Encounters with the Television Image: Thirty Years of Encoding Research

References

• Acker, S., & Tiemens, R. (1976). Image size as an element of visual language. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, R. (1983). The Guiding Light: Soap opera as economic product and cultural document. In J. O’Connor (Ed.), American history/American television (pp. 306–327). New York: Frederick Ungar.
   Google Scholar
• Alley, R. (1982). Television drama. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 89–121). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Altman, R. (1986). Television/sound. In T. Modleski (Ed.), Studies in entertainment: Critical approaches to mass culture (pp. 39–54). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (1987). Reflections on Magnum, P.I. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical vietv (4th ed., pp. 112–125). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Antin, D. (1979). Video: The distinctive features of the medium. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Tele vision: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 494–516). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Avery, R., & Tiemens, R. (1976). The syntax of visual messages: An empirical investigation of the asymmetry of the frame theory. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1974a). ETV production methods versus educational intention: Some unintended biases. Educational Broadcasting International, 7, 158–159.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1974b). Experiments in ETV: Effects of adding background. Educational Broadcasting International, 7, 208–209.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1975a). Experiments in ETV: Effects of camera angle. Educational Broadcasting International, 8, 134.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1975b). Experiments in ETV: Effects of edited cutaways. Educational Broadcasting International, 8, 36–37.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1975c). Experiments in ETV: Further effects of camera angle. Educational Broadcasting International, 8, 183–184.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1975d). Experiments in ETV: Interviews and edited structure. Educational Broadcasting International, 8, 93–94.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J., & Duck, S. (1975e). Psychological effects of image variations. Video and Film Communication, 8, 11–17.
   Google Scholar
• Barbatsis, O. (n.d.). Pictorial communication: Exchanges with social coins of unknown value. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Barbatsis, G., & Kenney, K. (1985). Pictorial language: Meaning in form. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D. (1985). Television production techniques as communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 234–246.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D. (1988). “It’s been real”: Forms of television representation. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, J, 42–56.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D. (1989). St. Elsewhere-. The power of history. Wide Angle, 11, 32–47.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D. (1991). The emergence of television’s repertoire of representation, 1920–1935. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 305–318.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, K. (1982). The garden in the machine: The why of Star Trek. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 181–197). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsdon, C., & Morley, D. (1978). Everyday television: “Nationwide.” London: British Film Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1986). Notes on the soap opera apparatus: Televisual style and As the World Turns. Cinema Journal, 25, 53–70.
   Google Scholar
• Byars, J. (1987). Reading feminine discourse: Prime-time television in the U.S. Communication, 9, 289–304.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., & Reeves, J. (1989). TV news narration and common sense: Updating the soviet threat. Journal of Film and Video, 41, 58–74.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, E. (1973). Oh! What a blow that phantom gave me! New York: Bantam.
   Google Scholar
• Carragee, K. (1990). Interpretive media study and interpretive social science. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 81–96.
   Google Scholar
• Caughie, J. (1981). Rhetoric, pleasure and “art television”: Dreams of leaving. Screen, 22, 931.
   Google Scholar
• Caughie, J. (1984). Television criticism. Screen, 25, 109–121.
   Google Scholar
• Coldevin, G. (1976). Comparative effectiveness of TV production variables. Journal of Educational Television, 2, 21–24.
   Google Scholar
• Coldevin, G. (1978a). Experiments in TV presentation strategies. Educational Broadcasting International, 11, 17–18.
   Google Scholar
• Coldevin, G. (1978b). Experiments in TV presentation strategies: Number 2. Educational Broadcasting International, 11, 158–159.
