We are fat, old, balding... and on TV.

Middle ages, pot belly, white men has become a stereotype of television today. It is very common to be watching a popular television show, where one of the characters is a middle aged, overweight or balding male. Men that are most commonly known as; red necks, Hill billy’s, or good old fashion red blooded Americans. Richard Butsch’s studies of the media finds that throughout 50 years these male characters have been a consistent norm. That the blue color, over weight American males have become a persistent pattern in our domestic comedies.

How does this stereotype survey in our media industry? It’s unhealthy, unattractive and most times the character is offensive, so how does it survive? Butsch’s article suggests that over the years the television networks portrayed blue collar workers and supervisions in the media in an attempt to gain favour with their audience. This was a last ditch effort to gain favour as in the 1980’s their shared audiences dropped about 30% causing producers to look for ways of gaining compassion from audiences. This was a success and soon production companies were hiring teams of writers to create “Large fat white men” without repeating the shows or themes.

With the creation of the media stereotype we have become used to the popular overly obese male character. With shows like; the honeymooners, King of queens and King of the Hill we have almost come to expect that all large males are a great source of humour. Regardless of the shows questionable themes such as , drug or alcohol abuse and dysfunctional family matters.

The reality of the stereotype and its success is that over half the audiences find that they can relate to the character. Wither it be the weight, blue collar, or sarcastic lifestyle.

One thing I know for certain is that we will be seeing more of our overweight, middle aged many years to come.

And on that note.. here is some family guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mfpShhxkrA

A.Shiozaki

It’s the bottom line

Butsch’s article was interesting as it spoke to the portrayals of economic class within sitcoms. The focus of his study looks at the rational for class stereotypes and particularly the way the working class man is portrayed as what he calls the ‘Buffoon’. Examining 40 years of television sitcoms he identified two distinct types of TV families which fall in to the category of either working class or middle class. From 1946 - 1990 he found an underrepresentation of working class families/occupations i.e. Flintstones.

The working class male in such sitcoms follows a very generic character outline which paints a picture of someone who is not all that bright, lacking in responsibility and immature. This generic male character is always partnered with a wife who is grounded, smart and sensible. A more current example of this dynamic would the sitcom, Kings of Queens.

During the 1980’s there was an over representation of middle class professional characters i.e. The Cosby show. Also present was the idea of the domestic – home maker; the man as the bread-winner and the woman taking care of the home. i.e. The Simpsons, The Brady Bunch and I love Lucy. Widespread affluence was also exaggerated in TV land at this time as many sitcoms had a maid or butler for example, Mr. Belvedere and The Nanny.

Butsch & Glennon interviewed many media producers, writers and executives and he was able to conclude that the stereotypes identified were simply a ‘formula’ which developed over time. Media corporations are concerned with their bottom line and therefore stick to what they know and what has been proven successful. They are often under time restraints and find it easier to ‘type cast’ and create a ‘cookie cutter character’ which they can easily cast for. The second factor that networks have to take into account is that programming must suit advertising and the needs of the advertisers. I was not aware how much advertising controls and determines ‘regularly’ programmed sitcoms. I was conscious of advertising control for things like the super bowl or major events as it is evident how advertising and the programming are designed to work with one another. For example the super bowl caters to a male demographic so we see advertising for things like beer, cars and electronics. It was interesting to note that programming is also dictated in this way on a smaller scale for day-to-day programming. Lastly, program decisions are based on target market and/or audience; as the objective is to reach and appeal to the appropriate consumer.

There was a shift in the 90’s to more of a singles oriented shows, dysfunctional families and reality TV shows along with more culturally diverse programs. This was a shift which deviated from the regular formulas of the networks. This innovation and new style of sitcoms were introduced in an effort to boost ratings which was successful. The only thing that motivated the networks’ to be innovative was a decline in ratings. Once the networks felt confident about their ratings, they reverted back to sitcoms which fit their formula and once again resorted to ‘good old faithful’. Ultimately it seems the networks are concerned solely with making a profit which requires the least amount of time and risk.

