chewing gum for the eyes: the passive audience and new media texts

MC2505 Media Analysis Robert Andrews

CHEWING GUM FOR THE EYES.THE PASSIVE AUDIENCE AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT MEETS NEW!MEDIA TEXTS.

The allegation that television is merely 'chewing gum for the eyes' can be levelled at othermedia, too. Crucially, the statement refers to the passivity with which die reader of mediatedtexts receives messages. It concerns a low!intensity process of readership in which the receiveris not entirely burdened by the nature of the programming being received or the extent towhich he attempts to negotiate the text's meanings.

That television can mediate content only intended to satisfy the passive element of theaudience's motives for media use closely associates chewing!gum media texts with'entertainment!based programming ! "our leisure activities predominate in our consciousness,and most of them appear to be based around the media." w Entertainment is usually passiveby nature ! Blumler and Katz's media 'diversion' or 'escape' on the rise. P>

To be 'passive' is to be "acted upon, not acting; showing no interest or initiative; submissive."P) These descriptions can often be attached to most television viewers ! the very one!to!manynature of the medium forces its audience into being the subject of a monologue, thesubmissive party being acted upon, not acting for itself! Therefore, the interactionist theory !that the viewer is active because he works to decode the text ! can become a fallacy... becausetile medium itself is not interactive, it does not engage the viewer in deconstructive dialogue,so any meaningful (communicable) decoding of the programming's meaning is only carriedout in the situated culture of the place of viewing, with fellow viewers via two!step flow. Theaudience is not 'actively active.'

And with Hall's assertion that "texts are structured in such a way that they contain a preferredreading" comes an acceptance that broadcasters would rather reject polysemy. (4) For example,in news, the sender positions himself in such a way as to interpellate the audience from a placeof authority, designed to reduce the reader's scope to interpret 'facts' differently ! else, theability of newsgafherers to tell stories, and the modernist project of journalism, would beundermined.

So, chewing!gum reception comes about because many media provoke a passivity in theviewer which the storyteller sees as desirable in reinforcing the authority of the sent text ! via'perfectly transparent communication.' <5) This low level of reader activity may leave theaudience open to manipulation by the producer because closed texts impose reader alignmentwith the dominant!hegemonic reading. And the passivity also exists because of theinterpellative characteristics of the technology, which has traditionally fitted the one!waymodel of broadcast.

Despite this, it is true that if allowed, me receiver would arrive at an agreed, negotiated oroppositional interpretation of the text. In fact, the argument here that television encouragespassivity counters, in part, even McLuhan's belief that TV is a 'cool' medium because itrequires greater mental participation than, say, the 'hot,' low!demand media like radio:

"McLuhan^s vocabulary is counterintuitive. A cool medium creates more participation,but more involvement also means more passivity. Complaints that today's young peoplehave a short attention span are just acknowledgements of the increase in participationassociated with a general cooling down of the media." (6)

But if the media are becoming cooler, in what sense does participation also encouragepassivity? Surely "an urge toward involvement" would animate the chewers of passive mediafrom their sofas into engaging with both the text and its producer? <7)

Fri13/Nw/1898 1


Well, it must be noted that there is occurring now a rapid development of media that give theaudience more empowerment ! media said to enable engagement between the reader and theproducer, between readers, and between the reader and tlie text.

TV is now watching me audience, and me conversion of viewer to participant is something ofa trend, with audiences invited to use occasional telephone votes, enter discussions, interviewstars, and so on. Because 'real life' plays an increasing role in broadcast, and because, in theaudience's everyday lives, this is potentially seen as either intrusionary or flattering, theaudience's awareness of its place in a new duality is intensified:

"In the electric age, when our central nervous system is extended to involve in the wholeof mankind, and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate...in the consequences of our every action. It has heightened human awareness ofresponsibility to an intense degree." P)

Therefore, the audience's realisation that it is becoming the content of media, and the produceror controller of truly interactive media, is beginning to undermine the notion that screen mediaare merely 'chewing gum for the eyes.'

Though it does not satisfy definitions of true interactivity ("the possibility of an audienceactively participating in the control of an artwork or representation" w), the trend of theinclusion of 'real people' ! the sort of people who use media ! in television programming itselfis a worthy, if late and comical, precursor to a more active audience. Television has turned itsattention to the people whose attention it wants most by airing the events of 'real people.'.

