Stuart Hall in Encoding/Decoding explains the process of mass communication in terms of production, circulation and reception. He describes it as a "continuous circuit". Within the production process a message is created or "encoded". The viewer decodes the message. "Meaningful" discourse occurs at the junction of encoding and decoding. Institutions, personal experience, and ideologies effect both the creation of the message and how the message is received. He says the production process is
" . . . framed throughout with meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, historically defined technical skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumptions about the audience and so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production structure."This statement made me think about how production techniques influence the way televisions producers create a message. One thing I thought of was how all television production used to be tape-based. Its obvious that tape carries video and audio information. But it also has other types of information, control track and professional tape has time code. Time code is a data stream laid onto tape that assigns a specific time to each frame of video. This data allows a computer controlled editor to access a specific frame, allowing frame-accurate edit decisions to be made. In other words time code "translates" the information on the tape to a "language" that computers (and people) can understand and implement universally. For videotape editors, time code is the life blood, and tapes with breaks in time code can ruin their day. They may choose to omit a shot or soundbite if it doesn't have time code in favor of one that has. So, from one of the initial moments in the production process, a "code" is required to create the message and can influence the message. The production process constantly influences the content of a local newscast. The availability of a cameraman or reporter, a broken microphone, or fantastic video can all determine whether a story airs on a newscast. All of these factors effect the encoding of the message.
In new media the production process also effects the message and once again a code exists at its genesis. The very choice of a certain code (flash, html, java ...) impacts the message. The content of a web page is often determined by bandwidth, browser compatibility, screen resolution, or the limitations and preferences of the user's computer. A programmer may avoid using a flash animation, or large graphic files so that more internet users can view her page.
Another idea that really stood out for me is Hall's discussion of visual language and code in television. He says "The televisual sign is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combination of two types of discourse, visual and aural." He adds that it is also iconic since tv uses a two-dimensional screen to translate the three-dimensional world. The newscast seem to be a perfect storm where these three forms meet. While the anchor or reporter reads a story, there is a constant visual reinforcement with video or graphics. I find the graphics particularly interesting because they are an explicit example of iconic language yet they seem to be invisible to the casual viewer.
Here's an example of a typical OTS (over-the-shoulder). Without text or audio its easy to discern that the story is about school violence.
Or that this one is about hospitals.
Even when using text there is a certain amount of "encoding" to further the meaning.
Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are like a Russian nesting doll of visual language as they use the overall format of a newscast down to the graphics to create "fake" news. Internet sites like The Onion also use the visual language of a regular news site for comedic effects. These forms assume the receiver of the message is already versed in their particular visual language, and will interpret the message within the "dominant code".
As the number of media outlets multiplies, and the language becomes more and more complex, its amazing that the viewers still manage to decode the message the encoders are trying to send.
Coming from a very short background with print, I can certainly agree that not everything is easy to decode in media. I seem to recall an example in a design book that placed an image between two completely different stories without separation, making more visually challenging to identify what this image was associated with. I think it is getting a little better, though; column jumps make a whole lot more sense to me in today's papers than in papers from the 1800s. It would be interesting to get perspective from someone who had never seen television or from someone who was accustomed to papers with no set columns.
ReplyDeleteThat was a good post and the images were the perfect example! Why even have those shoulder images? They're purely iconic and even use traffic signs in their design (school, hospital). Do we need that? Are we so dumb that we need to be shown a traffic sign of a school crossing to understand that the anchor is talking about schools? **sigh**
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I completely agree that it's a wonder that anyone can "decode" the news today. With all the images juxtaposed on one screen, it's often hard enough delineating between what the anchor/reporter is talking about and all the other information offered up. One thing to keep in mind is that television stations still use tape. It seems old-school, but that's what they use.
ReplyDelete(@ EMChartreuse) Back in my undergraduate days, I spent a summer interning in the graphics department of a Las Vegas TV station. A fair amount of my time was spent helping pick out appropriate over-the-shoulder graphics and I have to say that they're pretty pivotal to a newscast. The idea isn't to dumb-down the broadcast, but to make it accessible to the hearing-impaired and/or people who may be watching the news "on mute." :-)
Your observations about TV news graphics are helpful. The visual image needs to reinforce the spoken word. I know that when I select graphics to visually illustrate what I am saying that I have to make sure that the image goes along with rather than contradicts or sensationalizes what I am saying. I am reminded of Don Henley’s song “Dirty Laundry.”
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing the production process into light; it makes sense that a lot of decisions happen not because of the newsworthiness, but due to technical issues or production value. Not that this is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI loved your Russian nesting doll analogy of fake news sites. It is interesting how satire gets closer to the real news than the "real" news. You would think that this would be more difficult to decode, however, it seems more transparent for some reason for the very reason that it is not attempting to be sincere in the first place. Nice post!
I agree that there is entirely too much information to be decoded in news broadcasts. It becomes visual overload, and I'm usually so busy trying to absorb the pictures, broadcaster, and scrolling text, that I don't even hear the story. Maybe that's why they have so many visuals?
ReplyDeleteOne of the dumbest bits of encoding I've seen is the new trend in having someone Live On The Scene, even if the action occurred hours ago. They're trying to convey "We're Live! We're There! We're On The Go!"
ReplyDeleteBut when someone is shivering in the dark saying "Bob, it looks quiet now, but four hours ago this school district building was the scene of a Major Debate!"
I decode this as "The station is desperate for ratings, and I'll do anything for a paycheck these days."
BTW,
ReplyDeleteLOVE this post's title!