Butsch & Glennon's study concluded that 'class' stereotypes in sitcoms were not a conscious decision but were rather; embedded in the conception process of the creator/writer and is reflective of the creator’s culture. In my opinion, the networks will continue to use their ‘formula – of the working class Buffoon’ is not a true reflection of society by any means nor are the characters depicted fairly. However; from an entertainment perspective something about the working class buffoon formula is effective. The formula works, whether we agree with the stereotypes or not it success is evident in audience ratings as well as networks bottom line. So if it's not broke, why fix it!

Lindsey Bastarache

Images of Social Class in Mass Media

Today’s reading was about images of social class in mass media. Butsch explored how social class is depicted in television programs and how the industry is organized. I will be examining three media that represent images of social class: magazines, television, and movies.

Social class in Magazines

Fashion and gossip magazines often present readers with information on people who are extremely successful. They tell readers about how much money they make and what they buy with their money. Some gossip magazines show readers the multi-million dollar homes that celebrities live in or tell readers about the vacations celebrities take. They almost always mention how much their activities cost. People magazine has a yearly issue devoted to showing the gowns worn by celebrities at the Oscar awards.

These magazines "show off" the celebrity life to the less fortunate classes. As if I need anyone showing me what I can’t afford.

Ads in magazines are often either about television shows or products that working-class people would go into debt to buy. Expensive cars, jewelry, and clothes are only a few examples of products promoted by these ads.

Social class in Television

Television shows today are often about wealthy people because, according to networks, they are what people want to watch. Sweet 16 is a program which aired on MTV about daughters of wealthy people who bring the audience along as they prepare for their big sweet 16 bash. The point of the program is to show how wealthy people can have what they want when they want it. To less fortunate classes it's like watching a fantasy come to life. When I was 16, I would have liked to be carried to my party on an elephant and receive a luxury car as a gift.

Even though a lot of working class people these days are insufficiently skilled or poor, these characters in television shows are mostly minor roles or lead roles depicted as “baffoons” (Butsch). Such shows as Married with Children is a perfect example because the lead male character is a blue-collar head of household who is shown as immature and dumb.

Social class in Movies

The opposite can also be seen in certain movies. Wealthy characters are shown as evil and greedy while the working-class characters are kind and honest.



Trading places is the story of an upper class commodities broker and a homeless street hustler who switch lives when they are unknowingly made part of an elaborate bet by two wealthy company owners. The wealthy people in the movie are seen as greedy and exploitative while the homeless man, the prostitute, and the butler are seen as noble and kind.

Both depictions of wealthy and working-class people are generally inaccurate and exaggerated to entertain the masses.

Mirella Bertossini

Stuart Hall and the Asymmetry of Encoding and Decoding

In this posting, rather than simply summarizing it, I will attempt to discuss Hall’s theory in a manner that expounds how the two aspects of communication and culture interact.

Essentially what Hall focuses on are two key aspects of the communication process: encoding and decoding. These are the steps by which information is packaged and subsequently unpackaged by each respective party in the communication process. Hall stresses these two because he states that though relatively similar factors affect both the processes encoding and decoding, the asymmetry between those factors on either end of the discourse creates noise and misinterpretation. The reasons for the asymmetry lay in the vast array of differing experiences, social situations, culture, etc. that exist between the two parties.

This is where the aspects of communication and culture come into play yet again. When we conclude, as Hall has, the reasons for commutative misunderstanding as being rooted in social and cultural differences (of course among others), we can examine how they are interrelated. Though Hall uses a large scale model to demonstrate how the asymmetry of encoding and decoding allow for the clouding of messages, I’d like explore how this asymmetry exists on a smaller scale.

We see and experience this in our everyday life, messages we send to others being misinterpreted and the frustration which stems from it. It would be quite the feat to count the instances where you thought or uttered the phrase “well, that’s not what I meant” to someone else. This is one of the few universal instances which occurs throughout all people who have lived long enough to have ever uttered a word or even made a hand motion.

Though we use language, a system which we would all unanimously agree to grasp, to communicate, we must understand that the system of symbols and sequences which we personally use to represent and conceptualize our ideas may differ from others meanings attached to the same symbols. This is crucial as if a series of symbols is encoded into a message by one individual (or party) one must not assume the universality of those symbols as decoded by the other individual.