When people apparently more identifiable to the audience become the content of real!lifegenres, broadcasters believe they are doing a service to 'you, me viewer,' by representing lifeand people closer to the mass reality. What they are actually doing, as they promote their'ordinary' subjects as characters in order to produce a narrative hook, is creating a new cast ofstars, people whose ultimate aim is to be distant from me audience. Doesn't class associationand familiarity affect the audience's negotiation of this preferred meaning? Well, given thataudiences are prepared to both hurl abuse at and praise these new 'ordinary stars' as they maketheir judgements, the separating barrier of the text remains ! TV!watching becomes more of asocial!bond experience, yet simultaneously, perhaps, this produces in me viewer an engrossednew kind of entertainment.

That new kind of entertainment can be called 'voyeurism,' rather man democratisation. Whenthe audience is encouraged into engagement with the media text and its subjects, "the ritualbeing observed on television at large is a mapping of classic small!town dynamics onto themedia global village." t9) As television wants real life on its own terms, and while the audiencebecomes the text by virtue of inviting the world into its habitat, much of the new!mediaenvironment urges its audiences to mock up an instant opinion about the dreaded Other andbecome part of the biggest mob in history ! intertextuality becomes a living enactment in theconflicts between subjects, and the preferred ideology is constructed by the mass!majorityopinion of the host and the studio audience. This cyclically returns the non!studio audience tothe earlier, chewing!gum situation: the resultant product engages this viewer no more than anyother media text ! the conflict has become a spectacle to be watched, not taken part in, so theviewer can again attempt to decode the text alone.

So, that television makes present an event or lifestyle from which the audience remainsabstracted, while still feeling as though it is involved and represented, may account for theclaim that 'more involvement also means more passivity;'

Fri13/Nov/1998 2


Well, it must be noted that there is occurring now a rapid development of media that give theaudience more empowerment ! media said to enable engagement between the reader and theproducer, between readers, and between the reader and the text.

TV is now watching the audience, and the conversion of viewer to participant is something ofa trend, with audiences invited to use occasional telephone votes, enter discussions, interviewstars, and so on. Because 'real life' plays an increasing role in broadcast, and because, in theaudience's everyday lives, this is potentially seen as either intrusionary or flattering, theaudience's awareness of its place in a new duality is intensified:

"In the electric age, when our central nervous system is extended to involve in the wholeof mankind, and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate...in the consequences of our every action. It has heightened human awareness ofresponsibility to an intense degree." w

Therefore, the audience's realisation tliat it is becoming the content of media, and the produceror controller of truly interactive media, is beginning to undermine the notion that screen mediaare merely 'chewing gum for me eyes.'

Though it does not satisfy definitions of true interactivity ("the possibility of an audienceactively participating in the control of an artwork or representation" <8)), the trend of theinclusion of 'real people' ! the sort of people who use media ! in television programming itselfis a worthy, if late and comical, precursor to a more active audience. Television has turned itsattention to the people whose attention it wants most by airing the events of 'real people.'.

When people apparently more identifiable to the audience become the content of real!lifegenres, broadcasters believe they are doing a service to 'you, the viewer,' by representing lifeand people closer to the mass reality. What they are actually doing, as they promote their'ordinary' subjects as characters in order to produce a narrative hook, is creating a new cast ofstars, people whose ultimate aim is to be distant from the audience. Doesn't class associationand familiarity affect the audience's negotiation of this preferred meaning? Well, given thataudiences are prepared to both hurl abuse at and praise these new 'ordinary stars' as they maketheir judgements, the separating barrier of the text remains ! TV!watching becomes more of asocial!bond experience, yet simultaneously, perhaps, this produces in the viewer an engrossednew kind of entertainment.

That new kind of entertainment can be called ^voyeurism,' rather than democratisation. Whenthe audience is encouraged into engagement with the media text and its subjects, "the ritualbeing observed on television at large is a mapping of classic small!town dynamics onto themedia global village." (9) As television wants real life on its own terms, and while the audiencebecomes the text by virtue of inviting the world into its habitat, much of the new!mediaenvironment urges its audiences to mock up an instant opinion about the dreaded Other andbecome part of me biggest mob in history ! intertextuality becomes a living enactment in theconflicts between subjects, and the preferred ideology is constructed by the mass!majorityopinion of the host and die studio audience. This cyclically returns the non!studio audience tothe earlier, chewing!gum situation; the resultant product engages this viewer no more than anyother media text ! the conflict has become a spectacle to be watched, not taken part in, so theviewer can again attempt to decode the text alone.

