Discussion #9: Television Viewing Habits

Question Description

Now that you have read four op-Ed pieces about technology's impact on television, discuss your own television viewing habits. Do you watch television shows? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Do you use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, or other streaming services? Do you use a Roku, Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV Stick, etc.? Do you pay for cable television? Have you ever binge-watched a TV series before? If so, which ones? Do you ever re-watch TV shows you've already seen? These are just a few examples of the kinds of things you can discuss.

You will respond to my initial thread. Your post should be 150-300 words. It is also recommended that you type your responses this semester into a Word document so that you can proofread your work and easily figure out the word count. Then, you can copy and paste your response into the text box. Save all discussion posts in this document so you can easily access them later. Discussion posts will be deducted 1 point for every 25 words under/over. Also, students will lose 2 points automatically for any duplicate, blank, or word-count-only posts. Please keep in mind that you will not be able to see other students' posts before you submit your own, and once you submit your post, you will not be able to edit or delete your post. Therefore, it is imperative that you proofread and ensure you have met the requirements and word count before posting.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Page 1 of 5 From Wasteland to Wonderland: TV’s Altered Landscape By Jeff Greenfield “The boob tube.” “The idiot box.” “The plug-in drug.” “A vast wasteland.” When I began writing about the television industry in the mid-1970s, these were some of the kinder terms of endearment. To imagine back then a television universe where creativity is unbound; where Hollywood’s most revered writers, directors, producers and actors clamor for the chance to “do TV”; where talk of a new “Golden Age” abounds, would have required a serious exercise in delusion, or the ingestion of controlled substances. But it has happened. Why? For me, the answer lies in one essential fact: When technology replaced scarcity with abundance, every core assumption about TV began to crumble. Everything about the medium — how we receive it, how we consume it, how we pay for it, how we interact with it — has been altered, and TV is infinitely better for it. In the mid-1970s, all TV was divided into three parts, at least as far as almost every American viewer was concerned. Every evening, the three broadcast networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, drew more than 9 out of 10 viewers. The only revenue came from advertisers, which led countless chroniclers of the industry to the same surprising conclusion about the nature of the business. “Remember,” the NBC executive Don Carswell told me, “we’re not selling the program. We’re selling the audience for the program.” The bigger the audience — and the more desirable in terms of buying power — the more the networks could charge. What this meant was that every hour, every half-hour, every moment of prime time had to be devoted to gathering the biggest possible audience. And that meant trying to shape the program to attract as many as possible and, perhaps more important, to avoid offending as many as possible. One prominent programmer of the day, Paul Klein of NBC, had a theory about this. He called it the “Least Objectionable Program” concept. Viewers, he said, didn’t watch a program, they watched TV. They clicked on the set and browsed until they found something reasonably acceptable. This theory drove many in the creative community to distraction. For every All in the Family or M*A*S*H* or Mary Tyler Moore, the overwhelming consensus, as expressed by Stan Kallis of Columbia TV, was that “We’re basically bound, our hands are tied, by the fact that we’re a medicine show. We’re here to deliver the audience to the next commercial.” Page 2 of 5 Further, any unsettling or disturbing fare would taint the mood of the audience — the audience the networks were promising to deliver to advertisers. Set a comedy in a prison? O.K., but as the noted programming wizard Fred Silverman warned, “Stay away from the hard stuff. Don’t scare people away.” Forty years ago, I wrote in these pages that “The enormous pressures which force commercial television into its relatively narrow boundaries are not likely to widen in the foreseeable future.” I could not have been more wrong; in fact, the boundaries began to widen that very year. The key to the old TV world was scarcity. Only so many channels could beam through the air without running into each other. Only three networks had a nationwide distribution system of microwave relays and AT&T “long lines.” Anyone trying to start another network found the logistics and the cost prohibitive. But in 1975, RCA introduced the first of two “Satcom” communications satellites, and