In what ways might younger viewers tend to experiment with their viewing practices? And has this been a recent initiative, or one that has been consistently changing with the rapid evolution of technology since television’s inception?

In the reading, Lotz explains how younger viewers tend to experiment with their viewing practices – which reminded me of an interesting conversation I had on the weekend with a friend, as when they were younger they often watched a lot of Bollywood films on television. During each of these films, there would normally be around 5 songs, which usually equated to around 25 minutes. It was during this time that they would normally read a book, giving themselves 25 minutes of reading time. In a way, this reminded me of the ‘second screen’ viewing practices of today, as their example was from over 10 years ago. It is thus crucial to consider whether or not our viewing practices have really changed that much, as technology could be considered as one of only a few factors which may influence the way in which we choose to negotiate our usage of ‘television’ – nowadays that book could be replaced with a Kindle, iPad, another monitor, or something similar. It also exemplifies how young viewers often engage in creative viewing practices in their consumption of various mediae. As a result, it would seem that this is an initiative which has been consistently changing, and partly attributed to the technology available at one’s disposal.

What are the ramifications of the post-network era on Raymond Williams’ concept of flow?

Lotz briefly touches upon the role of a sequenced flow of programming in keeping viewers watching the same network. However, in an era of viewing with a greater array of choices in how and when to view, and one where content has broken free of the schedule and the living room – it would seem that the concept of flow is under serious threat. Essentially, new technologies have afforded the viewer a much larger degree of control, while undermining the power of the network – thus adjusting the experience of television and the feasibility of Williams’ concept of flow. This can be attributed to the fact that the audience now has the ability to construct their own ‘flow’, as a result of new technologies, and an abundance of choice.

How has the post-network era affected television networks and their content?

In a post-network era, networks no longer need to pander to the family construct, as for some networks there’s no longer a fear of alienating their audiences with ‘questionable’ content. Instead, many networks have begun to provide different and innovative content in order to stand out from the crowd, providing a point of difference in an extremely competitive and media-saturated landscape. As Lotz illustrates in the reading, programming strategies have shifted considerably, as executives have begun designing content that would be most valued by individual members of specific demographics, as opposed to programming that would be least objectionable to the aggregate family audience, and much of this shift can be attributed to cable television networks.

What kind of onus is on industry techniques in audience measurement in refining measurement strategies?

The environment has shifted from wanting to find out whether or not audiences are being exposed to advertisements, to wanting to know more about consumer behaviour and consumption practices. As such, the industry is more focused on understanding what consumers are doing. In this way, the value of the audience is increasing, as advertisers and marketers are finding out more about these viewers than ever before. The landscape is now one where advertisers need measurements that directly link their expenditure with the amount of merchandise they are selling. Therefore audience measurement needs to continue to find new ways of profiling the audience with increasing levels of specificity and accuracy.

Since the industry is more interested in whether or not advertising is being consumed, what does this mean for our ‘content’?

It could be argued that TV, and especially reality TV, is creating discourses within its material in order to fuel and facilitate consumer activity. A pessimistic view would then see the basis of much of the television we watch being built upon the ultimate goal of shifting products off shelves. With consumer resistance to the typical 30 second spot through technological means, such as commercial skipping devices. TV networks have had to push back by letting marketing penetrate the actual content itself, by way of product placement, product integration, and endorsements, among other things. This is ultimately damning for our content, as it is all seemingly turning into advertising noise. On the other hand, for the industry, they need to continue to establish the worth of these techniques, making it increasingly more difficult to establish viable matrices for measuring and valuing these techniques in determining their worth to advertisers.

Has the advent of ‘new screen’ viewing practices in a world of ‘content’ helped advertisers to create more efficient consumer profiles?

