video games - audience

can be argued media can make people violent - columbine shooting, child's play, joker murders, thai gta murders 

brainwashing - completely force an ideology on someone - mk ultra 

people believe media affects us directly - not true -

passive audience model
albert vanduras 
- effects model and hypodermic needle model - we have no way of resisting ideology in media 
- the bobo doll experiment - shown a video of someone beating up a doll, then taken to a room with the doll and they beat it up

doom (id, 1993) blamed for a few killings, specifically columbine massacre 1999


issues  - videogames are resolutely violent, in both their depiction of violence and their use of violence as a problem solving mechanic. however there is arguably no evidence that media products have such a direct effect on audience 
- did it on children, easily manipulatable - and is not the same as committing real violence
- audiences are active, not passive 


henry jenkins, stuart hall and george gerbner - fandom, reception theory and cultivation theory 

fandom - active participants of the audience, forums and forming social bonds and social/cultural identities, and 'textual poaching' reading things in ways not intended by the producers
some audiences may take their experience of the game too far, be obsessed and may attempt to rein-act things 

reception theory - preferred/negotiated/oppositional, 
different audiences decode ideologies differently, so not all audiences will see the videogame in the same way - for example a classic negotiated reading would be a player who hates violence, but is able to realise that violence in video games is fictitious and unrealistic 

cultivation theory - being shown something over and over again enforces the ideology / reinforces mainstream hegemonic values - being exposed to violence over and over again and can desensitise audiences 
video games are repetitive and often we as a player are forced to kill the same characters over and over again and to witness death of the player 


Hall's theory - preferred, negotiated, oppositional

an assassin (trained killer) is the good guy/hero/protagonist 
so that killing people is sometimes an acceptable way to solve problems
also learning about history
we are supposed to enjoy and get involved with the complicated story
anti-monarchy and anti-establishment 

preferred - agreement with anti-monarchy and establishment, think killing is ok for the good of things and seeking justice, and think assassination is a valid career chouse 
negotiated - not in full agreement of the ideologies, but enjoy climbing and killing things , may disagree with the extreme violence but instead be interested by the story - audience members may even go into the options to switch off blood and gore effects, altering the game itself to their own preferences
oppositional - that killing is completely wrong, pro monarchy and establishment and think that the history shown in the game is wrong (and a different bias from their own) frustrated by the historical inaccuracies and authenticities and scifi subplot