WEEK SIX: Reception Analysis Summary

Reception Analysis and Group Discussion:

The members in my group were Michael Beirhup and Brian Fong. (You can see their full blog by clicking on their names). The show we were required to watch as a group was an episode of American Pickers called “Pint Sized Picker.” You can experience the full episode here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/234775#i0,p0,d0

Upon watching the show I found myself enjoying the culture and history presented in the pieces that the men found in these old farm homes of people around the country. I am familiar with this show and have never really enjoyed its procedural style that is common to shows on the History Channel. While its predictability and common threading make it cheap and quick to produce, it does offer some form of mild education for those who take in its content.

The oddity of this show revolves around its stereotyping of the modern junk collector. Most of the homes they visit are in rural areas and many are Appalachians. While the show may do this unintentionally, it does seem to leave a stigma regarding rural individuals and Appalachians being hoarders or bearded hairy men. Maybe we just have all of the cool stuff. However, the stigma is there whether or not it is intentional.

Speaking within our group we all seemed to share similar ideas to the text with some variances that included: emphasis on American and family values rather than the values of American history and/or the clear depiction of American materialism (hoarding). Michael and I seemed to agree more that the show emphasized the rich historical culture that mankind has left behind in the form of objects. Brian thought the show emphasized the importance of family life and the economic structure of “a man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” I agree with Brian that these tones exist, I just feel that it isn’t the main influence.

Since each group member had different interpretations of the text, I can start to understand the idea Polysemy, or “the relative openness of media text to multiple interpretations.” However, we all seemed to hit along the same points of interpretation within the text, just with disagreement on the main idea within the show. Because of these disagreements we each think differently about the show, representing a form of polyvalence rather that polysemy.

I think for the most part we had a pretty negotiated reading of this text. I believe we all understood the dominant code being set by the producers and understood the oppositional code of it being another money making procedural show produced by the History Channel. However, while understanding theses codes we as a group were able to negotiate a more reasoned response to the show in which we read codes of materialism, hoarding, and stereotypes, giving us a more rich sense of the media at hand.