According to reception theory, ‘the media attempts to transmit specific messages to audiences, but
audiences are free to interpret these messages in a variety of ways – or even reject them’.
How valid are reception theory’s claims about audience responses? (25 Marks)
One of reception theory’s claims about audience responses is that audiences are free to create meaning
out of material which has been encoded by the producer. Stuart Hall underpinned his work on Saussurian
semiotics, which treats words and images as part of a system of meaning generation. Evidence of this sort
of framework for encoding meaning can be seen on the front covers of the two magazine products.
Men’s health clearly utilises a colour palette which is designed to be both masculine and promote ideas of
health – blue for medicine and black and grey for masculinity whereas the hand-written typeface of Oh
Comely is designed to promote thoughts concerning craft and individuality. Given that reception theory
coincides with semiotic theory, it would seem that reception theory’s claims are extremely valid when
considering the encoding of information. Given also that both magazines seem to have niche audiences
(men who think physicality is important to their masculinity and women who are creative and want to read
about a wide variety of people – Des Tan, who co-founded the magazine calls it “a magazine about people”
– respectively) it would seem unlikely for producers not to “attempt to transmit specific messages to
audiences,” and wider consideration of related media industries, such as advertising, would also seem to
uphold reception theory’s claim.
Another claim made by reception theory is that audiences are “free to interpret these messages in a
variety of ways”. Given that I only have the magazine extracts to use as evidence, it is hard to see how I
could be able to ascertain the variety of reader interpretations possible but I can see that readers with a
large amount of cultural capital should be able to resist the messages about masculinity in Men’s Health
(where the use of Vin Diesel and the section on ski-wear both help to link physicality to aspirational ideas
about affluence and happiness). Such an oppositional reading would view the magazine, as a whole, with
suspicion as being regressive and preying on the current crisis in traditional masculinity. It would be
possible for a reader to selectively consume the magazine to produce a negotiated reading (focusing on
the more practical sections such as articles on fitness classes or bread consumption) where they cut out
the lifestyle articles (it would also be possible to imagine that some audience members selectively
consume the images of muscly men for their own scopophillic sexual pleasure – so it would seem that the
possible variation in meanings is fairly wide). Given that the magazine had a circulation of 1.8 million in
2014, there is a strong indication that many people accept the preferred reading of the magazine (where
physicality and success are linked) and part with their £3.99 to consume it.
Most resistant readings to Oh Comely magazine’s encoding would be rooted in patriarchal and regressive
hegemony. It would see the wide variety of female experiences and identities represented as a challenge
to the function of women in patriarchy (to be decorative, maternal, domestic and even gender-stable – the
presence of the gender-fluid Ash Allan is highly progressive). Iceberg Press’ magazine is a niche product
(with a 25,000-copy circulation) which mostly reaches its readership by direct subscription. The glowing
reviews it receives in YouTube blogs like screensandquills and Kayleigh Cooper demonstrate that there is a
clear appetite for the preferred reading. The middle-class stylings of the front cover model (British Racing
Green clothing, pastoral background and tailored clothing) would fit the readership which is, according to
the publishes, creative, female and in their late twenties and so would not be a start for an oppositional
reading but might cause the consumer rejection of the product on the stands of WH Smiths for potential
readers outside the niche demographic (however, the magazine represents a wide range of identity)
audiences are free to interpret these messages in a variety of ways – or even reject them’.
How valid are reception theory’s claims about audience responses? (25 Marks)
One of reception theory’s claims about audience responses is that audiences are free to create meaning
out of material which has been encoded by the producer. Stuart Hall underpinned his work on Saussurian
semiotics, which treats words and images as part of a system of meaning generation. Evidence of this sort
of framework for encoding meaning can be seen on the front covers of the two magazine products.
Men’s health clearly utilises a colour palette which is designed to be both masculine and promote ideas of
health – blue for medicine and black and grey for masculinity whereas the hand-written typeface of Oh
Comely is designed to promote thoughts concerning craft and individuality. Given that reception theory
coincides with semiotic theory, it would seem that reception theory’s claims are extremely valid when
considering the encoding of information. Given also that both magazines seem to have niche audiences
(men who think physicality is important to their masculinity and women who are creative and want to read
about a wide variety of people – Des Tan, who co-founded the magazine calls it “a magazine about people”
– respectively) it would seem unlikely for producers not to “attempt to transmit specific messages to
audiences,” and wider consideration of related media industries, such as advertising, would also seem to
uphold reception theory’s claim.
Another claim made by reception theory is that audiences are “free to interpret these messages in a
variety of ways”. Given that I only have the magazine extracts to use as evidence, it is hard to see how I
could be able to ascertain the variety of reader interpretations possible but I can see that readers with a
large amount of cultural capital should be able to resist the messages about masculinity in Men’s Health
(where the use of Vin Diesel and the section on ski-wear both help to link physicality to aspirational ideas
about affluence and happiness). Such an oppositional reading would view the magazine, as a whole, with
suspicion as being regressive and preying on the current crisis in traditional masculinity. It would be
possible for a reader to selectively consume the magazine to produce a negotiated reading (focusing on
the more practical sections such as articles on fitness classes or bread consumption) where they cut out
the lifestyle articles (it would also be possible to imagine that some audience members selectively
consume the images of muscly men for their own scopophillic sexual pleasure – so it would seem that the
possible variation in meanings is fairly wide). Given that the magazine had a circulation of 1.8 million in
2014, there is a strong indication that many people accept the preferred reading of the magazine (where
physicality and success are linked) and part with their £3.99 to consume it.
Most resistant readings to Oh Comely magazine’s encoding would be rooted in patriarchal and regressive
hegemony. It would see the wide variety of female experiences and identities represented as a challenge
to the function of women in patriarchy (to be decorative, maternal, domestic and even gender-stable – the
presence of the gender-fluid Ash Allan is highly progressive). Iceberg Press’ magazine is a niche product
(with a 25,000-copy circulation) which mostly reaches its readership by direct subscription. The glowing
reviews it receives in YouTube blogs like screensandquills and Kayleigh Cooper demonstrate that there is a
clear appetite for the preferred reading. The middle-class stylings of the front cover model (British Racing
Green clothing, pastoral background and tailored clothing) would fit the readership which is, according to
the publishes, creative, female and in their late twenties and so would not be a start for an oppositional
reading but might cause the consumer rejection of the product on the stands of WH Smiths for potential
readers outside the niche demographic (however, the magazine represents a wide range of identity)
