Medya Okuryazarlığı Eğitimi ve Kültürel Farklılıklar: Küresel Televizyon Şovu Survivor Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Alımlama Analizi

Öz

İzleyicilerin aktif birer katılımcı olduğunu vurgulayan alımlama çalışmalarında bireysel farklılıkların yanında, kültürel farklılıklar da önem kazanır. Diğer yandan izleyicilerin alımlamasını, yani aktif birer katılımcı olarak medya mesajlarını yorumlamalarını belirleyen faktörler çeşitlidir. Eğitim, yaş, cinsiyet, ekonomik durum, aile yapısı, etnik köken, dünya görüşü ve benzeri faktörler alımlamayı etkilemektedir. Bunun yanında medya okuryazarlığı bilincine sahip olmak ve eleştirel okumalar yapabilmek, alımlamayı belirleyen başka bir etken olarak karşımıza çıkar. Bu genel çerçeveden bakarak, karşılaştırmalı bir alımlama analizi olarak tasarlanan bu çalışma kapsamında, İspanya’da ve Türkiye’deki genç izleyicilerin küresel olarak dolaşıma giren popüler içerikleri alımlamaları incelenecektir. Bu bağlamda, İspanya’da ve Türkiye’de iletişim fakültelerinde öğrenci olan gençlerle küresel bir televizyon programı olan Survivor ile ilgili odak grup çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Konuyla ilgili literatür taraması yapılarak, karşılaştırmalı alımlama çalışmaları ve medya okuryazarlığı kavramları incelenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Medya Okuryazarlığı, Karşılaştırmalı Alımlama, Survivor, Televizyon programları, Odak Grup

Media Literacy Education and Cultural Differences: A Comparative Reception Analysis on Global TV Show Survivor

Abstract

Reception analysis takes into consideration not only individual differences but also cultural differences. On the other hand, there are diverse factors determining audience’s reception and active participation. Education, age, sex, economical status, family background, ethnicity, world –view and similar factors affect the reception process. Besides that, being media literate and fostering a critical approach towards media texts also determines reception. Taking into account all these factors, this research is designed as a comparative reception analysis. We will be comparing the reception of a global product by youngsters (Survivor Show) within the scope of media literacy education and cultural differences. For that purpose we realized focus group discussions with communication faculty students from Spain and Turkey. The research was realized in the framework of literature review including the above mentioned topics

Keywords

• Media Literacy, Comparative Reception, Survivor, Television Programs, Focus Group.

References

1. Baran, S. J. (2004). Media Literacy and Culture. New York: MC Graw Hill.
2. Beniger, J. R. (1992). “Comparison Yes But-The case of technological and cultural change”, Comparatively Speaking: Communication and Culture across space and time. (ss. 35-53). (Ed.) J. Blumler et al. London: Sage.
3. Biltereyst, D. (1991). “Resisting American Hegemony: A Comparative Analysis of the Reception of Domestic and Us Fiction”, European Journal of Communication, vol. 6, 469–497.
4. Blumler, J. et al. (1992). “An Introduction to Comparative Communication Research”, Comparatively Speaking: Communication and Culture across space and time. (3-19) (Ed.) J. Blumler et al. London: Sage, 3–19.
5. Chisholm, L. (1995). “European Youth Research: Tour de Force or Turmbauzu Babel?”, in L. Chisholm et alii. (Eds) Growing up in Europe: Contemporary Horizons in Childhood and Youth Studies, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
6. Castello, E. et alii. (2009). “Telling it like this? Social and Linguistic Realism in Scottish and Catalan Soaps”, Media, Culture and Society, vol.31, 467–484.
7. Culver, S. H. (2013). “National Leadership and Local Action”, Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue. (Ed. by.) U. Carlsson & S. H. Culver. Göteborg: Pub. by University of Gothenburg: 75-86.
8. Franco, J. (2001). “Cultural Identity in The Community Soap: A Comparative Analysis of Thuis (At Home) and East Enders”, European Journal Of Cultural Studies, Vo. 4, n. 4, November, 449-473.