Though it is impossible to have almighty knowledge of how every other individual will decode a message, no person is below the capacity to attempt to understand other perspectives. Attempting to grasp the semiotics and differences in encoding and decoding messages possessed by different social groups, classes, cultures, etc. inherently helps to combat the asymmetry in Hall’s model. This asymmetry doesn’t necessarily have to be across cultural or social borders but the inherent difference in language and experiences between any given cultures helps to propagate it.

Lastly, most humour and comedic content can be distilled down to the observance of a fundamental difference between the poor encoding of one message leading to the horribly misconstrued decoding of that message. I’ll leave you with this as demonstrated by the classic Abbot & Costello piece “Who’s on First.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

An Important Debate, Or Old Men Arguing Over Minute Details

As a communications student I have often asked myself why communication studies has so many extremely similar theories? Of course this is merely my opinion but nevertheless, with this weeks reading it came to my mind yet again. Is it because these details are crucial to our understanding of communications, or is it because people are seeking fame by having a better theory than those before them? I am only in my second year and so I cannot hope to comment on all the theories out there; I will, however, speak of the theory in the reading assigned this week.

At first glance the reading of Stuart Hall Encoding/ Decoding seemed like another minute detail being argued. That opinion did not last long. Unless I am gravely mistaken, the reading was emphasizing the importance of meaning within a message. Any person can make noise, but noise cannot persuade anyone. Noise cannot be used during a meeting to convince your boss to change business strategies, it cannot gain praise as a wonderful rhetoric that changes lives. Noise is just noise. In my opinion messages that are not understandable are noise. The only issue is that noise to one person may hold meaning to another.

Since I do not speak Mandarin, if I saw a novel written in Mandarin that would be considered noise to me. Although it may be one of the most profound readings that I could have ever hoped to cross paths with, it will remain noise to me. This will hold true unless I learn the language. Does that mean that now if I consider anything to be noise I should disregard it? I would not say so, not unless I didn't have the means to be able to decode it. Some noise comes in the English language, what is the excuse for that? There may be some things like math or science that I do not understand, therefore constituting noise to myself, but are still meaningful. At the same time I could be reading an illegible essay due to grammar and spelling mistakes that had no significant point to relay in the first place. By now I would hope that you are asking yourself what is the point in all that? The point is that although there may be messages which indeed hold meaning, unless the message is conveyed clearly it will lose it's meaning when being given to others. Therefore, communicating meaning is essential regardless of how intelligent or un-intelligent any given writing may be. If a communicator wishes to give a message to any audience, than the meaning must be the quintessential objective of that message.

If I wish to pursue a career in communications I must be a master at conveying meaning. This is more difficult than writing for the sake of it, or speaking without thinking. In order to truly motivate people, influence people, persuade people, disengage people, appease people, or to just get people to agree with me, I must be a master at conveying meaning. When I am a master of meaning I will be a master of communication. That is why encoding and decoding are important.

Encoding and decoding show that information is not merely being given, but is being formulated on and worked with. It is a process of creating a message and a process of understanding a message. Therefore communication is not as simple as the silver bullet theory for example, where a sender simply gives a message to a receiver. This seems easy and effortless. When two people communicate they are attempting to understand each other. Encoders are trying not to be misunderstood and decoders are attempting to understand the messages. It is a process that requires both individuals work and effort.

If the encoder lacks a decoder no communication can take place. The encoder must be willing to encode just as much as the decoder must be willing to decode. Therefore, if a teacher has a wonderful class, full of easy to understand examples, and everyone in the class understands the message, if one person decides not to pay attention then communication was not made with that individual. Of no fault to the teacher, the student decided not to pay attention to any of the well formulated encoded messages. Since the student did not take the time to decode any of the messages the student will leave having understood nothing. Cooperation, therefore, is crucial to the process of communicating. Individuals must work to make communication, it is not a job just for an encoder or a decoder. Unfortunately it is not as simple as sending a message and others receiving it. There is effort on both sides and, in my opinion, that was an important detail to bring to debate.

Daniel Innocent

Encoding/Decoding

Messages are constantly being sent and received, but it is how those messages are understood and interpreted by people that determine their overall effectiveness.

