Stuart Hall's Encoding Decoding Model of Communication: In Depth Explanation

Stuart Hall’s Encoding / Decoding Model of Communication is a theory of Communication that suggests how audiences derive meaning from media texts (artifacts). These meanings can be dominant, negotiated or oppositional. Contrary to other theoretical models, the audience is active, not passive.

[ShammyCam]

Thanks for this. Halls texts are so dense and difficult to decode. Kind of ironic actually

[Nrandonom]

Ive just read Halls text and was confused by some parts, you excellently explained everything in that presentation and could also lift the veil of confusion !

[Emily-bmxj]

Thank you for your amazing channel. Love the references and connections you bring together and for breaking things down and making things very accessible <3

[mariannelesigne]

This helps tons, thank you for taking the time to make this video!

[nandakathu]

This was very helpful for me as a postgraduate student

[canchen]

very helpful to me as an international postgraduate student

[yarayounis]

Bless you! Thank you so much. Helped me understand it so clearly!

[cnvrwmm]

You helped me so much!!! GOD BLESS YOUUU...AND PLEASE CONTINUE✅

[joshmaddox]

This will help me on my second abstract.

[sarahscity]

Hi! What's the reference for the point "Meanings of messages are assumed to be distortion-free and universally transferable"? Is it from Stuart Hall (1977)? I'm hoping to use this point in my essay. Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[JuanBGonzalez]

POV: you are watching this video for your WGST 3020 class

[ceesjanmol]

Your explanation on Barthes and myth is difficult to follow.

You illustrate his approach to myth, by highlighting a picture. Logically, myths and pictures wild not appear to be the same things. Further clarification, addressing the 'proud salute of the soldier' by not telling the audience what exactly is mutual Scott this picture and further confusing the viewer with the picture not actually depicting a soldier by a child, really begs the question as to how you would think this explanation could be logical to anyone?