When the viewer sees the meaning however, the process of reading come into play. As already mentioned the approach treats the audience as a mass of individuals and recognises that each individual brings their own experiences and opinions to bear when they read the text. Therefore it is possible, the approach says for the viewer to take their own meaning from the text, a meaning which was not necessarily intended by the producers. For the sake of ease, this is broken down into three main reading possibilities. The dominant reading – taking the meaning that was intended by the producer, the negotiated meaning – taking some of the message intended by the producer and the oppositional meaning – taking the exact opposite of the meaning intended by the producer. For example then, a New Labour supporter could watch a hypothetical Labour party political broadcast for the next election and the dominant reading would be taken from it, an old labour supporter would take the negotiated meaning and a staunch Conservative would take the oppositional.
The second facet of the Uses and Gratifications approach is that it acknowledges that different people watch different kinds of programmes for very different reasons. Soap operas for example are watched in different ways to the main nightly news bulletin and therefore the way in which the audience interacts with that piece of media is going to be different. The approach explores the needs which an audience member gratifies with each piece of media which they use. For example, watching a game show which awards large prizes and luxury items, could gratify the persons need for luxury within their life which isn’t satisfied by their day-to-day living. This kind of viewing does not require the viewer to concentrate particularly hard as generally a game show format is the same every episode.
However, somebody watching the news with the purpose of keeping abreast of world news will have to watch far more avidly so that they take in what is being presented to them. With this kind of viewing the type of reading also becomes an issue, there is no point in keeping abreast of the happenings in the world, unless you have an opinion on them, this opinion will be affected by the reading of the each news item and vice versa.
Blumler and Katz (O’Sullivan et al, 1998, 230) concluded that audience’s fulfilment of needs came within the broad generalisation of four desires. Diversion – a form of escape or emotional release from everyday pressures, for example watching a soap opera to see other peoples problems rather that your own. Personal Relationships – companionship via television personalities and characters as well as sociability through discussion about television with other people, ie. having something to talk about at work the next day. Personal Identity – the ability to compare one’s life with characters and situations within programmes, and hence explore personal problems and perspectives, this gives the viewer information about how the society in which they live works and helps to re-enforce the prevalent cultural norms. Surveillance – a supply of information about what is going on in the world, this would include the example mentioned above about watching the news. “Most people who used quiz programmes…to give themselves a personal statues which their social life did not” (Fiske, 1987, 151)
One of the main shortcomings of Uses and Gratifications theory is the way in which empirical information is collected. The usual method of research was to conduct interviews or to give the participants questionnaires. This presents problems, one of which is whether or not the participant when asked why they watched a particular programme and what they gained from doing so whether or not they could pin down exactly why they did so, and even if an audience member can come up with a legitimate reason other than ‘I enjoyed it’ there is no guarantee that this answer is actually correct in a psychological sense. For example, it would be relatively easy for someone to say that they watch soap operas because it means they can relate to the characters and get a sense of friendship from the imagined interaction they have with them on a nightly basis, however, the actual reasons could go deeper than this, and it would be very difficult to pin down what those reasons actually are. This limits the approach in that it gives a slanted view of audience motives, giving the answers that the participant wants heard rather than the deep seated reasons which the participant is either unaware of or uncomfortable with.
A further criticism of the approach is that it is too psychological, in that it focuses on the choices of the individual and their response to the media without taking into account wider social context. A psychologist would argue that the reasons a person chose to watch a programme came from within them, whereas a sociologist would say that the reasons emanated from society as a whole. The Uses and Gratifications approach did not have enough of a balance between these two disciplines. This is detrimental to the standing of the approach as it means that any sociological meaning is completely lost and that influence society has on the individual and the choices made are not taken into account. The view of the audience is of atomised individuals.
Another problem, which the Uses and Gratifications approach has, is that it did not take into account audience in-attentiveness. The approach would dictate that when someone is watching the television their attention is focused on that piece of media and that they are actively engaging with it. This is similar to the earlier functionalist hypodermic needle model that saw the audience as tuning into the television at the absolute detriment to everything else going on around them. This means that the place which media holds within society is lost, again this refers to the psychological rather than sociological aspect being studied. What does the turning on of the television at a certain time of day mean? This question remains un-answered with the Uses and Gratifications approach. The context in which the television is watched also remains dis-regarded, whether the television is watched in solitude or as a group and the way in which the group behaves whilst the television is on. Again, the individual is the subject of study.
Furthermore, the Uses and Gratifications approach ignores the fact that television viewing can be an end in itself. Someone coming in from work may be tired and want to unwind by watching the television. In this way there is not a clear pre-determined decision to watch a certain kind of programme, a selection is made from what’s available. This criticism ties into the earlier point about active engagement. The tired worker wanting to unwind will not necessarily engage with the television regardless of what is on, be it an in depth news report or a disposable soap opera, the action of watching the television itself is the only motivation and the approach does not look at the reasons for this, rather the choices made once the set is turned on.
Building from the shortcomings of the Uses and Gratifications model is the so-called third paradigm of audience research the Spectacle/Performance model. This tries to look at media consumption taking into account the post-modern media saturated environment in which we live. It is impossible to determine the effect of every single piece of media we are exposed to. There are billboards when we travel, television screens and music in shops, and it is common to have either the television or the radio on as background ‘noise’. “…television as an object to demonstrate it’s inertness and passivity” (McCarthy, 2001, 117)
This approach addresses the shortcomings of Uses and Grats in that it looks at the place media holds within society, rather than just the choices the audience makes. This approach views the audience as diffused, in that their media consumption may be taking place at the same time as other activities. This approach also acknowledges that not only do people use the media, they also interact with it, taking into account the new possibilities available with the internet and digital television. It is now possible to interact with a television programme (telephone votes, emails etc).
Furthermore, in the re-using and re-cycling of media it is possible to make new meanings from media messages or to dis-regard them completely. Uses and Gratifications in sticking to the tradition of audience attentiveness did not take this into account, if the television or radio was on and people were present, then, as far as it was concerned they were actively taking meaning from this.