   Google Scholar
• Coldevin, G. (1980). Experimental research in television production techniques and presentation strategies: Current directions. Educational Technology and Communications Journal, 26, 65–78.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, I. (1980). Television news and the social contract. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–1979 (pp. 139–156). London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Corcoran, F. (1984). Television as ideological apparatus: The power and the pleasure. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, I, 131–145.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, J. (1986). Codes and cultural analysis. In R. Collins, J. Curran, N. Gamham, P. Scannell, P. Schlesinger, & C. Sparks (Eds.), Media, culture, and society: A critical reader (pp. 49–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Craft, R. (1982). Elegy for Mary Hartman. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 148–157). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deming, R. (1985). The television spectator-subject. Journal of Film and Video, 37, 49–63.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, U. (1972). Towards a semiotic inquiry into the television message. Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 3, 103–121.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, J. (1982). Visible fictions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Esslin, M. (1982). Aristotle and the advertisers: The television commercial considered as a form of drama. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 260–276). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feuer, J., Kerr, P., & Vahimagi, T. (1984). MTM: “Quality television.” London: British Film Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, I. (1984). Popularity and ideology: A structuralist reading of Doctor Who. In W. Rowland & B. Watkins (Eds.), Interpreting television: Current research perspectives (pp. 165198). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, J., & Hartley, J. (1978). Reading television. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Flitterman-Lewis, S. (1985). Thighs and whiskers: The fascination of Magnum, P.I. Screen, 26, 42–59.
   Google Scholar
• Flitterman-Lewis, S. (1987). Psychoanalysis, film, and television. In R. Allen (Ed.), Channels of discourse (pp. 172–210). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flitterman-Lewis, S. (1988). All’s well that doesn’t end: Soap operas and the marriage motif. Camera Obscura, 16, 119–128.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. (1989). Evolving production strategies for high-definition television: A study of Julia and Julia. Journal of Film and Video, 41, 25–41.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T. (1983). Inside prime time. New York: Pantheon.
   Google Scholar
• Gripsrud, J. (1990). Toward a flexible methodology in studying media meaning: Dynasty in Norway. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–1979 (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Hanhardt, J. (1979). Video/television space. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 238–246). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, J. (1983). Understanding news. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Havelock, E. (1963). Preface to Plato. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, S., & Skirrow, G. (1977). Television, a world in action. Screen, 18, 7–60.
   Google Scholar
• Heck, M. (1980). The ideological dimension of media messages. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–1979 (pp. 122–127). London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Herbener, G., Tubergen, N., & Whitlow, S. (1979). Dynamics of the frame in visual composition. Educational Technology and Communications Journal, 27, 83–88.
   Google Scholar
• Hilmes, M. (1985). The television apparatus: Direct address. Journal of Film and Video, 37, 27–36.
   Google Scholar
• Himmelstein, H. (1989). Kodak’s “America”: Images from the American Eden, Journal of Film and Video, 41, 75–94.
   Google Scholar
• Intintoli, M. (1984). Taking soaps seriously: The world of Guiding Light. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, K. (1990). Television futures: A social action methodology for studying interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 129–146.
   Google Scholar
• Lembo, R., & Tucker, K. H., Jr. (1990). Culture, television, and opposition: Rethinking cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 97–116.
   Google Scholar
• Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readings of “Dallas.” New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lull, J. (Ed.). (1988). World families watch television. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Marc, D. (1984). Demographic vistas: Television in American culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marchand, P. (1989). Marshall McLuhan: The medium and the messenger. New York: Ticknor & Fields.
   Google Scholar
• McCain, T., Chilberg, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1977). The effects of camera angle on source credibility and attraction. Journal of Broadcasting, 21, 35–46.
   Google Scholar
• McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: Mentor.
   Google Scholar
• McLuhan, M. (1965). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• McLuhan, M. (1967). The mechanical bride: Folklore of industrial man. Boston: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Metallinos, N. (1979a). Composition of the TV picture: Some hypotheses to test the forces operating within the television screen. Educational Technology and Communications Journal, 27, 205–214.
   Google Scholar
• Metallinos, N. (1979b). Looking to new areas for research in broadcasting. Feedback, 21, 18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Metallinos, N. (1982). Children’s perception, retention, and preference of asymmetrical composition in pictures. In R. Braden & A. Walker (Eds.), Television and visual literacy: Readings from the 13th Annual Conference of I.V.L.A. (pp. 33–34). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metallinos, N. (1984). Visual space: Empirical research in z-axis staging Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Metallinos, N. (1985). Empirical studies of television composition. In J. Dominick & J. Fletcher (Eds.), Broadcasting research methods (pp. 297–311). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Molinaro, M. (Ed.) (1987). Letters of Marshall McLuhan. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moores, S. (1990). Texts, readers and contexts of reading: Developments in the study of media audiences. Media, Culture and Society, 12, 9–29.
