Semiotics - A Retrospect

During today's we had a brief refresher on semiotics. There are two elements that make up a sign when looking at items or messages from a semiotic point of view, these are the signifier and the signified. Together these make the sign.

The signifier is the material or what is being conveyed e.g. a tree.

The signified is the concept that is drawn from the signifier e.g. a mental image of a tree.

It was good to have this refresher as it has been a few years from I last done anything in depth with semiotics, with this refresher the it should be easier to analyse the next mediated text being studied.

Analysis of News Reports - Jeremy Paxman vs. Micheal Howard and Kay Burley vs. James O' Brien

Jeremy Paxman vs. Micheal Howard

The interview between Jeremy Paxman and Micheal Howard aired on Newsnight on May 13th 1997. This interview became the programme's most notorious interview. During the interview Howard was confronted with a question he thought was evasive - "Did you threaten to overrule him?". Paxman proceeded to ask Howard this twelve times in a row.

Is there any evidence of Formulation/Conversationalisation present?

Both parties involved in the interview have plain easy to understand accents that would be easily tolerated by people from different parts of the country. The delivery of the piece is also easy to follow and understand as the use of simple words allows for people who may not be familiar with political terms would be able to understand what was being discussed.

Is the Interviewer maintaining a stance of 'formal neutrality'? Or can we see some form of bias?

From viewing the piece several times it appears that Paxman is maintaining a stance of neutrality throughout the interview and is avoiding a biased approach when asking questions especially when Howard starts to avoid questions through out the interview, particularly the overrule question.

How are the questions being answered by the interviewee?

Howard starts the interview by answering the questions that are put to him in a straight forward manner but then develops a tendency to elaborate where a simple straight to the point answer would suffice. There are also several points where he becomes defensive in his answers again this is seen when Paxman is asking about the threats of overruling another politician.

Has the interviewee answered the specific question that has been asked?

The majority of questions are answered when asked however when the question "Did you threaten to overrule him?" is put forward, Howard dodges the question at least 12 times by maintaining that he has already answered this question when already and does not supply an appropriate answer for Paxman.

What approach is the interviewee using, if any, to avoid providing an answer to a specific question?

When quizzed about the overruling, Howard carries on as if the question has not been asked by and not referencing to the question in any way.

Is the interviewer allowing this to happen or are they pushing for an answer to a question?

Paxman continues to push this matter with Howard for almost two minutes, repeating the question about 12 times and clearly stating that he wanted a simple yes or no answer but still gets no response to the question therefore leaving it unanswered.

Can we see the use of language within the interview being influenced by the perceived social context of the 'targeted audience'?

The language that is used throughout the interview is simple and easy to understand. As it is looking at an incident that involves a member of the conservative political party, the intended target audience would be people who have a keen interest in politics and the conservatives in particular.

Kay Burley vs. James O' Brien

This interview Kay Burley and James O' Brien took place in 2004 following O' Brien's discussion on his radio show about Frank Lampard's separation from his wife, and the phone call from Frank to the show. The radio broadcast took place on the anniversary of Frank's mothers death.

Is there any evidence of Formulation/Conversationalisation present?

The language used throughout the interview is delivered in an easy to follow and understandable manner. Neither Burley nor O' Brien use any over complicated words that would confuse a viewer therefore making it accessible to all.

Is the Interviewer maintaining a stance of 'formal neutrality'? Or can we see some form of bias?

Throughout the interview Burley maintains a bias attitude against O' Brien. This is most present in several points, firstly at the start of the interview when O' Brien explains what happened during his radio broadcast Burley appears to contradict him by explaining what she knows or thinks she knows. We can also see her biased attitude when the topic of Frank Lampard's mother's anniversary is brought up. She appears to take a very personal attitude towards it when she says that she does have the anniversary on her calender. There is also the biased sense throughout the entire interview, especially when she is trying to make O' Brien apologise for the comments he made.

How are the questions being answered by the interviewee?

When answering questions put to him O' Brien answers them by using simple to understand phrases which can be understood by any viewer watching, phrases like "millionaire footballer", "poor soul" help the viewer put the context of the interview into perspective.

Has the interviewee answered the specific question that has been asked?

