Essay Sample on Stuart Hall's Encoding/Decoding Model of Communication

Introduction

The encoding/decoding model of communication was developed in 1973 by Stuart Hall, a cultural studies scholar. During this time, the model was named "Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse." In his Study, Hall provides a theoretical method of how media messages are created, dispersed, and understood. Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model argues that television and other media audiences are given words that are interpreted (decoded) in various ways depending on a person's personal experience, cultural background, and economic status. Unlike other theories of communication, Hall's theory proposes that the audience plays an essential role in interpreting the message since they may rely on their social settings and might alter the message themselves through collective action.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Decoding a message is interpreting a message to makes sense to an individual. Hall argues that there are three positions taken by the audience upon decoding a media message. They include dominant-hegemonic position, negotiated position, and the oppositional position. Dominant-hegemonic position, the audience of the message takes the meaning directly and interprets it as intended by the sender. The negotiated position is where the consumer of information partly accepts and rejects the message. In this position, the reader acknowledges the main message but is unwilling to interpret the words as intended by the encoder (sender). The oppositional position is where the reader understands the correct and connotative meaning of the signals while they decode the message in a different approach. While reading Ottawa Citizen Article "They're making it free to pollute: Environment Minister Catherine McKenna rejects Ontario's 'backward' climate policy" the readers shall have all the above positions of decoding the message, which results to different responses from every reader in each position. The paper shall use Stuart Hall's Encoding/Decoding model to analyze the Ottawa Citizen Article considering the various ways in which its readers may understand a news article.

According to Stuart Hall's encoding and decoding model of communication, in the encoding process, both the producer and the audience have particular roles within the model. Producers are individuals who create a form of a media-based on their ideas. They are also known as the encoders. Decoders are the people who view the media or the audience. The sender of the message may use verbal (images, signs, words) or non-verbal (facial expressions, body language) symbols to help the audience to comprehend better the message given (Hall, 2003). When the decoders receive the message, they observe the word into an interpretation and translation course, where the coded meaning is interpreted and translated into an understandable form. The encoding process allows the receiver to reconstruct the knowledge by giving sense to symbols and understand the message as a whole (Shaw, 2017). However, the receiver of the message from the sender does not always get the predictable response expected by the producer. There are three ways through which the receivers can interpret the message, such as dominated-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional.

First, the reader of the Ottawa Citizens article "They're Making it Free to Pollute: Environment Minister Catherine McKenna rejects Ontario's 'Backwards' Climate Policy" written in 2018 may understand the message in a dominated-hegemonic position. In this type of view, the receiver accepts the news fully and reproduces it to the code of the sender (Hall, 2003). Thus, the reader in this position understands that McKenna views the move to implement carbon taxation as a way of legalizing carbon pollution on a small number of emissions. This action inhibits the war on climate conservation, thereby taking the country back to the era where carbon emissions were challenging to control, and little measures were taken on the emitters. The reader in this position establishes that McKenna has rejected this policy as it shall pull back the nation in the fight against carbon emission. Hence, the reader understands the message in the news article and reproduces it as per the intentions of the author (Perks, 2012). Thus, the message sent is received and interpreted by the readers as intended by the writer of the text. As the reader of the meaning, the expected response is dominated since the sender of the message intended to inform that the Environment Minister, rejects the climate policy as she views it as legalizing small amount pollution by imposing carbon taxes for emissions that surpass Canada's target.

The second position of decoding the information is the negotiated position. The audience in this position partly believes the code and mostly accepts the message. However, the receiver modifies the news at times to reflect their experiences, interests, and opinions. For instance in Ottawa's Citizen Article, the writer uses the phrase "they're making it free to pollute" to show that the Minister recognizes the move on taxing carbon emission as encouraging pollution for small scale emitters of greenhouse gases (Wyld, 2018). However, a reader in a negotiated position understands the meaning but feels as if the policy shall be somehow beneficial in controlling broad production greenhouse gas emission. Although the decoder understands that the message is aimed to show that the Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna rejected the climate policy as it shall encourage small emissions which are in the range of Canada's target, they may also see the move as a way of reducing high levels of discharge, which creates a mixed feeling about the message. Therefore, the reader of the article may decode the news in a way that fits his interests (Shaw, 2017). For instance, the reader can choose to state that the Environment Minister said that implementing the carbon taxation is allowing people to pollute the environment and paying tax for the emissions produced, which might encourage firms to release small amounts of emissions at a time to evade taxation. Therefore, the reader in this position understands the message but chooses to paraphrase it to what they want (Shaw, 2017).

