🚀 go-pugleaf

> In
>practice, I'm less concerned if a particular medium is hot or cool -
>just who owns and controls it and for what purpose.

But isn't this approach ignoring the role of the audience in the medium?
Surely the whole notion of communication involves the audience as much as
the sender?
A whole host of writers (Fiske, Morley, Ang, et al) have shown that how a
listener/viewer/reader interprets the message may be vastly different from
the message intended by the sender or controller.

Don't concepts like hot & cool move some way towards an understanding of
the audience in the role of receiving and interpreting the message?

I would agree that hot & cool mediums (or at least as they have been
explained to me by broadcast trainers at radio stations at which I've
worked) are somewhat simplistic as I previously argued, but feel that we
shouldn't throw out any consideration of the audience and see the sender or
controller as having all the power in the communication process.

Bob Hope-Hume                    http://kali.murdoch.edu.au/~hopehume/
                                 r.hope-hume@murdoch.edu.au

                       ,-_l\    "They keep on telling me to settle down
PO Box 7387           /     \    But I'm telling you
Cloister's Sq         $_.-._/    This is a real gone town
Western Australia          v     And I aint a gonna do it."
AUSTRALIA  6850                   JOHNNY O'KEEFE AND HIS DEE JAYS.