Keeping up with the time-use diary has taught me a lot about my viewing habits over the past semester. Based on the programs, platforms and devices I have engaged with, I will analyse my viewing in terms of the following four areas: YouTube in the place of TV, binge-watching on video on demand, family rituals and the power of televised movies.

YouTube is a huge weakness of mine and, as evidenced in my time-use diary, I spend more time on it than any other viewing platform. I have many subscriptions that I engage with regularly – primarily vloggers– and I find it difficult to lessen that engagement once engrossed with their channels/lives. Through the direct address of their viewers, vlogs effectively “establish conversations between the vloggers and their audience” (Aran et. al 2015). As a result of this, viewers feel connected to vloggers through them being their authentic selves and the affective dimension of their expression (Soelmark 2015). I think I also find myself spending more time on YouTube than watching TV or Netflix because watching one eight-minute video on my phone feels like less of a distraction when studying than a 40-minute episode of a TV series. However, this simply means I end up watching more YouTube videos, so either way I end up being counterproductive. Alex Juhasz describes YouTube as a “private postmodern TV of distraction,” which has proved accurate in my experience.

Binge watching is another mode of viewing which I found myself falling victim to. While I usually try to refrain from giving into the temptation during uni, I fell into a relapse over the mid-semester break as I watched a solid eight episodes of Breaking Bad in a single day (a little late to the game, I know). Lisa Perks refers to binge watching as a “media-focused floating holiday, one that affords a break from everyday drudgery through an immersive escape to the fictive world”(2014). This notion sums up my experience with binge watching as I love being so immersed in a program that you feel the need to watch consecutive episodes. Perks also notes that this mode of watching can be either motivated or accidental, and ultimately made easier by streaming services. Netflix and the like enable instant gratification as they immediately load and play the next episode before you have time to re-evaluate your life.

I also became aware of the fact that the little amount of traditional television I watch is almost always with my family. My parents and I tend to find ourselves getting hooked on two genres: Australian dramas and competition reality shows. We engage with these programs as per their weekly scheduled slot and work our nightly routines around their basis. While some scholars argue that television is disruptive to the family’s socialness, others have more of an open mind suggesting it can bring the family together and provide a topic of conversation, rather than supplant it (Morley 2005). Viewing in this sense for me is as much about spending the time with the family as it is about the programs themselves.

Finally, the last form of televisual content I found myself engrossed by was televised movies. I have a love-hate relationship with televised films as so often I wind up watching movies that I either own on DVD, or that I’ve seen many times before. For example, the other night I returned from work to find the Bourne Identity screening on Channel Nine. Despite being a quarter of the way through and aware of the fact that we own it on DVD, I persisted to watch the film on television, ads and all. While I acknowledge the absurdity this viewing habit, there is just something strangely appealing about films that are slotted into the daily television broadcast. It feels like more of a ‘special event’ than if I was to fish out the DVD or source the content online.

Evidently, the time-use diary has led to some interesting realisations about my viewing practices – the good, the bad and the questionable. It’s interesting to note the shift towards video on demand services and consequently the lessened level of engagement with traditional television. This is likely indicative of a broader cultural shift in viewing habits resultant of the evolution of viewing devices and platforms. Nevertheless, the traditional television still holds merit in the family household and will likely continue to be relied upon for years to come.

References

Aran, O, Biel, J & Gatica-Perez, D, Broadcasting Oneself: Visual Discovery of Vlogging Styles, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Jan. 2014, Vol.16(1), pp.201-215

Laytham, B 2012, ‘Youtube and U2Charist: Community, Convergence and Communion,’ IPod, Youtube, Wii Play: Theological Engagements with Entertainment, Wipf and Stock Publishers, p.50-71

Morley, D 2005, ‘Television in the family,’ Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, Routledge, p. 7-29

Perks, L. 2014, ‘Behavioural Patterns,’ Media Marathoning: Immersions in Morality, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, p. 15-39

Soelmark, N 2015, ‘Circulating Affect’, Structures of Feeling: Affectivity and the Study of Culture, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, p.199-255

When we think of the terms ‘fan’ and ‘fandom,’ adjectives along the lines of obsessive, crazy and hysterical tend to immediately spring to mind. But is it necessary for individuals to align with these stereotypes to be considered a fan, and how has fan culture and the associated stigma developed with the evolution of the Internet? For the purpose of this blog post, I will be investigating the nature of media fan culture in relation to the classic US sitcom, Friends.

