David Morleys Study of

the Nationwide Audience (1980)

o Introduction

o BBC Survey of Nationwide Audience

o Three Positions

o Research Methodology

o 'Dominant Readings'

Print Management Trainees

Bank Managers

Apprentices

School Students

o 'Negotiated Readings'

Teacher-Training College Students

University Arts Students

Photography HE Students

Trade Union Officials

o 'Oppositional Readings'

Black FE Students

Shop Stewards

o Conclusions
 o Sources

o Key Links

Introduction

Professor David Morley is a sociologist who specializes in the sociology of the

television audience. He is currently Professor of Communications at
Goldsmiths' College in the University of London. His studies of the former
television programme Nationwide arose from research which was conducted at
the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of
Birmingham between 1975 and 1979. Nationwide was a popular news/current
affairs magazine programme which had a regular early evening slot on
weekdays from 6.00 to 7.00 pm on BBC1. It followed the main national news
from London and included human interest stories from 'the regions' as well as a
'down-to-earth' look at the major events of the day. It was broadcast throughout
the UK (including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), though from its
general stance one might have been forgiven for assuming that it was broadcast
only within England. Michael Barratt was the regular presenter of the
programme at the time.

A previous study by Morley together with Charlotte Brunsdon - Everyday

Television: 'Nationwide', published in 1978 (also by the British Film Institute) -
involved textual analysis of the programme. Although it has many limitations,
Morley's study of The 'Nationwide' Audience (published in 1980) has become
one of the most-widely cited studies of the television audience.

In the NWA study his major concern was 'with the extent to which individual
interpretation of programmes could be shown to vary systematically in relation
to... socio-cultural background' (1981b, p 56). He was investigating 'the degree
of complementarity between the codes of the programme and the interpretive
codes of various sociocultural groups... [and] the extent to which decodings
take place within the limits of the preferred (or dominant) manner in which the
message has been initially encoded' (1983, p. 106).

BBC Survey of Nationwide audience in 1974

Social Group Size % of Audience % of Overall Population

Upper middle-class 321,000 5.4 6.0
Lower middle-class 2,140,000 36.3 24.0
Working-class 3,438,000 58.3 70.0
Male 2,772,000 46.1 --------------
Female 3,177,000 53.9 --------------

Source: Morley (1980: 38)

Three Positions

Morley outlined three hypothetical positions (adapted from Frank Parkin)

which the reader of a programme might occupy (1983, pp. 109-10; see also
1981b, p. 51 and 1992, p. 89):

o Dominant (or 'hegemonic') reading: The reader shares the

programme's 'code' (its meaning system of values, attitudes, beliefs and
assumptions) and fully accepts the programme's 'preferred reading' (a
reading which may not have been the result of any conscious intention
on the part of the programme makers).

o Negotiated reading: The reader partly shares the programme's code and
broadly accepts the preferred reading, but modifies it in a way which
reflects their position and interests.

o Oppositional ('counter-hegemonic') reading: The reader does not

share the programme's code and rejects the preferred reading, bringing to
bear an alternative frame of interpretation.

Morley argues that 'members of a given sub-culture will tend to share a cultural
orientation towards decoding messages in particular ways. Their individual
"readings" of messages will be framed by shared cultural formations and
practices' (1981b, p. 51).

Summaries and commentaries on the responses of each of the groups

interviewed in Morley's NWA study are presented here in the order in which he
places them in the spectrum of readings from 'dominant', via 'negotiated', to
'oppositional'.
Research methodology

o Morley did not claim in the NWA book that he was engaging in
ethnography, but in his 'Critical Postscript' published in Screen
Education a year later he proclaimed himself to be developing an
'ethnography of reading' (1981a, p. 13).

o Morley deliberately chose to work with groups rather than individuals

because 'much individually based interview research is flawed by a focus
on individuals as social atoms divorced from their social context' (1980,
p. 33).

o Two programmes from Nationwide were shown to 29 small groups (2-13

people) from different social, cultural and educational backgrounds (note
that tape-recording problems led to the data for groups 9, 24 and 29
being unusable).

