Student interpretations of the film The Lion King reflect a linear, behaviorist understanding of communication, which Carey has called the transmission paradigm. The ways in which the students' discourse reflected the assumptions of the transmission paradigm can be divided into three categories: (1) responses that reflected the assumption that a message must reflect the sender's intentions, (2) responses that reflected the assumption that messages are concrete things that are “inside” of a text, and (3) responses that reflected the assumption that a message can be effectively or ineffectively interpreted by a receiver, who must be cognizant of the message if it is to have an effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andersen, Soren
. 1994. Film: P.C. police ignore maligning of wart hogs in “Lion King.”Tacoma News Tribune, 31 July, D3.
2.
Bagdikian, Ben H.
1997. The media monopoly. 5th ed.Boston: Beacon.
3.
Bell, Elizabeth
, Lynda Haas, and Laura Sells. 1995. From mouse to mermaid: The politics of film, gender, and culture. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
4.
Carey, James W.
1989. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge.
5.
Fiske, John
. 1982. Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge.
6.
Foster, David
. 1994. Please say it ain't so, Simba. Bergen Record, 27 July, C7.
7.
Hall, Stuart
. 1997. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.
8.
Head, Sydney W.
, et al. 1998. Broadcasting in America: A survey of electronic media. 8th ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
Internet Movie Database. 1997. Business information for Lion King, The (1994). Retrieved 14 August 1999. Available: http://us.imdb.com/cache/title-more/business+63846
10.
Internet Movie Database. 1999. The top grossing movies of all time at the USA box office. Retrieved 2 February 1999. Available: http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies
11.
Jhally, Sut
, and Justin Lewis. 1992. Enlightened racism: The Cosby show, audiences, and the myth of the American dream. Boulder, CO: Westview.
12.
Liebes, Tamar
, and Elihu Katz. 1990. The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readings ofDallas. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Lion scolds are the offensive ones
. 1994. Chicago Tribune, 31 July, 4:1.
14.
McChesney, Robert W.
1997. Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York: Seven Stories.
15.
Newberger, Carolyn
. 1994. Intolerance is the real message of The Lion King. Boston Globe, 27 July, 11:1.
16.
Rockler, Naomi R.1999. From magic bullets to shooting blanks: Reality, criticism, and Beverly Hills, 90210. Western Journal of Communication63:72-94.
17.
Scodari, Christine
. 1998. “No politics here”: Age and gender in soap opera “cyberfandom.”Women's Studies in Communication21 (2): 168-187.
18.
Snow, Tony
. 1994. PC wars: Lion King critics need to get a life. Detroit News, 1 August, A7.
19.
Thompson, Bill
. 1994. PC police exaggerate the true meaning of “The Lion King.”St. Paul Pioneer Press, 28 July, 9A.
20.
Twomey, Steve
. 1994. “The Lion King” a roaring success despite lambasting. Washington Post, 28 July, B1.