Known and loved by many, Friends revolves around a circle of friends living in Manhattan who face the everyday struggles of adulthood. With elements of love, loss, family and of course friendship at its crux, Friends, created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, went on to become one of the most popular series of all time (Davies 2013). While the rave reviews and ratings at the time of the show’s inception were indicative of its success, its ability to stand the test of time to this day certainly says something about the loyalty and dedication of both its old and new fans alike.

Image source: tv.com

The term ‘fan’ refers to “somebody who is obsessed with a particular star, celebrity, film, TV programme, band; somebody who can produce reams of information on the object of their fandom, can quote their favoured lines or lyrics, chapter and verse” (Duffet 2013). Hardcore Friends fans uphold a level of devotion in line this definition: they can watch episodes over and over again and still find them hilarious, have the ability to relate every life situation to a Friends episode and quote all of the characters word-for-word.

Fandom, on the other hand, relates to the collective of individuals who hold a shared level of devotion and mutual interest towards a popular culture artefact, often likened to a modern cult following (Ross 2011). A sense of community and belonging can derive from participating in a fandom and some argue that fans are “motivated as much by the values of collective participation with others as by devotion to the persona [itself]” (Horton & Wohl 2006). However, despite the positive outcomes that result from their participation and the growing acceptance of fandom as a permanent sub-culture of society, negative connotations persist to follow in their wake. Henry Jenkins claims that fandoms are “alien to the realm of normal cultural experience” and “dangerously out of touch with reality” (2012), while Matt Hills classes them as “obsessive, freakish, hysterical, infantile and regressive social subjects” (2004). Although these are somewhat accurate representations of your stereotypical ‘Directioners’ and ‘Beliebers,’ I would argue that it is not reasonable to class Friends fans in this condescending regard. When a program is widely considered to be high quality and in good taste, it deserves to have people follow it, enjoy it and actively engage with the program and like-minded others.

While the term is perhaps more commonly used and referred to in this generation, fandoms have existed in our society since the early 1900s (Duffet 2013). It is their means of participation since the advent of the Internet, however, that have taken on new extremes and thus transformed their image. Friends began in 1994 and concluded after 10 strong seasons in 2004. For the vast length of this time, the Internet was not readily accessible and today’s most influential social media platforms did not exist. Nonetheless, the fandom found other ways to express their love for the show. For example, the water cooler effect was in full swing as fans would discuss happenings of the program the next day at school or work; individuals could purchase VHS versions of the show or DVDs when they eventually became available for additional content; or, they could engage with the occasional article and/or interview published in print media. Today, Friends fan culture has been revived and revolutionised through the integration of content across an array of different mediums online. There are social media accounts and pages solely dedicated to the program, memes on every corner, fan fiction, fan art, online quizzes and the list goes on. This proliferation of content has likely ignited a new wave of Friends fans, whilst further fuelling and satisfying the love of those who have been there from the start.

Evidently, the Friends fandom has not only stood the test of time, but they have also adapted to the changing ways of the media landscape in their expressionistic endeavours. Despite the cynicism that comes hand in hand with fandoms, Friends fans remain civil and untouched by the negativity knowing that their love for the program is justified.

References

Davies, M 2013, ‘Friends forever: Why we’re still loving the hit TV show 20 years on,’ Daily Mail, October 20, viewed 23 October 2015, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2465332/Friends-Why-loving-hit-TV-20-years-on.html&gt;

Duffet, M 2013, ‘Introduction,’ Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media Fan Culture, Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 22-76

Hills, M 2004. ‘Defining cult TV: texts, inter-texts and fan audiences,’ in A. Hill and R. Allen, ed., The Television Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

Horton, D & Wohl, R 2006, ‘Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance,’ Participations, Volume 3, Issue 1, viewed online October 20 2015, <http://www.participations.org/volume%203/issue%201/3_01_hortonwohl.htm&gt;

Jenkins, H 2012, ‘“Get a Life!” Fans, Poachers, Nomads,’ Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (2^nd Edition), Routledge, p.9-50

Ross, S. 2009, ‘Fascinated with Fandom: Cautiously Aware Viewers of Xena and Buffy,’ Beyond the Box: Television and the Internet, Blackwell Publishing, p.127