The time-use diary was very useful in analysing the way in which I use TV and I was quite surprised by the results. While I tend to pride myself on my good taste of quality TV shows, I found that I watched what I deem to be lesser quality shows more often. I would often only watch what I deem to be quality TV (complex narrative) alone as my family all have different tastes in TV shows.
The shows I watched more often included The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Have You Been Paying Attention, and Gogglebox. When watching these shows I tend to second screen more often and pay less attention to when I watch drama and complex narrative shows, like True Detective. These shows are free-to-air and in the reality TV show genre, and I usually watch them with my mum and my dad, as my brother despises watching them. During the broadcasting of these shows, I don’t always pay full attention, and will often do chores, uni homework, and use my phone. “Television is employed as an environmental resource in order to create a constant background noise which moves to the foreground when individuals or groups desire” (Lull 1980, pg. 201-202). I tend to only pay the most attention to the shows when aspects or personalities I like to watch are on, for example; on The Bachelor, I thought Sarah and Ebru were entertaining so I would pay more attention to their screen time compared to Heather and Lana who I found to be annoying. While I pay more attention to shows like Gogglebox & Have You Been Paying Attention, I pay the most attention to Anastasia and Sam Pang respectively as once I again, I find them to be the most entertaining from their shows. This is also the case with Family Feud, as if I deem a family ‘dumb’ because they give Grant the worst answers, I will tune out, compared to if I find a family to be ‘smart’ or just entertaining then I will tune in more.
Second screening became a habitual part of watching The Bachelor for me as I would often read radio host Dan Dabuf’s live tweets in the ad breaks and share them with my mum and dad. Towards the end of the season, a friend and I were at a mutual friend’s house and as a group we watched the show. As a result, our friend who had never watched the show previously became hooked and we started a group inbox on Facebook which we would live message each other through. As a group, if one of us couldn’t tune into the show, we would rely on the others to live message us what was happening. “Media technologies have become ubiquitous, mobile and scalable, generating new possibilities for social interaction in which information flows are increasingly able to act on and shape social activities as they occur” (McQuire 2008, pg. 146). This also included sending each other copious amounts of memes making fun of Sam (The Bachelor) and the girls, making fun of Snezana’s promise ring, etc. I also began reading host Osher’s tweets as well during The Bachelorette, the highlight of which was when David (the international model) was evicted from the show.
Watching Have You Been Paying Attention religiously was quite interesting for me, as when it first started I wrote it off as lasting only two or three episodes, but I was wrong. As it is a quiz-comedy show hybrid, a lot of the answers the comedian contestants provide are jokes rather than actual guesses, resulting in it being funny. It has become routine for my family and I to watch it during its broadcast on Monday nights. The personalities and running gag between Sam Pang and Tom Gleisner provides the audience with a lot of laughs. The intertextuality and mocking of their station’s shows provide humour, particularly for The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. This makes the show more entertaining for my family and I, as we watch all of these shows and will often guess which aspects will be highlighted on HYBPA. “Television and other mass media… can now be seen to play central roles in the methods which families and other social units employ to interact normatively” (Lull 1980, pg. 198). It creates a dialogue between my mum, dad, and I about the comments the comedians make about the shows we watch, making it more enjoyable to watch, as we tend to mock aspects of The Bachelor/The Bachelorette while we watch it.
The Bachelorette on Have You Been Paying Attention
I discovered that I used TV as background noise to doing other activities and used it in a far more social way than I expected, using it to create dialogue between my family and friends.
WORKS CITED:
Lull, J 1980, ‘The Social Uses of Television’, Human Communication Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 197-209, viewed 26 October 2015, Wiley Online Library Database.
McQuire, S 2008, Media City: Media, Architecture and Urban Spaces, SAGE Publications, London, viewed 26 October 2015, EBL Ebook Library Database.
Quality television is difficult to define as it is subjective, however television scholars have theorised which elements define quality TV. Netflix’s original television show House of Cards demonstrates the characteristics often used to describe a quality TV show. The show follows majority house whip Frank Underwood’s plight for vengeance against the politicians who wronged him and his manipulative plan to gain power. The political drama stars Academy Award winner Kevin Spacey and notable film actors Robin Wright and Kate Mara, and is produced by acclaimed film director David Fincher.