o Programme A had been broadcast on 19th May 1976 and a recording of

this was shown to 18 groups in London and the Midlands; Programme B
dated from 29th March 1977 (a 'Budget Special') and this was shown to
11 groups, mainly in London.

o The groups were already meeting as part of educational courses of

various kinds (some full-time; some part-time).

o Viewing by each group was followed by a discussion lasting about 30

minutes. Morley chose to use 'open discussions' rather than pre-
sequenced interview schedules (1980, p. 32).

o [Note that the age-ranges for groups given in various places in the
original publication do not always agree; I have relied on the summary
list: 1980, pp. 37-8].

'Dominant Readings'

Print Management Trainees (Groups 26 & 28)

 o All men; aged 22-39; one group mainly white (European); the other all
black (mainly Nigerian); middle-class.

o Saw Programme B.

o Predominantly 'radical' Conservative or 'don't know'.

o The young European trainee managers held very right-wing views and
saw Nationwide as a 'very pro-Labour' programme biased in favour of
the trade unions and against management (1980, p. 123; in dramatic
contrast to the trade union groups, who saw it as strongly anti-union).
'It's basically socialist' (1981b, p. 57). 'I come from a very conservative
family. Several times I've wanted to pick up the phone and
phone Nationwide; I have seen people being pulled through the mud
there, just because they have too much money' (1981b, p. 57). 'They
didn't give him a chance, the guy from management' (1981b, p. 57).

o The black group of trainees did not share the programme's cultural
assumptions and found it hard to make sense of it (1980, p. 130).

o Morley saw these management trainees as inhabiting the 'dominant' end

of the spectrum of readings, with a 'radical' Conservative inflection
(1980, p. 137). 'In a sense... so far to the right of the political spectrum...
that they might be said to be making a right-wing 'oppositional reading'
of Nationwide' (1981b, p. 62).

'Dominant Readings'

Bank Managers (Group 21)

o Mainly men; aged 29-52; all white, middle-class.

o Saw Programme B.

o Predominantly 'traditional' Conservative political views.

o They hardly commented at all on the programme's content - its

ideological treatment of the issues - this was 'transparent' and
 uncontroversial to them (in strongest contrast to the trade union groups)
(1980, pp. 145-6).

o They focused on what Morley calls the programme's 'mode of address' -

its presentational style - contrasting it unfavourably with 'serious current
affairs' as exemplified by The Daily Telegraph and The Money
Programme. Nationwide was seen as 'just a tea-time entertainment
programme, embarrassing... patronising... exploiting raw emotion...
sensationalism' (1980, p. 145).

o 'I can't bear it... I think it's awful... one thing... then chop, chop, you're
onto the next thing' (1980, p. 106).

o 'I couldn't identify with any of them [the participants]' (p 106). They
imagine that the target audience is 'the car worker... the middle people...
and below' (1980, p. 107).

o 'If you're talking about communicating with the public and you're
actually leading them, I think that's dishonest' (1980, p. 106).

o Ideas rather than people were important to them (1980, p. 105).

o Morley saw these bank managers as inhabiting the 'dominant' end of the
spectrum of readings of the programme, with a 'traditional' Conservative
inflection (1980, p. 134). They shared the 'ideological problematic' of the
programme (its structural limitations on what can be understood and
what questions can be addressed) - indeed, they denied the presence of
any particular problematic (1980, pp. 145-6).

'Dominant Readings'

Apprentices (Groups 1-6 & 27)

o Mainly men; aged 17-29; all white; working-class.

o Some saw Programme A; a few saw Programme B.

o These were politically mainly 'don't know' or populist Conservative;
many adopted a cynical rejection of politics; to some extent identifying
with the National Front (1980, p. 138).

o One noted that the programme seemed to be aimed at 'the 40-year-old

normal man'.

o They rejected the programme's style as too formal, serious and 'boring'
(insufficiently entertaining and humorous). Several said that they
preferred ATV Today.

