YouTalk TV Interview Project

YouTalk Interview-

TV Technology:

Tatum: The way in which a lot of shows have been created and formatted for television has changed a great deal over the past decades. However, with animated television, there has been less of an alteration in form and fashion. How do you think animated comedies have been helped or hindered by the lack of change that, as can be seen in live action shows, has had such a great effect?

Matt: It is certainly apparent that animated television has had less alteration to its form and fashion than its live action counterparts. I believe that animated comedies have been helped by the lack of change they have made in comparison to live action shows. The simplicity in the form of animated comedies helps viewers focus their attention on the content rather than the effects. Animated comedies don’t distract the viewers with flashy visuals but rather predictable, repetitive images. Also, animated comedies have more flexibility in reference to different settings and characters. They are not restricted to realism as seen in live action shows.

TV Form/Narrative:

Tatum: When comparing an animated comedy show (such as Family Guy or South Park) to a live action situational comedy it is noticed almost immediately that the plot lines, narrative, and realism of the show can vary a lot between the two types of shows. What do you think it is about animated comedy shows that so lends them to these alterations or makes them more susceptible to fantasy?

Matt: There is an apparent difference between an animated comedy show’s plot lines, narrative, and realism when compared to a live action situational comedy. As I previously stated, animated comedies are under different guidelines. The animation in these shows allows for almost anything to take place without questions arising from the viewers. Due to the fact that it is unreal, it eases the transition to the suspension of disbelief. Also, settings are not constrained which opens the door to many other seemingly impossible events to take place. For example, the setting can be underwater, on the moon, or back in prehistoric times and can take place within the same storyline.

TV Viewing/Consuming:

Tatum: There are many shows that seem to be cancelled well before their success is done. Even though the studios seem to feel that these shows have reached their zenith, they have large underground followings that sometimes work together in an attempt to try and get the show reinstated as a “reboot.” In your opinion, why are the majority of shows that DO get reinstatement animated shows, often comedies? (E.G. Family Guy, Futurama)

Matt: In my opinion, I do not see animated comedies “rebooted” often. In comparison to other genres, there are not many animated shows being aired. The animated shows that are played are mostly comedies to begin with. With this said, it would make sense that the majority of animated “reboots” would also be comedies due to the lack of diversity within animated shows. There are numerous examples of television shows that have been “rebooted” for the purpose of bringing it back after it had been cancelled or its popularity decline. “Reboots” are more common in science fiction television shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Dr.Who, and others.

TV and Social Formations:

Tatum: Since the beginnings of television there have been groups of people dedicated to making television appropriate for viewing by everyone. Many of these groups also fight particular shows that they feel “corrupt” children, or undermine the teachings of an appropriate household. Why are the shows that are most often attacked and maligned animated comedies? And as a broader, more general question, why do you feel people are so quick to blame television for parental misgivings.

Matt: There will always be television shows that groups believe “corrupt” children. However, I do not necessarily agree that animated comedies disproportionally are targeted as undermining the teachings of an appropriate household. Who exactly sets the standards for what is appropriate and what is not? The government? Religious groups? Interest groups? Families? Which viewpoint is correct? My point is that there will never be a definitive answer as to what is deemed appropriate for children. Whether the show is an animated comedy or live action situational comedy is beside the point. Where are the facts that point the finger at animated comedies as opposed to other television genres? In this day and age, there is sex, drugs, and violence in all forms of television.

YouTalk Interview Response-

The answers that I received to my interview questions were pretty in line with the responses that I was expecting. It seems that with the subject of television studies there is a great deal of disagreement. There don’t seem to be many portions of the discipline where there is universal agreement on any given issue. The answers that I got to my questions did not lean any particular direction for the most part. These answers seem to imply what my thoughts about television and television studies already were. The issues on the topic seem to be split down the center with most people neither firmly on the left nor right.

In general, I agreed with the responses in the sense that they were pretty centered. For any given discussion there are shows that would support either side of the argument. Based on the responses that were provided on the questions it would seem that the two of us have fairly similar viewing habits. Through my questions themselves as well as some of the subtext involved in the answers it was very obvious that during my construction of questions as well as his answering of said questions we seemed to be drawing from the same repertoire of shows for inspiration. 

A new perspective that these questions and answers created for me was on the strength of the animated comedy. I’d never really given it much thought, but the animated comedy is really a timeless show. It’s been around since the beginnings of television and really shows no signs of slowing down. It is the type of show that can transcend genre. It can appeal to children, to adults, and to anybody in between. There are very few types of shows that can be used during morning television as a way to teach children letters and numbers and then be used that very night on primetime television as a means to discuss various controversial topics. Animation is really an all purpose medium that can follow a person through the entirety of their life.

Topic: Animated Comedies

TV Technology:

 Matt:  Television has made noticeable leaps in technology use as time has gone on. However, the technology used in animated comedies has not changed much at all and still employs the same cartoon features and cheap technology. How does this lack of technological change impact its success or lack of success when compared to other television shows that have evolved into higher technology?

Tatum: I don’t think that the lack of technical change in itself has really impacted the success of animated television shows.  I think that the major thing that animated television shows have going for them is that they do seem to be able to sustain themselves with a smaller budget than live action television.  With animated shows you need to mainly pay animators, writers, and voice actors.  It seems to me you’d be able to get away with paying voice actors less than normal actors and I feel a base level animation budget would be substantially lower than that of a live action show.  Just this cost difference alone can make an animated show seem successful more easily.  If an animated series makes the same amount of money as a live action show it will look more successful than it once you take the budgets into account.

TV Form/Narrative:

 Matt: The form of the animated comedy is very distinct and differs in numerous ways to that of other types of shows such as sit-coms or reality TV. What makes the animated comedy so different than others? Does the lack of a progressing story help appeal to viewers and if so, how?

 Tatum: One of the main things that animated shows have going for them that isn’t necessarily available to live action shows is that animated shows have a much easier time suspending reality.  High tech computer generated imagery isn’t necessary in animated shows to create fantastical situations.  The situation just needs to be drawn as opposed to rendering some huge computer program.  Another advantage that animated shows have is that the majority of them aren’t serial.  This does not mean that there is a lack of progression and a lack of story; it just means that many of them are similar to sitcoms in the respect that each episode is its own self-contained entity.    The appeal of animated shows is that you needn’t have watched all the episodes before the current one to enjoy it.  You can hop on and off the bandwagon at will without needing to really commit to the show for an entire season.

TV Viewing/Consuming:

 Matt: What is it about animated shows that appeal to children? Is it the color, humor, and imagination? Does the fact that most people grow up watching cartoons and animated shows make it easier for viewers to tune in and enjoy these animated comedies? Does this appeal carry over to adults?

Tatum: Everything about animated shows appeals to children.  In general, these shows are directed towards children.  All of the sights, sounds, noise, and funny characters are of great appeal to children.  It goes back to my previous statement about the fantastical nature of the animated show.  There is just so much that an animated show can achieve visually that is usually off limits to live action.  Children love fantasy worlds, the live in fantasy worlds.  The last thing that a child wants is to be stuck in front of the television watching a showed that is so completely mired in reality and up its own ass with its message.  The glory of the animated show is that many of them are simply the basest level of entertainment.  They’re not afraid to get down and dirty with the dogs and appeal to what viewers want at their lowest level.  But the glory of it is that they still have the ability to showcase high-brow humor and intellect, it being all the more exciting since it’s not to be expected.  I don’t think watching cartoons as a child makes it easier to watch them later.  As you grow up you realize just how horrid the shows you loved as a child were.  That’s why children’s shows aren’t popular with adults usually.  Thus the reason certain adult animated comedies have been formulated. They appeal to teenagers as well as grown-ups.

TV and Social Formations:

 Matt: It is apparent that animated comedies make certain opinions and viewpoints directed towards social issues. Does the fact that being animated lend to its ability to facilitate social discourse based on the fact that animated shows can bring up controversial, social issues in irreverent ways and what effect does that have?

Tatum: The ability to more easily bring up a great deal of social issues is something that animated shows have had going for them for a long time.  Broaching discussion of particular social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and the like can be done in a much less direct, and some would argue effective, way by using animation.  People just seem less comfortable watching an episode of a show that deals with abortion when it’s not actual people.  But, this is also its handicap.  Animated shows might not necessarily get their viewpoint across in as serious or sincere a manner as they need to.  When animated comedies tackle social issues from either side, there is always this undertone of funniness and joking present.  Live action shows that employ real actors that the viewer can relate to are usually a much more forceful medium for the dissemination of a discourse on social issues.  The effect that all of this has on animated shows is simple.  The adult animated shows that are known for bringing up social issues and pushing the envelope of controversy are often attacked.  The FCC, the religious right, and various parents groups, among others are always seeking to fine, clean up, or cancel animated shows much more than with live action shows.  They have in their head that since it’s a cartoon, children must be watching it.  Add to this all of the sensitive issues that these shows bring up and they become a magnet for protest.

YouTalk Interview Reaction-

The answers to my questions from my “cyber-chum” were kind of what I had anticipated. However, the answers did provide me with interesting insight from another perspective. It is apparent that throughout this interviewing process we both have similar views regarding the genre animated comedies. None of the answers I received to my questions surprised me and I am in complete agreement with what was said. Based on the interview and speaking with one another, I think it is quite noticeable that we share comparable TV viewing habits and opinions.

The questions and answers that we shared reinforce the abilities and assets that animated comedies bring to the table. It is evident that animated comedies succeed in attracting viewers but do so with a smaller budget than live action television. The fact that they are able to do more with less is impressive. What makes this genre so unique is the fact that they can appeal to viewers of all ages, genders, races, and religions. His response to question 2 was very interesting to me in the sense that animated comedies are not necessarily in the form of a serial. Most allow the viewers to jump in to a season and have them feel as if they never missed a single episode. This interview process reinforced my opinion that this genre is attractive to viewers in a variety of ways.

The fact that we both have TV in common and can interview each other and also agree is quite remarkable. Despite being on opposite ends of the country, we were able to collectively select a genre that appealed to both of us and then interview each other. This goes to show how much power television has and how it can unite people from different backgrounds and locations around the world. This interviewing process helped me fully realize the success of animated comedies and it appears that success will carry on for years to come.

YouTalk Project

Theme: Reality Television

Questions and Response: Jasmine Lee

Answers: Shawn Estrada

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. In the beginning weeks of our classes, we focused on the dichotomy between society being driven by technology and technology being driven by society. Which side do you find to be more accurate? Do reality TV shows reflect actual reality and lived experience, or is what we consider “reality” driven by / now influenced by these TV programs?

I definitely believe society is driven by technology. As new technologies come out, society shifts itself to fit around that new technology. For example, once Apple products like iPods started coming out, the music industry was completely changed, both in production musicians and consumption by listeners. We constantly change our habits and ways of life when technology is updated. Personally, I believe the opposite is true for reality television’s effect on society. Reality television does not shape society like technology does. This is because reality television is a type of “reality” that is extremely skewed by the network to fit what the viewer would find entertaining. Therefore, instead of shaping society, these reality shows simply provide a form of entertainment in which people can look into an artificially created “reality” that is much more entertaining and crazy than real life.

2. During weeks 5 and 6 in our class, we read and discussed texts that focused on television’s narrative forms. We fleshed out a list of characteristics of genres such as the series and the serial. Given the wide variety of types of television shows reflecting “reality” available to watch (examples: The Price is Right, Survivor, Top Chef, What Not to Wear, True Life, Oprah, Behind the Music, Real World, Rock of Love, the evening news, etc), what do you think constitutes reality TV? How do these very diverse shows come together to form one genre?

It is true that there are definitely many shows that can be constituted as “reality” shows. They range from game shows to news shows to trashy girls partying and fighting in a luxurious mansion. While it seems that these shows have nothing in common, they all fall under the larger umbrella that is reality television. I believe what makes them all in one genre, however, is the fact that they all involve the lives of people, whether scripted by the producers or not. Game shows and competition shows are about people competing to win prizes, news shows have anchors that tell stories about things that happened to other people, and believe it or not, those trashy girls are people too.  Reality shows give us a way to peek into the lives of other people.