In a world where advertisers want to target us more precisely with persuasive appeals, it is becoming more important to ‘engineer’ content that holds the greatest appeal to particular audiences. As we are turning to new ways of watching television, some of which have much greater levels of interactivity. It would seem that we are giving up more information about ourselves than we realise, especially on mobile platforms and the Internet. In essence, interactive viewing behaviour is crafting the dissemination of content, through the very simplest of means. This may mean that content is being tailored specifically to our needs, as consumer profiles are being crafted with greater precision, but in the long run all of this is being aggregated somewhere. I would thus argue that advertisers are able to create much more efficient consumer profiles, as we are opening ourselves up to increasingly worrying levels of surveillance. We thus have to ask ourselves, if it is really worth it.

What elements of the reality TV show seem to enhance viewer perceptions of their ‘realness’?

A rigid compliance with the ‘real world’ is clearly unimportant here, as the audience seems to locate ‘realness’ within the emotional expressiveness, vulnerability, and ordinariness of reality TV participants. Subsequently, one can garner insight into other people’s lives and personalities, as they are exposed to the ‘core-selves’ of those on-screen. Affective identification provides a connective between participant and viewer, and when emotional expressiveness or authenticity is absent, the ‘realness’ of the show is questioned. ‘Realness’ is further enhanced through the exhibition of tangible change. It is this development, transformation, or rehabilitation in participants, that exemplifies ‘realness’, and is respected by viewers. Furthermore, the audience has become an integral part of the show’s process, essentially as ‘stars’ of the genre, and being next in line for fifteen minutes of fame has thus become a very real prospect. Moreover, the perception that there’s always something at stake for participant and viewer alike, seems to coincide with all of this, compounding the ‘realness’ of reality TV through an inherent and interminable sense of consequence.

Why might even the most highly reflexive audiences still find reality TV appealing?

If I were to look out the window at the ‘real world’, it would probably be boring, but I would be observing reality in principle. Reality TV on the other hand is like looking out the same window but all of the agents in view are being manipulated via backstage engineering. Here, puppet masters effectively create characters, drama, and narrative, in order to make their incarnations of the ‘real world’ entertaining, relatable, and just plain old ‘great TV’. Yet, even highly reflexive viewers don’t seem to be bothered by these visible seams. Media reflexivity helps these viewers to gauge the authenticity of reality TV participants, seeing how real people react under contrived circumstances. It also allows these viewers to prise open a space of self-reflexivity where they can essentially see avatars of themselves. Simply looking out the window at the ‘real world’ doesn’t allow for this, but the processes of reality TV construct realities where this is not only possible, but where the looking glass also doubles as a mirror. As a result, it becomes somewhat easier to understand how even the most highly reflexive audiences are baited by the reality TV hook.

How could reality TV be implicated in the creation of social norms and circulation of real world beliefs?

Usually the makeover show embraces participants who, in some way, aren’t deemed fit for normative society, and this resultant need to makeover or ‘make-better’ only serves to perpetuate ideals that one should aim for in order to be accepted. Not only limited to the makeover show, this circulation of ‘norms’ is prevalent throughout the discourse of reality TV. As stated within the reading, reality TV finds itself in a precarious position at the interstices of fact and fiction, and as such, it would be interesting to note whether or not viewers locate not only aspects of these shows, but the behaviour of reality TV participants, within a scope of normalcy. As these shows are usually constructed, heavily manipulated, and accompanied by a heightened level of theatrics.

How does Queer Eye suggest that a ‘crisis of masculinity’ is taking place?

According to the show heterosexual men are slipping, and Queer Eye endeavours to cure this malaise by placing emphasis on them becoming more responsible for maintaining relationships, being good partners, sustaining employment, consuming, and generally becoming more upwardly mobile. The show’s premise is built around an inherent need to reform heterosexual masculinity. As such, it is insinuated that the current generation of heterosexual men are undergoing a ‘crisis of masculinity’ which can be solved by gay taste and consumer expertise, making men better heterosexuals. Queer Eye cultivates its heterosexual subjects and viewers into more responsible citizens via consumption. If they follow gay advice, becoming ‘gayer’, they will become ‘classier’. In essence, any heterosexual man who looks at themselves through the ‘queer eye’ will be able to elevate their social standing and avert this ‘crisis of masculinity’. However, a more cynical view would ask if in fact there really is a ‘crisis of masculinity’, or if it is all just another construct, manufactured by the show in order to solve the ‘problem’ of the male consumer and accumulate more revenue from advertisers.