o They also saw it as middle-class. One declared: 'The people we see

presenting, they all seem to be snobs to me' (1980, p. 52). Another said:
'You wouldn't think anyone actually worked in factories - at that time of
night; to them, teatime's at 5 o'clock and everyone's at home... a real
middle-class kind of attitude' (p, 52).

o However, they tended to accept the perspectives of the programme's

presenters, seeing their questions as 'pretty obviously OK'.
The Nationwide team was seen as 'just doing a job' (1980, p. 54). 'The
presenters have got to be the most authoritative 'cause you see most of
them... You mistrust the person they're interviewing, straight away, don't
you?' (1981b, p. 59). 'Barratt's a national figure, so what he says, you
know...' (1981b, p. 59).

o One group did note that 'they're going to the left... the majority of people
think that Nationwide's left' (1980, p. 126).

o They accepted the chauvinistic stance reflected in one of the items

(1980, pp. 51, 59-60).

o Despite their general tone of rejection and cynicism ('they're biased

though, aren't they?') they decoded most of the specific items within the
dominant framework or preferred reading (1980, p. 138; 1981b, p. 64;
1983, p. 113).

o Morley saw these apprentices as clearly inhabiting the 'dominant' end of

the spectrum of readings of the programme, in a mainstream working-
class 'populist-Conservative'/cynical inflection (1980, pp. 134, 137, 138-
40). He felt that the apprentices were the closest of all the groups to the
programme's own 'populist' code (1981b, p. 64). 'The lads' use of a form
 of populist discourse ("damn all politicians - they're all as bad as each
other... it's all down to the individual in the end, isn't it?") was quite
compatible with that of the programme' (1983, p. 113). Morley notes that
the apprentices had the same working-class background as the trade
union officials who produced 'negotiated' readings and the shop stewards
who produced 'oppositional' readings. He argues that the differences are
explicable in terms of 'the articulation of social position through
discourse' since the apprentices, who tended to reproduce 'dominant'
readings, were inactive union members with no active involvement in the
discourse of trade unionism (1992, p. 116).

'Dominant Readings'

School Students (Groups 10 & 12)

o All male; aged 14-16; more white than black; working-class.

o Saw Programme A.

o Their political views were mainly 'don't know' or Labour.

o They liked the style of Nationwide, seeing it as appealing to children as

well as adults, in contrast to Panorama and the News (1980, p. 69),
though some preferred their own local ITV programme London Today (p.
74), favouring its more irreverent style.

o Others liked Nationwide's variety, immediacy and accessibility. 'You

can see the expressions on his face' (1980, p. 69).

o Some were aware that in one item an interviewee was not allowed to talk
about what he regarded as 'the important thing' and that in another the
interviewer was 'trying to catch him [the interviewee] out all the while'
(1980, p. 70). Others felt that the interviewer was 'just there doing his
job' (p. 75).

o They generally accepted Nationwide's preferred readings, agreeing, for

instance, with the chauvinistic item (1980, pp. 71, 77).
 o Morley felt that these schoolboys tended to inhabit the 'dominant' end of
the spectrum of readings, with a 'deferential' inflection (1980, p. 137).

'Negotiated Readings'

Teacher-Training College Students (Groups 14 & 15)

o Mainly women; aged 19-46; mainly white; middle-class.

o Saw Programme A.

o Politically, mainly Conservative and 'don't know'.

o The programme was seen as not for them; they saw it as for an older,
family audience (1980, pp. 79-80; 84; 1981b, p. 58). It was a programme
which 'I only watch with my parents' (1980, p. 80).

o It was seen as 'the TV equivalent of the Sun or Mirror' (1980, p. 84).