3. In our discussions of viewing, consumerism, and commodification, we talked about the fact that profit maximization is the goal of the television industry. Given this motive, what are some of the tactics that reality TV producers use to increase viewership (and thus, profits)? In simpler terms, why do people watch reality TV?

The single job of the network is to make sure that their programs get high ratings so advertisers want to put commercials during their programs in order to make money. Everything about the industry eventually boils down to making money. Therefore, it is the job of the network to make sure that happens and to make sure that people watch. To do this they first must target their audience. In the case of The Jersey Shore, for example, the networks realize that their audience is teenagers. Then, the networks must make sure that what happens on the show will be entertaining to the audience of teenagers. To make sure of this, I believe the networks script the reality shows. Although this goes against the nature of “reality” television, it’s necessary and unavoidable in order to make profits.

4. Some reality TV programs are praised for certain representations they give of different races, genders, and sexualities (example: True Life, Real World). Others are rebuked for their own representations of races, genders, and sexualities and often labeled “trashy” (examples: Flavor of Love, Bad Girls Club). Why do you think some programs are valued more than others? How do they interact with these social formations? Do you think they have an effect on how we understand and use race, gender, and sexuality in our everyday lives?

I disagree when you say that The Real World is valued higher than shows like Bad Girls Club. Bad Girls Club is rebuked because of how inappropriate and rambunctious the girls are, and I believe that the people on The Real World are just as bad sometimes. Getting back to the point, however, I think how shows are valued depends on the audience. A 17-year-old girl would value The Real World highly and rebuke a News Broadcast while a 45-year-old mom would do the opposite. I think people value shows that they find entertaining and rebuke ones that they either find problems with such as being boring or inappropriate. I also don’t think that reality shows affect how we use social formations such as gender, race, and sexuality because we understand that reality television is highly artificial and scripted. Reality television simply serves an entertainment purpose rather than one that shapes society.

JASMINE’S RESPONSE:

            Overall, I was not at all surprised by Shawn’s answers. I believe that most of our experiences with reality television are similar. On a very basic level, this is probably because we come from somewhat similar backgrounds; through our email conversations, we learned that our homes are less than 15 minutes away from each other. Also, we are both attending similarly recognized/respected universities.

            However, there were key points that I disagreed with… or, at least, I felt could have been thought of from a different perspective. Most of Shawn’s answers reflected the artificial nature of reality television and seemed to purport that the genre itself has very little societal effects. While I agree that many programs are scripted and molded for the purposes of financial gain, I do not think we all understand this… and even when we do, I do not think that that recognition matters. It does not prevent these shows from affecting us. I think that there is more going on than we usually discuss. I do not think that the scripted-nature of these shows is “unavoidable” – life itself is pretty crazy and compelling, especially if we take a step outside of ourselves to pay attention to what is going on with other people. Reality television forces us to do just that. I would also disagree about reality television’s effects on our perceptions of race, gender, and sexuality. These shows can often create press and open up dialogue – entertainment is a characteristic of society and can be used as a tool to shape it. Think about dictatorships – televisions are the first institutions to be taken over.

            It is possible that I did not read enough into Shawn’s answers (or perhaps, read too much), but I think that is a necessary effect of this electronic format of interviewing. If we had discussed this in person, on Skype, or on the phone, it would have been more of a productive dialogue instead of an ask/answer/respond type of interview.

1. Do television’s technological underpinnings address race in any way? Think about McLuhan’s claim that the medium is the message – how does, or doesn’t, race play a role in that idea? If you disagree with McLuhan, is there an example of television technology serving to address questions of race, either overtly or more subtly? If you agree with McLuhan, what does this say about race’s relation to technology?

Race was certainly an afterthought when discussing the technological underpinnings of television. Concepts of race, along with other social constructions, became byproducts of television and how it is conveyed to viewers. Obviously there were very strong feelings about race prior to the invention of television but these feelings, along with nuances to these opinions, were now available to the masses.  McLuhan says that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide them valuable information, but in the process, they largely miss the structural changes in their affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As the society's values, norms and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then they realize the social implications of the medium. Race is one of these social values that alter due to how television conveys it. For example if newscasters continue to do stories on black people robbing liquor stores all the time, well the public may begin to suspect some sort of correlation between black people and robbery over time. Consequently stereotypes and racial profiling are introduced to the picture. As viewers we learn a lot about life through technology, let it be television, internet, etc, so our ideas about issues like race are very much affected by what we see and read so race is just another one of those messages that are manipulated by the medium.

1. Which narrative form do you think is most suitable to address questions of portrayals of race, racial inequality, racial stereotypes, etc.? Why? Is a fictionalized form, such as a traditional sitcom or drama, more or less able to examine these questions than a nonfiction form, such as the news or reality television (to the extent that it is actually “real”)? Why is this?

Race is best addressed in fictionalized form when written by people of that race that is being portrayed. Since there a variety of people within one race, shows should be written by the plethora of people that are being represented on the show. The advantages of writing a show is you get to tell your story instead of having someone tell it for you. You get to ensure your representation is covered. That is also why there are such different points of views being seen on television regarding black people for example. There were shows like The Cosby Show, My Wife and Kids, and then there were shows like The Game and Girlfriends, which characterized black people in very different lights. The news and reality shows are primarily focused on producing an interesting story. The news isn’t inclined to report on acts of kindness, instead robberies, murders, etc are being reported and unfortunately due to institutionalized circumstances, this is one of the only ways black people get to be on television. Then reality shows are of no help because editors really just want unnecessary drama and chaos and no one comes off looking good under that kind of criteria.

1. Is it possible for viewers who are a member of a racial minority to separate themselves as television viewers from themselves as members of a certain race? Is it necessary that one’s race play a role in one’s construction as a television viewer? How do these questions affect the idea of a viewing demographic? Does considering viewers in terms of demographics presuppose that questions of identity, such as race, inherently affect one’s relationship to television viewing?

