I have to "read" SCD as part of my university work and I'm flummoxed when it comes to encoding and decoding it.

Stuart Hall suggested there were three views of TV programming:

Dominant reading: the reader/ viewer fully shares the text's code and accepts and reproduces the preferred reading

Negotiated Reading: the reader/ viewer partly shares the text's code and broadly accepts the preferred reading, but sometimes resists and modifies it to reflects their own position. Takes it with a ‘pinch of salt’

Oppositional reading: the reader/ viewer understands the preferred reading, but opposes this meaning and therefore reads the text in the completely opposite way.

Confused? I am! Here it is put into context with relation to the death of the Queen Mum:

Dominant reading: ‘As a British citizen I am mourning the death of our Queen Mother.’

Negotiated Reading: ‘Yeah, it’s quite sad but she was 101 years old.’

Oppositional reading: ‘Hurray, the Queen Mother’s dead. Good riddance.’

Any ideas how I might use the three analogies for SCD? Any help seriously grateful!

You could do John Sergeant
As a Briticsh Citizen I am outraged that he has left the show it's not right!

Yeah it's sad but he couldn't actually dance so it was good of him to drop out.

Thank god he's left he couldn't dance and he's knocked alll the good ones out!

i don't know

Yeah, there's an idea. I haven't a clue whether it's required of the whole show or just an incident, but it's a better idea than what I've had so far

Maybe I could argue that there's public opinion about Rachel Stevens doing it as she's already a performer compared to rugby players.

As regards the show in general

Dominant reading - Strictly is a fabulous show. It combines superb dancing with ecellent entertainment. It's made even better by the fact that there is such a mixture of celebrities. They come in all shapes, ages and fitness! This lends a touch of unpredictability to the show which just adds to the excitement. The judges may see things differently from each other but that adds to the show's appeal too. They each have their own take on things but they're always professional.

Negotiated Reading - Strictly's a fun show although like any show of this type it has its limitations. It's enjoyable watching celebrities learning how to dance but at the same time, there are always those who tend to get a rough ride and those who seem to be "in favour". However, the winner is generally someone who deserves the title and the whole show is an enjoyable watch.

Oppositional Reading - Strictly's rubbish. The judges have their favourites and the public's choice is always disregarded. It's fixed just like any other shows of this type - the winner will always come from a shortlist that the BBC wants. There are celebrities just brought in to be cannon fodder and if, by some miracle/aberration, they survive longer than the producers/judges deem fit then steps will be taken to counteract this.

Basically - decide what the text's code is. Rachel's fabulous, Lisa's improved immeasurably, Tom's good but he doesn't dance for the audience and comes across as smug, the public should vote for the best dancer etc

Then put it into context of the three types of reading.
The dominant reader will agree.
The negotiated reader will agree to an extent but have their own reservations.
The oppositional reader will disagree.


At least that's my take on it.

Wow thanks. A lot to think about there

bearing in mind I never progressed beyond GSCE English and Science is my game , this is what I would write
Dominant
The programme commisioned by the BBC takes the format of professional dancers with allocated celebreties from different backgrounds, ages and previous exposure to dance. To remain in the show until the semifinal stage the aim is to acheive the highest amalgamated score of both the professional judges and the general public by a telephone poll. In the final stage the public alone decide who is crowned Stictly Champions
Non Dominant
The progamme which is very popular generally ends up with the favourite and most popular celebrity winning . They can usually dance quite well
Oppostional
This "show" has nothing to do with dancing . The general public pay to vote , more fool them , and cannot be regarded as being a true reflection of genuine talent.
Last edited by dreaminofdancin : 30-11-2008 at 19:44

Whoops Non - Dominant should read Negotiated
first rule of exams - read the question
Just testing!!!!!

I'm tempted to ask which uni is getting you to do this and what happened to the classics but I can't resist a challenge so:

Dominant: Strictly is an entertaining Saturday night family show in the light entertainment genre. That it is presented by Bruce Forsythe is entirely appropriate as he provides a link with previous light entertainment shows and the current audience. The older viewers love him because he reminds them of a past era and the young family audience enjoys his cheery persona. For those in the know, Bruce Forsyth is also an entertainer, well known for his song and dance routines with the likes of Sammy Davis Junior. He is therefore, the perfect choice to front this show which combines elements of dance and entertainment.

The show also fits in with the BBCs public service remit as the dance element has an educational component. The BBC has secured the presence of experts in the field who inform the audience about the skills involved in the dance and provide constructive criticism for the celebrities to enable them to improve. Seeing the way in which the celebrities and their professional dancing partners work together each week, how hard they train and how much they improve is inspiring and uplifing.

Negotiated: Strictly is an entertaining Saturday night family show but its concept is rather limited. For the preferred demographic it undoubtedly achieve its purpose in that it combines elements of entertainment and education but there is a broader audience who this programme fails to reach. The judges fulfil their function most of the time but occassionally they become a little too dominant and can overshadow the dance iself. While Bruce Forsyth is a talented and engaging host, it could be asked whether a presenting style that existed 50 years ago is entirely relevant today.

Oppositional: Strictly Come Dancing sums up everything that is wrong with the BBC and, in many ways, with wider society today. It presents up with a group of largely unknown performers and ex sportspeople partnered with 'professional' dancers, who are only known for their presence on Strictly and who are in the main no longer competing in the dance world, dressed up in costumes that would not seem out of place at a child's fancy dress party and dancing in a manner that makes Ricky Gervais look like Darcy Bussell. The programme would largely pass without comment in the wider media, were it not for the fact that it raises issue about race and age. Black dancers (celebrities I should say - there are no black professional dancers, judges or hosts on this show) are voted out earlier than appears to be entirely decent and older dancers are either lionised for being able to put one foot in front of eachother or slated for the converse. The show is presented by Bruce Forsyth who has been delivering his lines in the same way for the past 50 years and is therefore a perfect fit for a show that is 50 years out of date.

Hmmm - negotiated is hardest because you can't go all out either way.