O' Brien answers every question that is asked of him, elaborating his answers when necessary in order to clarify the point he is trying to make.

Is the interviewer allowing this to happen or are they pushing for an answer to a question?

Burley is constantly asking O' Brien if he is sorry which he did say he was sorry to Frank's sister for the timing of t=the radio broadcast. This again shows Burley's biased approach towards O' Brien.

Can we see the use of language within the interview being influenced by the perceived social context of the 'targeted audience'?

As the target audience for a news piece like this would be the everyday person who enjoys gossip stories, the language used simple and easy to understand allow people of all walks of life to understand it and not be overwhelmed by complicated words or phrases.

Analysis of Cairo Riots News Report

To successfully analyse this piece of mediated text we must look at it from several different angles. We will look at the Preferred Meaning and the Reality being Mediated, consider the five key questions of any media text analysis and look for the presence of conversationalisation within the piece.

Preferred Meaning and Reality Being Mediated

The reality of this piece is the presence of mass numbers of people rioting in the streets of Cairo. Both groups have different 'agendas', one group are supporting President Mubarak and the other are against him. This is what is currently happening and would happen even if there was no presence of media to capture the events as the happen. From watching the piece and listening to the audio it seems that the preferred meaning being put across is that there is no chance of peace being restored to the nation until there is a resolution put in place. This can be noticed at the start of the piece when the reporter says;

"I've never seen anything like this in a riot before."

This is in a response to people fleeing down a street as horses charge behind with one of the riders being pulled from his horse and beaten on the ground.

Five Key Questions

1. Who created the message?

The news report is from Sky News, the way in which it has been edited together shows that consideration was taken as to which shots were used to represent the events that are taking place on the streets. Several times throughout the clip, the same piece of footage has been used which shows people throwing rocks at each other from the two separate groups of rioters. Also reused in the clip was a shot of rioters charging at each other.

2. What creative techniques are used to attract my attentions?

Throughout the piece the position of the camera is usually positioned above the crowds of people to make the receiver/viewer feel that they are looking down on the chaos in the streets. The audio in the piece has not been altered to help us appreciate the confusion and fear that many innocent people caught up in the actions of these groups are feeling.

3. How might different people understand this message differently than me?

When I look at a piece of text like this I get a feeling of pity and sadness for innocent people caught in the midst of these kind of riots. Many people may also feel this way but others may feel that this is trouble is as a result of the President refusing to stand down and bring an end to trouble in the nation, others may feel that the military or police should be doing more to try and quell the riots and that they may be a cause of many people being injured or killed.

4. What values, lifestyles and points of view are represented in, or omitted from this message?

Throughout the piece the footage concentrates on the people who are engaged in rioting or fights, while there is no footage of officials being interviewed about what is happening or plans of how to stop it from getting worse. Also omitted from the piece is any opinions of locals who are not partaking in the riots. This could be seen as a ploy by the news to make the situation worse than it may actually be as there is a reuse of several pieces of footage.

5. Why is this message being sent?

This message is being sent to show how people go to extreme measures to demonstrate how strongly they feel about their beliefs. The news channels know that if they keep a situation like this updated on a regular basis they will be able to keep high viewer rating over other rival news networks.

Presence of Conversationalisation

Throughout the piece we can hear the use of simple easy to understand language and words that help to reinforce the choice of images used. Words such as "surged around" when we see the image of camel riders fleeing the chaos and the mass mob of people trying to surround him. Also used was "charge after charge" when we can see the protesters running towards each other helps us visualise the chaos that the people are experiencing. The use of phrases like these are employed by many news broadcasters so that their viewers can better understand what is happening and so that they can grab the gist of the story if they are not paying full attention to the report or watching what is happening on screen.

Media Discourse Week 3

Today we looked at different mediated texts from each member of the class and discussed each piece and how they were created by the media. Each piece varied from news reports to documentaries and press conferences.

From looking at each piece and openly discussing it as a class it helped to give a better understanding of what we are trying to achieve in the class. We were able to collectively critique each piece as opposed to individually.

Next up is an analysis of some news footage from the Cairo riots, each member of the class will be reviewing the same piece then sharing their thoughts with everyone for a group discussion on the topic.