   Google Scholar
• Morley, D. (1986). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London: Comedia.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, M. (1983). Sport on television: Replay and display. In E. Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 44–66). Los Angeles: American Film Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: The most popular art. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Nowell-Smith, G. (1978). Television-football-the world. Screen, 19, 45–59.
   Google Scholar
• Ong, W. (1967). The presence of the word. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plasketes, G. (1989). The videotape editor as sculptor: Paul Simon’s Graceland in Africa, a ease study. Journal of Film and Video, 41, 42–57.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, D. (1982). Soap time: Thoughts on a commodity art form. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 122–131). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. (1980). Two studies of Lou Grant: Montage style and the dominance of dialogue. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. (1981). The montage structure of adventure and dramatic prime time programming. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. (1983). Applying semiotics to the study of selected prime time television programming. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 69–75.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M., Moeder, M., & Deering, B. (1990, November). The influence of close-up reaction shots on viewers’ understanding of the television text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Pryluck, C., Teddlie, C., & Sands, R. (1982). Meaning in film/video: Order, time and ambiguity. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 685–695.
   Google Scholar
• Real, M. (1982). The Super Bowl: Mythic spectacle. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 206–239). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenblatt, R. (1979). Growing up on television. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 350–362). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schatz, T. (1987). St. Elsewhere and the evolution of the ensemble series. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (4th ed., pp. 85–100). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlater, R. (1968). Would you believe: The medium is half the message. Educational Broadcasting Review, 2, 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Schlater, R. (1969). Effect of irrelevant visual cues on recall of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting, 14, 63–69.
   Google Scholar
• Schlater, R. (1970). Effect of speed of presentation on recall of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting, 15, 207–214.
   Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, P. (1987). Putting “reality” together. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, F. (1979). Video aesthetics and serial art. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 407–419). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, L. (1986). Getting Physical: Text/context/reading and the made-for-television movie. Cinema Journal, 25, 35–50.
   Google Scholar
• Schwichtenberg, C. (1987). The Love Boat: The packaging and selling of love, heterosexual romance, and family. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (4th ed.), (pp. 126–140). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sklar, R. (1982). The Fonz, Laveme, Shirley, and the great American class struggle. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 77–88). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stam, R. (1983). Television news and its spectator. In E. Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 23–43). Los Angeles: American Film Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Tarroni, E. (1979). The aesthetics of television. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 437–461). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thorbum, D. (1979). Television melodrama. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 536–554). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiemens, R. (1970). Some relationships of camera angle to communicator credibility. Journal of Broadcasting, 15, 483–490.
   Google Scholar
• Tiemens, R. (1990, November). Analyzing visual content: Managing mountains of data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Timberg, B. (1982). The rhetoric of the camera in television soap opera. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd ed., pp. 132–147). New York; Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Timberg, B- (1987). Television talk and ritual space: Carson and Letterman. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 52, 390–402.
   Google Scholar
• Timberg, B. (n.d.). Letterman and company: An analysis of late night television talk. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Timberg, B., & Himmelstein, H. (1989). Television commercials and everyday life: A follow-up to Himmelstein’s production study of the Kodak “America” commercial. Journal of Film and Video, 41, 67–79.
   Google Scholar
• Toogood, A. (1978). A framework for the exploration of video as a unique art form. Journal of the University Film Association, 30, 15–19.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, C. (1979). It’s not so much “You’ve come a long way baby” as “You’re gonna make it after all.” In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (2nd ed., pp. 64–73). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Worth, S. (1981). Studying visual communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Worth, S., & Adair, J. (1972). Through Navajo eyes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wurtzel, A., & Dominick, J. (1971). Evaluation of television drama: Interaction of acting styles and shot selection. Journal of Broadcasting, 16, 103–111. ZettI, H. (1968). The study of television aesthetics. Educational Broadcasting Review, 2, 36–40. Zettl, H. (1973). Sight-sound-motion: Applied media aesthetics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar