its been argued that music videos should be regulated by the government or by the music company or not at all. there are many factors to consider when thinking about such a complex topic such as desensitization, public interest and who should be the one to regulate such footage. Music videos are shown all over the world, through TV, YouTube and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
is having an explicit video so available for any one to watch such as Robin Thicke Blurred Lines appropriate? there are women walking around naked, objectifying themselves and dancing in a sexual way in this music video. this is done for the male gaze for an older audience, so the music video sells more because it have an extreme sexual nature. now the way that it can be looked at by the Effect Theory and more specifically at the Hypodermic Needle Model which states that the audience is passive and and that such media injects their ideology into them. If this is true the surely the younger generation would be walking around dancing nakedly and in a sexual manner.specifically the females would be allowing themselves to be objectified by males. yet no reports have ever said that such behavior is being displayed by anyone. However such an extreme nature of footage from a music video, possibly should be censored (like it actually was to some extent so no womanly parts were shown). this was done by the government which imposed laws to stop younger children absorbing explicit material. nevertheless due to societies perceptions in the UK and USA allowing a child of a young age to watch something in such sexual manner is wrong. so possibly the parents should regulate their own child's viewing of music videos, but if the parents censored and choose the music videos that their child watches would that mean the child wont get desensitized to such material so could that mean they would be even more passive so even more easily influenced by such media ideology on women and men.
We also have to think about public interest, usually this is used for magazines or newspapers but it could be said that a music video like this is are in the public interest? again bring up the topic of the male gaze, watching attractive people on our screen which everyone wants to aspire to looks wise.that could influence the behavior as well (as the Hypodermic Needle Model suggests) because the audience is passive and will absorb everything they watch and could believe that if they act in that way then that means they could be seen as attractive as the model on the screen.
Now their are many cases where this model is proven correct such as Miley Cyrus music videos where she is 'twerking' ,after that video was witnessed by the majority of the population, a lot of young females and male began posting videos up on YouTube of them twerking and acting in such a way which later leaked onto Social Networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter so even more people were able to witness it which lead to even more people creating the video of them doing it as well. this clear is evidence enough of an audience being passive and absorbing the ideology of how a girl (or boy) should act. The way that the models and artists act in music video are copied to some extent maybe to nothing as extreme as parading themselves naked around everywhere but dance styles, the way they dress. young children are inspired by these sort of people. music videos that are contain such explicit material possibly should be monitored and regulated. but could the music companies do this themselves? the answer is clearly not because they know that a girl walking around nakedly or becoming this sexual object sells more than a girl fully covered up with no sexual appeal meaning no male gaze and no younger audience wanting to have the 'perfect' body and dancing seductively. they much prefer to sell more than protect their audience from material they possibly shouldn't see. but that means that it has to get so serious that the government impose laws to censor music videos. which means the rules will be enforced but then its not enforced enough to match with the Effect Theory as to this theory everyone is passive and everyone absorbs ideology from material they are watching. so maybe the theory is wrong? or maybe the theory is a little too extreme and people don't become passive with everything they watch? just certain factors and that's what the government has tried to help with.
Overall the most passive audience are young people, however because they have witnessed explicit material from all forms of media they are desensitized which means they aren't as passive and the Hypodermic Needle suggests. personally from the evidence i believe that maybe music videos should be censored like films are with certificates of 12, 15 and 18 and get YouTube to also censor this so they can only watch what is appropriate to their age and when it is show on TV the certificate should be shown so then the parents have the responsibility if they can watch it or not. unfortunately this is just something that would be in my opinion best for such a passive audience, but it wont ever happen so we have to stick with the few laws that are in place to regulate explicit material.
No comments:
Post a Comment