This week’s reading focuses on Stuart Hall’s theory of Encoding/Decoding. An encoder is someone who is delivering a message (in the example used, a television producer), while the decoder is the person receiving the message (audience). Hall discusses how the goal of a television producer is to make their audience understand and interpret what they are saying in the way it was meant to be delivered.

Hall mentions linguistic theory and how miscommunication can exist when a message is being encoded due to the “denotative” and “connotative” meanings associated with words and signs. “Denotative” refers to a widely associated literal meaning of something, while “connotative” refers to individual (non-fixed) interpretations and associations to something’s meaning. The example used in the article (Barthes example) was that the sweater always signifies a “warm garment” (denotation) which allows people to keep warm. However, in a more connotative meaning it could signify “the coming of winter” or “a cold day”, if put in fashionable outlook it could symbolize an “informal style of dress”, while if put in a romantic outlook it could refer to a “long autumn walk in the woods”.

Denotation and connotation have a profound impact on the way messages are decoded by an audience. Television is a denotative thing but its messages can be very connotative which causes misinterpretation by audiences.




Hall explains that there are three hypothetical positions of which decoders of a television broadcast can interpret an encoding. They are as follows:


1. Dominant-hegemonic position: When a viewer takes the connoted meaning from something like a television newscast or current affairs program full and straight, and decodes the message in the way it was encoded (viewer is operating inside the dominant code). Basically the message is understood as it was meant to be.

2. Negotiated code or position: The majority of the audience probably understands what is being encoded by the television show however it contains a bit of adaptive and oppositional elements. Basically people understand what is being said but have some opposition or miscommunication intertwined in the message they have received.

3. Oppositional code: The viewer takes the message and completely reconstructs it into an alternative framework of reference. Basically the viewer listens to the message but doesn’t understand or chooses not to interpret the message the way it was meant to be decoded, while making up something completely different.

Everyone has different interpretations, beliefs and biases that influence the way they think and relay messages to others. The examples used in Hall’s theory of encoding/decoding focus on television but I believe this theory could also be applied to everyday communication between people, advertisements or any other way messages are sent and received.


- Cody Reed

The Panopticon of Communications Technologies

We are always being watched, but we never know when that is.

The Panopticon is a type of prison allowing an observer to observe prisoners without them being able to tell whether they are being watched. This method works very well because the prisoners are always worried about being watched, even if nobody is at all. The use of the Citizen's Band radio is a great example of how the concept of the Panopticon can be used in more ways than just watching prisoners.



The CB is a system of short-distance radio communications between individuals. It was a great way for truckers, policeman and citizens alike to share information with each other over a distance. At first everyone glorified the CB as the "communications medium of the silent majority, who were now given the opportunity to speak their mind" (Parker). People were now able to have a two-way method of commuication where they weren't just the listeners. They could respond and share their opinions. It gave the power back to the people to create their own culture. CB's were also easy to access because they had relatively low prices, and were free once you bought the system.

Although the CB was a great tool for communications, it was also used negatively by individuals. There were certain regulations that were placed on the CB: firstly, there were 23 channels, and only 10-15 and 23 were open for those communications under the same license; second, conversations were not allowed to be longer than 5 minutes; third, there was no chit chatting, you could only communicate vital information. Many people abused these regulations and even went further as to use the CB illegally. Truckers would use the CB to communicate with each other on where they can avoid policeman so that they could break speed limits. Also, even citizens could use the CB to send the police false information. The FCC had to step in to create new regulations on the CB to try and stop all the illegal actions. They created fines against CB abusers, and also introduced an automatic transmitter regulation system that would send out a signal identifying the sender of each transmission. Now people were being surveyed, and every transmission was being watched. The transmitters could not tell that people were watching them, or even if every transmission was being watched. People had to be careful because they knew that there could be a chance of them being caught.

Here is a video example of how the CB regulations were put into effect:



Although the CB is a great communications tool that people could use as their voice in society, it just became a place where people's free speech was being masked by a constant big brother watching over to make sure that they didn't break the rules. By taking part in CB communications, "citizens were given the freedom to ensure their own participation in the very same surveillance network used to monitor them" (Parker). If people want to use the CB, then they have to know that they are going to be watched, even if they do not know when.

- Chelsea Schonberg