'There didn't seem to be a good reason, a valid reason, for half the things
they showed' (p. 83) (this attitude was in strong contrast to working-class
groups such as the apprentices, who liked programmes which offered 'a
bit of a laugh').

o Nationwide was seen by the student teachers as offering inadequate

'detail' and information compared to 'serious', 'educational' and
'worthwhile' programmes such as Panorama (1980, pp. 80; 84; 1981b, p.
63). 'It's not very thought-provoking' (1980, p. 84). Like the university
arts students they favoured the more serious items in Nationwide (1980,
p. 84). This was in strongest contrast to the Black FE Students (1980, p.
142).

o They rejected Nationwide's focus on the 'human' angle (1980, pp. 84,
86).

o They criticized the questions asked in interviews (1980, p. 82) and the
bias of the presenters (p. 85). 'We're supposed to side with them [the
presenters]... It gets on your nerves after a while' (1981b, p. 58).
 o They tended not to accept the programme's preferred readings, including
the chauvinism (1980, pp. 82-3, 86).

o Morley saw the student teachers as adopting 'negotiated' (veering

towards 'dominant') readings with a Conservative 'Leavisite' inflection
(1980, pp. 134, 137). He argued that their involvement in HE shifts their
discourse into 'negotiated' rather than 'dominant' readings (1980 p. 141;
1981b, p. 62), though he also refers to the general conservatism of
teacher-training colleges (p. 144).

'Negotiated Readings'

University Arts Students (Groups 7 & 19)

o Men and women; aged 19-24; all white; middle-class.

o Some saw Programme A; others saw Programme B.

o No predominant political views.

o The programme was seen as 'basically for middle-class people' (1980, p.

61).

o They dismissed the programme's style of presentation in similar terms to

the bank managers, seeing it, for example, as 'patronizing' (1980, p. 63).
'It's obviously directed at people with little concentration... it's got a kind
of "easy" form... it's "variety", isn't it?' (p. 60). 'It's like Blue Peter... it's
vaguely entertaining... basically undemanding' (p. 98).

o They favoured the more 'serious' items. Like the teacher-training

students, they assessed the programme according to criteria of relevance
and informational value derived from 'serious' current affairs
broadcasting (1981b, p. 62).

o 'It's meant to give the impression that we're all in this together. We're a
great big happy family as a nation, and we're doing all these things
together' (1981b, p. 57).
 o They were particularly conscious of the methods used by the
programme. They noted certain significant absences.

o They were less 'oppositional' on the programme's treatment of politico-

economic issues. The programme's treatment of industrial relations was
not regarded by them as biased (in strong contrast with the trade union
groups). 'I don't think they have done anything to bias us one way or
another' (1981b, p. 57-8).

o Morley saw these university students as adopting highly articulate (and

because of their educational background, consistently deconstructed)
'negotiated' (and sometimes 'oppositional') readings of many topics in the
programme, with a 'radical Leavisite' inflection (involving a notion of
'high culture'). However, their readings were more 'dominant' in relation
to other topics (1980, pp. 134, 137, 144; 1981b, p. 62).

'Negotiated Readings'

Photography HE Students (Groups 8 & 18)

o Mainly men; aged 19-26; all white; middle-class.

o Saw Programme A.

o These students rejected the programme's style of presentation as 'all very

sort of matey' (1980, p. 65).

o It seemed to be a programme for 'teenagers... mothers putting kids to

bed'. It was 'just like a tidied-up version of the News of the World' (1980,
p. 65). Like other higher education students they favoured the more
serious items.

o Their technical background led some to make technical criticisms (1980,

p. 94).

o They were aware of the presenters' power: 'They claim to speak for the
viewer.. but in doing that they're actually telling you what to think'
(1980, p. 94). They noted that Michael Barratt put his interpretive slant
on what was shown (p. 65); 'he's the voice of authority' (p. 94).
 o They rejected the programme's preferred readings in some items - for
instance, dismissing the chauvinism of one item (pp 76, 95).

o Morley saw these HE (photography) students as adopting 'negotiated'

readings, inflected by a 'technicist professional' perspective (1980, pp.
134, 137).

'Negotiated Readings'

Trade Union Officials (Groups 20 & 22)

o All men; mainly aged 24-64; all white; working-class. On in-service

training.

o Saw Programme B.

o Their political stance was a populist, 'right-wing Labour' perspective.

o In strongest contrast to the bank managers the presentational style was

treated as a subordinate issue - the trade union officials were more
concerned with the programme's content - its ideological formulation of
the 'issues' (1980, pp. 144-5). Because this content was unacceptable to
the trade union officials what was 'transparent' to the bank managers was
highly 'visible' to these groups.

o They generally accepted the presentational style of the programme.