the threenetwork monopoly was dead. Now competitors could deliver their fare to stations and cable systems coast to coast. That year, a fledgling pay service, Home Box Office, put its signal up on the satellite. An all-news network? An all-sports network? Networks aimed at women, children, shoppers, movie buffs? Sure, via wire or satellite. Unlike over-the-air TV, there was room for everybody. And for these new providers, a whole new economic model arose. Cable operators paid monthly fees to these networks based on the cable company’s overall number of subscribers, not just the ones who watched that particular network. Cable operators pay CNN a fee of about 60 cents a month for each of the hundred million homes they reach, even if only one household in a hundred actually watches CNN. Even in the face of flagging ratings, the network earned more than $440 million in profits last year, and the laggard MSNBC earned about half that much. (Fox earned a billion dollars in profits). ESPN banks about $7 billion a year in fees before the first ad is broadcast. A more revolutionary impact of abundance came with the arrival of pay cable and in recent years streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Since there are no advertisers, the popularity of specific programs is in a sense irrelevant — as long as subscribers send their $15 a month to HBO or Showtime, or their $8 a month to Netflix. Do you need to create a reasonably placid environment in which the audience will be receptive to a commercial? The only ads that would make any sense appearing during Ray Donovan would be pitches for antidepressants or membership in the Hemlock Society. But in this universe, contrary to the TV world of the 1970s, the audience is not the product — it’s the customer. There is no better example of what has changed than the experience of David Chase. The veteran writer had gotten a deal from Fox to write a pilot script about a family headed by a gangster. As he recounted in a public discussion with me after the series ended, the Fox executives had just one small problem with the script: Did Tony Soprano really have to be seeing a psychiatrist? Didn’t this make him seem vulnerable, a bit weak? Page 3 of 5 A generation ago, that would have been the end of the story. In today’s universe, there was a place for Tony Soprano, his panic attacks, his mother from hell, his language and sexual promiscuity, his casual resort to violence — to be shown with no threat of a network researcher telling Mr. Chase that Tony was turning off working mothers in the suburbs. HBO’s programmers could let the Chase vision of the story emerge full blown. In the last decade or so, this has become the working premise across much of the medium, particularly since basic cable networks like AMC and FX followed the lead of their pay-cable brethren. A chemistry teacher turned meth supplier; Soviet spies as the protagonists of a weekly drama? A drug-addicted nurse? A firefighter fighting his own demons? Yes, because the unofficial rules are different. “One thing I truly believe,” says Dick Wolf, the creator of Law and Order, “is that broadcasting is different from cable. And one of the things you can get away with on smaller cable networks is antiheroes. Sorry, they don’t work on broadcast. You can’t have a Walter White. You’re dealing with a different mind-set.” There’s another old belief about TV that has to be seriously rethought: the idea that it isolates us from each other. In 1971, the historian Daniel Boorstein wrote in Life magazine that the age of television created “a new sense of isolation and confinement.” The viewer could see, he wrote, “but nobody (except the family in the living room) could know for sure how he reacted to what he saw.” Today, a viewer can use a second screen — a phone, a tablet, a computer — to connect with friends, strangers and even creators of the shows to dissect a plotline, deride a piece of dialogue and question a twist in the story line, even as the show is being broadcast. When a compelling program like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or The Sopranos approaches the end of its run, the digital cloud is filled with arguments about what should happen; a line of dialogue, a hair style or a piece of clothing will be analyzed intensely about its possible hints. You can call all this a 21st-century way to waste time, but even if it is, these interactions with television are anything but “isolating.” Is there still a mountain of junk on TV? More than ever. The same cable abundance that brings us Mad Men and Justified brings us the Real Liposuctioned Housewives of Springfield. Still, anyone looking to create a new set of insults to aim at TV is going to find it hard going. That vast wasteland has turned into a dazzling landscape. Page 4 of 5 1985: Television Transformed 1.0 By Robert Thompson The telephone gave us a long-distance voice. Radio took away the wires; television added pictures. But the real revolution occurred well before all of that: In one fell swoop, the