Theory: Hypodermic Needle Model

Theorists:

What is the theory?

The hypodermic needle theory essentially suggests that as human beings
we are all wired in the same way and think exactly the same. The theory
suggests that any media presented to an audience will be consumed all
of the audience regardless of any other factors such as political views,
preferences or religion. This theory has also been known as the bullet
theory in the past due to the fact that It basically suggests that the
medias content is essentially a bullet which is being fired into the
general public, and in this way it suggests that the audience has no
choice on whether or not to consume this content. This is an old theory,
and stems back to the 1930s, in a time in which media outlets were
much more linear and limited than todays wide varieties of outlets for
audiences to choose from. The theory basically suggests that the
audience are like robots being plugged in to consume information, and
views audiences as very powerless things with no real personal identity,
beliefs and value. By taking this information into account, you can see
that the theory essentially suggests that the media has the ability to
completely manipulate the masses, whether for good or for bad. The
theory doesnt really have any solid research or evidence behind it in the
way that more modernised theories do, and essentially is based on
presumptions and observations that have been made without actual
research.
Does this theory see the audience as active or passive? Why do you think
this?
More so than any other theory, this theory sees the audience as being
completely passive. It suggests that they dont have any choice in
whether or not they will take on board the information that is presented
to them. It sees the audience as all being the same as one another and
not having a way of choosing whether a media source is suitable to their
own beliefs or agenda. The reason I think that it sees the audience in this
extremely passive way is because it looks at audiences in a very basic
way, and not in a detailed way. It makes sense that people might have
agreed with this theory a few decades ago when media sources were so
limited.
What are the criticisms of this theory?
The main criticism of this theory is essentially that it doesnt actually
have any research behind it. They didnt go out and find evidence for the
things that they were suggesting, and there wasnt really any great was
for them to do so. For this reason, it wouldve been hard for people to
believe what it suggested. Another key criticism was the fact that it was
so old and dated. So much has chained over the past few decades thanks
to the massively progressive steps in technology allowing for us to
consume lots more media outlets, thus giving us more choice as to what
we consume. The problem with this theory was really that at the time it
was hard to tell what people did or didnt want to consume from the
media because they didnt really have much of a physical choice in the
way that we do now, and it made it look like everyone just consumed
what was presented to them, which, in a way, they did.
Apply the theory:

In 2012, a killer at the aurora shooting walked into a cinema playing the
new Dark Knight Rises film dressed in a batman outfit and brutally
murdered many members of the audience with an assault rifle hed
purchased. He essentially was influence a lot by the film and the violent
nature of it, and this spurred him to dress up has his role model batman
and kill these people while trying to replicate the masculine persona hed
admired through batman films. He was essentially captivated by the
media he was presented and was heavily influenced to do something
unspeakable. In this way, this example applies to this theory and backs it
up, he was influenced by the media he consumed. A counter argument
would be the fact that no sane human would surely be influenced to do
something like this, and that he must have had exterior motives such as
internal anger at life that drove him to do what he did, rather than it
being entirely down to the films influence.

Theory: Uses and Gratification

Theorists: Theorists within this theory include Denis McQuail, Bulmar and
Katz, and Harold Lasswell. All of which have developed their own slight
variations on the theory, but all are similar to one another.
What is the theory?
This theory is all about finding out what people choose to do with the
information that they are presented with via media, and how different
factors can affect what is done with media. It explores the factors
involved with this, and why. It basically suggests that an audience will
pick and choose different bits of media or information in order for
personal gain, or to benefit themselves in some way. The theory suggests
that an audience is responsible for their own decisions and for choosing
what they will do with the information they are presented with. Because
of the decision making of audiences that this theory suggests is true in
terms of what they will choose to consume, the theory also basically
suggests that media outlets are in competition with one another in order
to try and win over an audience, and ultimately make the most money
from the public. In this way, the theory ties in nicely with the idea of
modern capitalism and the idea that there will always be competition in
any given market (in this case, media outlets). The theory has various
categories in which it breaks down the reasoning and motives behind an
audience choosing to consume a certain piece of media. These
categories include personal identity (the ability for an audience to create
or reinforce their own personal identity and agenda through media),
information (for the audience to learn more and extend their knowledge
on certain topics or affairs presented via different media such as the
news, or a documentary), social integration (feeling integrated within a
certain group or social circle or community, for example through the use
of a classical radio station for those who like the genre), and finally
entertainment (for pleasure, satisfaction and leisure purposes, to keep

entertained and to have a good time.) The theory suggests that the
reasoning behind ANY consumer consuming ANYTHING from a media
source would be able to be categorised into one or more of these
categories. The theory also in a way implies that media can be quite
addictive to human beings as they are satisfying basic needs such as
knowledge and entertainment through media sources, meaning that If
these outlets were to stop providing the content, it might have a negative
effect on its audience.