How does Queer Eye adhere to a neoliberal framework?

To begin with, the ‘real work’ must be accomplished by the subject or viewer themselves, which involves a shift from authoritarian government to individual responsibility as citizens are governed ‘at a distance’ and governmental functions are outsourced by constructing templates for citizenship through reality TV. In a sense, external forms of government are discarded in favour of pushing do-it-yourself methods onto the populace. Therefore, self-governance becomes paramount in creating a laissez-faire environment for economic development. A context is created in which constant self-improvement is crucial in an uncertain economic climate, and Queer Eye is just another site pushing this message as another neoliberal exhortation to become upwardly mobile. New cultural ‘norms’ are transmitted in the form of advice, instead of injunction by government agencies. The creation of shame is another compelling factor in forming neoliberal affect within the subject or viewer, as it instils ideas for these groups to want to seek change all by themselves. Queer Eye thus produces more ‘adult’ and ‘responsible’ worker citizens. In this way ‘normative time’ is privileged through a ‘queer’ show, as marriage and employability are paramount objectives in creating more effective worker-citizens who are self-monitoring, and seek to stabilize relationships, and employment opportunities, predicating ideas of futurity. Queer Eye thus reshapes the male labour force to become more efficient through its tendency to make the subject and audience do all of the ‘real work’.

How does Queer Eye use ‘camp’ to alert viewers and subjects to their respective ‘crises of masculinity’ and to instil neoliberal ideals?

The Fab Five will go around the homes of participants, in order to highlight examples that illustrate them as ‘strange’, and crucially, they find middle ground between these heterosexual dens of crisis, and the pretensions of bourgeois respectability through the use of camp. This serves to temper the sobering neoliberal emphasis on ‘growing up’, by delivering training in fun ways to make their life-lessons bearable. Camp also allows The Fab Five to joke around and become one of the ‘boys’, bridging the gap between heterosexual and gay men. In a way, The Fab Five characterize themselves as unthreatening life-coaches so that those being ‘trained’ will not see their advice as nagging, but ‘brotherly counsel’. Camp effectively makes a bitter pill easier to swallow.

How does Punathambekar show how the reality TV model is integrated into local contexts?

Punathambekar notes two instances to illustrate how television networks must adapt, one where Indian network Star TV was forced to rethink its pan-Asian production strategies, turning to methods of ‘Indianizing’ its programming, and another, where MTV realized that their Euro-American practices wouldn’t fit within an Indian context and turned to more relevant content. This exemplifies the need to not only adapt popular television to suit local contexts, but reality TV too. Punathambekar alludes to this in his example of Kaun Banega Crorepati, the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, where he notes how different elements of the show were made more relatable to Indian viewers, pointing to the ‘interplay between generic innovation and imitation’ within television programming (143).

What are some of the ways in which reality TV has impacted civic participation through the exploration of Punathambekar’s mobile publics?

In this instance, Punathambekar shows that reality TV and namely mobile publics have the potential to bring people together in ways that were once deemed inconceivable. The case of Amit Paul and Indian Idol-3 is shown to provide ‘the possibility and the space for the renewal of everyday forms of interaction across ethnic, religious, spatial, and linguistic boundaries that had been subdued and rendered difficult, if not impossible’, as people were implored to acknowledge their differences, yet set them aside (Punathambekar 150). Punathambekar refers to this as an ‘intervention’ that has the potential to ‘evince, if only momentarily, new cultural and political possibilities within the realm of everyday life’ (150). In this case, reality TV and Punathambekar’s ‘mobile publics’ endeavoured to shed light on everyday issues, and resultantly allowed the Indian public to transcend fault lines of difference, a clear example of how civic participation can be positively impacted by the triumvirate of reality TV, new media, and technology.

What opportunities have been opened up to the general public as a result of reality TV, new media and technology?