So, that television makes present an event or lifestyle from which the audience remainsabstracted, while still feeling as though it is involved and represented, may account for theclaim mat 'more involvement also means more passivity:'

Fri13/Nov/1998 2


hypermedia in general, since a hypertext welcomes the audience's freedom to direct the storyfrom point to point. So, in contrast to a television news broadcast, hypertext ! the foundingideology and operational principle of the worldwide web ! could see the audience decidingwhich stories should go in which order and, therefore, lets it determine what is of mostimportance to itself... the hypertext interpellates the reader as though it were the less!capableservant of the master media user, not the authoritative figure described earlier. When theindividual news report is consumed, however, the sender!reporter does take on the role of thatfigure, with some negation of the user's new empowerment; but the exchange of authoritybetween he and the receiver creates a. more intimate relationship, based on value economics,because the user is aware of the power he has consented to return.

Hypermedia sees uses!and!gratification theory being played out in real!time as the receivermakes continual new choices about which content will be most attractive or useful next(though we may argue that this is only the case because me global scale of content productionfor new!media gives the audience more choices to make about what to watch, read or use thandoes national television). Although the receiver tends to become the producer of her ownnarrative, as her choices create a 'flow' of programming (quite the antithesis to that ofRaymond Williams), the ability to select the next message from those me text offers does notnecessarily equal interactivity. In hypermedia, the audience spits out the passivity gum only ifthere are sufficient 'forking paths' that the viewer or user has freedom enough to choose herroute. Else, the promise of audience activation is again a myth because of limited engagementwith the text. Discussing Borges' 'Garden of Forking Paths,' in which sufficient choices existso that "all things are conceivable and all things take place," Barbrook describes the narrator'ssubsequent insanity and condemning to death upon learning he would have to produce infinitepermutations within the text to make such interactive freedom available for the reader ! the'death of the author' comically realised:

"If the reader chooses his or her own pathway through the story, then the narrator ! ordirector ! can be done away with; in effect, the function and authority of authorship isusurped by the reader."

That is when me medium is no longer chewed like an anaesthetic.

So, in conclusion, it would seem that the extent to which the screen!media are 'chewing gumfor the eyes' depends not just on the practical ability of the medium to let the receiver engagewith sender or text, but also then, the availability of choice signposts within me text itself! toolimited a number of predefined options and the text gives itself away as offering a phoneyinteractivity.

The crucial element in exploring audience passivity versus interactivity is to say that thehallmark of those impassive new!media texts may be that they require effort on the audience'spart ! both to seek out and use me content and then to decode the arrived text. By nature, thisdifferentiates interactivity from the texts we call 'chewing!gum.' It is true that, in many cases,interactivity is just a result of the reader being offered sufficient predefined choices, whichmay simply relax the narrative and interpellative noose. But in this situation, and particularlywhere greater freedom is given and a narrative is not imposed, the user is forced to negotiateand deconstruct me text in order to make a decision about the next stopping point within it !the penalty for not doing so is the termination of the media content flow, and the discovery,entertainment or knowledge that goes with it

Passivity pushes content at the viewer. Empowerment of an active audience means shiftingresponsibility and workload onto media users.

Fri13/Nov/1998 4


1) Mclver, Gil] (1998), 'Media and the Spectacular Society.' Westminster University Hypermedia Research Centre,http://ma.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/kids/ma.theory.1.3.db#3.

2) Blumler, Jay & Kate, Elihu (1974), 'The Uses of Mass Communication.' London: Sage Publications.3) Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1993). Oxford: Oxford University Press.4) O'Sullivan, Tim; Dutton, Brian & Rayner, Philip (1996) ! 'Studying the Media.' London: Arnold. p163.5) Hall, Stuart (19NN)! 'Encoding, Decoding' in Oct 5th lecture hand!out. p101.6) Wolf, Gary (1996) ! 'The Wisdom of Saint Marshall, The Holy Fool' in Wired 4.01. San Francisco: Wired Magazine

Group Inc., rittp://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/7) McLuhan, Marshal! (1964) ! 'Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.'Kentledge & Kegan Paul. p344.8) Cameron, Andy & Barbrook, Richard (1998), 'Dissimulations.' Westminster University Hypermedia Research

Centre, http://ma.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/kids/ma.theory.3.2.db#1.9) Sinus, R.U. & !Jude, St. (1994) ! 'The Medium is the Message and the Message is Voyeurism' in Wired 2.02. San

Francisco: Wired Magazine Group Inc., http://www.wired.com/w'red/archive/2.02/10) Hamilton, Andy (1998) ! 'Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture.'London: BBC TV.11) Groombridge, Brian (1972) ! 'Television and the People: A Programme for Democratic Participation.'

