Vulnerable Audiences?

.

Using my Cabinet of Curiosity, I was asked to consider the following propositions:

• In what ways could More! magazine ‘influence’  the minds of a vulnerable audience?
• What possible negative ‘effect’ does More!  magazine have on the audience and society?

Within the Media, magazines have had a huge stigma about influencing young women for a while now, and there is heavy criticism about even children reading them. Whether it is down to these magazines or not, the sexualisation of our culture is increasing, especially where young girls are concerned. Children want to be older so dress and read magazines aimed at older women (such as More!) and older women want to be younger so dress accordingly, which only further influences these children’s minds. Magazine companies know they receive a secondary audience of younger girls and young teenagers, but they’re not going to respond as at the end of the day themselves as well as the companies they advertise are gaining more profit.

Magazines such as More! help to perpetuate the obsession society seems to have with Celebrity Culture, which is becoming increasingly prominent in younger generations. Arguably, this isn’t the worst example compared to similar magazines, but they all show airbrushed and size zero images on most pages; be it a fashion shoot, article or advertisement. The main problem with images of this nature is that the audience, in this case young girls, possess a sense of verisimilitude when viewing these simulacra’s – hence the constant association and reputation surrounding magazines and eating disorders. I feel the objectification of women is more apparent in other Media forms (namely the music industry), but these magazines don’t help and only seem to accelerate body image issues – for vulnerable audiences male and female.

Another side of the argument is that it is used as explained in the Uses and Gratification Theory, for personal identity in particular. Young girls may read these magazines to gain knowledge about fashion, make-up and men only because they feel lost and have the need to fit in with their peers and society in general – they feel the need to conform. Some people may not see it this way however and believe in individuality and the Pluralist view, but I seem to of acquired a more Marxist view on the Media. I understand it may appear that due to new hybrids and divergence has led to the concept of fragmented audiences, but I fear this is a façade in itself to make individuals feel like individuals. Magazines create False Consciousness by filling their pages of the ‘latest’ fashion crazes and how to wear them to suit particular figures or at particular events. It makes the audience feel as if they are individual, when in reality they’re being subliminally influenced to buy all the same ‘fashionable’ products that are probably only there in the first place because the magazine got paid by the companies selling the product. Maybe this is a negative view, but nothing within the Media is straight-forward anymore; it’s very contrived.