9. Haddon, L. (1998). Locating the Virtual Community in the Households of Europe (1) The International Report; (2) Methodological Observations. Reports for NCR Financial Services, December, London: NCR.
10. Hall, S. (2009). “Encoding/Decoding”, Media Studies Reader. (ss. 28-39). (Ed.) S. Thornham et alii., Edinburgh University Press.
11. Hasebrink, U. (2012). “Comparing media use and reception”, The Handbook of Comparative Research. (ss. 382-400) (Eds.) F. Esser and T. Haritzsch. London: Routledge.
12. Hobbs, R. (1998). “The seven great debates in media literacy movement”, Journal of Communication, s: 48(1), 16–32.
13. Hofstede, G. (1998). “A Case for Comparing Apples and Oranges: International Differences in Values”, Values and Attitudes Across Nations and Time. (Ed.) M. Sasaki. (ss. 16-31). Leiden: Brill.
14. Jensen, K. B. (Ed.) (1998). “Introduction”, News of the World: World Cultures Look at Television News. (ss. 5-10) London: Routledge.
15. Kohn, M. L. (1989). “Cross-national Research as an Analytic Strategy”, Cross-National Theory in Sociology. (Ed.) M. L. Kohn. (ss. 92-112). American Sociological Association Presidential Series, New York: Sage.
16. Koltay, T. (2011). “The Media and the Literacies: Media Literacy, Information Literacy, Digital Literacy”, Media, Culture and Society. 33(2), 211–221.
17. Kotilainen, S. and A. Souninen (2013). “Cultures of media and Information: Literacies among the Young, South North Viewpoints”, Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue. (Ed.) U. Carlsson and S. H. Culver. (ss.141-163). Göteborg: University of Gothenburg.
18. Liebes, T. and E. Katz (1992). “Six Interprétation de la Série Dallas”, Hermes. n.11–12, 125-144.
19. Livingstone, S. and P. K. Lunt (1992). “Un Public Actif, Un Téléspectateur Critique”, Hermes. n.11– 12,145-157.
20. Livingstone, S. (1998). “Mediated Childhoods: A Comparative Approach to the Life world of Young People in a Changing Media Environment”, European Journal of Communication, 13(4), 435-456.
21. --------------------- (2003). “On the Challenges of Cross-National Comparative Media Research”, European Journal of Communication, Vol: 18(4):477-500.
22. ---------------------- (2004). “Media Literacy and the challenge of new Information and communication technologies”, The Communication Review, s. 7, 3-14.
23. Livingstone, S. and M. Bovill (Eds) (2001). Children and Their Changing Media Environment: A European Comparative Study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Mattelart, A. and E. Neveu (2003). Introduction Aux Cultural Studies, Paris: La Découverte.
25. Mihailidis, P. (2005). “Media Literacy in Journalism/Mass Communication Education: Can the United States Learn from Sweden?”, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, Winter, 416–428.
26. Morley, D. (2003). “The Nationwide Audience”, The Audience Studies Reader. (Eds) W. Brooker, D. Jermyn. (ss. 95-105). London: Routledge.
27. ------------------ (2005). “Etkin izleyici Kuramı: Sarkaçlar ve Tuzaklar”, Medya ve İzleyici: Bitmeyen Tartışma. (çev. Y. Yavuz). (ss. 99-105). Ankara: Vadi Yay.
28. Nowak, S. (1989). “Comparative Studies and Social Theory”, Cross-National Theory in Sociology. (Ed.) M. L. Kohn. (ss. 34-56). American Sociological Association Presidential Series, New York: Sage.
29. O’Donnell, H. (1999). Good Times, Bad Times: Soap opera sand Society in Western Europe, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
30. Pérez Tornero, J. M. (2004). Promoting Digital literacy, Final Report: Understanding Digital Literacy, Barcelona:UAB.
31. Pérez Tornero, J. M. and V. Tapis (2010). Media Literacy and New Humanism, Paris: UNESCO.
32. Pérez Tornero, C. Pulido, S. Tejedor (2013). “Advancing MILID”, Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue. (Eds.) U. Carlsson and S. H. Culver. (ss. 94-114). Göteborg: University of Gothenburg: 99-114.
33. Potter, J. (2005). Media Literacy. (3 Ed.), USA: Sage Pub.
34. Sorensen, A. S. (2001). “Media Literacy-A Core Issue in Recent Studies in Youth and New Media”, Young. 9:2, 53–58.
35. http://www.rtuk.org.tr (2013).