1.

Traditionally, research on mass communication has seen the communication process as

a simple loop: "sender/message/receiver." This model has been criticized because it’s
too basic and only focuses on the exchange of messages. It doesn't look at the different
parts of the process as a complex system. However, it's also helpful to think of
communication as a structure made up of different but connected parts: "production,
circulation, distribution, consumption, reproduction." These parts are all linked, but each
one is different and has its own way of working.

2. The goal of these practices is to create meanings and messages using "signvehicles"
(symbols) organized by rules, like how language works. The process of production
results in these symbols being made according to "language" rules. When these symbols
are created, they can be shared, or "circulated." To make this happen, production needs
tools ("means") and social connections that organize the work. But it's when the
message is shared that it reaches different people. After that, the message must be
turned into actions for it to have an effect. If people don't understand the message, it
can't be "consumed" or acted on. Each part of this process is important, but none can
guarantee what comes next. Because each part works differently, it could interrupt the
flow and stop the process from continuing smoothly.

3. While research shouldn’t be limited to just looking at "content analysis," we need to

understand that the way a message is shaped is very important in communication
(especially when it’s shared). The process of "encoding" (creating the message) and
"decoding" (understanding it) are key moments, even though they’re not fully separate
from the whole process. A "raw" event, like something that happens in real life, can’t just
be shown on TV as it is. It has to be turned into a "story" using TV's own rules for sound
and visuals. When an event is told this way, it follows the "rules" of how language and
stories work. So, the event has to be shaped into a "story" before it can be shared.
These rules are important for how the event appears when it's passed from the source to
the audience. Changing the event into a "message form" isn’t something random or
optional—it’s necessary. However, this "message form" is just one part of a bigger
system of communication, and it needs to connect with the broader social and political
context.

4. From a broad view, we can describe the TV communication process like this: To make a
TV show, the broadcasting organizations need a structure—this includes their practices,
networks, technical systems, and relationships to produce a program. In this sense, the
process starts with production, which creates the message. However, production is
shaped by meanings, ideas, and knowledge about how things should be done—like
technical skills, professional beliefs, and ideas about the audience. These help shape
the program during production. But production doesn’t work in isolation—it’s influenced
by outside sources, like current events, ideas, and social-political factors. As Philip Elliott
pointed out, the audience is both the "source" and the "receiver" of the TV message. So,
to put it simply, circulation (spreading the message) and reception (how the audience
takes it in) are part of the production process and feedback into it. Reception is a part of
 the larger process, but production is the starting point for creating the message. The
production and reception of the message aren’t the same, but they are connected parts
of the overall communication process.

5. At some point, broadcasting organizations must turn their messages into meaningful
content. For this to happen, the rules of language must be applied to the content to
make it "real." This starts a new step, where the rules of discourse and language take
over. Before the message can have any "effect," meet a "need," or be used, it has to be
understood properly. Once the message is decoded, it can have an impact—like
influencing, entertaining, teaching, or persuading, with different effects on how we think,
feel, and act. In a specific moment, the structure uses a code to create the "message,"
and then at another moment, the "message" enters social practices through its decoding.
We know now that how people receive and use the message isn’t as simple as just
behaviors. The processes studied in traditional research, like effects and "gratifications,"
are shaped by social and economic factors, which influence how the message is
understood and how it can be turned into action or have political effects.

6. The "meaning structures 1" and "meaning structures 2" in the diagram may not be
exactly the same. They don't perfectly
match up. The codes used to create
and understand the message might not
always be equal. The level of
"understanding" or "misunderstanding"
in communication depends on how
closely the encoder (producer) and
decoder (receiver) are aligned. This
alignment depends on how similar or
different the codes are that transmit or
distort the message. The mismatch
between these codes is influenced by
the differences in the relationships and
positions between broadcasters and
audiences. It also has to do with how
the codes of the "source" and
"receiver" work when the message changes into or out of its form. "Distortions" or
"misunderstandings" happen when the codes don't match up. This shows that the entry
and exit of the message in its communicative form are important but can also be
imperfect.

7. The use of a new approach is starting to change how we understand TV "content." It's
also beginning to change how we think about how audiences "read" and respond to it.
While research has claimed to bring big changes before, there’s reason to believe a
fresh and exciting phase of audience research might be starting. This new approach
could help us move away from the old behavior-based studies that have been stuck in
mass-media research, especially when looking at content. We know that a TV show isn’t
 the same as a physical reaction like a knee tap, but traditional research has often treated
it as if it is. As Gerbner pointed out, TV shows that show violence aren’t the same as real
violence—they’re "messages about violence." But research has still treated it as if the
two are the same, not understanding that important difference.

8. The televisual sign is complicated because it combines two types of communication:

visual and sound. It’s an "iconic sign," meaning it has some features of what it
represents, like how a picture of a dog looks like a real dog. But there’s confusion
because the visual part of TV, which turns the 3D world into 2D images, can never truly
be the thing it shows. For example, a dog in a movie can bark but can’t actually bite.
Reality exists outside of language, but we only understand it through language, which
shapes how we see the world. What we know comes from how language connects with
real-life situations. So, all language needs a "code" to make sense, and even "iconic
signs" use their own type of code. There’s no such thing as pure or completely natural
language. What we think of as "realism" or "naturalism" is just the way language is
shaped to look like reality. It’s the result of how language is used in a specific way.

9. Some codes are so commonly used in a culture and learned at such an early age that
they seem "natural" rather than created. Simple visual signs, like a picture of a cow,
might seem to be universally understood, but even these "natural" signs are shaped by
culture. This doesn't mean there are no codes involved; it means that these codes have
become so familiar that we don't notice them. These "naturalized" codes make things
seem obvious or "natural," but they actually hide the work behind how meanings are
created. The reason we recognize certain things as "natural" is because the code is so
deeply embedded in how we understand the world. For example, when we see a picture
of a cow, we might think it is the cow itself, but in reality, the picture or even the word
"cow" is just a sign that represents the concept of a cow, not the animal itself. Whether
it’s a picture or a word, the connection between the sign and what it represents isn’t
natural—it’s based on a convention. Iconic signs, like pictures, seem more "real"
because they resemble the thing they represent, but they are still shaped by specific
codes. These codes are so widespread that we often forget they are there.

10. This helps clear up some confusion in how certain terms are used in this article,
especially in linguistic theory. In linguistics, there’s a distinction between ‘denotation’ and
‘connotation.’ ‘Denotation’ usually means the direct, literal meaning of a sign, something
that is almost universally understood. When we use visual signs, people often mistake
‘denotation’ for a direct, unfiltered version of reality, like a “natural sign” that doesn’t rely
on any codes. On the other hand, ‘connotation’ refers to meanings that are more flexible,
less fixed, and change depending on the situation. These meanings depend on codes
and conventions.

11. We don’t use the terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ the way they’re often used. To us,
these terms are just analytical tools. It helps to separate a sign’s ‘literal’ meaning
(denotation) from the more flexible, associative meanings (connotation) that can change
depending on the context. But we shouldn’t mistake these distinctions for how things
 work in real life. Most signs in actual communication mix both literal and associative
meanings.

So why keep the distinction? It’s useful for analysis. Signs often show their full
ideological value at the connotative level, where meanings are less fixed and can be
transformed. This is where ideologies can shape and change the meaning of a sign.
Here, the sign is part of the struggle over meanings.

This doesn’t mean that the ‘literal’ meaning is free from ideology. In fact, its ideological
value is fixed because it’s seen as universal or ‘natural.’ So, the terms ‘denotation’ and
‘connotation’ are just helpful ways to understand how ideologies appear at different
levels in language, not to show whether or not ideology is present.

12. The "connotation" of a visual sign is about how it connects to deeper cultural meanings
and ideas. It’s where signs already have certain meanings, but take on more layers of
meaning when they are placed in different contexts. For example, in advertising, there's
no such thing as a "purely denotative" or "natural" representation. Every image in ads
carries extra meanings.

Take a sweater, for example. It’s literally a "warm garment" (denotation) and represents
the idea of "keeping warm." But at a deeper, connotative level, it could also mean "the
arrival of winter" or "a cold day." In fashion, a sweater might represent a trendy style, or it
could look casual. If placed in a romantic setting, it could make you think of "a long
autumn walk in the woods."

These connotative signs link to bigger ideas and ideologies in society. They show how
culture, knowledge, and history shape what we understand. As Barthes said, the
connotative levels of signs are closely tied to culture and ideology, and they reflect the
social reality and power structures in society.

13. The "denotative" level of a TV sign is controlled by fixed codes, meaning it has a clear,
limited meaning. But the "connotative" level, which involves deeper meanings, is more
flexible and can change depending on the context. A sign can have more than one
connotative meaning. However, these meanings are not all equal. Society and culture
have certain rules for interpreting things, which reflect a dominant set of values and
beliefs, but these can be challenged.

When new events happen that don't fit our usual understanding, they need to be
assigned to a category or framework to make sense. These frameworks reflect the
dominant social, political, and cultural ideas of the time. While there is room for multiple
interpretations, certain readings are preferred and often become institutionalized. These
"preferred meanings" reflect how society works, including power structures and social
norms.

To clarify a "misunderstanding" at the connotative level, we must consider the larger

social and political context. Since these meanings are not fixed, communication involves
 rules that guide how things are interpreted and which meanings are emphasized. This
process of interpretation is central to how TV broadcasts are made and understood, but
it's often overlooked by formal semiotics.

When we talk about dominant meanings, we're not saying there's a simple, one-way
process that decides how everything will be interpreted. Instead, it's about the "work"
done to make a certain interpretation seem valid, believable, and accepted within the
dominant ways of understanding things. Terni points out that "reading" isn’t just about
recognizing and decoding signs. It also involves the ability to creatively connect those
signs with each other and with other signs, which is essential for fully understanding
one's surroundings.

14. Our issue with the idea of "subjective capacity" is that it suggests the content of
television is an objective truth, while interpretation is a personal and private matter. In
reality, it's the opposite. Television as a medium takes responsibility for how different
signs interact with each other in any given situation. It constantly shapes and defines
how we are made aware of our environment by organizing and controlling these signs.

15. When television producers feel their message isn’t getting through, they often try to fix
the communication process to make it more "effective." Research on communication
usually tries to see how much the audience understands and remembers. While there
are misunderstandings that happen because of difficult language or confusing
explanations, broadcasters are mostly concerned when viewers don’t interpret the
message the way they intended. What they actually want is for the audience to
understand the message exactly as they meant it, but instead, they often face
"systematically distorted communication" where the meaning doesn’t come across as
planned.

16. In recent years, when misunderstandings happen, they are often explained by the idea
of "selective perception." This idea suggests that people interpret messages in different
ways based on their personal views. While individual interpretations do vary, they are not
as random or private as the theory suggests. In fact, there are clear patterns across
different people’s views. So, any new way of studying audiences will need to start by
questioning the idea of "selective perception."

17. Earlier, it was said that there is no fixed connection between how something is encoded
(created) and decoded (understood). While the creator may try to influence how the
message is interpreted, they can't guarantee or control it. Encoding sets some limits, but
without them, audiences could interpret anything in any way. While some
misunderstandings happen, there must be some level of shared understanding between
the message and the audience, or else communication wouldn't be possible. However,
this understanding is not automatic; it's constructed through the interaction between the
two parts. Communication isn't always perfect or clear, and different interpretations can
occur. So, we need to consider the various ways encoding and decoding can align.
18. We can imagine three possible ways people might interpret a TV message. These ideas
need to be tested and improved. The key point is that how a message is decoded
(understood) doesn't automatically follow how it's encoded (created). They're not the
same, which supports the idea that there's no fixed connection between the two. This
also helps challenge the common idea of 'misunderstanding' and shifts the focus to a
theory of 'systematically distorted communication,' where the message is influenced by
social and cultural factors.

19. The first hypothetical position is when viewers interpret a message exactly as it was
intended, using the "dominant hegemonic position." This is when the viewer fully
understands a TV news show or current affairs program in the way it was encoded,
using the same reference code it was made with. This is the closest we get to "perfectly
transparent communication."

Within this, there’s the professional code used by broadcasters, who follow their own
rules (like visual quality and technical details). However, this professional code still works
within the dominant code and helps reinforce it. For example, how certain events like
political issues are presented on TV often reflects the views of political and military elites,
and broadcasters, even though they might seem neutral, play a part in maintaining those
dominant views. They don’t do this on purpose; it’s more of an unconscious effect. There
can still be disagreements or contradictions between the dominant code and the
professional code, but overall, the professional code helps maintain the dominant way of
seeing things.

20. The second position is called the "negotiated code" or position. In this case, viewers
mostly understand the message as it was intended, but they interpret it in their own way.
The dominant definitions in the media are often tied to big ideas like national interest or
geopolitics, which are seen as natural or inevitable in society. These definitions are
"hegemonic," meaning they hold power and influence.

When people decode messages using the negotiated code, they accept the overall
meaning but add their own views based on their personal experiences or situations. For
example, they may agree with a general idea (like the need for economic cuts) but
disagree when it comes to how it affects their own lives or communities (like workers
fighting for higher wages). This mixed response creates contradictions, which are not
always visible but can lead to misunderstandings.

Finally, there is the "oppositional code," where viewers understand the message but
choose to interpret it completely differently. For example, they might hear a debate on
wage cuts but view everything said about the "national interest" as serving the "class
interest" instead. This is when viewers challenge the dominant message entirely and
retell it using their own alternative view, often sparking a struggle over how things should
be understood.