Harmondsworth: Penguin. p71.12) McQuail, Denis (1997) ! 'Audience Analysis.' Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p22,

^~~' 2000 ? 2434 < 2500words

Fn13/Nov/1988 5

ROBERT ANDREWS

You have taken the essay title and produced a stimulating and original piece of workthat provides an interesting discussion of the notion of the 'active audience' and'interactivity"'. You provide a competent discussion of some of the alternativeperspectives of the active audience debate although it is possibly rather ambitious totry and cover the complexity of this debate in the amount of space you have here.

You also provide a thoughtful and perhaps rather generous (?) view of the interactivenature of hypertext's possibilities. In theory much of what you argue in terms ofviewer autonomy and activity seems possible but I feel that in reality this does not yethappen ! perhaps it will as we become increasingly more comfortable with what theInternet and hypertext has to offer us ! especially if and when it is linked to thetelevision set and becomes part of the domestic furniture of the living!room ratherthan as currently a separate 'office' utility.

Again there is much more that could have been included in this debate and perhaps a2000 word essay is rather limiting to do full justice to the issues that you raise. Iwould have liked to have seen some recognition of the criticisms or reservations thathave been expressed towards the Internet.

Some of your readings are a little dated McLuhan (1964) and Groombridge (1972) Ithink that there has been quite a lot published recently that might have addressedspecifically the Internet. You quote from Barbrook but do not give the source.

Philip Rayner.

CHEWING GUM FOR THE EYES: THE PASSIVE AUDIENCE AND NEW!MEDIA TEXTSDRAFT E S S A Y PLAN

"CHEWING GUMFW THE EYES'^ (hat does this claim refer to?>» Define this in terms of a low intensity of reaction to a text, a passivity in the audience.

• Only goes as far as the senses, not the thinking mind.• i.e. "passive" is ' 1. acted upon, not acting,' '2. showing no interest or initiative; submissive.'• Who are the exponents of this claim?• Find more theoretical models to associate wrth chewing!gum reading.• Denis McQuail on 'Audience Analysis.'

IMPLICATIONS OF CHEWING!GUM READING OF TEXTS• Problems with passive reading of texts. For a start, open to manipulation.

Re: Dominant!hegemonic / Negotiated / Oppositional interpretations. Does chewing!gumpassivity amount to Hall's concurrent agreement with the dominant!hegemonic encodedtext?Wide sender!receiver divide... 'Fordist production of media, ifs reliance on economies ofscale, creates a vast division between producers and consumers.' Media and the spectacular society,P5Screen media seen more as leisure media... increase in leisure time and separation ofleisure and work.'What we really fear is the fact that we are enslaved to a television culture, we rely on it topalliate us, entertain us, inform us, narcoticise us and recreate us in the fashion of the day.Yet we feel powerless before its seductive glamour. We don't realise that, in its essense,television is as simple picking up a video camera and sticking a transmitter on top of a treeor tower block.' Media and the spectacular society, p7. So, fear and alarmism over the contentcarried by television are just unnoticed attempts at spitting out the gum given to theaudience by a model which tends to reject the notion of the audience having a real say.'The plethora of useless 'information' that constantly bombards us turns us away fromknowledge, which we can only come by through critical judgement.' etc. Media and the spectacularSociety, p11

THE PASSIVE/ACTIVE AUDIENCE OF TODAY AND TOMORROW• To challenge the passivity that wrings its hands at, yet accepts... we must be able to

"\ discuss ideas, tactics and know what is being done. We need media which will facilitatethis.' Media and the Spectacular Society, p13

Ra,o ! "J! . !r ig attention has turned to the viewer, raising awareness of implications and responsibility^S!aA , in non!chewing!gum text!readership.

J • When mobilised to spit out the gum by rejecting passivity, the audience becomes voyeurs,

with small!town moralising on each other's lives ! "each other" is now the subject of ourmedia. !i

! ^!^ ^^^,^ ~ <' '! ! ^ ^ \r^/''^

<^.^————— ^^! <<^

y' ! • ' '?°' <!!

"By definition, the audience as a mass is passive, because it is incapable of collective action, whereas anytme social group has the menas and may have the inclination to be active in the sense of choosing ashared goal and participating in its pursuit." p22This is justification for the new!media communities making appearances in media like the Internet being'true social groups,' more than broadcasters claim their audiences to be ! the audience!community iscapable of identifying new goals and frequently see that they are brought to fruition.

"Active audiences provide more feedback for media communicators, and the relationship betweensenders and receivers is more interactive." p22

"New types of community could emerge, based on interactive communication, untrammeled by culturalbarriers." p24

!at!*™*

chewing gum for the eyes: the passive audience and new media texts

Documents