I think it is possible to separate one’s racial identity while watching television and it may happen on occasion, but I think that it is not always the case. There are certain characters that easily relatable across audiences but then there are those that are harder to comprehend due to their inability to relate to others or due to their very specific character identity. When Sofia Vergara made a statement about how Peruvians carry some negative trait on Modern Family, many were offended because that was a blunt and direct comment to Peruvians. However, Colombians and other South Americans (besides Peruvians) were probably laughing because they understand where her character is coming from. I think race today is still a deliberate choice in casting and if it isn’t initially it becomes so when the racial minority being represented is watching and critiquing certain script choices. This idea of racially oriented shows pulling a particular demographic is very clear when commercials come on and they are advertising calling cards to Mexico and Argentina or products that ease your permed hair experience. Race will always be in the forefront in the minds of those of the racial minority. Representation is significant and influential in positive and negative ways. Despite efforts to have a multi-racial cast, it is rarely the case. There may be the token (insert here) to spice up the show, but then negative and positive stereotypes pop up and someone will always be there to judge. Race is difficult to separate and will usually be there to construct their opinions as a television viewer.

1. Do you consider BET to be positive or negative when it comes to the question of representing race on television? Is it better to highlight race, as BET does (even in its name, which positions itself as “black” television), or to try and let race fade into the background? That is, should BET run more programming in which characters of all races appear (to bring about an ideal in which being black on television is not inherently different from being white on television) or should BET focus mainly (if not completely) on representing the black community?

YouTalk: Global Television

Questions by Dana Katz

Answers by Gabi Camargo

1. TV as a cultural and technological form.

Q: Would you be comfortable if citizens of other countries around the world made judgments about U.S. society based on American television shows? Of the shows you watch, which seem quintessentially "American," and which would play the same across the globe? What's the difference? In other words, what specific qualities do you think appeal to American audiences?

A: To me, a show that appears “American” is a show that exhibits a narrative of self-reliance, focusing on promoting individualism and the triumph of ambition. The mentality of pulling yourself up from your own bootstraps is a value that I feel is commonly seen in narratives as being distinctively American (to the extent that it is meant to be read as being American example to the world, harkening back to the ideal of the United States as the “shining city on a hill”). To me then, the shows that seem quintessentially American are those that deliberately seek to promote individualism and responsibility for ones own successes and failures.  Competitive reality shows are the genre that comes to mind as being the most “American”; shows like Survivor, America’s Next Top Model and Deal or No Deal. These competitive reality show formats create a narrative that celebrates the success of individual resourcefulness, but in the very specific language of capitalism (rewards and finales that are centered around large cash sums or a big corporate contract). That is where I turn to the other important part of your question, how this American-ness is read abroad. I feel that these shows deliberately embedded with American/Individualistic values tend to be read as shows that center themselves and promote capitalism/consumerism.  This can be best seen in how Australia adopted the format of America’s Next Top Model. The American ANTM tends to pick traditionally marginalized identities and show the trajectory of how their individual struggle and strength led them to success (as seen when minority/plus-size models win or advance in the series) while the Australian adoption of the show emphasizes the goal of the models to appear “expensive” (a common catch line that replaces the American versions’ compliment “fierce”.) This speaks a lot to how the American version is received abroad, not as a way of valuing a variety of individuals beauty but rather as simply a way of making one seem more expensive/successful. I would not say that the Australian reception of ANTM bothers me, but rather than it highlights the consumer/capitalistic line more, a reading that I find further enriches the American understanding of ANTM and makes the consumerist theme already embedded in the original show more visible and therefore perhaps more open to inspiring resistance.

2. TV's stylistic, rhetorical and narrative form.

Q: Outsourced is a comedy about a young white guy who gets sent to work for his American employer's call center in India. Some say it's topical, while others criticize it as narrow- minded and offensive. What do you think? Is the controversy due to feelings surrounding outsourcing in general, or specific to the style of humor chosen by this particular show? Can comedies about other cultures educate while simultaneously poking fun, or is it impossible to walk that line?

A: It seems as though Outsourced is a comedy that draws its humors from stereotypes on many levels, its style of humor is one that lends itself to controversies especially when the chosen theme is linked to current events that perpetuate and fuel such stereotypes. The question that then from this is: what do these comedies that navigate the terrain of cultural stereotypes do? In a sense these stereotypes can be damaging because they re-inscribe simplistic and problematic notions seen in stereotypes. Like the idea that Americans are blind consumers, so ingrained in the idea of buying and consuming non-stop that they buy such ridiculous items like fake vomit and cheese hats. Indians on the show are stereotyped as being passive and needy as they are often seen as putting up with the ridiculous demands of the job in an unquestioning way.  But nearly all comedies traffic in stereotypes because it tends to be a quick way of connecting with audiences, giving something that they presumably already recognize. The humor is in the exaggeration. The stereotype is hyperbolized in a way, building off an assumed familiarity with the stereotype, and when there is truth in that assumption as evidenced by an example (Americans stupidly buying cheese hats), the hope is that the reading of this example is thought to be funny.  It seems as though the characters and situations in the show start off as stereotypes, giving the show a set of expectations to work with or against. I think a show like this can be positive in inspiring a break up of stereotypes by first presenting them, then hopefully complicating and ridicularizing them. If anything, the knee-jerk reaction to find the stereotypes this show simply offensive shows how powerful and personally meaningful these particular stereotypes have been affecting people lives, showing this show’s potential to be effective with breaking these stereotypes up.

3. TV viewing and consuming.

Q: Hulu, one of the most popular legal streaming sites, is only available inside the United States. If you wanted to watch a foreign television show, would you know how to access it? If television was more easily available from anywhere around the world, do you think you would include shows from other countries in your weekly viewing repertoire? In your opinion, is awareness of the global television market is important? Why or why not?

A: I feel that being aware of other cultures in general, is an enriching experience to understand one’s own culture and expand ones perspective on variety of different topics, so in the sense that the global television markets exposes us to different cultures,  yes, I do feel that it is important to maintain a certain awareness of the global television market.  I do watch certain television shows online which I illegally torrent, but it would be nice to have a legally condoned avenue to do that through, such as Hulu. But that is not the way Hulu works, or the way in which many other legal television streaming websites work. Your ISP reveals your location and you therefore have access to different content. In that sense, Hulu promotes an internet that is divided by borders, one that limits and attempts to make its audience and reach more local. This trend goes against what brought YouTube its global reach and ability to adapt to different cultures. Furthermore Hulu’s policy takes a position against net neutrality, a position that seeks to control, locate and regulate information coming from the internet in an attempt to format the distribution of online material similarly to the format cable television networks.  I think a certain awareness of the global television market is somewhat inevitable, especially in countries that are not traditionally exporters of media, but the drawing of these borders and development of networks and localities with certain access over others is one that works against such a trend. The position of Hulu limits the potential for television programs to not only gain a more global audience but to begin dialoguing with such audiences both in economic and cultural exchange. I believe that not only awareness but access to global television markets is important, especially in maintaining net neutrality that broadcasts to the world rather than then cable/regulated version that seeks to limit and marginalize the reception of global television flows.