However, one noted: 'my major complaint... is the way in which they
trivialize every topic they seem to take up - and just when the topic
begins to blossom out, they suddenly say, "Well, that's it..."' (1980, p.
110).

o They accepted the individualistic theme of the programme and its

construction of a national 'We' (1981b, p. 64).

o One group felt that 'It seems to be a programme acceptable to the vast
majority of people' (1980, p. 102). For the other group it was seen as 'for
the middle-class... undoubtedly for what they regard as the backbone of
the country, the middle-class' (1981b, p. 60).
 o One group accepted the presenters as their 'enquiring representatives'
(1980, p. 103) and felt that the programme was 'fair' (p. 104). The other
(exclusively Labour) group felt that there was an unacceptable right-
wing bias (p. 109).

o One group rejected the general political perspective of the programme;

the other group was more critical and 'oppositional' about the treatment
of specific economic 'trade union' issues.

o Morley felt that the trade union officials made 'negotiated' (veering
towards 'oppositional') working-class readings of the programme, with a
'populist' right-wing Labourist 'official' inflection (1980, pp. 134-5, 137,
141).

'Oppositional Readings'

Black FE Students (Groups 11, 13, 16, 17 & 25)

o Mainly women; aged 17-37; mainly black (predominantly West Indian);

inner-city working-class.

o Predominantly Labour and 'don't know' politically.

o Some saw Programme A; others saw Programme B.

o The programme did not reflect their concerns or their lifestyles and they
couldn't see 'how anyone could watch it' (1980, p. 87). 'It's for older
folks, not for young people' (p. 71). And for 'affluent... middle-class
people' (p. 118). 'Nationwide's Conservative' (p. 118). 'If it's supposed to
be for us, why didn't they never interview Bob Marley?' (1981b, p. 58).

o 'It didn't show one-parent families, nor the average family in a council
estate - all these people they showed seemed to have cars, their own
home, property... don't they ever think of the average family?... And they
show it... like all the husbands and wives pitching in to cope with
problems... They don't show conflict, fighting, things we know happen. I
mean it's just not, to me it's just not a true picture - it's too harmonious,
artificial' (1981b, p 59).
 o Nationwide was seen as going into too much detail (1980, p. 88), and
consequently 'boring' - as also was the News - and even the BBC output
in general (1980, pp. 71, 87, 89, 118; a notably different argument from
that of the teacher-training students). Some, like the apprentices, wanted
TV which gave viewers 'a bit of a laugh... variety and all that' (1980, p.
93). The programme was seen as lacking entertainment value. Morley
attributes this contrast with the more academic students to their
'differential involvement in the discourse of formal education' (1981b, p.
63; 1980, p. 142).

o Some items simply left them confused. Morley notes that 'insofar as they
make any sense at all of the items some of them come close to accepting
the programme's own definitions' (1980, p. 142; 1981b, p. 63).

o Morley assigned to the black students an 'oppositional' position in the

spectrum of readings (1980, p. 137), although noting that their response
was more of an alienated 'critique of silence' - a refusal to read the
programme at all (1981b, p. 63, 1980, p. 134; 1983, p. 115) - rather than
an 'oppositional' reading. Theirs was a working-class, inner-city, black
youth subculture perspective alien to the cultural codes
of Nationwide (pp. 137, 142-4).

'Oppositional Readings'

Shop Stewards (Group 23)

o Mainly men; aged 23-40; all white; working-class.

o Saw Programme B.

o Their political views were predominantly socialist or Labour.

o They saw the programme as 'light entertainment' and as more

patronizing than ITV's London Today (1980, p. 113). They objected
to Nationwide's 'sort of soothing, jolly approach... as if you can take a
nasty problem and just wrap it up... you know - "We're all in the same
boat together" and clearly we're all going to live to fight another day' (p.
113).
 o They rejected Nationwide's attempt to tell us what 'our grouse' is and its
attempt to construct a national 'We'. They rejected the programme's
claim to represent 'us' (1980, p. 114).