telegraph allowed messages to travel not at the pace of a man on a pony or a speeding locomotive but at the velocity of an electron. In like fashion, the colossal library of Netflix may be impressive, but the videocassette recorder was a revolution. The rest, which a reeling industry is still trying to sort out, is digital gravy. It is orthodoxy to say that television is in the midst of radical change. We can watch a bewildering amount of material at will, and portable devices let us do so outside of the home. What’s more, a significant increase of highbrow programming now defies the old idea of television as the “idiot box.” Yet for all the advances that online distribution and digital technologies have brought, the real revolution came about 30 years ago. By 1985, viewers could see a show after it had aired, and their choices had increased greatly. They could watch a handheld TV at the beach, and some shows had already started to exhibit serious artistic ambitions. The heart of today’s transformation of television is storage. Viewers have access to vast quantities of programming, according to their tastes and schedules, stored on DVRs, DVDs, ondemand cable and satellite channels, and online services. Not so very long ago, if you wanted to see “Citizen Kane,” you had to hope for a retrospective screening at an art house, or wait until it played on television. In 1977, the tens of millions of people who saw “Roots” had no choice but to stay home for eight consecutive nights and watch the broadcast on ABC. The introduction of the home videocassette recorder was the medium’s most important sea change. Now people at home could record and collect movies and television shows and watch them when they pleased. By 1985, more than 20 percent of American homes had a VCR, twice the number from the previous year. In 1985, the first Blockbuster Video opened. Blockbuster was a rental franchise, which, like the neighborhood stores before it, made it possible to watch thousands of movies and TV shows without having to record them off the air in the first place. Setting the timer on a VCR was a little harder than it is on a DVR, and driving to Blockbuster to rent and return tapes was a lot harder than clicking on a title on Hulu, but 30 years ago the big step had been made. If they took the trouble, viewers had control over what they saw and when. Storage capability catalyzed demand for inventory. Although in the mid-1980s, the extensive repertory that online services have today did not exist, radically increased choice was already a property of the evolving medium. Cable television was adding lots of channels and content alternatives. ESPN made its debut in 1979, CNN in 1980, MTV in 1981. Fewer than 20 percent of American homes had cable in 1980. That more than doubled by 1985. Page 5 of 5 Even portability, one of the glories of today’s new media, was making inroads 30 years ago. Although Sony’s miniature Watchman never took off in this country — it could not connect to cable and it could not play tapes — it provided a dress rehearsal of sorts for what it would be like to carry a TV around in a purse. Much has been said about how digital technologies have ushered in a new “golden age” of television, especially now that Netflix and Amazon Prime are offering classy original shows like “House of Cards” and “Transparent,” and now that auteurs like Woody Allen are signing up to do online series. Once again, however, this process started in the 1980s. By fall 1985, broadcast schedules, spurred by cable competition, included a growing number of prestige programs that broke from standard TV fare featuring flying nuns and talking horses. The network lineups that season included business-as-usual silliness like “The A-Team” and “Knight Rider.” But they also included series like “Hill Street Blues,” “St. Elsewhere” and “Moonlighting” — shows that began to present literate, serialized stories in complex cinematic styles. Within a few years, pedigreed film directors like Steven Spielberg, Robert Altman, Penny Marshall, David Lynch, Tim Burton and Oliver Stone were all doing work for television. The TV revolution took a lot more effort to enjoy three decades ago. You needed to check listings, set timers and rewind tapes. And some things — HDTV, social media interaction, cats playing pianos — would not arrive for another decade or two. Many of the required elements of change, however, were already in place. As we look upon images of Pluto or Mars sent from 21st-century spacecraft, we might wonder how we ever got to the moon and back with nothing but the stodgy technology of 1969. We might also recognize that the real transformation of television had already begun in those quaint, analog days before the Internet. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

hey buddy, the assignment is ready....

ProfHenryM (13271)
Boston College

Return customer, been using sp for a good two years now.

Thanks as always for the good work!

Excellent job

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors