674da32071 This is the dominant attitude toward television. This means that a person recognizes that their meaning is not the dominant meaning, or what was intended, but alters the message in their mind to fit an "alternative framework of reference"[12] Thus, readers' or viewers social situation has placed them in a directly oppositional relationship to the dominant code, and although they understand the intended meaning they do not share the text's code and end up rejecting it. I did, however, discover a number of other insistent concerns and began to suspect that it was the very formulation of these other concerns, their mode of order of appearance, that could largely explain the absence of material related to my own interests. It requires no particular precautions and no special knowledge before one can talk about it. My Account. Everyone probably shares some of it, especially social scientists who must sometimes wonder about the status of their object and hence the worthiness of their work. (2011, May 25th). The absence of sitcoms in television writing might then simply be the structural effect of the institution.
p. Lastly, there is the oppositional position or code. The constitution of television, first and foremost, as a technology, happens then within the context of certain epistemo-ideological interests and is the product of those interests or positions. I found little, and what little I did find tended to be unflinchingly judgmental and hence based on unspoken presuppositions about art, quality, and cognition, as though that were the only obvious, natural, or somehow necessary position to adopt. Television did mimic and borrow but important differences distinguish it. Written by Stuart Hall p. Play. Ultimately, the only intriguing thing about effects [End Page 10] studies is why they fastened so swiftly and unhesitatingly on the twin themes of violence and sex.
Kelgal replied
465 weeks ago