This triumvirate of reality TV, new media, and technology has the potential to positively impact television viewing practices. This is exemplified by the creation of new spaces for conversation and participation, and the formation of new modes of sociality, and such possibilities elicit thoughts of Benedict Anderson’s ‘imagined communities’. In the case of Indian Idol-3, these new arenas of public debate, discussion and cooperation are by-products that allow individuals to converge around political issues and generate awareness. Previously ‘insignificant’ individuals are thus transformed into a creative audience that can utilise mediated mobilization to address areas of concern. Howard Rheingold’s concept of ‘smart mobs’ is rather relevant in this context, as he contends that the ‘most profoundly transformative potential of connecting human social proclivities to the efficiency of information technology is the chance to do new things together, the potential for cooperating on scales and in ways never before possible’ (114). This isn’t however, only limited to examples with a political bent, as a range of new public spheres are engendered through this triad.

Sources used:

Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. USA: Perseus Publishing, 2002. Print.

How has reality TV become a self-governing phenomenon?

It is argued that reality TV provides society with lessons in self-reliance, training viewers to function without state intervention by providing life templates and do-it-yourself policing techniques in order to become self-disciplined and self-enterprising citizens. The carrot is often dangled in front of the viewer in the form of aspirational television, or by implying that life may just get that little bit better or easier by following some lifestyle advice from any one of the multitude of TV ‘experts’ at reality TV’s disposal. The viewer is thus invited to feel as though they are savvy or empowered, as they have taken the initiative in travelling a path to self-improvement, or to becoming better citizens. As such, an age of self-governance is borne out of the reality TV sensation.

Why is the reality TV model so enticing to networks and audiences alike?

Reality TV ultimately offers the best bang for buck model around. Its formats are easy to buy, sell and integrate within global and local contexts. Networks must endeavour to keep both audience and advertisers happy, and the fluidity and flexibility of the reality TV model supports both of these aims. Furthermore, by remaining on the cusp of developments in media convergence, interactivity, and user-generated content, and by mixing genre conventions and utilising the latest in new media and technology – the latest reality shows seem to maintain a level of disguise and freshness that keeps the audience coming back for more. In addition to this, reality TV is a highly manipulative construct that entices the audience by enhancing experience and manufacturing suspense, the viewer is always left to wonder what the producers will think to do next. If they’re not impacting the ‘reality’ of the show through editing, reconstruction, mediation, and prefab settings – they’re likely setting the stage by casting certain personalities in order to ignite conflict and create dramatic narrative development.

Murray and Ouellette argue that the reality boom has spawned an opportunity in which to wrest control of television images and discourses away from the culture industries – discuss.

In a way, the participatory nature of reality TV has instituted a culture of TV democracy – where the audience has assumed the power in deciding what we get to see on TV by voting with their feet, so to speak. And this isn’t limited just to reality TV itself, but to TV across the board. Furthermore, the advent of user-generated content has seen receivers collapse the hierarchy between themselves and the producers, which has empowered the average individual in this ongoing cultural struggle. Web based Channel101.com is a great example of both of these points (check it out if you’re bored).

And here are some links (yeah, I’ve been watching YouTube instead of doing my assignment):

What is meant by the term ‘regenrified’ and how does this relate to the medium of television?

‘Regenrification’ refers to the inherent ability of a text and its genre to be deconstructed and reshaped as cultural contexts shift. The term suggests that genres are unstable entities, as once they are generically codified; they can later be re-codified based on the shifting nature of audience, cultural, and industrial practices. This is an especially relevant and useful term when contrasted with the medium of television, owing to its increasingly fluid disposition.

Why does Mittell feel that a textualist approach to genre studies is problematic?

Nowadays singular texts can fit within multiple genre frameworks simultaneously – notably through processes of borrowing, repurposing, convergence, and migration – among others. This can be attributed to the fact that genres are formed by conventions that change over time, in terms of audience, culture, and industry. Based on these practices, television genres have a tendency to be melded or morphed, highlighting the advent of intertextuality. As such, Mittell argues that – ‘if genre is dependent on intertextuality, it cannot be an inherently textual component’, as ‘if the same text is open enough to be categorized under various genres, then it follows that it is problematic to look for generic definitions solely within the confines of the text’ (6).