o 'I don't think you can take Nationwide in isolation... I mean... add
the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Express to it, it's all the same whole
heap of crap... and they're all saying to the unions, "You're ruining the
country"...' (1981b, p. 60).

o They redefined the issues which the programme presented, noting

significant absences in the discussion of economics. Givcn that the
programme they saw was a 'Budget Special', one noted: 'There's no
discussion of investment, growth production, creation of employment...
nobody mentioned unemployment... no reference to stocks and shares...
that are accumulating money all the time without anybody lifting a
finger' (1981b, p. 61).

o They saw the treatment of issues as highly biased. 'They had so much
sympathy with the guy from middle management. Even in BBC terms,
there wasn't any neutrality in it at all' (1981b, p. 61).

o Morley felt that the shop stewards produced the most articulate fully
'oppositional' critical reading of the programme, with a 'radical' left-
wing, 'rank-and-file' trade unionist inflection (1980, p. 137; 1983, p.
114). They rejected the ideological problematic of the programme (in
contrast to those inhabiting the 'dominant' end of the spectrum of
readings) (p. 146). 'This group fulfils the criteria of an oppositional
reading in the precise sense that it redefines the issues which the
programme presents' (1981b, p. 65).

Conclusions

o Morley insists that he does not take a social determinist position in which
individual 'decodings' of TV programmes are reduced to a direct
consequence of social class position. 'It is always a question of how
social position, as it is articulated through particular discourses, produces
specific kinds of readings or decodings. These readings can then be seen
to be patterned by the way in which the structure of access to different
 discourses is determined by social position' (1983, p. 113; see also 1992,
pp. 89-90).

The meaning of the text will be constructed differently according

to the discourses (knowledges, prejudices, resistances etc.)
brought to bear by the reader, and the crucial factor... will be the
range of discourses at the disposal of the audience... Individuals in
different positions in the social formation defined according to
structures of class, race or sex, for example, will tend to inhabit or
have at their disposal different codes and subcultures. Thus social
position sets parameters to the range of potential readings by
structuring access to different codes.

Whether or not a programme succeeds in transmitting the

preferred or dominant meaning will depend on whether it
encounters readers who inhabit codes and ideologies derived from
other institutional areas (e.g. churches or schools) which
correspond to and work in parallel with those of the programme or
whether it encounters readers who inhabit codes drawn from other
areas or institutions (e.g. trade unions or 'deviant' subcultures)
which conflict to a greater or lesser extent with those of the
programme. (1983, p. 106-7; see also 1992, p. 87).

o 'The apprentice groups, the trade union and shop stewards groups and
the black college students can all be said to share a common class
position, but their decodings of a television programme are inflected in
different directions by the discourses and institutions in which they are
situated' (1983, p. 117). Morley thus emphasizes the importance of
different subcultural formations within the same class.

o 'If we relate decodings to political affiliations then it does appear that the
groups dominated by Conservatism - the apprentices, teacher training
students and bank managers - produce dominant readings, while those
dominated by Labour or socialist discourses are more likely to produce
negotiated or oppositional readings. This is not to suggest that it is an
undifferentiated "dominant ideology" which is reproduced and simply
accepted or rejected. Rather, it is a question of a specific formulation of
that ideology which is articulated through a particular programme
discourse and mode of address... To take the example of dominant code,
as employed here it exists in three different versions: for the managers in
"traditional" and "radical" Conservative forms, for some of the teacher
 training students in a Leavisite form, and for the apprentice groups in a
populist form' (1980, pp. 134-5).

o 'To understand the potential meanings of a given message we need a

cultural map of the audience to whom that message is addressed - a map
showing the various cultural repertoires and symbolic resources
available to differently placed subgroups within that audience. Such a
map will help to show how the social meanings of a message are
produced through the interaction of the codes embedded in the text with
the codes inhabited by the different sections of the audience' (1983, p.
117).

o Morley argues that in his perspective, 'readers are seen to be engaged in

productive work, but under determinate conditions, which are not of
their own choosing' (1992, p. 122).

