with his wife (Edith), his daughter (Gloria), and son-in-law (Mike). Archie was hardworking and loved his family. However, he was also a racist and an outspoken bigot. He made frequent use of racial slurs. His views contrasted with those of his more liberal daughter and son-in-law, who consistently object to Archie’s comments and his behavior. Much of the show deals with the arguments and conflicts between Archie and Mike. The show was groundbreaking for its time in that it dealt directly with race, which was something that situation comedies had tended to avoid before this, and typically still avoid. (Episodes of the show can be streamed legally and for free on Crackle. Please note, however, that ethnic and racial slurs are plentiful.) It was also very popular.
• The producer, Norman Lear, sincerely felt that the program could serve as a means of reducing prejudice. He saw Archie as a humorous character, one that was laughed at and corrected by his more liberal son-in-law. He felt the show represented a way to correct or moderate audiences’ racist beliefs. He saw airing and refuting Archie’s racist beliefs on TV as a way to begin to address these issues and change the perspectives of those that might agree with Archie.
• Others objected to the program on the grounds that portraying someone who expressed these beliefs so adamantly on television, and what’s more portrayed them through a fairly sympathetic character, only served to validate them. It make them seem more socially tolerated or acceptable and, thus, more likely to stay around longer.
Vidmar and Rokeach studied the show during its initial run in the 1970s. They advanced the rather novel idea (at the time), that the program might do both. Vidmar and Rokeach argued that the same show might affect different parts of the audience in different ways. They felt that viewers would tend to make sense of the shows in ways that supported their own beliefs, so that two different audience members with contradictory beliefs could both see the show as supporting and reinforcing their own perspectives.
• They predicted that non-prejudiced and minority viewers, would perceive the show as a satire. They would think the show is making fun of the bigoted character, and enjoy the show becasue it matched their own beliefs.
• However, they thought that prejudiced viewers whose views aligned with Archie's might perceive the show as supporting Archie. They researchers thought these viewers might also find the show pleasurable because it seems to match their own beliefs.
And so, Vidmar and Rokeach suggested that one of the reasons the program was popular was that it was perceived or interpreted differently by different audience members. It allowed enough “room” for both interpretations, and thus got a wider audience. The show could be liked by both prejudiced and non-prejudiced viewers because each group was able to perceive something in the show that matched their own belief system. The article describes their test of this prediction.
The second reading, by Janice Radway, describes a qualitative research study on how audiences use a particular type of media content, romance novels. Unlike a lot of the research we’ve considered so far, this work doesn’t make use of surveys or experiments. Instead, it relies on methods such as in-depth interviews or participant observation. They focus on how audiences actively take media and apply it to their own lives. This work is a bit different in another way as well. A lot of work on active audiences deals with how audiences vary in their interpretations of media - what they see as its meaning. Radway is a bit different in that she focuses on the function that reading plays for the people that she studied. One key part of the reading is a section where she asks one of her informants what romance novels "do" well. She was expecting an answer that dealt with the literary attributes of the stories - something like character development or plotting. That isn't what she heard. That interchange changed her viewpoints on the subject.
You’re asked to select and post a unique passage from each of the readings– Radway’s “Interpretive Communities and Variable Literacies” and Vidmar and Rokeach's "Archie Bunker's Bigotry."
1. First, please select a passage (up to about 3 sentences) from “Archie Bunker's Bigotry” that you see as particularly interesting or thought provoking. (This doesn’t necessarily mean that you completely agree with it.) Please copy and paste it from the given article (should be exact from article- would you mind send those copied sentences at the beginning - I need to approve from my professor), and then paraphrase it in your own words. That is, explain what you think the author meant in non-academic language. Your quote should be unique. That is, you cannot post a passage that a classmate has already posted. Follow up your indication of your "key point" with a follow up question.
2. Then, please select a passage (up to about 3 sentences) from “Interpretive Communities and Variable Literacies” that you see as particularly interesting or thought provoking. Again, copy and paste the passage to the discussion board, and then paraphrase it in your own words. Again, your quote should be unique. Follow up your indication of your "key point" with a follow up question.
Part two:
2. These article and the media they describe are quite old. Can you think of current media content works like Vidmar and Rokeach though Archie Bunker worked - that is, something that is popular among audiences who are different because they interpret it in different ways? If so, please identify and explain your more current example? If you can't think of an example, why do you think this kind of "polysemantic" media might be less common now than it was in the 70s? Please explain your answer.
3. Finally, Radway argues that one of the reasons that the women she studied enjoyed romance novels was the function that they filled for them. They saw it as a means of establishing a bit of independence by staking out some time in their day to do something that they found found relaxing and rewarding. They saw the act of reading as meaningful. Please describe any other examples of how people use media in the context of their daily lives might contribute to the gratifications it has for the audience.
to the writer:
Hi,
Can you please send those copied sentences for part 1 questions( 1 and 2)? I have to approve it with my professor and I will reply to you within a minute if those sentences were okay.