How does the television industry use notions of Mittell’s argument to their advantage?

Often networks will morph, combine, or create seemingly new genres in order to suit the industry and its practices. Looking at the example of ‘dayparting’, where shows will be parted out during the day in order to gear specific shows to specific demographics based solely on the what time it is – you can start to see how genres such as ‘breakfast television’ are borne out of industry practice.

In addition to this, Mittell postulates that ‘audiences link programs together all the time’ and this is crucial to both industry and the audience itself. After the advent of a successful show, such as a Breaking Bad, or a Lost – for the next couple of seasons, several shows may be advertised as the heir apparent to these pop-culture hits. Looking at another show such as Fringe, this show is built upon the framework of a cop procedural with a ‘case-of-the-week’ format. Furthermore, it has subject matter and a ‘myth-arc’ that has seen it closely linked with elements of The X-Files. As a result, Fringe seemingly transcends several genre boundaries in order to create a new and refreshing take on stale genre conventions, whilst creating new ones in the process. These examples show how the pitch aesthetic is vitally important and how television networks advantageously employ short and snappy connections and comparisons in order to plot potential success before green-lighting a show, or in the process of ‘selling’ these shows to their audiences.

An idea within the Caldwell reading is that – in the future, one probably won’t know where the commercials stop and the programs begin – could this phenomenon already be upon us? Or is this concept still being negotiated by networks and advertisers?

As explained in the reading, networks like NBC have, in the past, invested in PVR companies such as TiVo and ReplayTV in an effort to cover their bets – and looking at the issues of P2P networking, the Internet, and the ‘republishing’ of content – it’s probably safe to say that many of these networks are in the process of devising tactics to ensure that we’re still being exposed to advertising in some shape or form, be it through hypermediacy, product placement, endorsements, sponsorship, or otherwise. At the moment, most product placement techniques are relatively transparent in their efforts, and as such I think it’s quite clear for most viewers where these hackneyed attempts at advertising begin and end. So this is a phenomenon which is still probably somewhat far away – in all likelihood, this is a concept which is still being negotiated and perfected.

How has television attempted to keep their viewers or users engaged with their ‘programs’, ‘texts’, or ‘content’ in an age of new-screen viewing practices?

Television networks have essentially been required to greatly expand the notion of what a TV text is, especially with various mediums all competing for our attention. As such, technology plays a large part in keeping viewers or users engaged with their ‘content’ long after specific episodes have aired. Often the narrative arc of the show will ‘continue’ outside of the show itself, through Web pages, social media, Webisodes, merchandizing, and more. In this sense, shows are being extended into the very real spaces of the fans, where interactivity is often a key component. Furthermore, the advent of the ‘post-show show’ such as Talking Dead or Talking Bad on AMC, has offered a solution in ensuring that engagement is extended and that the evening is programmed much like an ‘entity’, aligning with Raymond Williams’ idea of ‘flow’. Media hybridity, format crossing, and flow are thus crucial tools in keeping users engaged in an age of new-screen viewing.

Why has Caldwell alluded to the idea of television bearing the resemblance of a rudimental form of a ‘workable broadband network’?

Television has essentially acted as a bridge between old media and new media due to its inherent similarities to the Internet. Both of these mediums are electronic, ubiquitous, round the clock, and ostensibly ‘free’. The Internet has had, and still maintains a strong reliance on ‘content’ to reel in its users, and television has relied on this same concept since its inception. In these landscapes content is king, and we can acquire cultural capital from the dissemination of this content. This cultural capital or social currency, gives us an excuse to interact and network with each other much like the Internet. In a way, television can thus be considered the world’s first ‘workable broadband network’ owing to these built-in attributes and the creation of a public sphere, which may sometimes be despatialized or unidirectional, but nevertheless has the ability to reach audiences around the globe.

Why is globalization often seen as problematic when contrasted with indigeneity?