4. TV and social formations.

Q: The Office, American Idol, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, and Ugly Betty are just a few examples of many adaptations on American television, with more constantly in development. Have you ever watched a show adapted from abroad? If so, how does it compare to the original version and which do you prefer? If not, what are your thoughts about creating a whole new version as opposed to putting subtitles on the original? How could adaptations help create an interactive cultural dialogue between different countries?

A: I have watched many adapted version of television shows that originated abroad. Adding to the list of what you already mentioned, I also watch Whose Line is it Anyway both the British and American versions. Because of it’s a show that is based on the improvisation of its actors, I find that it dramatically changes in its humor and content based on the four actors chosen for the episode, so in that sense I find that the show delivers an entirely different tone depending on which version I am watching. I do enjoy both versions, although I do find them to be funny in different ways—the American version tends to get a bit more slapstick and ridiculous. What I find interesting in this conversation about American adaptations of different television show formats is that 4/5 of the shows that I watch or could think of are coming from the United Kingdom (The Office, American Idol, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, Whose Line is it Anyway). The interactive cultural dialogue between the US and the UK has a long colonial, economic and linguistic exchange that has only been further enforced as both countries produce and export a great amount of television programs and formats. It seems then that this potential for a cultural dialogue between countries is very limited to the countries that already are producing a great portion of televisual texts and perhaps are not the cause but merely a symptom of an already occurring cultural dialogue. Even with Ugly Betty, before the format was adapted, the original Columbian version had already aired in the United States via Telemundo and broke records with its success. So in that sense the American adaptation was not a risk or even a new cultural dialogue, as it was just growing out of the huge success the telenovela had with its Spanish-speaking communities within the US. But what gave it such huge popularity within the Spanish-speaking world in the first place? It seems that the promise that Betty la Fea could deliver an explicitly feminist message in a genre associated with Latin American machismo, certainly gave it worldwide attention and success, one that fell short of its promises as it showed a Cinderella story of assimilation. Yet the original Betty and its adaptations did speak to and perhaps even create a cross-cultural dialogue about an international feminist issue relating to beauty standards and discrimination in corporate settings. Perhaps the success of Betty speaks to the success of the already hot-topic issue of feminism and fair treatment in a world that is becoming increasing corporate. So there is potential for these adaptations to expand cultural dialogues between cultures, but these expansions tend to be rooted and limited to the already occurring discussions and flows.

            Gabi brought up a lot of really insightful arguments in her response to my questions about global television. There were a few points at which I found myself disagreeing, but in every case her reasoning was not only sound but original, and made me think about the issues in a completely new way.

            One of the most illuminating ideas came in the question discussing Hulu. Gabi suggests that Hulu and similar websites manage to divide the internet, a medium considered revolutionary for its ability to cross borders and unite the world. How can anyone claim that the internet will revolutionize the industry? Sure, it’s easy to illegally watch shows from other countries, but the industry itself won’t change until its own websites acknowledge global audiences and make their content accessible.

            I also enjoyed Gabi’s commentary on Outsourced. Both Indian and American stereotypes are present in the show, and she smartly points out that acknowledging stereotypes is the first step to overcoming them; in the case of Outsourced, this is done by making them ridiculously over the top.

            The question of what makes a program “American” was the place where I found myself disagreeing the most. I was interested to note that one of the shows mentioned, Survivor, was actually adapted the Netherlands. However, some of the changes made on its journey to the United States include more of a focus on large sums of money, which aligns with Gabi’s thesis about capitalism and consumerism in American television. (For more info about adapted television shows, check out this piece in Salon: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/week/2008/09/04/international_chart/index.html). I genuinely enjoyed getting a fresh perspective on these questions, and I hope one day television will indeed become a way for different countries of the world to better understand each other.

Theme: the relationship between gender and television content and format

1. TV as a cultural and technological form:

Q: If TV is defined by its viewers, how do the different interpretations of television differ between men and women? Is there a need for a unified definition, or does this room for interpretation allow for more specialized programming and more individualized benefit from the medium?

A: I think men and women interpret television texts differently for the same reasons that any two individuals might interpret the same text differently. Television does imply some meaning and networks do try to guide what viewers take away from programming (for example, the use of an anchor to directly address the audience establishes collective views in news and talk shows, and the use of “I.D.’s” in reality shows label “characters” which guide how audiences interpret the characters and their actions). But, in the end, viewers construe meaning; viewer exposure to other texts, past experiences and the context in which they view shapes how they interpret television. This is true for both men and women but I think the meaning any individual derives from a text is dependant on their individual viewing habits and life experiences. For example, I imagine that a man who watches a lot of sports programming might think of disputing characters in a soap opera in terms of teams--“us” versus “them” terms. This man might be more likely than a woman who does not view sports regularly to draw distinctions between people and assign them to “sides”; but I think a second man, who also does not watch sports programming, might think of the characters more similarly to the woman who does not watch sports programming than he does to the man, despite their shared gender. 

Viewers benefit from the fact that television texts can be interpreted in many different ways. In fact, the multiplicity of meanings that can be drawn from one text, and viewer’s ability to construe meaning is what makes television so engrossing. Television viewing is active—viewers are constantly “gap filling,” using their experiences to understand and relate to texts, and discussing their interpretations of texts with their peers.

2. TV's stylistic, rhetorical and narrative form:

Q: In which narrative or stylistic forms of television are we seeing the most progressive representations that break with normative gender roles? What about these forms makes them particularly accessible for and successful in presenting such new messages?