The third position of decoding the message is the oppositional position. Here, the reader completely disagrees with the meaning sent by the encoder and rejects the ideologies that are presented (Hall, 2003). Ottawa Citizens Article illustrates the carbon tax as a backward movement of the state, which might be against the belief of some readers (Wyld, 2018). For instance, the sender of the message aimed to indicate that taxing carbon emission shall increase the rate of a small amount of pollution as there would be no taxation if the greenhouse gasses do not exceed the set target. Thus, some organizations shall release little amount carbon to the atmosphere without restrictions and pay for the tax if the emission exceeds Canada's climate target (Wyld, 2018). Some readers may see the message as misleading since they might believe that taxing carbon emissions shall help to reduce a significant amount of carbon to the atmosphere, which is a positive move to controlling the levels of greenhouse gasses in the environment since the emissions shall be regulated.

Moreover, the readers might hold that taxation is the only way to ensure that large companies shall reduce the level of gasses released to the atmosphere since they shall do whatever it takes to escape taxation, which might be a loophole of company's revenues. Therefore, this type of a reader will have a different response towards the message, which in this case shall be opposing the expectations of the writer of the article. Therefore, an oppositional reader shall interpret the signal against the intentions of the writer and might give a very different message, according to their understanding of the words (Shaw, 2017).

Conclusion

In conclusion, every receiver of a particular message interprets it in a different way, which might be dominant-hegemonic position, negotiated position, and oppositional position. However, the view taken by the reader is impacted by their economic status, cultural background, and personal experiences. Hall's theory proposes that the audience plays an essential role in understanding the message since they may rely on their social settings and might adjust the message themselves through collective action. In the analysis of the Ottawa Citizen Article, the audiences are not different from Hall's theory, and they are divided into three positions. The dominant-hegemonic positioned readers understand the actual meaning of the message, accepts the writer's claims, and pass the message to the others according to the expectations of the writer. The negotiated position readers are those that understand the message and accept its ideas, but modify it to fit their interests while interpreting the information. Finally, oppositional readers are those that receive the message but compete against the arguments laid in the text. Oppositional readers in the case of Ottawa Citizen Article believe that the writer was wrong to state that implementing the climate policy shall be a drawback to the climate and would mean that people shall be free to pollute the environment.

Stuart Hall's model of encoding and decoding is essential in present-day media since viewers must be critical in analyzing the media. Every piece of information read, listened to, or watched must be carefully examined as the encoders of message may seem harmless and relatively in one's favor of personal beliefs, but failure of effective decoding of the message received may expose one at the risk of being negatively influenced by the ideology of the sender of the words. Hall's model may also lead to a misinterpretation of the message, which might lead to the passing of the wrong information. Therefore, the model helps the audience to understand the intended message better, but may also lead to the spread of misleading information.

References

Hall, S. (2003). Encoding/decoding. Television: Critical Concepts In Media And Cultural Studies, 4, 43-53.Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KQzr_BTuefkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA43&dq=stuart+hall+encoding+decoding+example&ots=aqNq9PEFMO&sig=gBmZzxk3g4Tv02Mveff1EK1_2Zg

Perks, L. G. (2012). Three Satiric Television Decoding Positions. Communication Studies, 63(3), 290-308.Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10510974.2012.678925

Shaw, A. (2017). Encoding And Decoding Affordances: Stuart Hall and Interactive Media Technologies. Media, Culture & Society, 39(4), 592-602. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443717692741

Wyld, A. (2018, November 29). They're Making It Free To Pollute: Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna Rejects Ontario's 'Backwards' Climate Policy. [Weblog]. Retrieved from: https://nationalpost.com/news/theyre-making-it-free-to-pollute-environment-minister-catherine-mckenna-rejects-ontarios-backwards-climate-policy