o He notes that there were differences within each group of viewers, and
overlaps between groups (1981b, p. 66; 1983, p. 115-6). It was possible
to refer to various examples of 'the same code' ('dominant', 'negotiated'
or 'oppositional') for 'purposes of gross comparison only' (1983, p. 116).
However, he argued that the differences in readings between groups
categorized as reflecting different codes were 'far greater' than the
differences within any group (1980, p. 33).

o Morley adds that any individual or group might operate different

decoding strategies in relation to different topics and different contexts. A
person might make 'oppositional' readings of the same material in one
context and 'dominant' readings in other contexts (1981a, p. 9; 1981b,
pp. 66, 67; 1992, p. 135).

o In terms of sociological/structural variables, he notes that his study

focused on class largely at the expense of age, sex and race (1981a, p. 8;
1981b, p. 67).

o Morley accepts that he did not adequately explain his use of the terms
'middle-class' and 'working-class' and that these referred more to
occupational position than to 'a model of class based on relations of
production' (1981a, p. 9; 1981b, p. 67).

o He notes that the small groups he studied could not be taken to

'represent' sections of society. We could not be sure that other people
 from comparable social positions would necessarily decode the same
material in the same ways as those of the groups he studied (1981b, p.
67).

o He acknowledges that his research was subject to the usual limitations of

the interview technique (1981b, p. 67). In addition, the groups were not
interviewed in the domestic setting in which they would normally watch
TV (1992, p. 133).

o Morley had deliberately avoided the use of fixed-choice questionnaires

on the grounds that 'it is not simply the "substance" of the answer which
is important, it is also the form of its expression which constitutes its
meaning' (1980, p. 31). He insisted that he wanted 'to examine the actual
speech forms' used (1980, p. 34). However, he later accepted that in his
use of his interview data, 'despite the proclaimed intention to deal with
questions of linguistic form, the research constantly slides back to a
perspective where the question of form becomes of only marginal, or
occasional interest' (1981a, p. 8).

o Morley noted that in interpreting viewers' readings of television attention

should be paid not only to the issue of agreement (acceptance/rejection)
but to comprehension and relevance. He also adds enjoyment (1981a, p.
10; 1992, pp. 126-7, 136).

o 'What we have at the end of the Nationwide project is a series of

responses to material which is not necessarily salient to the
respondents... Clearly the question of whether they would make a
dominant, negotiated or oppositional reading of a certain type of
programme material is less relevant than the question of whether or not
they would choose to watch that type of material in the first place' (1992,
p. 137).

o He leaves open the issue of whether and how the framework of 'preferred
readings' is applicable in television genres other than news, current
affairs and documentary 'which explicitly claim to make factual
statements about the world' (1981a, p. 6; see also 1981b, p. 66).
Applying it in this way might threaten to reduce fictional texts to banal
propositions. He does note that different genres require different
competences in the viewer; many assumptions will not be made explicit
within the programmes. He suggests that
 ['Serious'] current affairs TV presumes, or requires, a viewer
competent in the codes of parliamentary democracy and
economics... The competences necessary for reading current
affairs TV are most likely to have been acquired by those persons
culturally constructed through discourses of masculinity... the
other probable conditions of access to these forms of cultural
competence are being white and being middle or upper-class.
(1981a, pp. 12-13; see also 1992, pp. 129-30)

Sources

o Morley, David (1980): The 'Nationwide' Audience: Structure and

Decoding. London: BFI

o Morley, David (1981a): '"The Nationwide Audience" - A Critical

Postscript', Screen Education 39: 3-14

o Morley, David (1981b): Interpreting Television. In Popular Culture and

Everyday Life (Block 3 of U203 Popular Culture). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press, pp. 40-68

o Morley, David (1983): 'Cultural Transformations: The Politics of

Resistance'. In Howard Davis & Paul Walton (Eds.): Language, Image,
Media. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 104-17. Extracts can also be found
in Paul Marris & Sue Thornham (Eds.) (1996): Media Studies: A Reader.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 298-306

o Morley, David (1992): Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies.

London: Routledge (Chapters 3 & 4).

Daniel Chandler
January 1997