A: I think sitcoms have the most freedom to break with normative gender roles. Most daytime programming caters to stay-at-home-moms and housewives—women in very traditional female roles. Programming that questioned these roles and the associated values might not be perceived favorably. Sit-coms appeal to a broader demographic and are often watched by entire families. When a sit-com presents an “untraditional” family or individual it provides viewers with an opportunity to discuss stereotypes and why they are problematic. Furthermore, humor is a good (and effective) way to introduce potentially polarizing topics. Sit-coms could question normative gender roles in a less threatening way than a drama might. 

            Characters in programs like Scrubs, Glee, King of Queens, and Two and a Half Men defy gender stereotypes. In Scrubs for example, the main character is frequently mocked for being “feminine” though he embraces the teasing and often pokes fun at himself and his friends. His concerns and inner monologues as well as his strong relationship with his best friend are identified as “feminine.” Yet, he is the narrator—he gives us access to hospital world and everything is filtered through his eyes. The show simultaneously gives him power and detracts from that power. It seems to be suggesting that men should be able to express their feelings and have strong friendships, just as women do, but that these things are not part of the normative male gender role. 

 In thinking about examples of gender stereotyping in sitcoms, it occurred to me that questions relating to male identity usually relate to sexual orientation while critiques on female identity seem to be more related to family and profession. I wonder if this will change in the future as homosexuality becomes more accepted by society, and the presence of women in the workforce (and men in domestic settings) becomes more prevalent.

3. TV viewing and consuming:

Q: We spoke much about the soap opera as being a mainly female focused genre, and then spoke about the fact that new networks such as Spike are being created specifically for men. The success of such gender specific networks and programming begs the questions; are TV viewers drawn solely to homophilic (homophily - love of the same) shows, and if so what are the ramifications?

A: I do not think viewers are solely drawn to homophilic shows. I do see how the success of soap operas and networks like “WE” and “Spike” might suggest that people gravitate towards networks, shows and characters they relate to. But, I would argue that many men and women look to television to escape their lives and experience something different. The success of the Real Housewives series and programs like My Super Sweet 16 and The Fabulous Life Of… demonstrate this point. Most of the viewers who watch the programs do not live like the people featured in the shows. Whether viewers watch to make fun of the outlandish personalities and lavish lifestyles, or to admire these things, they are looking into a world very different from their own and presumably gaining pleasure from it.

I think that quality and individual preferences have a lot to do with what programs viewers choose to watch. For example, a man might choose to watch a particularly good soap opera on WE instead of a third-rate western (a traditionally male-genre). Individual taste is also incredibly influential in shaping what viewers watch. A man who strongly dislikes sports might never watch ESPN; a woman who likes sports might watch ESPN more frequently than she watches any other channel.

4. TV and social formations:

Q: What is television's social responsibility in promoting positive images in women? Should TV producers only be accountable to their economic "bottom line", or should they be responsible for the social stereotypes they are propagating?

A: Producers have to be concerned with the success of their show. But, I do think producers and networks should act with social awareness. From a business standpoint, depicting stereotypes is a necessary evil.  Networks strive to please and attract the viewing population, most of whom are more comfortable with stereotypes. Ideally, networks would depict men and women in an array of ways that more accurately reflects society (or what society could be). Programs would not only include stereotypes. They might instead couple depictions of stereotypes with characters that break from the norm. Viewers would thus be given different types of women and men to look to—the stereotypes would not be propagated as strongly because they would not be presented as the only (and thus, the right) option. This would give the viewer even greater power; he/she would be free to interpret social roles and values for himself/herself.

Sarah’s Reflection

The responses that Elizabeth gave me were in fact what I expected.  They were well thought-out and very articulate.  She made sure to delve deep within the questions I provided to give me a complex answer that addressed the vast diversity of TV audiences.  The main thread running through our discussion was that there is much more of a grey scale when it comes to both audience and TV representation of gender than was previously accounted for in class material.

Based on the interview, Elizabeth and I seem to have relatively similar TV viewing understandings.  We both see readings of television as more dependent on experience than gender.  We also agree on the fact that humor is one of the best ways to question gender stereotypes and begin to reform the status quo.  We also both seem to like Scrubs!

The main new perspectives on the course material does this text suggest is in relation to TV producers’ social responsibility.  While “classic” gender stereotypes hook audiences, Elizabeth provided a very interesting argument that they should also depict characters that stray from strict gender roles in these same shows.  This gives their audience a chance to interpret “acceptable” gender roles for themselves.

What is suggested by the very fact that we have TV in common and can discuss it, via digital media, across geographical distances is that while there was much discussion about the un-unified nature of this medium, in fact there is some sort of unity as it can be discussed across boundaries.  Television offers a sort of universal platform for discussion.  Thus we can begin to define this medium in its ability to bring people together both in their viewing of it as well as their discussion surrounding it.

Theme: the relationship between gender and television content and format

Theme: Global Television

TV as cultural and technological form:

Gabi - Recent developments in technology, has allowed media creation to expand to spaces in the globe that stayed primarily on the receiving end of televisual flows. Beyond the promises of a wider range of people producing televisual text, the internet, through such avenues as YouTube, has allowed a space for these media producers from the margins to broadcast the media to a potentially global audience. I am curious about the implications for this new dynamic, particularly in figuring out how this new development—this potential for anyone to broadcast and gain a global audience—has effected media literacy in both reception and creation in parts of the world that have not been traditionally associated with being media exporters.  Has this development in technology democratized media creation to other parts of the world? Are there structures, both technological and cultural, that limit the potential of the internet as a medium for media democratization on a global scale?

Dana - As a general matter, I think critics and theorists tend to overstate the impact YouTube has had on democratizing media so far. While it’s true that finding an audience has become infinitely easier with the advent of sites like YouTube, I think those sites are most effective as a means of self-expression. Even if a posted video does get a significant number of views, only rarely does the success extend past the original mode of display and into mainstream media industries. This is not to say that it’s impossible, or that YouTube hasn’t made tremendous progress toward a world in which non-traditional media exporters can have a platform for showing off their talents. Maybe one day the television industry will be more friendly to shows and content that haven’t come up through the conventional channels; however, I think that up until this point, YouTube has merely extended the audience and widened the global reach of media producers who already have viewers and resources.

