The key assumption in audience research as proposed by Stuart Hall is then that there is no inherent (ideological) meaning in a media text since consumers read, decode, reconstruct and, ultimately, produce meaning in different ways. Readings of people are polysemic and, particularly, oppositional readings ‘exceed the norms of ideological control’ [Fiske, J. (2006) Understanding popular culture, 2nd edn, London/New York: Routledge, p. 114]. This brings us to a first hypothesis related to conspiracy theories. As counter-narratives self-consciously formulated in opposition to the official interpretation of (mediatised) events, we can argue that conspiracy theories are grounded in an oppositional reading of mass media texts. In fact, conspiracy theories can be understood as oppositional readings par excellence. In their critical readings of newspapers, broadcasted news, film, policy dossiers, video clips or mediatised events in politics, sports, entertainment, conspiracy theorists actively resist (alleged) ideological control and, in the words of Hall, ‘retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference’ [Hall, S. (1980) ‘Encoding/decoding’, in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis (eds.) Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, London: Hutchinson, pp. 172-3]. The adagio ‘nothing is what it seems’ […] inspires an oppositional interpretation of the media text wherein it is assumed that ideology, power and manipulation are key. This ‘deep’ style of reading ideology shows similarities with what Paul Ricoeur called ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ […]. Not unlike Marx, Freud and Nietzsche, conspiracy theorists detect deep structures underneath the surface of what is said, written or visualised in the text and, in a typical modernist way, reduce every empirical detail to the underlying theory. ‘Signs and symbols’, Harambam argues, ‘are not fully understood by their manifest content, but are skeptically addressed for what they hide, repress or conceal’ [Harambam, J. (2017) ‘The truth is out there’: conspiracy culture in an age of epistemic instability, unpublished thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, p. 248]. Transparency can hence be decoded as a sign of concealment while every arbitrary number, letter, word, object or gesture, can have ultimate meaning. Reading the official report of the Warren committee about the cause of death of John E Kennedy in 1963; watching the 26-second Zapruder film and meticulously analysing its 486 frames; observing the broadcasted moon landing in 1969 or screening the televised attacks of 11 September 2001 – the deep and intense readings of mass media texts bring conspiracy theorists to different (and substantially competing) interpretations about what really happened. Even seemingly non-political and aesthetically pleasing clips of pop stars like Rihanna, Madonna or Miley Cyrus, we will see, can be read as signifying a conspiracy to create a new world order. The practice of decoding mass media texts can, perhaps, be understood as key to making a contested conspiracy theory plausible and the invisible conspiracy visible to others. To prove, justify and legitimate their oppositional reading of mainstream media texts, conspiracy theorists actively search for textual/audiovisual evidence, signs and symbols.
– ‘Decoding mass media/encoding conspiracy theory’, in Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories (2020), p. 471
Cf. inverse exegesis.