Does this theory see the audience as active or passive? Why do you think
this?
This theory suggests that and audience is in a way active. It suggests
that an audience will only consume something for a reason, and there
has to be a reason behind them choosing to consume it before they
actually will, be it for entertainment or for information etc. It also in some
ways though suggests that audiences will always be influenced by some
form of media and that media has a lot of influence on the lifestyles of
people, but instead of being completely passive about it and just letting
everything influence them, they choose what media they will let
influence them. I think that the theory suggests an audience acts like this
because it is becoming increasingly more common and can easily be
observed. The fact that literally EVERYONE consumes media and allows it
to influence them is definitely correct and is easily justifiable, so its clear
to see why the theory suggests this. Its also easily justifiable that we
choose what to consume, and this is also becoming increasingly easy to
see today due to the fact that we have so much available choice. I
believe this is why the theory suggests what it suggests about audiences
and their nature.
What are the criticisms of this theory?
There arent many criticisms for this theory, but one potential criticism is
the fact that this theory fails to address the fact that media outlets to
have the ability to manipulate audiences and change their views. For
example a far left wing media news outlet may be able to influence an
audience members personal agenda, but the theory doesnt really
address the fact that media can often have this effect on people.

Apply the theory:

It is extremely common to, hear two people in discussion with differing
opinions on a certain TV show. One person might say that they hate
Hollyoaks and never watch it, while another may say that they love it and
watch it routinely every night. This, as simple as it may sound, it solid
enough evidence that there is a lot of truth in what the theory implies.
Two different individuals, one choosing to consume this media, another

choosing not to. This example also applies to the categorisation idea that
the theory has, In that the individual who chooses to watch Hollyoaks is
doing so for entertainment purposes (fitting their reason for consumption
as being entertainment), rather than just saying the individual watches
it because its on TV.
There are an increasing number of other great examples within modern
lifestyle in which the theory can be applied, for example social media, in
which there is a constant feed of people discussing their differing
opinions on different media.

Theory: Reception Theory

Theorists: It was invented by one theorist, called Stuart Hall in the 70s,
making it much more recent than the hypodermic needle model. Hall was
entirely responsible for creating this theory, but It has later been adopted
by other theorists.
What is the theory?
The reception theory essentially suggests that when media is created
and distributed by an outlet, It is done so with different codes hidden into
it that are put there in order to get a certain response for an audience.
This can be discreet codes through visual language used such as colours
and shapes used, or can be much less hidden, through words being used
or reoccurring themes. These codes dont necessarily have to be used in
order to manipulate an audience, but can also be used in order to benefit
the audience. One of the main points that the theory makes is that SOME
audience members are much easier to influence than others are, and it
actually presents this idea through 3 categories for an audience. The first
is dominant, and this is when an audience basically completely takes in
the information presented to them and agrees with what is being said,
thus allowing it to fully influence them in one way or another. The second
is negotiated, which is when an audience feels neutral about a piece of
media being presented to them, they might choose to still consume the
information and use it, but still not fully agree with it. Oppositional
responses are those in which an audience completely rejects
infomormation presented to them, and actively chooses to avoid the
information due to disagreeing with the agenda it pushes, or just simply
not believing that it is correct. These categories allow the theory to
deeply explore why different audiences do different things, and why in
some ways the media can have different levels of impact on different
people.

Does this theory see the audience as active or passive? Why do you think
this?
This theory is interesting because it basically says that is completely
depends on the particular audience on whether or not they are passive. It
suggests that some audiences can be completely passive, and take in the
codes fed to them in a very linear way in which they will consume
information and not reject any. But it also suggests that some audiences
are quite the opposite, and might not be able to decode the messages
fed to them, making the information useless to them. For this reason, its
more in depth than the other theories, and it quite rightly implies that
some people are essentially easier to brainwash than others, some of us
are passive by nature, while others arent.
What are the criticisms of this theory?
Again, there isnt a great deal you can criticise about this theory, and
most of what it implies is calculated and backed up and explained. When
you apply it, It just works. One potential thing worth mentioning is the
fact that people might misinterpret the hidden messages in a piece of
media, meaning that the intentions of the piece of media would fail, and
this goes against the theories idea that media codes will always have
the ability to successfully influence.

Apply the theory:

Politics is a good thing to apply to this theory. Take for example Donald
Trump, whos outspoken republican political opinions have been
discussed and talked over lots as of late. When he does a speech for
something, some members of the audience will be completely influence
by his choice of words and implications he makes, and by the little codes
he puts into his speech in order to try and manipulate. These are the
dominant members of the audience. Some will completely oppose
everything he says, and for these people the codes he pushes in the
speech will be useless and not have any influence, these people would fit
into the oppositional category. Some will be somewhere in the middle,
or choose to take some it on board but not other bits, and these people
would be classed in the negotiated category. Politics is a great example
of where this theory shines, as it shows how different groups of people
can be influenced by propaganda and political lies and persuasive
techniques, while others simply cant.