TV’s stylistic, rhetorical and narrative form:

Gabi - TV has often been implicated in cultural imperialism, particularly in delivering a consumerist ideology evidenced in the flow that is inextricably interwoven with commercials. And despite the existence of public television stations, I am concerned with the privatized and commercial form due to the extent that it has been dominating in terms of gaining a wider audience and being adopted in a greater variety of contexts in global TV broadcasting.  Do we correlate the expansion of commercial television with that of neoliberal/ global capitalism? What are the most productive ways to speak about commercial television, to highlight the commercial flow and style that attempts to render itself inevitable and invisible? And what culture does this particular flow of cultural imperialism bring on—is it best understood, as some claim, as a form of Americanization?

Dana - Commercial television’s business model inherently delivers and perpetuates a consumerist ideology, and I think it has since the beginning of the industry. It follows that almost any country whose television broadcasts are not directly controlled by the government also assumes the same consumerist tendencies on the part of its viewers, because the way to make money from television is to sell ad space. So I’m not sure it would be accurate to claim that commercial television and cultural imperialism are directly correlated; perhaps American advertising has come to symbolize capitalism, but I probably would not name the expansion of commercial television as a primary means of spreading global capitalism.

TV viewing and consuming:

Gabi - America has been previously normalized as the standard exporter of televisual texts which has also led to a limitation to the amount of outside media Americans are exposed to and consume. Somewhat drawing on my first question relating to the power of the internet in changing the dynamics of the consumption and creation of televisual texts, I am curious as to how American consumers of media have been experiencing this shift in flows. YouTube videos that aim at being viral tend to speak to the English speaking world, but beyond just the language constraints, do these emerging texts aim to speak at American audiences (who make up the largest demographic of internet users) and why? To what extent could this aim affect the content? For an interesting case study look up Dutch YouTube star Esmee Denters who started singing mostly American pop songs in front of her computer at home and later got picked up by Justin Timberlake’s record where she made her first studio album appropriately entitled “Outta Here”.

Dana - This question brings up some intersesting issues, and it reminds me of what happened with Film Europe in the 1920s—European countries worked together to try to counterbalance the monopoly Hollywood had on global cinema, but the effort fell apart due in large part to the advent of sound. It seems to me that language barriers are the biggest obstacles facing progress towards a truly global television market; internet subscription services would otherwise make global television shows relatively easy to access. I think the fact that viral videos are aimed at English-speaking audiences simply acknowledges the increasing use of English throughout the business world, and the subsequent English language education that takes place to keep up with this trend. I can’t say for sure, but I would expect that there are also many viral videos we don’t know about that are aimed at other audiences; we just don’t see them. With regards to Esmee Denters’ record deal, that might say more about the impact YouTube has on the music industry, but it is indeed an example of the way YouTube is aimed largely at American audiences.

TV and social formations:

Gabi - A common theme seen in some of our screenings and readings was this idea that the consumers of television living outside of the US often felt that they lived in a virtual America growing up—meaning they were familiar with American culture through TV to an extent that they created or understood a particular American reality.  And although today we do not see American television shows being exported as often or with such monopoly, American television indubitably spoke to international consumers, especially those that found themselves in similarly suburban contexts to the sitcoms they referred to and incorporated into their early life. I am curious as to what extent these new identities and alliances are un/intentionally formed by global television?  Do these global identities, linked with shared experiences of watching popular globally broadcasted shows, manifest themselves outside of the imagination of these viewers? How could this be tracked particularly in the idealization of living a “normal” suburban life, throughout many parts of the globe?

Dana - I don’t feel particularly qualified to answer this question, never having lived in another country or viewed American television through the lens of another culture. What I can say is that the reason I like certain shows is not necessarily because I find myself in similar situations to the characters; in fact, it is often just the opposite. In my opinion, the questions and conflicts that arise on typical American sitcoms and dramas are, if not universally present in many different forms, then at least compelling to a wide variety of audiences. Also, many American television shows are adapted for broadcast in other countries, incorporating elements of other cultures and altered storylines that might be more relatable to other audiences. This practice seems to suggest that not everyone can identify with the suburban American archetype, but that if the same basic plot structures are tweaked enough, the underlying ideas apply to many different cultures.

Reaction:

Overall, I felt the exchange was an enlightening experience that highlighted different sides and took on different approaches to curiosities surrounding television. I do not think the answers necessarily surprised me because I did not really have a chance to formulate specific expectations with my limited knowledge of who Dana was and what her experience and relationship to television has been. Yet despite not having any extensive dialogue outside of the formal questions and dialogue we were able to begin a conversation regarding TV--a dialogue that presupposed that we were aware of certain popular television programs . I think it also important to note the obvious but important common ground that framed our conversation, one that assumed we were active American television consumers and part of a generation that has witnessed the complications that have been arising with the introduction of the internet into the realm of television.

            Another aspect that shaped our dialogue that I felt to be particularly limiting was the contained structure that the question and answer format carried. Having only one chance to deliver my questions, I felt limited in the ways in which I could clarify and possibly focus the questions more clearly. Perhaps a more interactive format like an instant chat conversation, a video or audio chat of some sort would have lent itself better to making sure I was getting the point across more clearly.  But there is something to say about the added experience the question/response email format brought, as it allowed more room for the responses to go in directions and highlight aspects that I would have normally overlooked.

             I felt that we held generally similar positions on a lot of the questions I asked, although we tended to talk about things differently. For example, in my first question about the democratizing potential of YouTube she took a similar pessimistic stance that I would normally take but spoke more about how YouTube “merely extended the audience and widened the global reach,” whereas I would probably talk more about the specific structures and search functions YouTube has invented/employed that makes viral videos more viral and unpopular videos more invisible.

            There was one response that I felt the most contrast in our positions which regarded global capitalism and the expansion of commercial television. In my question I was trying to get at ways in which we could talk about the form of commercial television that would point to how it was not inevitable, Dana’s answer almost pointed to how it was inevitable.  She claimed that “because the way to make money from television is to sell ad space,” which went against the idea that I was trying to get at—whether there are ways we can imagine/talk about TV outside of this commercial/for-profit norm. And although I would agree with her in the conclusion that commercial television is not THE primary means of spreading global capitalism, I do feel strongly in saying that global capitalism and the spread of global commercial television have a very friendly and intertwined relationship that is worth examining.

INTERVIEW

Theme: Sitcoms

1. TV as cultural and technological form:

Matt: The rise of new media technology has instigated a shift within the media marketplace. Certain examples of non-profit, user-generated content can be argued to have rivaled television sitcoms in regards to popularity. Some scenes from a number of sitcoms have even been re-contextualized and re-produced on YouTube and various other video sharing platforms. Producers must now keep in mind that they are often competing against user-generated content for the attention of their audiences. Do you think that the production of today’s sitcoms have changed in order to meet this new media landscape? How do you think the production of future television sitcoms will be affected?

Tripp: I disagree that producers are now facing competition from user-generated content that is actually user-generated, in terms of maintaining an audience’s attention. This isn’t the case with file sharing, but true user-generated content has its foundation with an original television show. In this sense, user-generated content is supplemental to a TV broadcast, rather than taking away viewership. In terms of the production of a show I cannot think of an example where there has been an explicit move to deal with the contemporary landscape dominated by user generated content. However, this does not mean they don’t exist. Though not a TV show, Snakes on a Plane does offer an example of this. The production of this movie was actually altered in response to fan-based commentary and user-generated content on the web (e.g. shifting from PG-13 to R rated content). I think a more immediate shift on the part of the networks will come with regard to advertising. User-generated content offers a further platform to generate income from advertising. Additionally, because fan-made media is already aimed at a particular niche audience, a very specific (catering more to the individual) for of advertising can arise. In this sense TV networks/producers will end up trying to cater to what Axel Bruns termed “produsers” (produce content as well be consumers of it). The future of television production will be more interactive, while at the same time the interactivity will allow for direct advertising aimed carefully at a niche market.

2. TV’s stylistic, rhetorical, and/or narrative form:

Matt: Often times, television sitcoms use a number of self-referential practices within their narratives as a means of self-parody and satire. For example, The Simpsons aired a titles sequence in collaboration with the artist Banksy, which directly (and rather comically) addressed the issue of “animation sweatshops”, while 30 Rock makes constant mockery of network television and its practices. No other genre uses this strategy of self-reflexivity as much as the sitcom. Do you feel that by using such narrative techniques, the sitcom has the potential to become more self-conscious and self-critical of television as a whole?

Tripp: In some ways, yes, TV sitcoms may become more self-critical/conscious, but the way this ends up playing out is finding newer, better ways to attract a larger audience. In a sense TV simply becomes more self-aware as a way of determining how to be more successful. TV broadcasting is a commercial enterprise from the perspective of the networks. This goes back to its very conception as a means to sell TV sets. For example, Banksy shows an abhorrent aspect of TV, but at the same time the purpose of having Banksy do a guest intro is to garner a greater television audience. Such portrayal of self-consciousness and reflexivity can also be a device to mask the notion of commerciality. In this way, by becoming more critical of television in general, networks are simply trying to get you to believe them and question the rest. This is akin to a past soft drink commercial that told the viewer that they understood that they were watching a commercial, and shouldn’t listen to commercials, but should also drink their product. Returning to the Banksy example, considering his anti-establishment leanings, his use within the commercial enterprise of a television network means that the shroud masking commerciality in this case is even thicker.

3. TV viewing and consuming:

Matt: In many ways, sitcoms‘ use of self-reflexive practices represent examples where television openly “exposes” itself to audiences. Do you feel that such instances of self-satire and “exposure” changes the viewing dynamic of audiences when they approach sitcoms in comparison to other genres? For example, as a viewer does a self-reflexive sitcom such as Arrested Development effect my attitudes toward television differently than series like Gossip Girl which relies on more traditional narrative forms?

Tripp: In terms of attitudes towards television based on the use of self-reflexivity, I believe it is very much dependent on the viewer. I personally enjoy the irony associated with self-reflexivity, and thus have a positive attitude towards it. I find that, for the most part, especially in the case of sitcoms, self-referentiality is a comedic plot device, and the gags exist to attract as great an audience as possible. As insinuated in my previous answer, the use of self-reflexivity can do more than generate greater TV viewership. It can also cause the viewer to let their guard down. For example, in 30 Rock, by exposing itself in terms of product placement, and criticizing the use of product placement, it also is able to repeatedly bombard us with product placement for Snapple.

4. TV and social formations:

Matt: Sitcoms are known for regularly pushing the boundaries (and more often than not, making a mockery) of traditional social norms, whether they pertain to racial identity, sexual roles or family dynamics. Series such as All in The Family, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Family Guy are good examples of this. Do you feel that sitcoms promotes an attitude of social criticism and awareness? Or is controversy used in sitcoms purely as a means of comic relief and nothing more?

Tripp: As you might have been able to tell from some of my previous answers, I am usually skeptical of television, or at least sitcoms, being portrayed as having higher underlying messages of social criticism and awareness beyond what can be used to increase viewership. Having said that, just because sitcoms aren’t completely akin to say, a documentary whose main purpose is to generate a critique of society, I have found shows that meld societal criticism with humor. For example, All in the Family had the primary goal of entertainment for the purpose of generating viewership. However, the portrayal of the father as a comical figure for his ignorance and bigotry did nevertheless act as a criticism against cultural intolerance and racism. Conversely, the statement this portrayal made wasn’t necessarily a strong critique. I felt it was diluted by the comical nature of it, with the other cast members almost just laughing off his comments, which in contemporary society would not be taken lightly. This may largely be a product of the era it was filmed in. It does however, leave me with the impression that this attitude of social criticism and awareness comes as secondary to comic relief.

RESPONSE (MATTHEW)

Tripp’s answers to my questions were interesting to read, largely due to the fact that his attitudes towards television and new media are similar to my own. Upon reading Tripp’s answers, a recurring theme that arises is the subject of advertising and the manner in which advertisers have penetrated both the televisual and new media landscape. In the fourth question Tripp admitted that he was quite skeptical of television, which is a sentiment that I share. We both consider that the ultimate goal of network television is to gain the largest market share, and in turn, garner as many advertising dollars as possible. When discussing new media technology and user-generated content, we both share the perspective that they present a new potential niche market for advertisers.