Some critics argue that globalization is simply an extension of colonization which has the inherent trait of fostering a hegemonic and Eurocentric worldview, whereas a rather homogenized picture of indigeneity is represented as an alternative. In this sense a power-imbalance occurs where indigenous cultures may be stereotyped, and typically Western viewpoints which perpetuate racisms and suppress diversity are free to continue in their circulation, creating a ‘West and the Rest’ discourse. Furthermore, the indigenous audience or ‘the other’ is often seen as a passive or inferior entity that seemingly cannot exert any form of control over ‘foreign’ media content.

What is meant by Bhabha’s term ‘culture’s in-between’?

The term implies that composite practices prise open an ‘in-between’ space of negotiation which entails neither assimilation nor collaboration. Instead these spaces mark the emergence of an interstitial agency geared toward the creation of new modes of selfhood and the narrative construction of singular or communal visions and versions of historic memory that effectively undermine and subvert established norms. In essence, new modes of identity and representation are formed through this practice.

In the case of Mataku can television be a proliferating resource for the construction of cultural identity?

If done right, yes and in the case of Mataku, I feel this has been achieved. Mataku has effectively created space for an indigenous public sphere where the politics of re-imagination, imaginative re-articulation, and reinvigoration can take place. Mataku challenges the hegemonic order of things by subverting mainstream beliefs and stereotypes through indigenous cultural assertion. As a result, Maori are shown that there are other ways that they can ‘be brown’, in a way constructing, strengthening, and reinforcing cultural identity. At the same time, Maori culture and language are given a new lease of life, gaining a wider audience within New Zealand, and globally. These cultural beliefs are shown to be far from irrelevant in the contemporary world, and audiences are given an insight into various mythical stories from New Zealand and the Maori, exemplifying a diverse, complex, and vibrant cultural identity.

What is meant by the ‘family circle’?

During the post-war years, family togetherness and unity was of paramount importance. It was postulated that the spatial organisation of the family and its household could simply be calculated and controlled, as if governed by a set of scientific laws. The ‘family circle’ perpetuated a much sought after and timely attitude, promoting a sense of closeness within household spaces and romanticising the family unit as an ideal that could be obtained by whatever product was being sold. With the television, advertising heavily depicted this idea. The family would be shown gathering around the television set in a semicircle, literally coming together and worshipping the technological marvel at hand with the utmost appreciation of the security and familial harmony it seemingly offered.

Is this term still relevant today?

It’s interesting to note that in spatial terms, the television is still a prominent figure in most households. Many of us still essentially dedicate a room in the home to the television, and much like the ‘family circle’ people still organise these rooms in way that pertains to this ideal. The only thing that has changed is how we are engaging, as we’ve entered an era of ‘new-screen’ viewing. In terms of advertising, the ‘family circle’ is not the ‘be-all and end-all’ of product promotion as it once was. Attitudes have changed since the inception of the television into the suburban household, yet much like post-war times, we are living in a world where the family unit has become somewhat fractured again. As such, the idea of the ‘family circle’ may have come ‘full circle’ (sorry) and once again may be a somewhat relevant idea in bringing the family back together, albeit not to the same degree.

What would a modern take on the ‘family circle’ need to look at?

The notion of togetherness is still vital to the phenomenon of television. Television has always been predicated on a social level, beginning with the nuclear family it was used as a tool to enhance togetherness and unity. Now television is seemingly doing the same thing but in a different way. Instead of the emphasis on the household space, we have been increasingly pushed into virtual spaces and encouraged to find new ‘families’ or extend existing ones via social networks and the like. Just like ‘water-cooler’ television, people want to enhance their social currency, share their experiences, or at least feel like they are part of a bigger picture, even if they’re watching alone. The nature of what we once defined as family has changed, and instead of television dominating tangible spaces, it has now moved into virtual ones that we now form ‘circles’ around on the Internet. As such, it is crucial that the notion of togetherness still be explored, yet through a different lens. The ‘family circle’ is an interesting insight into the early ideal of family connectedness and to bring it into a more modern perspective it would need to investigate this changing nature of family and space.