The show is an American remake of the BBC drama of the same name, supporting its sense of quality. The BBC attracts viewers of higher wealth who are interested in societal and political issues. Netflix’s wish to attract viewers of a similar calibre can be seen with their acquiring of the rights to the show. “To the US television industry… the term quality describes the demographics of the audience. Delivering a quality audience means delivering whatever demographic advertisers seek, or in the case of premium cable, attracting an audience with enough disposable income to pay extra for TV” (McCabe & Akass 2007, pg. 147). The political drama genre appeals to upper-middle class viewers with a disposable income that Netflix is interested in attracting to subscribe to their streaming service (Stanley 2014).
Netflix bid out HBO to gain the rights to the show, demonstrating its wish to become known as the home of quality entertainment, which HBO is synonymous with (Hass 2013). Chief content officer Ted Sarandos states Netflix’s goal is to “become HBO faster than they can become us” (Hass 2013), producing high quality TV programs that can compete with the cable station. House of Cards does have elements that are found in many of the shows produced by HBO and have become synonymous with quality TV. These elements include adult themes, depiction of nudity, sex, drug & alcohol use, manipulative anti-hero characters, and serious themes (McCabe & Akass 2007).
Thompson (cited in McCabe &Akass 2007, pg. 8) argues that “quality (drama) has become a genre in itself, complete with its own set of formulaic characteristics.” While these characteristics differentiate between nations, American quality TV is often defined by its high production value, esteemed actors, visual style created through innovative camerawork and editing, serious themes, and reflect contemporary society (McCabe & Akass 2007). High production value is often associated with large budgets, with Netflix paying $100 million to produce the first two seasons of House of Cards (Hass 2013). The critically acclaimed actors, directors and producers support its perception of being a quality TV show. The shows brutally honest insight into the inner workings of the White House reflect the belief commonly shared by the American public that politicians are only interested in their own personal gain, rather than the common good of the country (Stanley 2014).
Quality TV has become synonymous with complex narratives, as demonstrated by House of Cards. “This model of television storytelling is distinct for its use of narrative complexity as an alternative to the conventional episodic and serial forms that typified most American television” (Mittell 2006, pg. 29). This style of narrative differs from episodic television as episodes are not self-contained, however, complex narrative is serialised with long-form storylines (Mittell 2012). Serial narratives are more character-driven, delving into their psychological states as the audience must enjoy watching the characters in order to be kept intrigued by the slow-progressing storylines (Mittell 2010). This can be demonstrated in House of Cards as the audience is given an insight into Frank’s psyche and his plan to gain control of the White House is a long campaign, taking the first season until he is appointed Vice President. The audience is also given further insight into Frank’s psyche with his breaking of the fourth wall and speaking directly to the camera about who he encounters and how he will manipulate them.
The first season of House of Cards was praised highly by critics and fans alike, with the subsequent seasons also gaining high praise. The ultimate reward for cementing a show’s quality status is that of award nominations and wins. The show became Netflix’ first original program to win an Emmy, and has won a total of three Emmys and 2 Golden Globes (Dodes 2014). The critical acclaim, awards, and positive fan reception of House of Cards has resulted in an increase of Netflix subscribers, with Netflix gaining 2.3 million more subscribers as a result of its streaming of the first season (Dodes 2014).
House of Cards’ complex narrative, long-form storylines, character-driven narrative, adult themes and appeal to a wealthier demographic makes it a quality Netflix original production.
WORKS CITED:
Dodes, R 2014, ‘The Most Devious Man in D.C.; Kevin Spacey Discusses ‘House of Cards’, TV’s Business Model and Today’s Washington’, Wall Street Journal, 30 January, viewed 15 October 2015, ProQuest Central Database.
McCabe J & Akass, K 2007, Quality TV : Contemporary American Television and Beyond, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, viewed 15 October 2015, EBL Ebook Library Database.
The authenticity of reality TV has been questioned since its origins. Reality TV is a large genre of TV programs representing real people and often treading the line between documentary and drama (Hill 2005). While audiences have become more media literate and watch reality TV despite acknowledging its dramatised and sometimes even scripted nature, reality TV still remains highly popular. “One of the pleasures offered by the new reality formats is the knowledge that what is being offered for consumption is manifestly ‘staged reality'” (Kilborn cited in Hill 2005, pg. 175). The constructed nature of reality TV is not as obvious in the reality show Gogglebox, but is still present.
The original UK reality show Gogglebox was first produced in Australia by Channel 10 in early 2015, and is currently airing its second season. The show revolves around watching average Australians reactions to watching certain TV shows which have aired the previous week. The show depicts different Australian families; a gay couple, an elderly wealthy couple, a middle-aged ‘ocker’ couple, a large family, a family with adult children, a family with two teenage daughters, an Indian family, two European female friends, two male Aussie friends, and two Aussie female friends.
Gogglebox presents itself as being authentic and not constructed, with its lack of dramatic elements and emphasis of real, average Australians that viewers can identify with. “This fixation with ‘authentic’ personalities, situations, and narratives is considered to be reality TV’s primary distinction from fictional television and also its primary selling point” (Ouelette & Murray, 2004, pg.5). They are perceived as being ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ because they are doing what most ‘average Australians’ do – watch TV, “if it was real life, I’d be watching someone sitting down watching telly all day” (Hill 2005, pg. 75). While the show claims to depict an accurate cross-section of Australia, the ethnic diversity amongst cast members is very minimal (two out of the ten families) in comparison to the multicultural country Australia is. Gogglebox cast their personalities via the traditional audition methods employed for any other television program (Knox 2014). The audition process implies that the ‘average Australians’ shown have been cast to have exaggerated personalities that will create funny and entertaining moments that will be talked about amongst the general public.
The presence of cameras in the cast members’ living rooms, and the knowledge that they are being watched by the public on TV, can also influence the way in which they behave; their reactions could be more exaggerated than if they were not aware of the camera’s presence. “Television audiences are highly sceptical of the truth claims of much reality programming precisely because they expect people to ‘act up’ in order to make entertaining factual television” (Hill 2005, pg. 54). The UK version of the show came under fire when an insider revealed that producers will tell cast members what comments to make, while a spokesman for the show denied this saying “their reactions are genuine and authentic” (Glennie & Reilly 2014). Reality TV loses its appeal when it’s realness comes under scrutiny. The way in which the families watch the shows is also not completely authentic, as the narrator states that the families tuned in while the shows were going to air, however this is not feasible as if a member cannot tune in to the broadcast it would put Gogglebox in jeopardy. It is most likely that the cast members are given DVDs of the shows they are required to watch and do so when it is most convenient for them, so they are not excluded from being in Gogglebox.
Despite the lack of dramatic elements typical of reality TV, the constructed nature and editing of Gogglebox replaces these elements. While reality TV shows often implement dramatic music and cliff hangers which are only revealed following the commercial break, Gogglebox does not employ these methods in creating a dramatic narrative for audiences. However, the selection and editing of shots used from the different families in reaction to the highlights of the show they are watching are cut together to create the most entertaining and dramatic TV possible. Quite often, some families are not shown for the majority of the episode which implies that their reactions were not entertaining. While this doesn’t make Gogglebox appear less authentic, it does demonstrate that it aims to entertain, just like other constructed reality TV shows.
Despite lacking many common traits of reality TV shows audiences have come to recognise, Gogglebox’s audition process, emphasis on exaggerated personalities, and use of constructed editing, demonstrates that it is not as authentic as it claims to be.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliveris a news satire television program which promotes the public sphere by approaching the audience as citizens who are urged to take action on national issues.
The public sphere is a space separate from the state where people of all backgrounds have the opportunity to debate about issues affecting society, thus promoting a democratic society and bringing about political change (Dahlgren cited in Butler 2012).
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is an American news satire television show broadcast on American cable television station HBO on Sundays at 11pm, and is hosted by British comedian John Oliver.
The news satire genre of television parodies the traditional news broadcast by satirizing its formal and aesthetic characteristics to highlight its inconsistencies and exaggerations (Painters & Hodges 2010).
Oliver satirizes the top news stories of the week, followed by unpacking a complex issue that is barely discussed on broadcast news. He spends an extended time explaining the issue in a simplistically yet not condescendingly manner, allowing viewers of any background to understand the issue being discussed, thus promoting a democratic public sphere.
Oliver addresses the audience with inclusive language like “us”, “we”, and “our” to make them feel that they are a part of the nation, urging them to take a stand on the issue. Oliver uses this approach in his segment in Season 2, Episode 23 on the lack of statehood in Washington D.C., saying that amending the Constitution for D.C.’s benefit is something “we could do.” Changing the American flag to include 51 states is something Oliver also suggests “we could do”, pointing to the image of the flag being used throughout his segment and informing viewers that it had been changed the whole time and remained unnoticed.
Oliver uses his “call-to-arms” approach combined with humour to demonstrate the absurdity of the issue (Halmore 2014). The ending musical number in which he sings his own version of the ’50 states’ song including D.C., with children, demonstrates this. It highlights how straightforward the inclusion would be, while urging the audience to demand political change for future generations. Viewers listened and on the 9th of August a demonstration was held at the U.S. Capitol building in which children and parents sung Oliver’s song, with the group promising further action.
(Last Week Tonight, Season 1 Episode 5).
Similarly, after Oliver’s report on net neutrality (Season 1, Episode 5), audiences listened to his guidance and flooded the Federal Communication Commission’s website to express their disapproval of changing laws around net neutrality which would prevent some people from access to high speed internet (Helmore 2014). Despite it being a national issue, it had barely been discussed in broadcast news. Oliver’s discussion on the issue allowed for a democratic public sphere as audiences were given the means to express their views.
Last Week Tonighthas pushed the news satire genre from just commenting on current political issues, to treating viewers as citizens who want to make political change and know how to go about it with Oliver’s guidance (Helmore 2014).
Works Cited:
Butler, JG 2012, Television: Critical Methods and Applications, 4th edn, Routledge, New York, viewed 11 August 2015, EBSCOhost Database.
Painter, C & H, L 2010, ‘Mocking the News: How The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Holds Traditional Broadcast News Accountable’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 257-274, viewed 7 August 2015, EBSCOhost Database.
Broadcast scheduling and its influence on audience behaviour, demonstrated by Family Feud.
Family Feudis an Australian game show broadcast on free-to-air Network Ten at 6pm weeknights and Sunday nights. Teams comprised of families compete in answering questions that have been surveyed by 100 average Australians.
Scheduling is the broadcaster’s decision as to when a TV show will be aired; scheduling certain TV programs at specific times of the day to fit with the patterns of everyday life (Ellis 2000).
Audiences today in the post-broadcast era are more fragmented and dispersed across different televisual platforms (Curtain 2009). Consequently, broadcasters increasingly use scheduling as flow to control audience behaviour and create channel loyalty (Fiske 2011).
Family Feudis scheduled at 6pm weeknights and Sunday nights to coincide with the time that most families have dinner. Being scheduled to follow the news infers the activities of the traditional family, in which the father who has arrived home from work and mother who prepares dinner for the family, can be flowed from watching the news onto Family Feudas the family eats dinner together (Ellis cited in Fiske 2011). The scheduled flow of serious news to light-hearted family fun allows viewers to consider the serious events occurring in the world and then offer them a distraction from what they have witnessed. Following Family Feudis The Project; a program that combines humour and serious editorials to discusses the news of the day, allowing viewers who may have missed the earlier news broadcast to still be informed of the events of the day.
The 6pm time-slot has traditionally been filled by the broadcast news as a scheduling tactic based on traditional gender roles (Ellis cited in Fiske 2011). This is based on the traditional family unit of the working father, stay-at-home mum, and kids, in which the scheduling of the news would coincide with the father’s arrival home from work (Ellis cited in Fiske 2011). The 6-6:30pm time-slot has long been important for broadcasters in flowing viewers into prime-time programs (Fiske 2011). Network Ten’s strategic decision to broadcast an alternative to the news at the 6pm time-slot has been a risk that has ultimately paid off, with its 6-6:30pm ratings being at its highest since 2009 (Manning 2015). By engaging families when they are all together and encouraging viewers to “play along with the family”, it influences audience behaviour to remain loyal and flow onto The Project.The success of Family Feudhas achieved higher amounts of viewers flowing onto The Projectand subsequent prime-time programs (Manning 2015).
Strategic scheduling of commercial breaks is important for broadcast networks as they largely rely on advertisers for financing (Ellis 2000). Family Feudhost Grant Denyer, often poses a survey question to the audience with the answer being revealed immediately following the commercial break. This controls audience behaviour by encouraging viewers to remain loyal so they don’t miss the answer, compelling them to watch the advertisements during the commercial break.
(Family Feud)
By fitting scheduling with the patterns of everyday life, broadcasters can control audience behaviour (Ellis 2000).
Works Cited:
Ellis, J 2000, ‘Scheduling: The Last Creative Act in Television?’, Media Culture Society, vol. 22, no. 1, viewed 11 August 2015, Sage Journals Database.
Fiske, J 2011, Television Culture, 2nd Edition, Routledge, London, UK, viewed 12 August 2015, EBSCOhost database.
Curtain, M 2009, ‘Matrix Media’, in G Turner & J Tay (eds), Television Studies After TV, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp. 9-19, viewed 7 August 2015, EBL: Ebook Library database.